Agent Orange (Dioxin) ASSOCIATION TO ESOPHAGEAL CANCERS

Yes, out of the entire congress these four are the only four that after four years of searching that I can find that actually might give a damn.

This link is posted in support of Veterans widows and those Vietnam Veterans that have developed Esophageal Cancer as well as other "Cancers of the Digestive System."

A group of dedicated wives from California, Michigan, New Jersey, and Wisconsin have chosen to fight the government in this issue, rather than just give up.

I believe it is obvious to the whole world that ESOPHAGEAL CANCER among other forms of "Digestive System Cancers" are significantly higher in those Veterans who served in Vietnam during wartime and were exposed to the "weapons of mass destruction" toxic chemicals (plural) that were used as offensive and defensive weapons.

Many Veterans came home in poor health and one of the medical issues was gastrointestinal problems. Most of us thinking we had issues related to the malaria pills and once removed we would return to our old selves, with no medical issues. This in fact did not happen.

We were diagnosed with all kinds of issues of the gastrointestinal area of medicine while none of it made any sense. Diagnosed with spastic colon, colitis, diverticulitis, Chron's, IBS, Celiac, delayed stomach emptying causing gastroparesis, etc. Most of these were considered hereditary related or old age. Yet, we were young men with no hereditary trail to these disorders. Some had rectal bleeding. Aversion to milk products and heavy red meats when the year before they went; there were no aversions to any food products or drinks and no digestive system issues.

Many have developed Barrett's Esophagus, which can be a precursor to the cancer. This is from the body's deranged cell system replacing the esophageal tissue with tissue similar to what is found in the small intestines.

The Ranch Hand transcripts for those primarily exposed by skin contact only, stated: (2)

One of my Marines, tired of no VA answers, called one of the Gastrointestinal Disease centers and they told him that they had estimated about 70% came home with some form of gastrointestinal issue. I am trying to re- contact this Marine and get the details of this conversation.

I recall during the period of about five years after returning, while doctors tested me over and over again, that my mother found an article in our home town newspaper. This article was in reference to a news story concerning some doctors at the University of Florida and the study they were conducting to see "why so many Vietnam Veterans were coming home with gastrointestinal issues."

So this medical issue and problem has been "well known" since at least the early 1970's.

Our own Veterans Administration in its entirety, to include the Secretary of the VA, operates as a White House after White House "budget control" rather than the tell the Veterans and their families the truth for over 40 years or even give Veterans a fair assessment of our toxic chemicals health status.

It is our Congress, rather than support the Veterans for their search for the truth, that remains deaf and blind in order to support these different White Houses and keep the government coffers for other programs.

Yes, that does include your own congressional representative and your two state senators; who state they care about Veterans.

While our own US government/VA studies, have been less than objective and truthful with regard to many medical issues for many reasons to include, politics and money; and the fact that the White House decision philosophy was made decades ago to "not support" the Vietnam Veterans of this nation for obvious "government wrong doing."

At this time in our "toxic chemical legacy," our own White House/government and the chemical companies became an "official tag team of coconspirators."

In fact, Admiral Zumwalt (deceased) appointed as a special assistant to the Secretary of the VA to resolve the toxic chemical issues stated in his report the following:

This is typical of what our government has done for over 40 years with the VA being the lead federal agency in government denial. Certainly the toxic chemical legacy of our Vietnam Veterans will fall into this above example of "the military knew as early as the mid-1980s that at least one substance used was emphatically not harmless, as originally believed - and by continuing to deny veterans access to the full information... By using the entire power of the United Sates Government and its contracted agencies egregious medical fraud has been committed against the nation's Veterans by our own government.

A more recent example of this medical fraud is our Gulf War Veterans. Many came home sick and dying while our government minimized this fact and our national media totally ignored these facts.

The lead agency for denial was; once again the White House directed VA and its contracted partner the NAS/IOM in representing that the Veteran's death, sickness and disabling disorders, and birth defects regarding our nation's Veterans was "associated to mental stress" in a war that took less than 200 hours and suffered very minimal casualties.

Yet, here we have on October 14th, 2004 in the New York Times an article that states: (10)

Yet, for over a decade the VA and the NAS/IOM had concluded this ridiculous scenario that stress was the sole causation. Nice cover up for the DOD and our government.

Also bearing in mind that the original study group reported to President Bill Clinton in 1996 that "current scientific evidence does not support a causal link" between the veterans' symptoms and chemical exposures in the Persian Gulf.

Instead, the earlier group said, stress "is likely to be an important contributing factor to the broad range of physical and psychological illnesses currently being reported by gulf war veterans."

Some 697,000 American troops were sent to the Persian Gulf at the end of 1990 to drive the Iraqi forces of President Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. Thirteen years after the war ended many veterans still complain of persistent fatigue, headaches, joint pain, numbness, diarrhea and other health problems. Sounds oh so familiar to the Vietnam Veterans.

