skip to main |
skip to sidebar
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=213018
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kate Cyrul / Bergen Kenny
October 1, 2010
202-224-3254
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) today applauded the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for its decision this week to review the cases of 17,000 “Brown Water” and other Vietnam-era veterans who may have been exposed to Agent Orange. “Brown Water” vets are those who served in the inlets and inland waterways of Vietnam, where the use of Agent Orange was prevalent, while a “Blue Water” classification denotes service outside of affected areas. Senator Harkin, who served in the U.S. Navy during the Vietnam War, is a cosponsor of S. 1939, the Agent Orange Equity Act, which was designed to address cases of veterans who served in inland waterways and other areas of Vietnam who were denied benefits despite evidence of Agent Orange exposure.
“It is our moral obligation to treat our veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange, which has been linked to so many debilitating diseases,” Harkin said. “They served our country and we must honor the sacrifices they made.”
With the VA’s decision, veterans who served their nation in the inland waterways of Vietnam and at Air Force bases that may have been contaminated by Agent Orange will now receive more standing to claim Agent Orange benefits. Previously, veterans potentially exposed to Agent Orange were denied “Brown Water” classification without obtaining relevant military records, such as deck logs, and were classified as “Blue Water.” Conditions linked to Agent Orange exposure include lymphoma, diabetes, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, prostate cancer and respiratory cancers.
A full list of diseases for which Veterans may claim Agent Orange benefits is listed here.
from The VVA Veteran, September October 2010
www.vva.org
BY LINDA MAY
Amy King-Applewhite’s younger daughter once had to leave her classroom in the middle of a teacher’s instructions, but it wasn’t because she didn’t want to hear what her teacher was saying. Because of a problem with her eardrum, it sounded to her as if the teacher was screaming.
Her eardrum vibrations speed up and slow down abnormally so that without warning she either hears things at a painfully loud level or at a level so low that she cannot hear the sound. It’s only one small part of the story of the child’s problems, her older sister’s problems, and their mother’s problems.
King-Applewhite, 35, was born with an undeveloped digestive system.
“I went through many years of testing to find out why my stomach and abdomen hurt,” she said. “Being 12 years old and having multiple colonoscopies and throat scopes were painful and a violation to my body.”
Despite those invasive procedures in the 1980s, which were even more uncomfortable than they are today, doctors never came up with a diagnosis.
Her rashes, particularly on her hands and feet, made her skin red, itchy, painful, and peeling. Other children's reactions ranged from tactless to cruel. "I remember being asked once if I was part snake," she said.
Her teenage and early adult years were plagued with painful, irregular menstrual cycles (and misdiagnoses for the cause), endometriosis, bilateral fibroid tumor breast disease, and ovarian cysts. Doctors tried many medications, laparoscopies, and other surgeries.
Despite King-Applewhite’s medical conditions, she became the mother of two girls. She wanted more children, but ended up getting a hysterectomy. The ovaries that had been left intact produced cysts that ruptured.
Read more: www.vva.org
The VVA Veteran, September/October 2010, Page 18
September/October 2010, Vol. 30, No. 5BY PATRICK WELCH, CHAIR, GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, WITH GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS STAFF
On August 30, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki published the final rules declaring Parkinson’s disease, ischemic heart disease, and hairy cell leukemia as presumptive service-connected conditions for exposure to Agent Orange for Vietnam veterans. VVA applauds Secretary Shinseki and President Obama for moving ahead with the process according to the science and acting in accord with the provisions of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-4), despite opposition led by a few Senators who challenge the wisdom of that law. What was interesting was Senators who were not in public life in 1990 or 1991 speaking about what “our” (congressional) intent was when the law was enacted.
The fact remains that Public Law 102-4 has fulfilled much of its promise by getting the focus of the debate about Agent Orange and the other toxins used during the Vietnam War off of straight politics and onto the science. One can argue that there has not been nearly enough science published on Agent Orange and the other toxins of war, and VVA agrees with that premise. In fact, VVA has been pushing hard for more and better research and robust epidemiological studies of Vietnam veterans, our children, and our grandchildren for the better part of two decades.
One should ask where the folks who now say there is not enough science have been.
In September, VVA anticipates that there will be two new pieces of legislation introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate to begin to answer the need for additional research. One bill would create an extramural research program at the VA to fund studies by non-VA researchers on the environmental wounds of war of every generation. The other would focus on the need for both epigenetic studies of birth anomalies in the children and the grandchildren of Vietnam veterans, as well as immediate delivery of desperately needed health care to these progeny of Vietnam veterans.
