Personal Challenge to the Secretary of VETERANS AFFAIRS AND CONGRESSIONAL leaders on

the senate and house veterans affairs committee

ON THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED AND FUNDED RANCH HAND STUDY 

 

 

ABSTRACT: {challenges on the VERACITY of the “government CONTROLLED” and funded Ranch Hand study; the impacts to the VIETNAM Veterans and their family due to the controlled processes by department of VETERANS Affairs.  as well as, GOVERNMENT caused mortality and morbidity DECISIONS affect Vietnam VETERANS by NAS/IOM personnel ASSUMING this “gold standard study” did ACTUALLY have some level of veracity, INTEGRITY, and factual STATISTICS.}

 

 

3 December 2006

 

To: Senators, Congresspersons, Government decision makers, and Congressional Staff Members

 

CO Mr. Jeff Phillips

Communications Director

House Veterans Affairs Committee

U.S. House of Representatives

335 Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC  20515

For Congressman Buyer

 

Congressman Bob Filner

Incoming Democratic Chairman

House Veterans Affairs Committee

U.S. House of Representatives

2428 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC  20515

 

CO Mr. Jeff Schade

Communications Director

Senate Veterans Affairs Committee

412 Russell
Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510

For Senator Craig

 

 

Senator Daniel Akaka

Incoming Democratic Chairmen

Senate Veterans Affairs Committee

Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510

 

 Mr. Len Sistek

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Veterans Affairs

Oversight and Investigations

Room 333

Cannon House Office Building

Washington, DC  20515

 

Mr. Chris McNamee

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Veterans Affairs

Professional Staff Member

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance

337 Cannon HOB

Washington, DC 20515

 

Mr. William McLemore

Deputy Assistant Secretary

Intergovernmental and International Affairs

Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue N.W. Suite 915

Washington, DC 20420

 

Mr. Jim Nicholson

Secretary - Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Room 1000
Washington, D.C. 20420

 

Mr. David Abbot

Staff Member

Compensation & Pension Service

VA Central Office

810 Vermont Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20420

 

Ms. Renee L. Szybala

Director

Compensation & Pension Service

VA Central Office

810 Vermont Avenue,

Washington, D.C. 20420

 

Dr. Michelle Catlin, PhD

National Academy of Sciences
500 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

 

 

FROM:

Please respond to: 

Charles Kelley

2078 Eastwood Drive,

Snellville, GA 30078

SP5Kelley2nd94th@aol.com

Cell: 404-641-6477

 

Subject: The VERACITY of the government CONTROLLED and funded Ranch Hand study and the mortality and morbidity impacts to the Vietnam Veteran and his or her family via the tainted NAS/IOM –Department of Veterans Affairs decisions.

 

For more than 40 years, there has been a history of a tainted government philosophy and decisions regarding the Vietnam Veterans Toxic Chemicals Legacy.  These tainted decisions, supported by congress and presidents from the mid 1960's to the present, by NAS/IOM and Department of Veterans Affairs based on the lack of accuracy and the flawed premises of the 25-year, 140 million dollar, “government exoneration tool” known as the “RANCH HAND STUDY.”

 

For the past 25 years, this study has not given the Vietnam Veterans and their families a fair assessment and data flow for birth defects, cancers, heart disease, vascular disease, neurological ailments, endocrine disturbances, and hematological difficulties.  (Dr. Richard Albanese, principal Ranch Hand study investigative scientist, under oath during the 2000 Ranch Hand Oversight Committee)

 

More recently the media reports in at least two separate accounts quotes by several of the more recent current Ranch Hand PhD scientist members also as now concluding Ranch Hand is, was, and has been flawed in its conclusions and outcomes.  Even in the most benign form of exposures the Ranch Handers, the study failed to report at least a two fold increase in any type of cancer.

 

It is doubtful this is unexpected news by those that are in control of the Department of Veterans Affairs and it is doubtful the White House would be totally surprised by this new scientific revelation. 

 

This news is not unexpected by the Vietnam Veterans of our nation nor is this unexpected news by the surviving widows and orphans of these government caused cancers.

