Toxic Chemical Update 1
My review of this totally bogus DOD announcement on a Link Between Agent Orange and Diabetes.
Hi to all again,
Before you get into reading this, I wanted to pass on that Brenda sent e-mail that just this week alone, two more vets came into ICU with glioblastoma brain tumors.
How the VA can still say that brain issues, tumors, and cancer are not associated is just mind-boggling. I guess we thank the government contracted NAS/IOM for that also.
I did get a response from my last e-mail "Response to a widow" from a sister of a mortally wounded soldier that said I must include sisters in this fight also. I agree and that is my oversight in stating inclusions.
Subject: My review of this totally bogus DOD announcement on a Link Between Agent Orange and Diabetes
This study is so full of corruption and such that I will not get into that aspect, as many of you have seen my accounts of what has been going and the charges of on-going corruption. Not only by me but members of this scientific study group itself. With charges of command influence being used as well as the actual changing of scientific conclusions involved regarding this total waste of over 140 million dollar study and a stalling of over 27 years while Veterans languished with no compensations and no honest or fair assessment of their health issues, which were created by government wrongdoing.
Red text is the actual data and statements released by the corrupt DOD supported by a corrupt VA.
The Department of Defense released today the latest report of the Air Force Health Study on the health effects of exposure to herbicides in Vietnam, which includes the strongest evidence to date that Agent Orange is associated with adult-onset diabetes. This supports the findings from earlier reports in 1992 and 1997.
The above is an out and out government lie!
This study did not study anything but dioxin, which was only one half of the toxic chemical nomenclature called “herbicide Agent Orange.”
While the study was originally correctly set up to evaluate the Agent Orange Herbicide as well as the ramifications of the other toxic chemical herbicides of Agent White and Blue. Our caring government changed this original premise. The government changes are directly proportional to the amount of damaging medical data that was being collected.
Not only was it reduced to dioxin only but also the “established protocols” were indeed changed by the surgeon general, to include using the “more government favorable ratios” rather than the “worst-case analysis.” So much for the “benefit of the doubt” granted by our so-called caring congress. Therefore, lets just use the more “government friendly” best-case analysis.
In fact, in the transcripts, some of the Ranch Hand scientists questioned this lack of covering the “other herbicides” as it was set out to do. The response by the leader of this government scientific circle of incompetence with the NAS/IOM as the axle then concluded: That yes, it was a good question. However, it did leave opportunities for “future research grants.”
Rather than the truth, Veterans get scientists looking for future opportunities!
The above self-centered moron - needs a Veteran’s attitude adjustment!
How dare he say that, while Veterans are dying without compensations? More importantly, the widows go uncompensated and our nations doctors are kept in the dark for over 4.2 million of us; what to expect, how to treat us, or even delay the obvious results of a patient that is indeed a “toxic chemical exposure victim.”
Air Force Health Study summarizes the results of the 2002 physical examination
of 1,951 veterans, which is the final examination of the 20-year epidemiological
The Ranch Hand Study was named after the operation responsible for spraying herbicides in Vietnam between 1962 and 1971 to deny cover and destroy crops of the North Vietnamese Army.
In fact, it was the largest weapons of mass destruction toxic chemical war ever conducted in the history of warfare by any nation. That, by the way, is against the Geneva Convention.
Since the first examination in 1982, the Air Force has tried to determine whether long-term health effects exist in the Ranch Hand pilots and ground crews, and if these effects can be attributed to the herbicides used in Vietnam, mainly Agent Orange and its contaminant, dioxin.
Again all lies:
The Air Force has not tried to find anything about anything except dioxin in this so-called anomaly of a study. An 800 percent increase of any medical issue that does not show a linear dose response to dioxin only goes unreported for the nation’s Veterans and the nation’s doctors. Not what I would call a scientific investigation.
The Air Force approved the spraying of this toxic chemical swill and now we are supposed to believe what they say and their manipulated study. When there is already a proven and documented history of White House government/VA denial, stalling, and collaboration in the 16 years prior to the beginning of this 26-year study charade.