VVA contends that many Vietnam-era veterans also were exposed in their service elsewhere in Southeast Asia during the war, including in Thailand and Laos, and aboard Navy vessels off the coast of Vietnam, as well as at military bases located in the continental U.S. and its territories. VVA will continue to fight for all who suffer long term health effects as a result of their service to our nation.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am inquiring into the possibility of speaking with a Navy Corpsman who served with a patrol in Vietnam . I am currently learning more about the experiences of a group that was in harm's way to a great degree, but about which there is little written. I fully respect any Sailor, Marine, Soldier, or Airman's privacy, but think there is a story to be told. I am currently writing a novel about a young person who is drafted and serves during the war in 1970. As an aside, I just finished Karl Marlante's Matterhorn , and even more so respect that even fiction has to be "told right."
My background is this: I am a 62 year old physician, who is currently the medical director for my state's drug and alcohol treatment administration. One mission is to be prepared for the current and future veterans who need an array of services and support. My training is in psychiatry and addiction medicine. Although I did not serve in any branch of military service, my family comes from a proud tradition in the Marines. My father, John B. Cohen, had retired as a Major in the Marine Reserves, after serving as a Lieutenant and Captain in the Pacific Theater in WWII, especially at Roi Namur, Saipan and Tinian. He was awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal for rescuing several sailors who was swept over in the Kwajelein Reef. He also related to me some stories about the day-to-day courage of his men in battle, including the Naval Corpsmen.
I am, however, making this request as a private citizen, not connected to my governmental service. The novel I am currently revising spans the lifetime of one person from early childhood through his being in Vietnam . It is not intended to focus on the right or wrong of war or of the Vietnam War in general, but the experience taken from the viewpoint of a young man who eventually became a corpsman: what he learned in preparatory training, what he carried with him into battle, how he kept watch over the health and safety of the patrol, and how he interacted with the staff, patrol officers, and combat marines.
I thank you for your consideration. If I can gain permission, I would anticipate being oriented to the process for interviewing, having already read through the relevant portions of your public relations manual.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Cohen MD
14403 Butternut Court
Rockville , Maryland MD
Home (after 5 pm): 301-871-8947
Work: 410-402-8677
Mobile Phone (personal): 240-432-5019
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42663.html
By DAVID ROGERS | 9/24/10 12:33 AM EDT
With costs mounting, the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee is laying the groundwork for a second look at the landmark 1991 Agent Orange law that has governed nearly two-decades of disability claims related to the herbicide widely used in the Vietnam War.
That was the consistent theme of a hearing Thursday that featured testimony by Cabinet secretaries past and present about living under the law’s limits and navigating through the often vague scientific standards for judging what diseases qualify as service-connected claims.
Veterans Affairs Secy. Eric Shinseki strongly defended his controversial decision last year to add ischemic heart disease but allowed too that having just 60 days to reach a conclusion –as prescribed by the Agent Orange law— was “a bit constraining….a little challenging.”
Former VA Secretary Anthony Principi, whose decision to add type 2 diabetes in 2001 has since led to an explosion is claims, was more blunt, saying he had desperately wanted clearer scientific evidence to help him sort through confounding life style factors, like diet or smoking, which might contribute to an illness.
“It’s a greater challenge for secretaries, when you're dealing with the diabetes, the prostate cancer, because we know if we live long enough, we're going to die of prostate cancer, as well as heart disease,” Principi said. “And those confounding factors really make it very, very difficult for us”
Indeed, Agent Orange claims are a world turned-upside-down from decades ago when returning soldiers had to fight to get attention to deadly lymphomas linked to the herbicide. Now the more common frailties of men in their sixties—prostate cancer, diabetes, heart disease—lead the list, and VA estimates that one out of every four surviving Vietnam veterans could soon be collecting payments for one Agent Orange claim or another.
The hearing brought some touching moments. Shinseki, who served himself in Vietnam, repeatedly referred to the infantry soldiers then as “the youngsters.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42663.html#ixzz10i5S7DUP
Senator Burr Statement on Veterans Affairs’ Committee Hearing and His Meeting with Secretary Shinseki
WASHINGTON D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) released the following statement regarding this morning’s hearing of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and his meeting with Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki regarding the care for American veterans exposed to Agent Orange:
“Yesterday I had the opportunity to sit down with Secretary Shinseki to talk about VA’s implementation of coverage for veterans exposed to Agent Orange. I let him know that I asked Senator Isakson to serve as Acting Ranking Member for today’s Veterans Affairs Committee hearing, but we did speak for close to an hour about VA policy concerning the expansion of coverage for Vietnam veterans. I expressed my concerns to him regarding VA’s ability to implement the upcoming changes and process these claims. The Secretary addressed my concerns and answered all of my questions satisfactorily. At the end of our discussion I was convinced that he and his agency are prepared to handle these needed changes.”