In fact, the law to mandate this new study was passed in 1998 yet it was not acted on until 2002. Four more years of government/VA stalling.

Out of the 697,000 troops, 16% are conservatively estimated to be effected by this so called stress syndrome with significant similar symptoms in 2004. Many have already succumbed to this "stress syndrome."

In any deployment such as this only about 10-14% of the deployment is actual combat troops. So that means that all of the combat troops are either dead or dying from this so called stress syndrome. This also includes the same rate for our allies troops that were also deployed.

This is how the United States Government actually treats its veterans; including our congress. What you see on TV on CSPAN in the senate and the house, is a mirage and is a total facade as they recite the praises for the military men and women. It is all a big academy award winning show.

In other words, there is no "increased risk of incidence" or "significant increase" for Veterans and especially Vietnam Veterans.

This only exists in the world of civilians and the world of civilian constitutional law. It can no longer exist in the government created "Veterans World of VA Law," which is outside the constitution of the United States.

For over 20 years our government denied any causations of medical issues related to the toxic chemicals. To stop the onslaught of legitimate claims for death and disablement that developed after irrefutable evidence was being brought forward of the overwhelming medical issues the Veterans were developing our government then:

Note: A p-factor of 0.05 is the worlds scientific standard for proving there is no doubt or there is little chance the differences found were associated by chance alone.

By default because of these actions by the Secretary of the VA, supported by our own government there can be no toxic chemical associations to just "Service in Vietnam" in a toxic chemical environment. Only those medical issues found to a linear dose rate to dioxin alone can be associated out of the many many toxic chemicals used. Even many of these that are actually found are not being brought forward because the government scientists indicate they cannot find any overt disease that qualifies to a 100 year old ICD code. They find a damaging process related to dioxin but because they are unfamiliar and cannot explain what this unknown toxic chemical is doing in this damaging process; it then falls by the way side and once again is not reported to the medical community or the nation's Veterans.

In addition, many medical issues found in study comparisons between cohorts that reach a 50% increase or even higher are not considered significant in the eyes of our government for Veterans and their families. These issues do not even make the reports, so our nations doctors are even unaware of these significant medical findings in Vietnam Veterans. This is because while they show a significant increase they do not show a dose response to only dioxin. Remember, the VA created a new philosophy and requirement that there will be no associations based on "Service in Vietnam in a toxic chemical environment."

While the Secretary of the VA did make one exception and that is for female Veterans that had offspring with birth defects. To exclude the male Veterans that had the very same birth defects and at the very same rate; the VA then did not tie this association for female Veterans to a dioxin only but only to "Service in Vietnam." So the VA has made a exception to the dioxin only rule. Remember that! A totally different legal standard was used and the precedence was set.

Outside of our Vietnam Toxic Chemical Legacy this "Service in whatever campaign" does exist.

Since all government studies for Vietnam Veterans have been corrupted and no study is allowed to only compare those that served versus those that did not serve with the additional government/VA mandate of finding a linear dioxin dose response. (See History) Even if the risk ratio is at 5 or greater it makes no difference to the collaborating government/VA. For the Vietnam Veterans there is no greater risk as stated above by the VA Secretary. Only government corruption and tyranny awaits them to a single end point linear dioxin dose response.

Referencing the Korean study that did not compare like cohorts but those that served versus those that did not serve. The data is very damning. Yet, our congress does nothing. (18)

If you look at the BVA cases in every instance you will see that the VA counselors make the statement, "that the Secretary of the VA has not determined an association to ESOPHAGEAL CANCER and Agent Orange." This is the legal term they use to deny you and as you will see in the History below there has never been a government study on Agent Orange. So that in itself, is nothing but VA counselor lies.

DECISION OF THE BOARD

"The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1997), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the "relevant evidence" in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the appellant has not met the initial burden of
submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a "fair and impartial individual" that the claim of entitlement to service connection for the cause of death is well-grounded."

This is the "government fox" watching the government hen house (government mistake coffers) for the White House and the Congress.

"Fair and impartial" has got to be a joke. About as fair and forthcoming as the government studies have been. (See History section.)

There in lies the problem - The VA, following the march orders of the White House, can limit the issues to only one part of a toxic chemical compound. Then our congress turns around and gives the sole power to the Secretary of the VA to do anything he wants regarding Veterans on behalf of the White House, criminal or not. Then to keep anyone from challenging the VA our congress than sets up a legal system that is biased against Veterans and not under any rule of law or subject to any other courts review.

Congress has clearly precluded any judicial review of any Veterans Administration determinations as set forth in 38 U. S. C. paragraph 211a:

…"the decision of the administrator on any question of law or fact under any law administered by the Veterans Administration providing benefits for Veterans…shall be final and conclusive and no other court of the United States shall have power or jurisdiction to review any decision by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise."

A nice total government tyrannical package rolled into one by a collaborative government protecting "itself" for wrongdoing.

As I was reading this to my sister-in-law she exclaimed, "that sounds like communism!"