Dr. Clary (Air Force scientist) clearly stated that the
Air Force knew before they used this toxic chemical swill it was detrimental.
Dr. Clary admitted it was not supposed to be used on or around our own troops so
they, the Air Force Scientists, had little concern for our troops. Someone
messed up “big time” and that someone was the United States Government. For
forty plus years, it has been trying to protect its own self from
self-incrimination by using its power of collaboration and deceit.
The report, along with many other studies on herbicide and dioxin exposure, will be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences.
Based upon this review, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs can ask Congress for legislation on disability compensation and health care.
Bull Crap! More government BS.
Just four years ago in a “congressional oversight committee” set up to find out why the Ranch Hand was so slow to publish anything at all and why they did not want any government oversight. The VA and the NAS/IOM both testified that the Ranch Hand studies were not being used to evaluate for compensations or to a level of concern. Therefore, there was no reason to have the study publish timely reports to the nation or even to congress. I would add, to even be somewhat factual would have been a big plus, which it is not!
I was totally caught off guard when I reviewed the transcripts of this meeting because I had just read where the government contracted NAS/IOM stated, that while they used other studies they primarily used the Ranch Hand study for their recommendations for compensations and classifications. Therefore, this is all just government/VA/DOD double talk.
So why does the DOD think it is NOW appropriate for the NAS/IOM and the VA to review and make any decisions based on this garbage study. Maybe the VA and the NAS/IOM have not informed the DOD that the Ranch Hand study is a 140 million dollar boondoggle not used for anything except to track 1300 sick and dying Air Force personnel.
In other words, our government, the VA, and the government contracted NAS/IOM are talking out of both sides of their mouth to all Veterans and their families.
Results from the 2002 physical examination support adult-onset diabetes as the most important health problem seen in the Air Force Health Study. They suggest that as dioxin levels increase, not only are the presence and severity of adult-onset diabetes increased, but also the time to onset of the disease is decreased.
This also is a crock! Diabetes is the most important health issue????? Only because the rest of it was covered up or as one scientist concluded that chapters were being re-written for the sole purpose of de-emphasizing the findings.
What they forgot to mention was, they found a 37% testing anomaly for our Veterans where the A1C test was not showing an increase. Yet, the Ranch Handers indeed had diabetes. Yet, the VA mandates an A1C test. More government logic? You decide.
What they forgot to mention was, they found that even those that were not at some ADA definition of diabetes that there was increased insulin resistance.
What they forgot to mention was, they found that even those that were not at some ADA definitions of diabetes that insulin sensitivity was a problem.
What they failed to even look at, which I submitted: That a group of doctors from the University of Michigan submitted a paper and it was accepted by the ADA. It concluded that those that developed this kind of diabetes even in the Impaired Glucose Tolerance (IGT) phase that severe damage was being done in microvascular issues as well as developing painful sensory neuropathy before the onset of the defined ADA diabetes.
So why aren’t Veterans given compensations and treatment for IGT, especially if they have neuropathy and other symptoms associated? Because our government says so, as well as the White House directed Secretaries of the VA, lie.
In any diabetes patient, early detection, control, and aggressive treatment is the answer. Not only for the diabetes itself but also for the damages that are being done in kidneys, nerve damage, vascular damages, etc. In this case, especially since I think this is pretty much concluded, it is a more serious developing form of a diabetic condition. However, you have to know what to look for and our government has not given our doctors or us the heads up.
The above paper pretty much confirms the rest of their bogus study results regarding neuropathy and the cardiovascular diseases below that they are desperately trying to cover up, even though the mortality rate will not allow them to complete this government charade. They can cover up medical findings but it is hard to cover up deaths and death rates.
A 166 percent increase in diabetes requiring insulin control was seen in those with the highest levels of dioxin. This is consistent with the strong evidence found in animal studies.
NO NO NO - Veterans cannot reference animal studies. Even our doctors cannot reference animal studies, as the pinhead VA will not accept them. Even though it is proven now, that humans are more sensitive to the dioxin issues.
