Disability Commission Report on PTSD from Sue Frazier


{red} = my comments



The 2 subjects of AO exposure and PTSD are a recurring topic at these sessions so it's always hard for me to group my notes on it in one block.


It could be a Social Security panel, and now here comes a discussion on PTSD or AO.


Also, I will say to you a million times as I have done for the past year, the hardened combat veterans on this commission, are very much coming around to the idea of treat-ability and recovery on PTSD etc. and you are not going to change that with them.


{Yet, when Glenda and I try and point out to the Congress and the Commission with data and facts the issues in these toxic chemical exposures and the resulting neuropsychological and neuropsychiatric caused issues from central nervous system damages, not combat alone per say, we get this big Government/VA/IOM YAWN.  The data speaks for itself.}


They have had access to hospital veterans who could speak for themselves on the matter, they have had access to agency statistics that none of you have seen; and in general they have all the necessary information to support the idea and also convince them that PTSD is wholly treatable and recoverable if it's done right.


I am just the messenger in this and report what happened at the session.… 


 #1.  The VBA is seeking statutory authority for "mandatory vocational and rehab." program attendance in ALL Individual Unemployability applications.  They may very well get it.


#2.  Livingston, Grady, Katz, Bacon, Scott, were dazzled by the PTSD program at Fort Gordon, GA and frequently asked questions to panelists to see if they were doing the same thing as the base was for early intervention       treatment.


#3.  A survey has been done of VA clinicians, and they have all come back with a majority statistic saying that Comp & Pen is an "incentive" to NOT recover from PTSD, or is a verified "impediment" to continue treatment once they start receiving Comp pay for it.  IOM has confirmed that they are reviewing where the incentives are placed in the PTSD Compensation Study. 


#4.  Mark Brown is on record as saying there is only limited data to support the idea of a link between diabetes and AO exposure.  Mark used "no data" or limited data as an excuse for just about everything that he didn't know much about.  The IOM has backed him up on this, but they may be referring to older work they did way back when.


{This is where the lack of experience and knowledge of the Commission Members comes into play as the VA and Mr. Brown “dazzles them with footwork” and then “baffles them with BULLSHIT.”}  Did the Commission ask about increased insulin resistance or insulin hypersensitivity?  I would bet they have no clue what to ask.


#5.  In the 2 controversies of AO and Gulf War, there is a VA measuring factor called "exposure magnitude" in determining Presumptive Service Connection status.  The AO has many listed magnitudes, while the Gulf War has very few listed.  Grady confronted him on that.


{More assumptions and more baffling VA BS.}


{Magnitude means:  level, size, scale, extent, degree, amount, importance, etc.  Therefore, we are right back to some form of Exposure Index used to deny many of the found medical issues in the original findings of the first Ranch Hand draft and then taken out by our wonderful government because the index was wrong in their opinion.  Therefore, lets raise the bar one or two more levels and get rid of all these associated deaths and associated findings.  Trust me no one in science has come up with an exposure magnitude that correlates to anything.  In fact, the real world of science is having a hard time proving there is any correlation at all to some “magnitude” versus “outcome.”  I would have to ask the commission again -  “Exposure Magnitude to what toxic chemical or toxic chemicals since there is obviously more than one and what impact if any is there in a proven scientific phenomenon of synergy of toxic chemicals when exposed in combination.}     


#6.  Mark did acknowledge the AO Registry but when hammered by Grady about what the Registry actually did, Mark confessed that it was not much of anything at all.


{This was discovered two years ago by one of our First CAV wives when she asked what they did with the data as to correlation and findings and the answer was THEY DO NOTHING with it.  So much for wanting to solve the issues in real hard data.  That certainly makes too much sense, for a government federal agency tasked to cover up and minimize this whole issue.}


#7.  Mark did tout on one slide that Reasonable Doubt was applied to all cases.


{More footwork and we as the victims have every right to know how that is done and what level not because this guy says so.  In fact, I had presented a BVA case to the Commission on one of our Marines where everyone at the BVA concluded 50/50 odds and then the BVA said they gave more weight to the Secretary of the VA and the IOM.  Case denied, bring on the next victim.}


#8.  The legal definition for Presumptive Service Connection is as follows:   "Evidence which is equal to or greater than opposition evidence to the contrary"


{What a pack of lies and what an arbitrary statement of one might as well say of guilt or innocence.  Christ, Veterans have no right to challenge anyone on this issue and are given no forum.  Therefore, whose evidence, whose opposition evidence, and who is providing any opposition evidence.  CDC, Ranch Hand, VA, NAS/IOM all funded by the perpetrator, our own government, with very little oversight and in fact these factions/organizations stated they did not want congressional oversight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!}


I had prepared a comment Tag to my speech to repeal this definition, but Ray cut our speech minutes back to 4 minutes and I was unable to work it in.  Expect to see this tag get loaded on Monday to them.


#9.  The outcome of the Ranch-Hand Study was to stay in effect for a fixed period of time.  It is due to expire this very month.  Congress is considering a full review one more time of the Ranch-Hand.


{I would have asked why - when even members of congress have questioned this totally biased study in protocols, mandated dose responses which have never been proven, as discussed above wanting no government oversight even though the bill is paid by the taxpayers, and most of all their own scientists have charged use of command influence and scientific misconduct within the study.} 


#10.  Dennis McGinn raised the subject about whether or not the Commission should revisit or reopen the Genetic causation vote, and asked Mark if any research was being done on the Gene causation theories.  Mark said not currently, but that the VA had now commenced their very own GNOME project for future disease comparisons.


{We all know about the New Zealand genetic damages recently found and pointed out increased sister chromotid exchange in Nam Vets.  This now will be null and void since our trustworthy VA, just brimming with integrity, is going to do their own study as more of children and their children go uncompensated for how many more decades.}


The whiney assess who rushed the genetic vote on them, failed to even make discussion on the ways that the GNOME causation could actually facilitate and verify exposure diseases.  Yet, another demonstration on how paranoid fools have too much say in this arena.  If I can swing it before December, I will pitch to them to reopen the Gene trigger vote.


The better part of many of the slides that we saw either from Mark or other panelists, are nothing more than background and history restatements of the agencies or the conditions which they are about to talk about.  This in itself is time consuming before they actually get to the meat of the discussion as to why we are all there.


The big issue hampering AO definitions is the lack of precise dumping and location data.  Nick and Butch are ably describing to them that it was just barrels of "stuff" and how the whole thing was handled and they put it here and they put it there, and it was dropped more than once on any given day and so on and so on.  Therefore, they are getting full communication on the scenario and they do know the amount of barrels used.


However, to put that to a spot on a date and time right where a Vet was standing, is apparently what they are all standing around and waiting for.


Therefore, I have taken the initiative in my own gripes on this to say that the VA is asking for evidence, which will never be, and it is not their empowerment to keep raising evidence standards until we can no longer deliver on it in our cases.  If they don't have data -- Not our problem and the reasonable doubt goes to the Veteran.  Tough!!


McGinn, Grady, Bacon, and Butch all hammered on Mark Brown and Grady was able to expose weaknesses in

Brown's contentions.


{I can assure you if Mr. Grady exposed Mr. Brown contentions and his statements I would have destroyed him and his horse he rode in on in front of all concerned!  He cannot carry enough verbal informational ammo to do battle with me.}


Sue Frasier