When any government agency says "Agent Orange" that is a lie and they really only mean dioxin. No, repeat NO, government study has studied the effects of Agent Orange. The government has mandated that all "herbicide studies" be reduced to "dioxin only" which was only one part of the herbicide Agent Orange and Agent Orange was only one of the 15 different formulas of herbicides used with multiple toxic chemicals used.

While the two main other herbicides used were Agent Blue and Agent White each with their own set of toxic medical issues from both acute and chronic exposures.

In fact, while the government states Agent Orange was the most widely used; the most widely used toxic chemical was 2,4-D used in both Agents Orange and White.

It is noted for the record, that all government studies were mandated to those exposed by skin contact alone.

It is noted for the record, that methods of ingestion of toxic chemicals plays a role in what will develop, how it will develop, and when it will develop.

It is noted for the record, that in some areas such as the Quang Tri area in Quang Tri Province that herbicide tapes show more Agent Blue used than Agent Orange.

It is also noted for the record, that most areas of Vietnam were indeed sprayed with all three major toxic chemicals.

It is also noted for the record, that in 1969 as the medical issues were rising and being noted as toxic chemical associated. The State Department, under Jim Baker, got involved in the investigations. After trips to Vietnam the state department report concluded that Agent Orange in its entirety with dioxin; was not a real threat. However, they stated there was some major concerns and issues about Agent Blue since it contained arsenic acid.

Yet, here we Veterans and families are; 40 years later, with the VA, directed by the White House, with every issue associated or non-associated to what they say is Agent Orange, when they really only mean dioxin alone. In spite of the many other toxic chemicals that obviously, according to the VA and the government contracted National Academy of Science, cannot harm Veterans for some magical medical fact.

If you were going to hang your hat on denial and protecting the government coffers from government mistakes and had your own independent omnipotent legal system. Would you not select the most unknown toxic chemical?

Especially, if you knew that the other toxic chemicals had already been characterized as to acute and chronic exposures for decades. Or that your partner in crime, Dow Chemical, and their toxic chemical compound called "Picloram" was DOW proprietary.

In addition, you knew that our own EPA, as the many Veterans' deaths, disabilities, and medical issues were manifesting as toxic chemical issues, in 1985 in order for DOW to re-qualify "Picloram" had demanded they reduce the hexachlorobenzene to less than 200 parts per million and that the nitrosamine be reduced.

Picloram now has less than 100 parts per million and no (zero) nitrosamine. There is no telling what the toxic chemical swill had in it as far as toxic chemical levels when used on Veterans and the terrain for over 10 years.

If you knew that in 1990 Doctor Daniel Teitelbaum, a noted toxicologist stated:

“What I do think...may bear on the Agent Orange issue, is the fact that in review of Dow’s 2,4-D documentation I found that there are significant concentrations of potentially carcinogenic materials present in 2,4-D "which have never been made known to the EPA, FDA, or to any other agency." Thus, in addition to the problem of the TCDD which, more likely than not, was present in the 2,4,5--T component of Agent Orange, the finding of "other dioxins" and closely related "furans and xanthones" in the 2,4--D formulation was of compelling interest to me.” (8)

The bottom line is; we more than likely have other forms of dioxins other than TCDD in the Agent Orange herbicide. Agent Orange was a 50/50 mixture of 2,4,5-T and the DOW 2,4-D referenced by Doctor Teitelbaum. With the additional issues included of closely related furans and xanthones in 2,4-D. This also creates a synergy effect with more than one toxic chemical in the same formula. This can increase the potency of the chemicals as far as 1600 times what each one would be separately. This is especially true if two are further apart on the chemical property scale.

In addition 2,4-D was used a separate herbicide under the nomenclature of Agent White.

Some researchers are saying they actually mixed Agent Orange and Agent Blue together to spray. I cannot verify that but if they did, it is a wonder any one is left alive.

Again, logically you would select the most unknown single toxic chemical that no one knows what it does, how it does it, and has never been characterized; in order to protect the government and the White House. Then you would demand a linear dose response when there is no proof of a linear dose response or that this single toxin will even have a linear dose response. Especially, since you have your own corrupt legal system given to you by the congress; you can now deny any study or animal study you want or even statistical increase data.

Agent Blue: This was a code name for cacodylic acid (dimethyl arsenic acid) that was used from 1965 to 1970.

Agent Blue produces a spectrum of acute toxic symptoms that includes gastrointestinal disorders, eye irritation, and dermatitis. Studies in experimental systems have indicated that it has the potential for mutagenicity, clastogenicity (chromosome damages), and teratogenicity.

Carcinogenicity has not been tested adequately, but it should be noted that other inorganic arsenic compounds have been associated with liver, lung, skin, and stomach cancers.

It is highly toxic by inhalation, ingestion and through skin contact. It may cause irreversible effects and death. It may act as a teratogen or carcinogen; or skin, eye and respiratory irritant.