Rather than animal studies shown as consistent, they should have stated that the Korean Agent Orange Impact epidemiological study released four years ago on their Vietnam Veterans proved mathematically and scientifically a direct connection to diabetes and dioxin with a p-value of .033 and at an odds ratio of 2.69 was found. They found diabetes associated to service in Vietnam at an incredible p-value of 0.0230. Moreover, they did this in a two-year study from 1995 to 1996.
How could they do this when our government study took 26 years? It is called US government cover-up, corruption, and stalling; and the Koreans did an honest totally blind medical study with the statistics done by an outside source, not part of the evaluation team like our government studies. Just a slight bit of conflict of interest there, I would conclude.
Alternatively, they could have stated consistency with the Seveso, Italy dioxin accident. With findings of a direct dioxin association to diabetes, that by default of geographical location to the accident shows some type of dose response.
However, just remember our own government and the chemical companies remain a tag/team of coconspirators.
Cardiovascular disease findings were not
consistent, but separate studies have found an increased risk of cardiovascular
death in Ranch Hand enlisted ground crews, the subgroup with the highest average
Overall, Ranch Hand pilots and ground crews examined in 2002 had not experienced a statistically significant increase in heart disease relative to the comparison group. Associations between measures of cardiac function and history of heart diseases and herbicide or dioxin exposure were not consistent or clinically interpretable as adverse.
More Government Horse Crap!
the Koreans found this issue as well as the Seveso, Italy accident. They found
ischemic heart disease, vascular issues, heart valve issues, vasculopathy,
vascular necrosis, etc. Australians found at least a 200% increase.
Why did they find it? Because they did not limit the study to only those exposed by skin contact only. This Ranch Hand study is held up by the world, as the gold standard because of some idea the US government would be truthful and the original premise of the study. Although, I think many realized this study is just garbage now with its imposed White House limitations and have done or are starting to do their own.
The other reasons they found all these issues is they compared "unlike Veterans" not "like Veterans!"
Other findings included an increase in the frequency of reported acne after service in Southeast Asia in Ranch Hand enlisted ground crew members, but the lack of corresponding patterns of skin lesions observed at the physical examination rendered this finding difficult to interpret.
More Government Horse Crap!
Once again, our government portraying this study as some kind of panacea of all herbicide studies selects only those exposed by skin contact.
Of course, type of exposure, rate of exposure, total dose of exposure makes a difference.
Remember within the past year the Ukrainian presidential candidate that the opposition tried to poison. When they showed his face on TV before the diagnosis I told Glenda, “Damn he looks like he got into some dioxin.” Little did I know until three days later I was correct.
Then all the American doctors came on all the morning news shows talking about the impacts of dioxin, outside of chloracne. Yet, not once did anyone say, our Veterans were exposed to tons of this stuff. I guess they, like the DOD, figure those jungle fatigues were just amazing protection from even drinking water laced with dioxin.
While the cutoff point for even considering exposure was somehow magically ascertained by these Ranch Hand scientists was 10 parts per trillion (ppt). The water in Quang Tri Province in the year 2000 was still at 65 ppt according to the Hatsfield Corporation, which is a toxic chemical environmental assessment damage firm that has been in Vietnam since 1969. Breast milk in the indigenous population was still at 35 ppt.
recently I received a DOW classified E-mail from one of the gals that help
research this information. The E-mail concludes that DOW was having trouble at
several plants with chloracne as well as other systemic damages!
“…the most active of which is 2,3,7,8,-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin. This material is exceptionally toxic; it has a tremendous potential for producing chloracne and systemic injury. If it is present in the trichlorophenol, it will be carried through into the T acid and into the esters and hence into formulations which are to be sold to the public. One of the things we want to avoid is the occurrence of any acne in consumers. I am particularly concerned here with persons using the material on a daily, repeated basis such as custom operators may use it. The whole 2,4,5-t industry would be hard hit and I would expect restrictive legislation, either barring the material or putting very rigid controls upon it. This is the main reason why we are so concerned that we clean up our own house from within, rather than having someone from without do it for us. In this way, we can approach the problem in an orderly manner. If the producers and handlers of this material will co-operate, there is no reason why we cannot get this problem under strict control and thereby hopefully avoid restrictive legislation; in other words, let us practice good citizenship. At the present time, we are of the opinion that material containing no tetra- chlorodibenzodioxin with a certainty of 1 ppm does not present an appreciable hazard to consumers; likewise, we do not believe that such material constitutes a significant hazard to persons working in plants handling such phenol, T acid, or T acid esters.