 

In addition, outside the discussion on the flaws of the Ranch Hand study we now find VA's own study of Army Chemical Corps workers demonstrate the following:

 

"Almost three decades after Vietnam service," the researchers conclude, "US Army veterans who were occupationally exposed to phenoxyherbicide in Vietnam experienced significantly higher risks of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and non-malignant lung diseases than other veterans who were not exposed to herbicides."

 

"The researchers analyzed the effects of Vietnam service and herbicide exposure separately, and found that hepatitis was the only health problem linked to serving in Vietnam per se."

 

Ranch Hand found the same issues of higher risks of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and non-malignant lung diseases to what is under the umbrella in the medical world of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD).

 

All of these same diseases and disorders were found as higher Risk Ratios in the Seveso, Italy study that did not contain toxic chemical workers; but only citizens of that local area; including the found distribution point which by default equals at least a semblance of a dose threshold.

 

Both Korean epidemiological studies of their Vietnam ground troops in I corps and II Corps also found significant increases in the same disorders plus more in the form of immunotoxicity disorders, which again by default is probably "at least as likely as not" the shorter term disorder leading to>>>>>>> the longer term cancers (all cancer sites) and cardiovascular disorders.  It should be noted here that the Korean study did not down select by Military Occupational Specialty (MOS).  Therefore, those studies certainly provides an insight into the "Boots on the Ground Veterans" and clearly not those only associated by skin exposures that did not live, fight, and were wounded in the toxic chemical government created battlefield environment.

 

An announcement on 3 December 2006: 

 

What are the possible health effects of Dioxin exposures?

 

At high enough levels, dioxins can cause cancer in humans.  They can also damage the nervous system, weaken the immune system, and alter menstrual cycles.

 

Dioxins have caused cardiovascular and respiratory problems, skin disease, birth defects, and other conditions in laboratory animals.

 

SOURCES: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

 

Yet, The Department of Veterans Affairs along with the government contracted NAS/IOM continually denies any and all dioxin associations to our Veterans’ damaged nervous system (Central or Peripheral and/or Both), many cancers, and the damages to our Immune System resulting in many many forms and medical outcomes of both cancers, smoldering cancers, leukemia’s, and debilitating autoimmune disorders.

 

How can this continual government denial possibly take place?

 

With the new, not unexpected, revelations of not only the Flawed Ranch Hand Study and the new admissions by Dr. Kang of cardiovascular and the pulmonary issues - How can this continual government denial possibly take place?

 

Perhaps it was the toxic chemical environmental suits the warriors wore in the form of Army jungle fatigues or Marine utilities.  

 

Depending on when in the life cycle impacts of the exposures the study finds the victim is certainly an impact data point in establishing our Veterans continuing battle with dioxins and dioxin like furans.  Dioxins and dioxin like furans and different dioxin isomers used at the same time this government used on them in unprecedented chemical toxicity values of the chemicals themselves*.  Then used unprecedented application rates of 6 to 25 times the normal amount recommended in civilian applications per acre of land.

 

*  The chemical company, DOW, stated in 1964 that when the dioxin levels rose above 1 part per million (ppm) during the manufacturing process this could result in "general organ toxicity" as well as "psychopathological" and "other systemic" problems.  Years after our war was over in sampling the left over barrels of the Rainbow Herbicides the samples ranged from .35 ppm to 74 ppm.  Obviously much higher than DOW found in 1964, that could cause systemic problems. 

 

Then Senators, Congresspersons, Government decision makers, and Congressional Staff Members do not forget this sampling was over a decade after our war.  Toxic chemicals in the environment have a rated half-life in the environment under various environmental conditions.  Such as in drift air, moist soil environment, ground water, or even the underground aquifer water supplies.  Science has concluded, also the value used in Ranch Hand studies, that the half-life of the dioxin, TCDD in the human body is seven to eleven years.  Therefore, even in a storage environment under certain temperature ranges toxic chemicals have a shelf life of potency.  In other words, under that condition there is a related half-life no different than a form of nuclear contamination of a certain radioactive material such as U235 isotope in comparison with a U238 isotope.