While our own EPA in the 70's and 80's operated as a direct White House collaborative operative in our toxic chemical legacy issue. It seems that in 1992 they did get at least some integrity back.

Starting with what the EPA called their "Dioxin Reassessment" study in 1992. Which for all intensive purposes parallel a report that was done in 1979 by one of the EPA scientists who actually did have some integrity. For some "unknown and unexplained rationale" this report was shelved by the EPA in 1979 and not released.

Another hero EPA scientists during this time found that many of the chemical company studies being presented in actual court cases were fraudulent and corrupted. When she made this known to the EPA enforcement, her reward was to be punished and set aside by the EPA, operating as a White House and VA pawn.

Remember, the entire US Government using collaboration was denying any and all medical issues up until 1990, some 23 years while Vietnam Veterans died and became disabled. Denied any and all serious side effects from our toxic chemical legacy and exposures.

In reviewing the EPA reassessments in 1992, 1994, and 1996 the emergence of EPA dioxin expert Dr. Linda Birnbaum is a ray of hope for all Veterans. Although, there seems to be some end fighting going on between the less than truthful Ranch Hand studies and their studies that are slanted towards "government exoneration" as opposed to scientific facts and the new EPA dioxin expert at the EPA.

Very similar to the CDC that sold their "scientific soul" to our White House in the 80's. (14)

I find it very interesting and questionable when I do review a Ranch Hand report and find zero references to any EPA findings and OTA study findings. Also, I have seen references that there does seemed to be some disparity between the two entities. In reviewing both the EPA reassessments and the Ranch Hand scientific transcripts, not the published and crafted reports, I find many of the same issues being discussed and found. While the Ranch Hand then "exonerates the findings" the EPA expands on the issues.

How long before the White House or the new EPA Director at behest of the president who appointed him puts the clamps on Dr. Birnbaum is the question.

One issue that the EPA discusses in their reassessment is the immunotoxicity of dioxin.

That the threshold for immunotoxicity is 100 times less than that of a cancer. And that for some disorders created by dioxin there does not seemed to be a threshold. So much for the Ranch Hand study linear dose response only government/VA mandated study constraint.

One would also wonder if the threshold for immunotoxicity is 100 times less than that of cancer then where are the immunotoxicity issues listed on our VA and NAS/IOM hit parade. You cannot have one without the other, except at the VA.

I think most people are aware that cancer develops. It is not some magical medical moment you have cancer. It is a series of cell derangements and maturations that end up being a malignant cancer. This process can stop at any time for whatever reason leaving you with many other debilitating issues and even death from the autoimmune diseases that are created. Including other disorders such as medical conditions that may be in-between two cancers that are listed on our VA and NAS/IOM hit parade. These would be in the form of many issues and symptoms such as amyloydosis or many deranged antibody issues that are created, or even some form of connective tissue disorders.

The EPA discusses the lack of an immune system and the creation of an attacking immune system and that you can actually have both.

“Effects on the liver: There are some differences in different species but, in general, you see enlargement of the liver, you see accumulation of fat in the liver. In some tissue, you have hyperplasia, which is a proliferation of cells. The tissue actually gets bigger from having more cells, and this occurs in the lining of the gastro-intestinal tract, it occurs in the lining of the urinary tract, and it occurs in the bile duct, which comes from the liver.

In other kinds of cells, instead of getting hyperplasia, which is an inappropriate proliferation of cells, you get squamous metaplasia, which is an inappropriate differentiation of cells.

It is not that an eye turns into an ear, but in fact, one type of cell turns into another type of cell. It starts behaving like that cell. So, one of the classic kinds of symptomatology that we see in humans, is metaplasia of the meibomian glands of the eye. Now, meibomian glands are little glands at the base of your eyelid that secrete very small amounts of fluid. With exposure to dioxins, these actually change and start producing waxy exudates on your eye that makes vision very difficult and this is a complaint of people who have had very high levels of dioxin exposure. They also complain of problems with hearing. There are glands that line your ear canal, which are called the ceruminous glands and these undergo an inappropriate differentiation and start producing earwax. These are not the normal glands that produce normal earwax.” (15)

Now that last paragraph is some scary stuff to think that dioxin can create these issues for external organs and glands and think what this poison is doing to your internal organs.

So the bottom line is the "dioxin damaging process that is created," not the end item ICD code that not everyone will reach, based on many many variants. To include there is no ICD code for total body system disruption caused by toxic chemicals that have never been identified as to some sort of syndrome.

What Dr. Birnbaum described is about as close as you come to a body's response to some form of antigen or virus. While the dioxin itself does not appear to create an antigenic response the damage it creates from cell derangement and hormone and enzyme changes does parallel a body response to a virus. Very similar to the Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), or AIDS virus, or even Hepatitis C virus.

All of these, including the cancers we have listed on our VA and NAS/IOM hit parade all seemed to be associated with B and T cell issues.