I might add that we are continuing our research on this particular problem from the standpoint of studying the other impurities, which may have the capacity to produce this type of reaction. Also, we are attempting to quantitate the effects of the known acnagens when added to base materials. This work is progressing well, but it will be several months before we have a completed story.
I would urge again that if your big customers such as Co-Op and Naugatuck have particular questions about this problem that you invite them to come to Midland where we will be glad to discuss the matter in detail with them and show them what we have learned. We are not in any way trying to hide our problems under a heap of sand, but we certainly do not want any situations to arise, which will cause the regulatory agencies to become restrictive. Our primary objective is to avoid this.
I trust you will be very judicious in your use of this information. It could be quite embarrassing if it were misinterpreted or misused.
Biochemical Research Laboratory correspondence
P.S. Under no circumstances may this letter be reproduced, shown, or sent to anyone outside of Dow.”
The date of this was June 24, 1965. Therefore, they had to know even prior to this date.
As I stated, the United States government and the chemical companies have become coconspirators in medical fraud and the allowing of millions to die or become disabled with no warning.
Here we have the manufacturer talking about they are fairly sure that 1ppm does represent an appreciable problem; yet, they had no long-term studies.
Our Veterans are estimated to have ingested 2 to 47 ppm of dioxin alone, depending on where they were and for how long.
Again, the Korean study found chloracne as well as about seven other skin disorders associated. More than likely associated to the liver disorders of Uroporphyrin or Coproporphyrin, which is under the family of liver disorders called Porphyria Cutanea Tarda (PCT). Which the VA seems to treat as some nuisance disorder rather than the serious condition it can be, including mortality from liver cirrhosis.
The Seveso, Italy disaster found the same thing in chloracne.
Harvard Medical states that chloracne is the gold standard for dioxin exposures.
Finally, several blood tests regarding liver function and blood lipids were elevated and did tend to increase with dioxin level.
However, these tests may be elevated for many reasons, do not constitute a disease by themselves and cannot be explained by other findings in the study.
This is just tragic Government DOD BS.
This is crafted to minimize what they are actually found.
Here is what they actual found to a linear dose response to dioxin regarding this one issue.
Increased liver enzymes especially in GGT, which is gamma glutamyl transferase.
Increased lipid metabolism in general.
On going chronic inflammatory response characterized as a chronic dose response.
We already know about the diabetes connection.
Now any sane doctor would have looked at those four or five and concluded more than likely since their patient is a toxic chemical exposure victim; this is liver damage associated with non-alcoholic cirrhosis, or autoimmune hepatitis, or long-term chronic liver damages. On the other hand, even a response similar to a viral immune response.
Instead of bringing this into the open, the scientists suggested that they inform the Ranch Hand cohorts to tell their doctors, never mind the rest of us.
Just because they could not establish some overt on-going disease, it becomes a non-issue when the on-going damage and process is the issue now; not what is on the death certificate. I am not so sure these PhD’s were even qualified since many were not practicing medical doctor specialists.
Although I must admit that, one scientist brought up the fact that this all seems to point to some on-going process related to cirrhosis. Of course, the leader of the group who was more interested in future studies referenced above, overruled him.
Does the latent long-term toxic chemical damages vary with each veteran who has his own internal system? One might be more robust, or different than the next veteran and that would determine when possible intermittent anomalies might be detected or even realized. Alternately, the difference in each veteran’s system may determine what system failure is actually caused by the same anomaly. There is no guarantee it will create the same thing. Years may go by with only intermittent problems, then all of sudden it becomes a real problem with the system failing or other parts of the system failing. If not for the “government created medical information void”, these intermittent problems would have been diagnosed early using some well-spaced blood tests and exams. I, like most Vietnam veterans just keep going, not realizing the ultimate impacts from toxic chemical developed intermittent problems. All this time the government knew.
