Ranch Hand mortality report in 2005



A Marine Colonel sent me a PDF file of the new released Mortality of Ranch Hand guys.  This was released in 2005 and yet clearly the transcripts show this mortality increase was found and noted in 1991.  Another 15 years of stalling for the benefit of the dollar and the fact it is much cheaper to bury a veteran than to tell him and his doctor what is wrong.  Cheaper than trying to support him and provide him some support for him as well as his family for issues our very own government caused.


Again, this is primarily only those exposed by skin exposures and not the boots on the ground.  In fact, I am surprised it even states that.  I guess my slamming this report a few years ago as far as they needed to preface the report with this fact did some good.  It cannot be the gold standard, as everyone seems to make it out as just that.


Again, this is a mortality study and not a study of those that are sick and dying or disabled.


It is by this Dr. Michalek whom I was certainly was not impressed with in reviewing the Ranch Hand transcripts.  Seemed more like a government GAO plant than anything else interested in exonerating the government rather than facts.


I also find it very interesting that the references he cites are mostly from his own work and that of the Ranch Hand study itself, which is questionable.   He even cites rat studies, which the VA for us on our side; refuses to apply those results or even consider them. 


In fact, I have a letter from a Baylor University doctor that states the VA needs to tell us how many rat studies does it take to prove them wrong.  10:1, 30:1, or 100:1 at least give us something to fight with and quit wasting his time, as they, the VA, already know the issues.


Dr. Michalek also cites information from the CDC which we know and even congress knows by their own admission was compromised by the Reagan White House.  He also cites studies from the VA, which are less than forth coming.  That there is also questions of protocol violations and less than truthful reporting of the data.


Noticeably absent was any information from the EPA dioxin reassessment after the White House quit meddling and controlling, who are our nations toxicology experts.  Not the VA, nor the congress, and certainly not the Air Force management who seems to change the report conclusions at will.  (Previously discussed many times and documented in the 2000 oversight review as well as the 1991 VA classified report.)


Noticeably absent was any information at all from the Korean Study, which included other forms of exposures and ingestions.  I have already given you those results and it was staggering.  If there is a “gold standard,” it should be this study, which was not arbitrarily defaulted to linear dioxin dose responses only.  Like our own corrupt government studies.  In other words, they found increased issues based on Service in Vietnam, regardless of which toxic chemical caused it. 


You know kind of like the slick way the VA limited birth defects to service in Vietnam for the women veterans only.


Now this 2005 release concentrates on the increased risk of death by circulatory system diseases and indicates a significant increase.  In fact, I had found references that many had already died that would have been in the cohort group before the study even took place.  Nice of the congress to tell us that many were going to die from this stuff identified 17 years ago.


It does say that no increases in death from cancers were identified.  I did not expect any, as the Ranch Hand study did not find any anyway.  Obviously because of the different form of ingestions.  The Ranch Hand study did not even find chloracne so that surely indicates form of ingestion makes a difference as to what will develop and when it will develop.


Although I did find the VA was looking for the Ranch Hand to support some cancers based on nothing.  In addition, certainly not the 0.05 requirements mandated by the VA.


In other words, the VA wants to cherry pick depending on estimated numbers and estimated costs.


Now this is one of digestive system issues I am surprised they admit any impacts.  While I think they found it in 1996, they just debunked it in the transcripts.


I believe they said it was on the low-end of significant therefore, it meant nothing was the conclusion in the transcripts.  I would think those that were dying regardless if it was on the "low end of significant or not" would probably disagree with the Ranch Hand conclusions it did not matter.  Especially since we know how they are establishing the "government biased significant part" and not really giving anyone a fair assessment of these toxic chemicals (plural) damages.


All along, many many Veterans and I have been saying all this toxic crap caused digestive system issues.  Probably even while in country.  We thought it would get better after leaving and it never did.


In fact one of our Marines who almost died from this stuff finally got fed up with the VA run around and called the center for gastrointestinal research and found that they estimated about 80% came home with some sort of gastrointestinal issues.


The US Army Chemical Corps study found an increased risk of death attributable to digestive system diseases and non-significant increase in the risk of death resulting from cancers.


A study of Australian Veterans reported an increased risk of death attributable to digestive diseases but no increased risk of death attributable to cancer.


A study of Women serving in Vietnam found an increase in Pancreatic cancers.


Diverse results have been reported in numerous studies involving dioxin exposed industrial workers and a community exposed to dioxin from a nearby industrial accident.  One study of US Chemical workers reported relative increases in mortality from all cancers combined and, among workers who survived >20 years after their exposures, increased mortality rates from soft tissue sarcoma and cancer of the respiratory system.