In talking to the NAS/IOM I posed this theory that it seemed dioxin was creating a body response similar to that of a virus such as Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), or AIDS virus, or even Hepatitis C virus. The immediate response, with no hesitation, from the NAS/IOM was, "There is no proof of that." Almost as if they indeed know that this is a very likely scenario but do not want to confess that fact.

In 2003 the Korean Agent Orange Immunotoxicological seven year Impact study that was not as anti-veteran and constrained as our own government studies found Immune-Modulation: (16)

"Overall, this study suggests that military service in Vietnam and/or Agent Orange Exposure disturbs the immune-homeostasis resulting in dysregulation of B and T cell activities."

Found disturbed in this study were.

IFN gamma

TNF alpha

IL-4

IL-10

IL4:IFN gamma ratio

Once again this describes a reaction similar to that of an exposure to a virus which can set off many issues including any predisposition by genetics. Which would now mean that anything associated to this damaging processes should more than likely be associated, especially if trends are found whether there is a linear dose response found to dioxin only or not.

Example: You can have the genetics for celiac-sprue all your life and never have a problem. You may have the Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) genes specifically linked to celiac disease of DR3, DQ2 and DQ8. But only when you have the immune system issue or virus like response created by dioxin will this disease manifest. Normally associated with T-cell involvement.

In my novice research, I found many issues on our VA and NAS/IOM hit parade that are already associated with the EBV in many medical publications. In addition, I found most of the issues associated and those issues that we know are prevalent among our Veterans that probably "should be associated" were also involved with B and T cell issues derangement and dysregulation.

Many of the immune system cancers and nasal/pharyngeal cancers are associated to an immune system response from the EBV.

In one study I found "EBV INFECTION OF ESOPHAGEAL CANCER TISSUE AS DETERMINED BY PCR"

Their study indicated - Conclusion: Tentatively, there appears to be a correlation between EBV infection of esophageal tissue and abnormalities of the esophagus.

"The percentages of EBV positive samples amongst the esophagitis (42.3%), esophagus squamous cell carcinomas (42.8%) and esophageal aden carcinomas (42.8%) were rather high. If these results are borne out in further investigations, they suggest a possible role of the EBV virus in the etiology of esophageal diseases. The fact that a large percent of non-cancerous esophagitis samples were positive suggests the virus may play a role in the early stages of abnormalities of the esophagus,...

This is highly suggestive of EBV involvement in Esophageal cancers.

One of the issues associated with Barrett's Esophagus and the development of esophageal cancers is GERD.

I previously reported above, all the gastrointestinal issues reported to include gastroparesis which seems to be related to possible delayed stomach emptying or increased stomach acid production.

We already know that many many Veterans suffer from peripheral neuropathy. This was found to a linear dose response in the Ranch Hand studies as a stand alone and then not brought forward; and of course the NAS/IOM still denies this peripheral nerve damage.

In fact in the 2002 update the NAS/IOM had this to say:

The 2002 update concluded that there is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine whether an association exists between the chemicals studied and chronic persistent peripheral neuropathy. In relation to acute and subacute transient peripheral neuropathy, the NAS concluded that there was limited or suggestive evidence of an association between chemical exposure and the disease, as stated in the update 1996 report. Update 2002 also indicated that if TCDD were associated with the development of transient acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy, the disorder would become evident shortly after exposure.

The NAS was unaware of any evidence that new cases developing long after service in Vietnam that could be attributed to herbicide exposure in Vietnam.

This is because the NAS/IOM operates under government constraints and goes more blind every two years, as it is time to put out their slanted and biased findings. Just as our congress does every election cycle in stating they support Veterans. All of it fictitious and sickening.

The Korean Agent Orange Impact study found this very painful nerve damage as a stand alone prevalent and relevant to Agent Orange at a p-value of 0.039 and related to service in Vietnam at a p-value of 0.0042. Of course, our VA and the NAS/IOM still deny this involvement.

The point is, you cannot have all this peripheral nerve damage without involvement in the autonomic nerves or even the central nervous system itself. I would seriously doubt, using any logic at all, that dioxin involvement already proven scientifically and mathematically in peripheral nerve damages is that specific to only affect part of the nervous system.

Autonomic nervous system would be involved with delayed stomach emptying and also insulin timing/glucose, which we also know is a big issue among Vietnam Veterans.

Regardless, if it was the involvement of B and T cells as some form of virus like response from the dioxin or autonomic nerve damage causing gastroparesis it is all associated with Service in Vietnam to multiple toxic chemical exposures.

In addition the VA and NAS/IOM state they are not looking for "cause and effect." In fact, I challenged the NAS/IOM on this fact and they categorically denied this fact.

While the Ranch Hand demands a liner dose response, which by default means you are looking for some form of "cause and effect" or at least to some level of cause and effect. By mandating this constraint many medical issues from Military Service in Vietnam that are "indeed found significant" go unreported; as planned by the entire government.