 

Senators, Congresspersons, Government decision makers, and Congressional Staff Members I am sure that you are aware the Military does not procure anything without a government nomenclature that relates back to an Federal Stock Number, Government Specification, Government Source Control, etc.  Within this hierarchy of documentation and nomenclature, there are rules for marking and identifying.  Included in this hierarchy there are rules for lot date codes - Federal Supplier Code of Manufacturers (FSCM's), which by default, gives not only the parent manufacturer but also the location of product manufacture.

 

It is unclear as to whether this was even considered when I read the sampling procedures of the stored barrels after our war was over. 

 

In other words, Veterans because of the lack of honesty by our government not only do not know what was measured but when was the product made and by whom.  Chemical production lots vary and certainly chemical lots by manufacture vary.  The question is by how much.  Since the government/VA mandates we Veterans and our widows provide a well-grounded claim.  If we are not allowed the data then how can we fight our own government with well grounded claims in what seems to be a totally biased subject of death and disability.

 

As I was reading the sampling procedures reported and the results there was question as to which of the herbicides was being measured.  This was after the toxicity was found to been much higher than expected.  The Air Force simply stated the higher reading was because of some marked drums had been switched and some Agent Orange marked barrels had Agent Purple in them.  Of course, the government and the IOM took the lower residual dioxin; TCDD measurement in order to deny our many causations, which the Air Force (a major player) and explainer of these found so-called abnormal measurements had concluded "was appropriate."

 

"Trust us" - in this issue no longer works for Veterans and their widows and orphans!

 

 This data could also lead to found chemical company fraud if the government specified a level, the vendor specified a certificate of conformance (CoC) with each lot and measurements to that level of those lot date codes but the sampling years of those lot date codes proved vendor fraudulent certifications.  We know for a fact the processes were changed to allow for a higher rate of production and to reduce government cost.  What we do not know is the impacts to the humans and the increase in dioxin, TCDD levels.

 

Then Senators, Congresspersons, Government decision makers, and Congressional Staff Members one must look at the DOW statement with a sense of fraud and misleading the world of science.  During the time this statement was made, Test, Evaluation, and Measurement equipment (TE&M) could only detect down to a level of 1 ppm.  Therefore, the chemical companies in fact had no scientific idea at what minimum level of toxicity they were seeing in "general organ toxicity" as well as "psychopathological" and "other systemic" problems.

 

Senators, Congresspersons, Government decision makers, and Congressional Staff Members this VA study by Dr. Kang of the VA, while it did find some issues Veterans and their widows have been saying for years were associated to the toxic chemicals.  The study in its statements of phone call interviews of non chemical workers found an increased risk ratio for these disorders and then reported the association was not significant with a p-value of association established at a stated p>0.05.  In a controlled setting or data that was not over four decades old the world significant standard of the comparison results occurring by chance alone of p= 0.05 would be more than likely appropriate. 

 

However, with the unknowns of the dioxin, TCDD; the unknowns of synergy values, the unknowns of Veterans even realizing they were contaminated in many ways outside of standing under a overhead plane, including it may even be what years the Veteran was there, which could be a huge minimization factor, and many other unknowns the governments data point of p > 0.05 is not acceptable. 

 

The real data in this case should be made public and what the actual p value was and how that p value was calculated.  If we have Odds Ratio's above 1 and we have a p-value of hypothetically p-0.065 with all the unknowns after a study done 40 years after our war was over: does our Congress now do nothing??

 

Does not congress have the right to order compensations and indemnity based on Veterans scientific data.  Does not congress in oversight have that right to at least look and listen to the Veterans side and not the biased government/VA side?

 

President Clinton stated in his award of some Agent Orange medical issues as "associated issues" back in 1996 that Veterans had tried to tell this government of what they were experiencing and his direct comment was "that the government did not listen."  I think I can speak for at least those Army and Marine Veterans that fought in I Corps against overwhelming North Vietnam Army (NVA) numbers that "this government is still not listening to the Nations Veterans and the their widows and orphans" - the direct victims and the indirect victims.