Fifteen years after an accidental explosion in a plant near Seveso, Italy exposed the surrounding community to kilogram amounts of dioxin, mortality rates among the most highly exposed men were significantly increased for all cancers, rectal, and lung cancers.


I have some real issues with this report but it would take 15 pages to discuss them all. 


So, I will point out just a few issues including the fact this study broke out in groups, which will introduce statistical errors automatically.  You can parse statistics down to where they are meaningless.


The question for 40 years has been very simply:


Are the Veterans that served in Vietnam worse off than those that did not serve in Vietnam; and if so in what medical areas.  Just a plain two-part question.


All we have gotten from the government for 40 years is mandated study dioxin only constraints, biased reporting, a commission that operated for 13 years that was totally biased against Veterans, a federal agency acting as a mandated White House budget control that can no longer be trusted, and a congress that will not address the issues; which would conclude they also are no longer to be trusted.


As I reported before, I found in the transcripts where they were introducing negative factors.  Where the veteran lived, where he worked, and what chemicals were in his home.  Now unless there was proof somehow that all the other folks were affected the same way from the exact same residence area, from the exact same workplace, and those in the household were also affected; this is total government study BS.


All of this is because of some White House mandate that the study show a linear dose response rather than service in Vietnam regardless of what toxic chemical caused it or combination of toxic chemicals. 


While the study identifies a trend, the cutoff of this mortality inclusion goes back to 1999, over five years ago.  It took five years to put this report together?????????????????


From above:


The US Army Chemical Corps study found an increased risk of death attributable to digestive system diseases and non-significant increase in the risk of death resulting from cancers.


I have no idea what that sentence actually means or is supposed to be conveying!


We know it means that we have an increase of death from digestive system diseases.  What kind of digestive system diseases?  You would think if they know the overall data they would have put in the discrete values.  I think we know why they do not do such honest things. 


Any and all kinds of digestive system diseases I guess would be the answer???  In fact, I would like to know what digestive diseases are causing death.  I for one, have not heard of many that actually cause death other than "digestive system cancers."


The second part of that statement and non-significant increase in the risk of death resulting from cancers.  Does that mean digestive system cancers or all forms of cancers????????


I find it hard to believe that they found death from digestive system diseases and then want to leave this open as if they did not find "digestive system cancers" were causing the death.  No, scratch that I think that is exactly what they are doing.


Which by the way, "digestive system cancers" can be from the mouth to the anus.


A study of Australian Veterans reported an increased risk of death attributable to digestive diseases but no increased risk of death attributable to cancer.


Again as above, I have no idea what that sentence is saying to Veterans or anyone reading this report.


The bottom line is we Veterans were correct all along and I think these conclusions certainly verify our "digestive system issues."


Unless the VA says you will die from these, whatever they are, but you will not ever have any problems along the way.  VA Logic!


A study of Women serving in Vietnam found an increase in Pancreatic cancers.


This, as Dr. Albanese suggested in 2000, is a tragedy.  The issue is: this statement of fact is attributable to “Service in Vietnam only” not associated with dioxin or any toxic chemicals.  Whereas the men who served in Vietnam are tied down to this bogus dioxin only linear dose response to be associated and compensated.  If their pancreatic cancers shows an increase of 10,000 percent is not even brought forward as being the "least bit significant."  For males that served in Vietnam, there is no association to diseases or disorders from serving in a toxic chemical environment.  Males have no “Service in Vietnam” related disorders.


Of course, this is for budget control and not the scientific truth and certainly contains no mandated benefit of the doubt.  


Fifteen years after an accidental explosion in a plant near Seveso, Italy exposed the surrounding community to kilogram amounts of dioxin, mortality rates among the most highly exposed men were significantly increased for all cancers, rectal, and lung cancers.


Again, this sentence is confusing.  Does it mean all cancers including rectal and lung?  Moreover, if so why does it not just say ALL CANCERS?  Alternatively, is it just saying rectal and lung cancers?


Therefore, we have kilogram amounts of dioxin equaling mortality rates that were significantly increased for all cancers, rectal, and lung cancers.


Lets do the analysis on the Rockpile as a comparison in pounds to Seveso, Italy. 


I think we can state for the record that the form of exposure from the aircraft would parallel that of an explosion.  (Not including the direct spraying of the perimeters by tanker, tank, or helicopter; which Seveso would not have experienced.)