Remember in my previous discussions that prior to our toxic chemical legacy our government based Veterans compensations on "increased risk of incidence" or "significant increase" regardless of cause and effect, especially in an unknown issue as we had 40 years ago in types of toxic chemicals and the different forms of ingestions.

Logically, even "medical trends" such as showing up in those that served from Australia, New Zealand, Korea, US Forces should be looked at with great concern as an "increased risk of incidence."

Unfortunately, this has not happened by our government scientists and those scientists at the NAS/IOM who are contracted by our government with apparently some built in constraints; or the NAS/IOM is totally biased against Veterans as the committee they replaced. Just as that committee that operated from 1979 to 1991 that was disbanded in disgrace after review of their totally biased processes , the VACEH.

It seems the NAS/IOM itself is more tied to a VA mandated and controlled process than real scientific trends and medical issues.

Included in this comparison should be those medical issues from Times Beach, Mo where the government bought up a whole town for less exposures than most Veterans saw while at the same time they were denying Veterans any and all dioxin issues. Or the Love Canal, New York manifestations, or the Seveso, Italy dioxin incident.

Which if you compare the amount of toxic chemicals released in pounds and the amount of TCDD in Italy it is about 2% of what my gun park saw along the DMZ, not counting the drift from other firebases within the drift rate of about 11 miles. Yet, this area of Italy was declared a disaster area by national and international standards.

The Seveso, Italy dioxin accident has been characterized as a "National disaster." The actual 2,4,5-T release was estimated to be 100 grams (3.52 oz) to 20 kg (44.09 lbs) of dioxin was released into the air along with the estimated only 3,000 kg (6,613.9 pounds) of chemical that was released. The furthest contamination distance was 6 km (3.7 miles) to the south.

This absolutely pales in comparison to just the Rockpile FSB minimum of 506,000 pounds within 4.8 miles. (Not including the other firebase overlaps, the drift rates from the DMZ burm, tank spraying, tanker spraying, helicopter spraying, the additional toxic chemical poundage of Agents White and Blue.)

In fact, the Seveso Italy area was the perfect place to study these "increased risk of incidences" because of the way the exposure levels were broken out by exposure zones. Almost as if you would have a built in dose rate evaluation.

In reviewing the following peer reviewed article on, "The Seveso Studies on Early and Long-Term Effects of Dioxin Exposure: A Review" I found many issues that Veterans have been submitting for and being turned down by our anti-Veteran Veterans Administration. Many of which were found in our allies as well as US troops. Many were found in the Ranch Hand transcripts and then not bought forward into the medical community.

I indicate "peer reviewed" because the NAS/IOM will not look at anything that has not been stalled for at least seven years in some peer review. Even though the Ranch Hand reports are peer reviewed and published in medical journals you can build a medical journal on dioxin exposures on what they are not reporting; as they seemed to "craft for publication" as opposed to medical science.

I will not go into the many things found significant in mortality and disease that we Veterans have been saying was associated and suffering from while the government stalls using the VA and the NAS/IOM.

What I did find that was interesting was obstructive air way diseases COPD, which the Ranch Hand found some of that. I was thinking why did the Koreans in their honest evaluation, that did not select by MOS only; not find this issue. Then realized that this is one medical area they did not evaluate. Had they done so; I can assure you they would not only have found it; but published the "unmodified results."

However, esophageal cancer mortality was one of them in the Seveso, Italy incident; especially in males. With a Risk Ratio (RR) of 1.8 and 95% Confidence Interval (CI) of 1.1-2.4. (17)

In fact the study concluded: (It should be noted that this was only a 15-year after the fact study.)

Increases in rectal cancers and increases in selected digestive digestive sites (liver and others).

It was theorized by some of the Ranch Hand scientists that one of the rationales as to why the Ranch Handers themselves were not showing more cancers was because of the non-cancerous mortality from ischemic heart and vascular disease mortality. The men were not living long enough to show the increase in cancers. (2) Now that is a comforting thought for all our Vietnam Veterans left alive.

This seems to be very possibly a trend in the Seveso, Italy dioxin exposure also.

In a court document the following was submitted in evidence by Doctor Cate Jenkins of the EPA: (19)

Many Vietnam veterans have experienced more than one of the adverse health effects associated with dioxin. Such a coincidence of injuries increases the probability that the common casual factor of the multiple injuries was dioxin rather than two or more coincidental factors. In addition, a variety of human population exposed to dioxin have experienced these health effects (Vietnam veterans, farmers, forestry workers, residential populations in Missouri and Italy, and chemical production workers in the U.S. and other countries), thus establishing a firm basis for concluding that dioxin, and not some other unique factor related to service in Vietnam, was responsible for these health effects. Further, many Vietnam veterans and other populations exposed to dioxin have experienced dose-related increased rates of these adverse health effects, proving strong epidemiological evidence that the effects were caused by, not merely associated with, dioxin. In all cases, animals have experienced these same health effects when dioxin is administered in a controlled laboratory setting, thus providing a plausible biological basis for the health effects observed in humans.