 

Does Congress now just dismiss the dead, dying, and disabled because a few may have developed the medical issues from something else or perhaps a smaller dose in the 1980's that was cumulative to his government caused toxic chemical ingestions during wartime.  On the other hand, because of all the unknowns science is at a loss to even define the conditions, 40 years later in order to achieve a valid positive.  It seems Congress has done exactly that.

 

This VA study has many Veterans questions that need to be answered by someone as to the real results and exactly how this data was done in order to make sure the negative found against those in Vietnam that did not spray Agent Orange is even applicable.  Especially in those areas the study found elevated in many of the same ICD medical areas as those that sprayed.  With the only association difference, being the p-value found as association to exposure.  Most especially if the p-value found is the range that VA itself in USC 38 clearly states in legal terms can be found to be a positive finding for service connection for death and disability specifically regarding herbicide exposures.

 

The data by many studies conclude the same thing the latest VA study found and in some cases, a literal dose threshold could be applied to those accidents that had a central contamination point such as Seveso, Italy.  Unlike the government who uses Odds Ratios (OR) these scientists chose to use Risk Ratio (RR) which certainly gives a more understandable evaluation of those that are dead, dying, and sick of the given population.

 

The above VA scenario is reminiscent of the Ranch Hand statements that the p-value was on the "low end of significant."  Veterans do not know what  "low end of significant" means in scientific values and how that applies to some decision to service connection, most especially when the Odds Ratios are elevated.  That would indicate we now are talking about three levels or more of significance, which seems to be government manipulative at best in determining a defined valid associations to anything.

 

Our Veterans and widows are continually denied "service connection" by the Department of Veterans Affairs on behalf of the Executive Branch for these disability disorders as well as mortality.

 

What is even more amazing is that this VA study actually states a found association to Hepatitis and Military Service in Vietnam.  Yet, Congress as well as the VA has been denying these hepatic medical outcomes in our Vietnam Servicemen for over four decades that by hard data of patients, victims, and dead Veterans demonstrated years ago as an incredible increase in any segment of the population.  Instead, the government has blamed this on the Veteran and not taken responsibility, which this study says is not associated to the chemicals.  Yet, these chemicals remain one difference between this war and other wars were the hepatic disorders did not exist in the numbers our Vietnam Veterans have experienced.  Ranch Hand also found a hepatic issue in gamma glutamyl peptidyl transferase (GGT) liver enzymes associated to a linear factor of the dioxin, TCDD.  Yet, this found medical issue is dismissed at that point in time because the Veteran had not developed an ICD medical code.  Increases in GGT are certainly associated with both hepatitis as well as blockage of the bile ducts from fatty deposits leading to liver cancer.  Our own Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated many times that dioxin exposures are associated to fatty liver deposits in the liver blocking bile and then creating many hepatic issues in not only the liver but other organs as well; due to the damage to the liver.

 

I would argue with the VA and the Congress based on some other studies, given a venue to do so, that the hepatic problems found indeed "is at least as likely as not" are associated with the dioxin exposures.  Regardless of what caused it our Veterans need the help of congress in demanding the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs add this to the "automatically associated" to wartime service list of medical disorders.

 

This latest media revelation is nothing new to the Veterans and their families who have contended all along "the increased risk of incidence" of those disorders found by VA itself was directly related to the wartime service in a toxic chemical environment.  In fact, many more medical issues also, by other studies, have shown a "significant statistical association" to not only these newly identified medical disorders but other medical disorders as well.  In 2000, these issues were also brought forward before the congressional oversight committee by Dr. Richard Albanese as to the many body systems that were being damaged.  ("I perceive seriously inadequate data flow to veterans concerning heart disease, vascular disease, neurological ailments, endocrine disturbances and hematological difficulties.")

 

{Copies of media releases, scientists’ comments, and conclusions will be provided in my submittal.  Please note the comments from the Air Force, a government major player, about destroying the data and not including mention of it in the final report!}  {Have we finally reached the point of total open government criminal behavior against the Veterans of the Nation?}

 

It is also put forward that if Ranch Hand found an “unreported double increase,” then those exposed by more readily absorbed methods (lung and gastrointestinal) would result in a higher than double increase.