The identified damaging process itself should be compensated, not some end item 100-year-old definition of what constitutes a medical disorder. Toxic chemical damage is different. The only true final proof is death.
Had the scientists stated an honest assessment they would have concluded:
That would have been my findings based on my science background, not some biased “we did not find a problem.”
Their study was not a veteran friendly study, especially with the Air Force involvement and what seemed to be their total oversight, approval, and control of the actual presented findings.
For them to claim no problems are not true when they did not know that for a medical fact. Something caused the increase and the linear relationship. It would take five more pages to link an “increase in liver enzymes” and what may have caused that from a medical standpoint to disorders and its long-term effects. These toxic chemical effects are not normal everyday medical diagnoses. More than the normal liver blood tests should have been done.
At the end of the 20 years of follow-up, Ranch Hand pilots, and ground crews as a group exhibited no statistically significant increase in the risk of cancer relative to comparisons. Differences by military occupation were inconsistent.
This is so misleading!
Remember the Ranch Hand study compared Vietnam Veterans to Vietnam Veterans. What this was supposed to accomplish is beyond my engineering reasoning. Considering the methodology for determining the amount of residual dioxin attached to the fat cells was not confirmed until 1987. While the first physical exams for Ranch Hand and study cohorts was not until 1982, the study actually started four years prior. Therefore, what they were doing in the first place is just not even reasonable or rational.
This would be like the manufacturer of the rheumatoid drugs that were taken off the market recently doing their own study. They select a cohort of those that took their medications and another group that took their competitors version of the same form of medication with different variables but both causing the same types of damages.
Then concluding after the testing and evaluation they found no significant increase in the deltas. Why because both cohorts had the very similar statistics to the same manifestations. DUH!
In this Ranch Hand study you could have a 400% increase in a cancer that shows a dioxin response and an 800% increase in the opposite cohort group that was caused by either Agent Blue or White or both or a combination of all three since even some of these men could show a dioxin level of 10 ppt or less.
The government’s answer in this study to the world would have been the same as above –Ranch Hand pilots, and ground crews as a group exhibited no statistically significant increase in the risk of cancer relative to comparisons. Why? Because they were all affected!
In fact as in the below DOD statements they, the government would have concluded that the Ranch Hand cohorts exhibited a “decreased risk of cancer” since they only had a 400% increase compared to the 800% increase in the "non-dioxin Veterans." As if service in Vietnam in a toxic chemicals (plural) environment had nothing to do with anything much less the increase in both cohort groups of cancer when compared to the national or average or compared to those Veterans who did not serve in a toxic chemicals (plural) environment.
The difference in military occupation is a bogus comparison to begin with. This is just another government category thrown in. The more subcategories in any statistical study the more cumulative errors that are introduced and this study obviously tried to find as many possible ways to introduce as many cumulative errors as possible. Some of which I have discussed previously.
Most importantly, the Ranch Hand enlisted ground crews, the subgroup with the highest dioxin levels and presumably the greatest herbicide exposure, exhibited a 14 percent decreased risk of cancer. These results do not suggest that herbicides or dioxin exposure are related to cancer in these veterans.
See above on this DOD BS.
The report emphasizes three major limitations to the study.
First, the results cannot be generalized to other groups, such as all Vietnam veterans or Vietnamese civilians, which have been exposed in different ways and to different levels of herbicide.
Second, the size of the study makes it difficult to detect increases in rare diseases, thus small increases in rare diseases may be missed by the study.
Third, other variables that were not considered in this report could be confounding factors influencing the results.
Now I would like to think I had something to do with these disclaimers but I doubt it. I wrote to the Ranch Hand about 18 months ago and told them this study, the way it was set up on purpose, was only to exonerate the government, giving my rationale.