The effects demonstrated by these new studies to be significantly associated with dioxin exposures include elevated cancers of all sites combined (representing a general carcinogenic effect of dioxin), as well as cancers of specific sites, namely: soft tissue sarcomas; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; Hodgkin's disease; leukemias, lymphomas, and other hematologic cancers; respiratory system cancer; skin cancer; testicular cancer; and cancers of the brain, stomach, colon, rectum, prostate, hepatobiliary tract, pancreas, and kidney. One adverse effect in addition to cancer significantly associated with dioxin is organic nerve damage, including peripheral as well as central nervous system damage, and the severe consequences of central nervous system damage, such as suicide and fatal accidents, depression, anxiety, and other neuropsychological problems. Other adverse effects significantly associated with dioxin include reproductive abnormalities; immunological abnormalities; dermatologic abnormalities; hepatoxic effects; gastrointestinal ulcer; cardiovascular disorders; metabolic disorders such as porphyria cutanea tarda, thyroid dysfunction, diabetes, and altered lipid metabolism; and lung and thorax abnormalities.

Specific digestive system cancers:

Stomach:

Dow Chemical Corporation Studies of Chlorophenol Production Workers. (19)

The 1989 Dow Chemical Corporation analysis of employees exposed to dioxin found elevated stomach cancer deaths. When Dow directly compared "exposed" and "unexposed" workers, "exposed" workers were found to have statistically significant higher rates of stomach cancer.

NIOSH Study of Maine Paper Mill Workers (19)

The June 1991 NIOSH study of paper mill workers in Maine found elevated stomach cancer deaths, although this elevation was not significant. The odds ratio for dying of stomach cancer, however, was found to increase in a statistically significant manner with increasing duration of employment at the paper mill, thus establishing a dose-response casual relationship between work at the paper mill and increased gastric cancer.

Significant Earlier Studies Showing Elevated Stomach Cancer (19)

Earlier studies have demonstrated statistically significant excesses of stomach cancer in populations exposed to dioxin. Three deaths from stomach cancer (0.6 expected) were found among workers exposed to a trichlorophenol process accident (p = 0.024 - 0.034).

An investigation of railway workers exposed to phenoxyacetic acid herbicides found an excess of stomach cancer deaths (odds ratio = 6.1; p< 0.05), for over 10 years latency from exposure.

Seveso, Italy 15 year mortality study shows stomach cancer incidence as high as RR = 1.3 and confidence interval (CI) .7-2.7. (17)

American Journal of Epidemiology reports on Seveso, Italy 20 year study reports an increase in all cancers. Stomach cancer was increased in the second decade. In the 10–14-year period, digestivecancer mortality was elevated, and stomach and liver cancershowed statistically significant increases. (20)

Rectal:

In 1985, the Danish Cancer Society published a study examining the incidence of cancer in persons employed in manufacture of phenoxyacetic acid herbicides before 1982. <32> Cancer cases were identified for 3,390 males and 1,069 females. The highest observed statistically significant elevated risk was soft tissue sarcomas among males employed in any department at the two factories (relative risk = 2.72; 95% C.I. = 0.88 - 6.34). The two Danish factories included in the study used limited amounts of 2,4,5-T production took place, the predominant product being 4-chloro-ortho-cresol. In addition to elevated soft tissue sarcomas, this study also identified excess risk of lung, rectal, and cervical cancers. (19)

American Journal of Epidemiology reports on Seveso, Italy 20 year study reports an increase in all cancers with rectal cancer RR=2.4, 95% CI = 1.2, 4.6. (20) Deaths from rectal cancerwere elevated, with a nearly twofold increase in zone B. (20)

All of these trends and factual data add up to one of three things:

One - Esophageal cancer as well as gastrointestinal cancers are associated to dioxin exposure.

Two - Esophageal cancer as well as gastrointestinal cancers are associated to Military Service In Vietnam; regardless of cause and effect or which one of the toxic chemicals caused the cancer.

Three - Esophageal cancer as well as gastrointestinal cancers are associated to Military Service In Vietnam.

This is especially true if it is Barrett's Esophagus or Esophageal Cancer that begins in cells that line internal organs. This is called "adenocarcinoma" and is not normally associated with drinking or smoking but from stomach acid or other forms of gastrointestinal stress. Or, as I have pointed out a dioxin or other toxic chemicals in Agent White or Agent Blue caused dysregulation of B and/or T cell activities identified by the Korean Study. (16) No different than an exposure to the Epstein Barr Virus which is associated to this form of cancer in nasal/oral cavity, pharynx (throat), and Esophageal cancers.

This rare form of cancers of this type should be associated to military service in Vietnam in toxic chemical environment; regardless of what specific body or internal organ site.

In the Addendum, I review two cases that were approved as individual cases of Esophageal Cancer.