Unlike civilian applications of the components contained in Agent Orange, which are diluted in oil and water, Agent Orange was sprayed undiluted in Vietnam.  Military applications were sprayed at the rate of approximately 3 gallons per acre and contained approximately 12 pounds of 2,4-D and 13.8 pounds of 2,4,5-T.


The herbicide tapes show that the Rockpile had the following exposures as a minimum.


The Rockpile: AO 110,050 gallons, AW 15,050 gallons, AB 7,650 gallons


In addition, the next base to the east, Camp Carrol, had the following exposures as a minimum.


Camp Carroll: AO 78,200 gallons, AW 5,400 gallons, AB 5,050 gallons


We also know that the DMZ burm itself was heavily sprayed.


A Ranch Hand designated spray area such as “The Rockpile” means within a 4.9-mile radius.


The drift rate was concluded to be just slightly over 13 miles.  Well within range of the DMZ burm itself and well within range of the designated area of Camp Carroll.


In fact those that operated in-between the two areas would have probably have been working in an area that had both cumulative spray areas within the 4.9 mile radius or at least close enough.


We know the area around Ca Lu, Stud, and Vandergrift were sprayed to the west of the Rockpile.  Also, well within the range of any drift parameters.


According the VA classified report for every three gallons sprayed there was 13.8 pounds of 2,4,5-T.


110,050 gallons divided by the three gallons that = 13.8 pounds equals 36,683.33.  So if the estimate is even close of the 13.8 pound per three gallons we are talking over 506,000 pounds of 2,4,5-T in a 4.9 mile radius of the Rockpile.


2,4,5-T was found to contain the contaminant TCDD or 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-para-dioxin (i.e., dioxin), which is regarded as one of the most toxic chemicals known to man.


Now the Seveso, Italy disaster characterized by Dr. Michalek as an explosion; I read it was a valve that was left open when no one was at the plant.  The actual 2,4,5-T release was actually 100 grams to 20 kg of dioxin was released into the air along with the estimated only 3,000 kg (6,615 pounds) of chemical that was released.  This just pales in comparison to just the Rockpile minimum of 506,000 pounds.  (Not including the other firebase and DMZ overlaps as well as the drift rates.)


Seveso, Italy was a disaster according to many including the killing of over 80,000 animals so the food chain of dixon would be broken.  Yet, the Rockpile by itself should have been declared a National Disaster for those men that served on it.  Including the "Vietnam Experience itself" with the toxic chemical weapons of mass destruction used by our own government.


I have included the other areas for you fellows to look at especially those that for instance worked out to the west of Cam Lo for instance.  Alternatively, those that worked out north of Cam Lo, which would overlap with Con Thien and so on.  I know many of you were in both areas.


Also, notice that Quang Tri had more Agent Blue than Agent Orange.  Also notable was the amount of Agent Blue at Con Thien and Cam Lo.  C1 and C2 would have been covered up with drift rates.


Cam Lo: AO  80,375 gallons, AW  8,660 gallons, AB 12,785 gallons


Con Tien: AO 84,700 gallons, AW 12,460 gallons, AB 10,925 gallons


Khe Sanh: AO 43,705 gallons, AW 3,040 gallons, AB 4,300 gallons


Dong Ha:  AO 54, 385 gallons, AW 5, 060 gallons, AB 9,935 gallons


The Rockpile: AO 110,050 gallons, AW 15,050 gallons, AB 7,650 gallons


Quang Tri: AO 68,000 gallons, AW 2,750 gallons, AB 74,450 gallons


Also bearing in mind the good people of Seveso, Italy had zero exposures from Agent White and Agent Blue so they had no synergy effect.


Also of more recent, some scientists are saying that even in 2,4-D there is a dioxin maybe not TCDD but never the less a form of dioxin.


Then do not forgot that in Agent White and Agent Orange you had chemicals, 2,4-D, that were characterized as follows back in 1987:


One recognized toxicologists 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.


At this point, I think it is a miracle of the human body that any of us are still alive.


Kind of nice that DOW did that don't you think???????


What was the governments/VA response.  Silence and cover-up!


Now all of you must know that when these studies were started back in the late 70’s and early 80’s there was no way to determine TCDD levels.  This only happened in 1987.


In other words, this whole government study program is stalling garbage; just as it was intended to be.


This study did finally report increased mortality from cardiovascular issues such as atherosclerotic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and a few others.  This only confirms what the Koreans found in greater statistical associations and published three years ago.


Reference Battalion Update 8 at:



Reference Battalion Update 11 at:




Best to all,