 

In some instances, Ranch Hand scientists concluded that one reason the cancers were not significant in the Ranch Hand Cohorts was the Ranch Handers were dying from the afore-mentioned heart disease found in the VA study before cancer could even manifest.  Not a comforting thought for those Veterans that served this Nation with honor and integrity that they are dying from cardiovascular issues before they have time to develop mortality from the cancer issues, all of which is being denied by VA and our government.  Of course, now we now know that the statistics in the Ranch Hand towards all cancers was diluted based on the recent admission of study scientists.

 

Other studies such as Seveso, Italy and studies that demonstrate a statistical comparative analysis of the worst exposures also conclude years ago that cancer outcomes from dioxin, TCDD exposures were not limited to any cancer sites with little difference found in one cancer site versus all cancer sites.

 

This is primarily due to the known scientific fact that unlike some toxic chemicals these dioxins when entering and being stored in body fat do many things in parallel.  Therefore, the outcomes would be exponential of a toxic substance that only does one thing, with a short half-life, and is expelled from the body in a relative short amount of time of days or months.  Unlike the Veterans' dioxin exposure case of seven to eleven years before the dioxin even reaches a half-life of toxicity.

 

It is also noted that unlike some other toxins and toxic chemicals, dioxins are set apart as they modify cells, not kill them.  Dioxins and like chemicals modify human cells to the point that they in turn become the killers of other human cells and tissue as a secondary indirect response to the toxic chemical exposures.  Science has proven that dioxin and dioxin like furans modify the cell receptors.  Since all organs and body system cells have receptors, it would be scientifically illogical to now say that dioxin and dioxin like furans binds to only specific particular cell receptors and not any cell receptors producing an exponential outcome of medical conditions 

 

Dioxins like TCDD become chronic cumulative over life such as in mercury/lead poisoning with the Veterans service in Vietnam certainly considered an acute exposure with the level of toxicity and dose rate to which the Veterans were exposed.  Add the failure of congress to protect the rest of our nations citizens from dioxins and closely related dioxin-like furans from chemical company poisoning and the Veterans Vietnam exposures become the life catalyst for the development of cancer with the additional accumulated amounts over that life.

 

Quantitative analysis (provided with this challenge) clearly demonstrates that even doubling minuscule amounts over life at 5 ppt to 10 ppt increases cancer risk at about 1.2 to 1.3 %  This study also demonstrates there does not seemed to be a threshold model that works demonstrating there is no threshold of exposure below there was no cancer risk.  This study also demonstrates that there is not any particular cancer site elevated to other cancers and resulted in a demonstration of all cancer sites elevated.   This quantitative analysis also indicates there does not seemed to be some form of linear expression which NAS/IOM and Department of Veterans Affairs have been mandating be demonstrated in order for the Veteran/Veterans family to receive mortality and morbidity compensations.  Neither Veterans nor their widows can prove something that science itself indicates does not exist nor should they be asked to do the impossible by our government and its controlling federal agencies.

 

While this study done in 2003 used background exposure levels at 5 ppt the EPA in 2005 concluded the background levels verified by human tissue data at present are decreasing due to tighter regulations the levels in 1980 were 55 ppt decreasing to 25 ppt by the mid 1990's.  

 

With new publicly admitted-to flaws in this study used as a “government gold standard” to deny mortality and morbidity compensations for those harmed by our own government while in military service to this nation, all work done since 1991 by the NAS/IOM should be reviewed.  The review process should then determine whether these unreported findings and flaws would have changed the outcomes of what now must be considered as “tainted NAS/IOM decisions and recommendations.”

 

On March 15, 2000, the government held an important oversight government meeting to discuss status of the Ranch Hand Study.  Out of 62 members of the “Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations” and “The Committee of Government Reform,” only three congressmen bothered to show up to challenge this study.  It certainly appeared the DOD, VA, and the NAS/IOM wanted no congressional oversight and no answers since the war had been over for three decades.

 

When Congressman Shays asked the NAS representative, Dr. David Butler, Senior Program Officer under oath:

 

“Is there any scientific level that we could turn to, short of 99 percent, which would give us some way to come to a conclusion here?”