In the disapproved cases the majority of the BVA disapproval decisions are based on

the fact the Veteran did not have the cancer in the service or didn't come down with within a year
from discharge.

We are after all talking about the long term effects of these toxic chemicals (plural). DUH!

There is probably not even one toxic chemical that will cause a diagnosed cancer inside of one year from time of exposure. To take that much you would probably be dead already.

But when you have own legal system set up, granted by the congress then any dumb White House excuse for Veteran's denial will suffice. Not only suffice, but it is absolutely unchallengeable no matter how illegal it or dumb the decision.

Unless you consider the corrupt US Court of Appeals for Veterans as some sort of challenge. Over 17,000 cases heard and 13 positive decisions in favor of the Veteran or his widow.

This to the normal person would seem just a tad bit questionable. That is unless you serve in the United States Congress.

REFERENCES:

(1) Open letter to the Australian Government by Veteran Gary McMahon

(2) Ranch Hand Official Transcripts (Not the government redacted published reports)

(3) Taped interview by Moon Callison with Admiral Zumwalt on July 26^th 1999 discussing his role in the Department of Veterans Affairs Report “Classified Confidential Status 1, not for Publication and Release to the General Public.” A report regarding adverse health affects from exposure to Agent Orange; Dated May 5 1990. (America’s Defense Monitor (ADM's) Moon Callison interviews the former Chief of Naval Operations, for "Environmental Impact of War").

(4) Department of Veterans Affairs Report “Classified Confidential Status 1, not for Publication and Release to the General Public.” A report regarding adverse health affects from exposure to Agent Orange; Dated May 5 1990, page 37.

(5) Department of Veterans Affairs Report “Classified Confidential Status 1, not for Publication and Release to the General Public.” A report regarding adverse health affects from exposure to Agent Orange; Dated May 5 1990, page 23 and page 24.

(6) Department of Veterans Affairs Report “Classified Confidential Status 1, not for Publication and Release to the General Public.” A report regarding adverse health affects from exposure to Agent Orange; Dated May 5 1990, page 24.

(7)Department of Veterans Affairs Report “Classified Confidential Status 1, not for Publication and Release to the General Public.” A report regarding adverse health affects from exposure to Agent Orange; Dated May 5, 1990

(8) March of 2000, House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, ; Oversight review of the Ranch Hand Study.

(9) Vietnam Veterans of America statement regarding the law suit against VA individuals.

(10) New York Times article titled, "Chemicals Sickened '91 Gulf War Veterans, Latest Study Finds." October 14, 2004.

(11) Letter from Daniel Teitelbaum, M.D., P.C. to Admiral E.R. Zumwalt, Jr. (April 18, 1990).

12) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

(13) Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisoning, 5th edition, U.S. EPA, Chapter 14.

(14) House Report HR 101-672.

(15) Re-Evaluation of Dioxin; A Presentation by Linda Birnbaum, Director Environmental Toxicology Division U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); To the 102nd Meeting of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Chicago, Illinois.

(16) Immunotoxicological Effects of Agent Orange Exposures to the Vietnam War Korean Veterans accepted May 28, 2003. Industrial Health 2003, 41, 158-166

(17) Sort-Long Term Morbidity and Mortality in the Population Exposed to Dioxin after the "Seveso Accident - Industrial Health 2003, 41, 127-138

(18) Impact of Agent Orange Exposures among Korean Vietnam Veterans accepted May 28, 2003, Industrial Health 41, 149-157

(19) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SHIRLEY IVY, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of DONALD IVY, et al.
Plaintiffs, CV-89-03361 (E.D.N.Y.) (JBW) v. [B-89-0059-CA (E.D.TEX.)] DIAMOND SHAMROCK CHEMICALS COMPANY, et al. SEP 3, 1991

(20) American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 153, No. 11 : 1031-1044 (Health Effects of Dioxin Exposure: A 20-Year Mortality Study)

Addendum:

Comparison of data to sample cases of Esophageal Cancers that were approved by the VA on an individual basis associated to dioxin alone.

SAMPLE 1

Citation Nr: 9914625

Decision Date: 05/24/99 Archive Date: 06/07/99

DOCKET NO. 98-01 854

On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boise, Idaho

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to service connection for esophageal cancer for purposes of accrued benefits.

2. Entitlement to service connection for metastasized liver and lymph node cancer for purposes of accrued benefits.

3. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

K. Conner, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from June 1969 to July 1973.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 1997 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Boise Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in October 1998, at which time the issue of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for purposes of accrued benefits was denied. The issues of service connection for esophageal, liver and lymph node cancer for purposes of accrued benefits and the cause of the veteran's death were remanded for additional development of the evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the appellant's appeal has been obtained by the RO.

2. Based on his service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era and his military occupational specialty (field radio operator), the veteran was exposed to herbicidal
agents in service, including Agent Orange.

3. The record contains clinical evidence showing that the veteran's esophageal cancer, which metastasized to his liver and lymph nodes, was incurred as a