That to use this study like it is being used is just garbage when it comes to the rest of us. A study used as government vindication by the VA and the congress; when the study does not even apply to Vietnam Veterans by their own admissions finally, as stated above. Including the other "confounding factors" as they suggest, which could be one of at least 6 other toxic chemicals or combination of more than one.
Yet, since 1991 the NAS/IOM has used this garbage study to relate to the rest of the 3.2 million Vietnam Veterans and determine our fate.
Then the VA says before congress states they do not use the Ranch Hand studies to determine compensations when the congress was blasting Ranch Hand for not publishing on time or even not meeting at all for three entire years. The NAS/IOM that is contracted by the corrupt government to pronounce associations and move classifications up or down and recommend to the VA; then say they "primarily use" the Ranch Hand study which obviously, technically as I have pointed out, does not mean a thing or even apply to most of us; except to 1300 sick, dying, and dead Ranch Handers.
All nice and neatly rolled into one agency protecting another; including the Air Force study itself.
Now is the data in the study that could be used legitimately by someone(s) with integrity? You bet it is. Also agreed with by many scientists who have reviewed this study and indicated it more than likely should be transferred to an independent agency if integrity could not be improved. So these are not just my assessments. Folks with much higher education than myself are also seeing this study for what it really is.
So what does the VA/NAS/IOM connection that talks out of both sides of their mouth use to recommend
associations and compensations????? Nothing valid I can tell you that! Actual observed data (hard data) means nothing to this government collaboration and corruption.
The CDC studies were corrupted by the Reagan/Bush White House, the Ranch Hand as you can see does not even apply (although it could with some truth behind it), much less the way it was formatted, and the VA study is less than forth coming. Once again, despite the obvious cohort issues in the Ranch Hand study the VA, on purpose, selected those Veterans that sprayed in Vietnam and compared those that sprayed in the United States. Kind of like my analogy of the pharmaceutical company studies above. Even though it was recommended that they use a "toxic chemical free Veterans cohort group" they did not. Went out of their way to select those that also were associated by MOS to toxic chemicals. Once again, exonerating the government, as well as the chemical companies.
In fact, even though Ranch Hand did find a few cancers. I for one did not expect them to find many of the issues as the guys in the field, especially in the form of cancers.
The method of ingestion plays a role in what will develop. You only have to look under your sink at home and see the toxic chemicals you have and how skin exposure is fairly benign but drink it and you have a whole different ball game.
As far as dose rates and threshold rates I have discussed that before and this study has no business setting some magical cut off rate for anything since they are all assumptions. In fact, the EPA our real toxicology experts for the rest of the nation have concluded that for many of these “dioxin only associated issues,” a dose in the parts per quadrillion may have a long-term impact depending on many other variables that are more associated to the individual not the human genotype in general.
The above is just a small portion of what they actually found. What they did not report are such issues as endocrine disturbances in the thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH), at least a 50% increase in birth defects, short-term memory loss related to dioxin and even; number of days of exposures, significant increase in many neuropsychological disorders, degenerating neurological disorders, etc.
Now those of you with children with birth defects would wonder how they could not report a more than 50% increase in birth defects. (Which by the way was known in 1984) I would say simply because it did not show a correlation with a linear dioxin response which was mandated by your own government that you served with honor and valor. But that came later on. They actually found this in 1984 yet it was deleted from the initial report release. The draft had it but the official release took it out.
Then the scientists came forwarded, that had some integrity, and stated that this was wrong that they indeed had found almost double what they thought they would find.
Now thinking like these pinheads think; if it was all spina bifida don't you think they would have finally come clean on this issue and stated see we told you so!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is only spina bifida to worry about. Of course that has not happened and it never will because that indeed is not factual. Spina Bifida is a tip of the iceberg in birth defects alone.
Never mind the fact that the "entire group" was Vietnam Veterans and served in a toxic chemical environment and had this kind of birth defects increase. Found in those that were just exposed by skin contact only.
I wonder how our civilian counterparts would react to the government covering up a double increase in birth defects? Probably would be hell to pay at the voting booth for some folks, including mass protests.
This study and this DOD announcement is nothing but misstated facts, lies, and failure to report what they actually found!
Best to all,