By John Weiss , Vietnam Veterans of America Rhode Island State Council
Morning of 23 September 2010
North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, the leading Republican on the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, said yesterday, as reported by the Associated Press, that he has “concerns about a proposal to spend billions of dollars on disability compensation for Vietnam veterans who get heart disease and wants to make sure that science supports the expansion of benefits.”
The “proposal” Burr is referring to is a decision by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, based on the recent National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine committee report, “Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008.”
A little history is in order: From 1962 to 1971, the U.S. military used Agent Orange and other herbicides in Vietnam and elsewhere to defoliate the jungle canopy, to destroy crops, and to clear the perimeters of U.S. bases. These herbicides were sprayed from fixed-wing and rotary aircraft, trucks, and backpack sprayers. The drums that stored these chemicals were often recycled and put to various other uses, sometimes to collect rain water, to serve as barbecue grill, etc. Nearly three million veterans served in Southeast Asia .
Contained in these herbicides was dioxin, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-paradioxin—one of the most dangerous chemicals known to man.
On August 31, 2010, in the Federal Register, the Department of Veterans Affairs published the final rules amending the adjudication regulations concerning presumptive service connection, concluding that there was a positive association between exposure in Vietnam to certain herbicides and the subsequent development of three diseases: hairy cell leukemia & B-cell leukemias; Parkinson’s disease; and ischemic heart disease.
And for the first time in history, on September 23, Burr and his colleagues will call into question the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as outlined in the Agent Orange Act of 1991.
Recognizing that Burr was voted into the House of Representatives in 1994, it is obvious that he was not involved with the passage of the Agent Orange Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-4), which passed the House and the Senate without a single nay vote. In fact, today, 19 years later, there are only 36 members of Congress still serving who voted for passage of this act in 1991.
The Agent Orange Act of 1991 acknowledges the culpability of toxic exposures in health conditions that manifested years after a veteran’s service. Included in the law is the authority for the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to, on a biannual basis, provide a review of all scientific studies and research on the association between dioxin and specific diseases; and include recommendations for future research.
The act further grants the Secretary of the VA the authority to determine if a presumption of service connection is warranted for any of the health conditions addressed in the report.
If Sen. Burr is uncomfortable with the Secretary’s determinations based on the National Academy of Sciences recommendations, perhaps he would be more comfortable with the finding of the U.S. Air Force Ranch Hand Study, conducted by the U.S. Air Force on those who participated in the aerial spraying program, as sited in the 1992 testimony of Dr. Barry L. Johnson, Assistant Surgeon General, before the House Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations:
A recent study on the health status of Vietnam veterans who participated in Operation Ranch Hand did not find any signs of liver disease, but did report increased levels of triglycerides and cholesterol in the blood (a second report does not support these increases). In addition, an increase in body fat, diabetes, and blood pressure were also noted. These effects were strongly associated with TCDD levels in the serum. Ranch Hand veterans also had changes in blood (increased white blood cells, platelet, IgA, and sedimentation rates) which suggest a chronic inflammatory response, although no immunologic system diseases were identified. These immune system changes were also strongly associated with serum TCDD levels. These results differ from those reported in previous analyses of the Ranch Hand group in 1982 and 1985. The earlier analyses did not include an assessment of serum TCDD levels. A physical examination of Ranch Hand veterans is currently under way.
There is no doubt, that Burr, though too young to have faced conscription during the Vietnam Conflict, views himself as a supporter of those who served.
In fact, seven months ago, it was Sen. Burr who introduced a resolution recognizing March 30 as “Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day.” Proclaimed Burr, “There’s no question that our troops served our country bravely and faithfully during the Vietnam War, and these veterans deserve our recognition and gratitude. Unfortunately, when these service members returned home, they were caught in the crossfire of public debate about our nation's involvement in the war.”
Today, Vietnam veterans are again caught in the “crossfire of public debate,” as Burr and others balk at the price of providing for the continuing cost of care for those whom he and others recognize “served our country bravely and faithfully during the Vietnam War.”
Words of praise and gratitude do not cost anything. Veterans’ compensation for service-related health conditions do. Sen. Burr, which is it?
from Paul Sutton and our friends at the Blue Water Navy Association
DVA did not acknowledge the need to remove sailors who have been given full presumption of exposure under the new Policy 211, for inland water service. In this program, any Blue Water Navy or Coast Guard vessel with any service on the rivers of Vietnam gained their entire crew the same benefits for herbicide as if they had “boots on ground.” These sailors need to be subtracted from any headcount that tallies the costs of HR-2254 and S-1939. Without counting any additional ships added after the first June (which should be a very significant number), we conclude about 22,500 fall into this new category.
It also appears that DVA could have counted full crews on each deployment of a ship serving offshore Vietnam, when in fact many of these were sailors previously counted and returned to Vietnam.