 

The leader for the IOM that makes recommendations for mortality and morbidity associations and compensations for our Nations Toxic Chemical Exposed Veterans said:

 

“The policy decisions are very clearly outside of the mandate for the committees, and the committees have never offered an opinion on the policy decisions, which are made on the basis of that.”

 

Then Congressman Shays asked, “Are you refusing to give your opinion? 

 

Dr. Butler then said, it is the VA’s job to do that as far as policy as to level of certainty.

 

The VA leader that was there, Dr. Susan Mather, Chief Public Health, and Environmental Hazards Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs simply stated congress had given the “sole power” to the Secretary of the VA and that they had accepted all that the IOM had recommended.

 

The bottom line was not one person would say at what level the associations to the toxic chemicals were actually being held.  Furthermore, no one pointed out that only the dioxin TCDD was being considered by VA and Ranch Hand.

 

To say the least, the above statement is not very comforting to Veterans or their widows.

 

One of the Ranch Hand scientific leaders then admitted under oath they were still indeed looking for “cause and effect” and that “he thought congress” had wanted the Veterans to have some other form of “benefit of the doubt” other than “cause and effect” but he was not real clear on what that was and where that fit into the scheme of things regarding recommendations for compensations. 

 

The above statement is also not very comforting to Veterans or their widows.

 

Does anyone in our government have a straight answer on this subject for the GOVERNMENT CAUSED DEAD, DYING, AND DISABLED VETERANS OF OUR NATION? 

 

The conclusion has to be NO! 

 

Congressman Shays during this 2000 Ranch Hand oversight review stated:  “We (Congress) just do not want to wait until they die before we help them (Veterans)."  "At what level do you think Government should consider compensation?”  "Should we (Government) have no shadow of a doubt?" 

 

"The reason why I am asking this question is I have concluded, based on our work that we have done on gulf war illnesses, based on our review of Agent Orange, that I have to be honest with our veterans.  By the time we will know the scientific data, you are dead.  You will either have died early or you will have died in your old age in pain, but you will not get help from the Federal Government."  (Quote by Congressman Shays)

 

Yet, it seems for 40 years the above questions and summary by Congressman Shays is exactly what our government has been doing - directed at the highest level.

 

Congress must make sure this review is an independent review as free of White House and Department of Veterans Affairs control as possible.  Veterans and their families no longer trust the Department of Veterans Affairs to do an unbiased review of anything that impacts Veterans on behalf of White House leadership.  Otherwise, outcomes will be similar to the court findings in 1989 that the Department of Veterans Affairs (the old VA) was too stringent in their demands (cause and effect) for association and that all that needed to be demonstrated was either an “increased risk of incidence” or a “significant correlation.”

 

The court then ordered all decisions and reviews by the then Veterans Administration Committee on Environmental Hazards VACEH {1979-1991} (some of them had previously worked for and represented chemical companies even in other court cases) to be reevaluated based on the newly defined rule for “associations” as opposed to the unrealistic rules of association demanded by the White House controlled VA.

 

This court order was never done or appealed.  Instead, the VA just dumped the VACEH and the NAS/IOM bias was then contracted to make two-year recommendations.

 

We do not need a repeat government performance while congress sits back and allows this to happen as Veterans go uncompensated in death and disability.  It is put forth that NAS/IOM cannot be trusted to review its own tainted work.

 

It is also put forth that White House directed Department of Veterans Affairs could not be trusted to review such new protocols.

 

There are however, a few scientists that Veterans and their families would trust to make honest assessments in any review of this issue.  These would include:

 

Dr. Linda Schwartz

Dr. Linda Birnbaum

Dr. Jeanne Stellman

Dr. Ron Trewyn

 

Although in this case as Dr. Trewyn pointed out it does not take a PhD to see the flaws, as it does not meet the smell test.

 

There are several Veterans that have researched this topic for decades and they would be useful in any review.  They also would demand that our congress fund any review because a history of biases exists against our nation's Veterans.  It would also be expected that these members be paid a salary commensurate with the GOP initiated present Veterans' Disability Commission members and staff.

