to the 110th united states congress


a LOGICAL challenge on the ‘FERES doctrine’ (FERES); Department of defense collusion and the resulting effects on the united states Veterans past, PRESENT, and future.


this portion of the FERES challenge is PRIMARILY REFERENCED TO the VIETNAM VETERANS Toxic chemical herbicides legacy - 1962 to present



14 FEBRUARY 2007



Are the Nation's Veterans now our Government's Enemy for telling "The Truth" about how we are treated by “Elected and Appointed”

Government Representatives?








Should Americas’ Sons and Daughters that served in the military past, present, and future take to heart that our government meant exactly what Henry Kissenger as Secretary of State and a leader in the Executive Branch of many Presidential White Houses stated in 1979 when he let the “real governmental Military/Veteran philosophy” out of the preverbal biased government conspiratorial bag: 


“Military men are dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy.”


Should the military of our nation with the above statement now also conclude; with the additional treatment by the United States Government Executive Branch over the past five decades in their “authorized DOD lab rat usage”(See Attachment 1) afforded the DOD by the Congressionally adopted Feres Doctrine; or what can only be described as government collusions and scientific misconduct against those that proudly served in Vietnam as Toxic Chemical Victims; or those that performed admirably during Gulf War 1 and returned dying and disabled; this is what Congress wants for the Nations most Noble of all citizens?


It seems the congressional touting of our Veterans and the “Appreciation of Their Service” is only so much official election propaganda and is the direct opposite of the MOTTO of one our honorable serving Army Artillery Battalions (8/4).


“Deeds not Words!”


VETERANS have seen the CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS for over five decades now, as:


only “words not deeds!”



Discussions and challenges on the following high level Mass Veterans’ Issues is presented by Charles W. Kelley, Vietnam Veteran and author of “Vietnam’s Rain; Agents Orange, White, and Blue (Weapons of Mass Destruction)”










1.      Unconstitutionality of a “Legislative/Executive Branch” working doctrine (defacto laws and defacto legal system) and philosophy created and used against any one segment of United States Citizens.


2.      The combinational unconstitutional effects of the FERES Doctrine; United States Code (USC) 38, paragraph 511; and the legal system (Board of Veterans Appeals) established to directly stem the onslaught of Veterans and Veterans Widows claims for toxic chemical mortality and morbidity caused by the United States Government.  A combination of unconstitutional government control which by default, removes the Veteran and his family from the guaranteed constitutional demanded and mandated “Legal Justice for All.” 


3.      Impacts of government caused toxic chemical damages to the Vietnam Era Veteran and the Veterans family.


4.      SUMMARY




1.       The DOD authority to use Veterans as human lab rats reiterated in a DOD memo in 1953.




REFERENCE: DOD Secretary 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiments Memo pgs. 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)


  1. Comparisons of how the United States Government treated the attacks of 9/11 versus the mortality and morbidity caused by 10 years of militarized herbicide usage in a wartime environment.


  1. Recent Media Reports of flawed assumptions and findings






1.  Unconstitutionality of a Legislative/Executive Branch working doctrine and philosophy created and used against any one segment of United States Citizens.



In 1946, the Congress established legislation known as: The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).  The purpose of the FTCA was to shift the burden from Congress to the Federal Courts to examine tort claims against the Government.


 Under FTCA “The United States was no longer responsible for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces.”


What should be a “limited and clearly defined sovereign immunity” from such activities assumes “United States Government Integrity” in the application of the FTCA.


FTCA’s author, Representative Emmanuel Celler is quoted in the 1949 Yale Law Review:


"I am the author of the (Federal Tort Claims Act) ... I never intended to preclude a suit by a soldier.”




FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT - The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the federal government's sovereign immunity when its employees are negligent within the scope of their employment.  Under the FTCA, the government can only be sued 'under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.’  28 U.S.C. S 1346(b).  Thus, the FTCA does not apply to conduct that is uniquely governmental, that is, incapable of performance by a private individual.

28 U.S.C. S 2680(h) provides that the government is not liable when any of its agents commits the torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights.  However, it also provides an exception.  The government is liable if a law enforcement officer commits assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution.  The government is not liable if the claim against law enforcement officers is for libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract.  Congress has not waived the government's sovereign immunity against all law enforcement acts or omissions.

Furthermore, the FTCA is limited by a number of exceptions pursuant to which the government is not subject to suit, even if a private employer could be liable under the same
circumstances.  These exceptions include the discretionary function exception, which bars a claim 'based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be ABUSED.’  28 U.S.C. S 2680(a).

In order to determine whether conduct falls within the discretionary function exception, the courts must apply a two-part test established in Berkovitz v. U.S., 486 U.S. 531, 536 ('88).  See Kennewick Irrigation Dist. v. U.S., 880 F.2d 1018, 1025 (9th Cir.'89).  First, the question must be asked whether the conduct involved 'an element of judgment or choice.’  U.S. v. Gaubert, 499 U.S. 315, 322 ('91).  This requirement is not satisfied if a 'federal statute, regulation, or policy specifically prescribes a course of action for an employee to follow.’  Berkovitz, 486 U.S. at 536.  Once the element of judgment is established, the next inquiry must be 'whether that judgment is of the kind that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield' in that, it involves considerations of 'social, economic, and political policy.’  Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 322-23.