At any rate, the numbers, starting with head count then and now, and given as well over $10B over 10 years, were terribly wrong. BWN has prepared a spreadsheet that offers a more reasonable accounting. We note these numbers do not contain the costs for back-pay, DIC, or DVA overhead (which should appear in other operating costs). But our very liberal line items leave plenty of ‘fluff’ to these costs. If one were to triple our bottom line for the year 2020, one would still be 1/3 or less of the DVA’s projected costs.
Please see THE TRUE COST of The Agent Act of 2010 at http://bluewaternavy.org/newspage2.htm for a spreadsheet showing BWN total costs; an explanation sheet that gives a line item justification for our chosen values; and a downloadable spreadsheet for those who wish to change the variables to see the impact on related project costs. We feel certain these clarifications will show the costs of HR-2254 and S-1939 in a more favorable, practical, and affordable light.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/EnvironmentalHealth/22080?utm_content=GroupCL&utm_medium=email&impressionId=1284101239368&utm_campaign=DailyHeadlines&utm_source=mSpoke&userid=203311
By John Gever, Senior Editor, MedPage Today
Published: September 09, 2010
Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and
Dorothy Caputo, MA, RN, BC-ADM, CDE, Nurse Planner Earn CME/CE credit
for reading medical news
Action Points
* Point out that observational, cross-sectional studies cannot determine causality.
* Note also that the study did not examine whether there were deleterious health consequences due to changes in serum levels of organic pollutants that apparently were released from fat cells as a result of weight loss.
Environmental pollutants trapped in fat cells could be released back into circulation when people shed a lot of weight, researchers said.
According to data collected from among 1,099 adult participants age ≥40 in the CDC's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), serum concentrations of six persistent organic pollutants were significantly correlated with weight change, according to Duk-Hee Lee, MD, PhD, of Kyungpook National University in Daegu, Korea, and colleagues.
Adjusted correlation coefficients for 10-year weight changes ranged from -0.16 to -0.23 for the six pollutants, with slightly smaller coefficients found for one-year weight changes, the researchers reported online in the International Journal of Obesity.
READ MORE: http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/EnvironmentalHealth/22080?utm_content=GroupCL&utm_medium=email&impressionId=1284101239368&utm_campaign=DailyHeadlines&utm_source=mSpoke&userid=203311
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=15&sid=2047362
Brad Mayes, Director, Boston Regional Office, VA
Many service members who were exposed to the herbicide Agent Orange while in Vietnam still live with its after-effects. That's why Veterans Affairs decided to streamline and speed up the process of settling claims of illness related to Agent Orange.
Brad Mayes, former Director of VA's Compensation and Pension Service, told Federal News Radio through the Federal Register, VA is "adding three new diseases to the list of conditions that are presumed to be service-connected as a result to exposure to the herbicide that we commonly refer to as Agent Orange."
According to a VA press release, those diseases are Parkinson's disease and ischemic heart disease and they are expanding chronic lymphocytic leukemia to include all chronic B cell leukemias, such as hairy cell leukemia. With this addition, 14 diseases now qualify for benefits for exposure to Agent Orange.
"In a nutshell," said Mayes, "what this regulation will do is make it easier for veterans to establish that these diseases are related to exposure to the herbicide Agent Orange."
READ & HEAR MORE: http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=15&sid=2047362
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september072010/aust-ao-vets-pl.php
Dr. Phillip Leveque Salem-News.com
I hope the American System is more realistic about the hideous danger of Dioxins. It is unfortunate that Dioxins have no immediate or acute toxicity but a particular Australian writer we recently published is correct; it is almost certainly the most deadly chemical produced by man.
VC Base Camp
'VC Base Camp' Courtesy: picsdigger.com
(MOLALLA, Ore.) - Salem-news.com is very fortunate to have an Australian Veteran post this article for us and American Vietnam Veterans. It is one of the most educational but concise reviews I have seen on the subject.
I may have had among the first patients poisoned by the Dioxins in 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T in the world but I did not know it or about the Dioxins at the time.
In 1952 the Bonneville Power Company (BPC) was spraying 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T as a brush killer on the power line right-of-ways and the workman sprayers were getting pneumonia like illnesses. At the time, I had just obtained my M.S. in Chemistry and I was a Pharmacology/Toxicology graduate student in Oregon Medical School. I was possibly the best-trained Toxicologist in the U.S. at that time. I was taken on a grand tour of many BPC sites and spoke to many of the men and their clothes were soaked by the spray and they were coughing and spitting. I wrote a rather scathing report for BPC and their supervisor became unglued and asked my chairman “why does this young punk think that weed killers are harmful to people”. My boss told him, “he is possibly the only person in the U.S. who knows it”. I don’t think they made any changes and I’ll bet those guys died of their exposure.
READ MORE: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september072010/aust-ao-vets-pl.php
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=213018