 

When Veterans find that a White House memo was put out to all federal agencies in the early 1980's that in essence instructed them not to find any health associations to the Veterans and their toxic chemical exposure for the reasons of:

 

• The cost of supporting the Veterans

• The cost that would be incurred by the chemical companies

 

Would anyone conclude from the above memo Veterans and their widows have come close to getting any kind of "fair assessment" related to their medical issues from wartime service in Vietnam in a government created toxic chemicals environment?  I think not!

  

Then we have Congressional House Report 101-672:

 

1990 -“Charges of a White House cover-up have been substantiated by report, HR 101- 672, from the House Government Operations Committee.  That report, released August 9, 1990, charges that officials in the Reagan administration purposely "controlled and obstructed" a federal Agent Orange study in 1987 because it did not want to admit government liability in cases involving the toxic herbicides.”  (HR 101-672 “The Agent Orange cover-up: a case of flawed science and political manipulation.”) 

 

Would any member of congress trust the White House directed Department of Veterans Affairs to do the right thing by Veterans and their widows?  If you would, given your own congressional reports, Veterans would certainly like a congressional explanation.

 

I also will be supplying for congressional review a complete history of how tainted this process has been FROM THE START (Attachment 1) as well as Ranch Hand misconduct charges under sworn testimony in oversight (2000) to the congress, which in turn did nothing to counter the government scientific misconduct against the USED UP OBSOLETE GOVERNMENT ASSETS – THE GOVERNMENT CAUSED DYING AND DISABLED VETERANS OF OUR NATION. 

 

The search for latent illnesses associated with exposures, directly or indirectly, to “herbicides” in our Veterans Toxic Chemicals Legacy demands persistence, confronting hard truths, and above all integrity. 

 

Veterans should not be subjected to a lesser underground form of government where the Secretary of the VA can be all forms of government to these men and women to include the legislative, executive, and even judicial branch; even becoming in effect the Veterans Supreme Court and then not have any accountability to anyone except the president who also has a conflict of interest.

 

I do not think that is what our constitution had in mind as any form of justice by our government or separation of power towards its citizen militia.  
 

Vietnam Veterans are proud of their heritage, service, honor, valor, and integrity.  In our eyes, this nation's government betrayed us and we are living with that fact for over 40 years now.  It is ironic that the distortion of facts and continued cover-up regarding dioxin and its use has killed and/or disabled more of us than enemy inflicted deaths did on the battlefield's of Vietnam.

 

With the latest public release of these Ranch Hand study flaws and the prior history of this study being an exoneration tool, the United States Government and its congress has failed and continues to fail miserably with purpose and intent in these issues.

 

I think I speak for most Vietnam Veterans and Vietnam Veterans widows at least in the I Corps AO (of which I am familiar with the spray areas, levels of spray, and types of spray) where my guys and my Marines fought and died.  Some died trying to get toxic chemical laden water for themselves and their comrades. 

 

I am asking, (no I am now begging which makes me sick I have to beg for anything from our government - I and we did nothing wrong yet we have to beg), that the new majority will at least let me informally brief both the Chair in the House and the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (VAC) or at least a representative from those chairmanships along with the oversight investigative personnel.  Including, any Congressperson or Senator on the VAC that would be interested in hearing our side.  This should also include those Congresspersons or Senators or their representatives from the Government Reform Committees.

 

Senator Akaka, you along with Congressman Lane Evans supported my single challenge on peripheral neuropathy to the Department of Veterans Affairs that is just rampant in our Vietnam Veterans.

 

Congressman Filner I met you in DC a few years back, which I doubt you, would remember.  I have been trying to do exactly what you suggested to get someone's attention in our Congress and our Senate.  Apparently, for two years now I have failed at my continual attempts to provide data and facts that apparently no one in government that wants to neither hear nor are they interested.

 

My own Republican Senators and Congressperson from the state of Georgia are not even interested in Veterans Affairs even though Senator Isakson sits on the Senate VAC.  Certainly, I have challenged them to a local meeting to present and was refused.  Therefore, in any elections they have now lost my vote.

 

I need to give credit and thanks to the past DC meeting personnel that attended my single 10 minute briefing on the peripheral neuropathy issue of Colonel Jeff Phillips, Communications Director: VA's Mr. Bill McLemore; and Mr. Len Sistek, Oversight and Investigations that listened to the data and read the data I submitted which lead to a letter from the 109th Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

 

I know both the new Chairs are at least willing to listen as I have seen this demonstrated on the CSPAN coverage of your VAC meetings.

 

Please, please give me four hours as a minimum to convince you and your associates with real data and statistics that there are many more disorders and cancers that are "at least as likely as not" associated to our Vietnam Veterans Toxic Chemical Legacy.

 

The study data is overwhelming that demonstrates "it is at least as likely as not" the disorders that many of our Vietnam Veterans have developed that are not at present found associated are indeed medically, statistically, and scientifically associated to the direct government exposures, or the increased baseline of exposures in Vietnam, to many of the herbicides used.

 

Since dioxins and dioxin like furans are chronic dose cumulative over life, this also must be considered.  You do not discount some civilian that lived in a toxic chemical cumulative dose rate environment and then moved away since the toxic chemical ingested at the former site was the cumulative baseline causation of the later developed disorder.  This scenario should also not be mandated for our Vietnam Veterans where the Department of Veterans Affairs has time limits on removal from the one government caused environment and then discounts the cumulative issues over life to which the entire U.S. Population is exposed due to chemical companies less then forthcoming admittance of toxicity caused medical issues.

 

As Dr. Trewyn concluded, common sense should be used here along with the facts of dioxins and dioxin like furans do not produce some immediate antigenic response.

 

I ask again for an informal meeting to try and represent my Army guys and my Marines in this issue.  It will cost the government nothing except four hours of your time, as I will come at my own expense anytime, anywhere you choose.  Including if we have a successful meeting I will return after addressing any issues you choose or at least send in the requested or additional data for the VAC's review and official record.

 

I also inform you that over 1,000 Veterans and Widows on my e-mail list, plus those cumulative amounts of their own e-mail lists which is exponential as you can identify with, and those Veterans and Widows that happen to bring up my website posting: http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/RanchHandCancer.htm are watching your response to my challenge and request.

 

It should also be noted that while the media did not give Veterans and their Widows the credit for the incoming majority success.  I can tell you that many on my list that were republican did not support the republican candidate.  In fact, many of those that were republican, actually worked for the democratic challenger instead - becoming independent politically.

 

This is primarily, at least in part, due to our e-mail and phone conversations, my data, my published book, my appeals and data to the republican led majorities and the lack of action on their part to what Veterans perceive as their issues which seem to be opposite of what the GOP, VA, and our government perceive as our Veterans and Widows issues.

 

Question to me by a Marine Squad Leader, I Corps Vietnam

 

Why does our government beat the drums of war and then shun the warrior?

 

My personal answer based on research:  The government cost of supporting the warriors due to the government’s own mistakes.

 

Sincerely, 

 

Charles W.  Kelley

Snellville, GA

DMZ Vietnam 67-68

 

 

 

 

Twenty five years ago, the Air Force began a 25-year, $140 million research program to assess the relative

health of 1,300 ranch hands, air and ground crew members who handled and sprayed Agent Orange and other

herbicide defoliants in Vietnam.  The Ranch Hand Study was designed to generate significant scientific data and

analysis to be used by the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA], and others in making health care and compensation decisions regarding Vietnam Veterans.

 

Nevertheless, according the General Accounting Office [GAO], Ranch Hand has been slow to publish findings, unwilling to share data, inconsistent in conveying design limitations, and resistant to congressionally mandated participation by independent parties.

 

Controversial from the outset, the Ranch Hand study has been consistently criticized for both scientific and administrative shortcomings.  Many believe Ranch Hand has so far failed to fulfill its promise as the pivotal longitudinal study of herbicide toxicity.  Some conclude it never will.  Others believe this research was designed to fail, or manipulated to avoid controversial findings.

Senator Daschle concluded when the first report was released in 1984 when compared to the original scientific draft that this was not just an interpretation of the medical facts found but also the “perpetration of fraudulent government conclusions.”