Absent specific statutes or regulations, where the particular conduct is discretionary, the failure of the government properly to train its employees who engage in that conduct is also discretionary.  See, e.g., Flynn v. U.S., 902 F.2d 1524 (10th Cir.'90) (failure of National Park Service to train its employees as to proper use of emergency equipment was discretionary).

The FTCA specifies that the liability of the U.S. is to be determined 'in accordance with the law of the place where the [allegedly tortuous] act or omission occurred.’  28 U.S.C. S 1346(b).  In an action under the FTCA, a court must apply the law the state courts would apply in the analogous tort action, including federal law.  See Caban v. U.S., 728 F.2d 68, 72 (2d Cir.'84); see also Richards v. U.S., 369 U.S. 1, 11-13 ('62).

Under California law, a California court would apply federal law to determine whether an arrest by a federal officer was legally justified and hence privileged. See Trenouth v. U.S., 764 F.2d 1305, 1307 (9th Cir.'85) (applying federal law in an FTCA action for false imprisonment to determine legality of arrest by Department of Defense officers in California); cf. Gasho v. U.S., 39 F.3d 1420, 1427-32 (9th Cir.'94) (applying federal law in FTCA false imprisonment action against federal customs officials to determine if probable cause justified arrest in Arizona).

A plaintiff cannot bring an FTCA claim against the United States based solely on conduct that violates the Constitution because such conduct may violate only federal, and not state, law.  See FDIC v. Meyer, 114 S.Ct. 996, 1001 ('94).

The substitution provision of the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act (FELRTCA) provides that upon certification by the Attorney General that the defendant employee was acting within the scope of his office or employment at the time of the incident out of which the claim arose . . . the United States shall be substituted as the party defendant.’  28 U.S.C. S 2679(d)(1).  The purpose of this amendment to the Federal Tort Claims Act was to 'remove the potential personal liability of Federal employees for common law torts committed within the scope of their employment, and . . . instead provide that the exclusive remedy for such torts is through an action against the United States under the FTCA.’  H.R. Rep. No. 700, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 4 (1988)

Under the FTCA, the U.S. is subject to liability for the negligence of an independent contractor only if it can be shown that the government had authority to control the detailed physical performance of the contractor and exercised substantial supervision over its day-to-day activities See U.S. v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 814-15 ('76); Letnes v. U.S., 820 F.2d 1517, 1519 (9th Cir.'87).


On December 4, 1950, the United States Supreme Court engaged in the most devastating unconstitutional act in our Nation’s history by creating “judicial-legislation” known as the “FERES Doctrine.”


Since that day in infamy, all American service members, veterans and their families have been stripped of, without their knowledge or consent, their inalienable Constitutional Rights to petition our government for redress of grievances arising “incident to service” in our military.  This Doctrine: as well as other government biased definitions and rules given to these executive branch agencies; has resulted in a long-train of human, constitutional, and systemic intentional abuses by the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Justice (DoJ), Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), and their appointed “Executive Branch agencies in maintaining a YEARLY mandated Veterans budget control in lieu of CONSTITUTIONAL justice for Americas Veterans and their families.


The logical person in the military, especially those that served in a combat environment, realize the intent of FTCA to protect those in such things as indicated:


Indicated:  {A dereliction or refusal of duty by an individual that caused a death or injury, friendly fire death and injuries, incompetence under fire of the person in command, etc, the Federal Government cannot be held responsible.}


The adopted FERES Doctrine has and continues to do so, assumes “United States Government Integrity” and lack of biases by the Executive Branch and various federal agencies that deal with Veterans (Department of Defense) and Veterans Issues (Department of Veterans Affairs) in the application of the doctrine and its IMPLIED philosophy.


Instead, a history of government protectionism application to escape the ramifications of Executive Branch government mistakes, crimes, mass government created deaths, and mass government created disabilities has taken place.  Taken place in generic high-level mass issues as well as specific cases to avoid financial responsibility for such government decisions and actions that resulted in death and disability of our Nations; now government considered “Obsolete Assets” segment of our society – “The United States Veteran.”  


Many federal judges, scholars, lawyers, doctors, veterans and their families argue that the FERES Doctrine is unconstitutional since it violates the “due process, equal protection and separation of powers” clauses of the Constitution. 


The most significant dissenter in modern times is sitting Supreme Court Justice Scalia as cited in the case of United States v. Johnson, (1987):


“FERES was wrongly decided and heartily deserves the widespread, almost universal criticism it has received.”  Furthermore, “Congress's inaction regarding this doctrine and its doing little, if anything in the way of modifying it to prevent Constitutional claims is clearly unjust and irrational.  Again, allowing such power to military leaders can and does result in abuse therefore, where are the checks and balances on the military.”


The issues of combat related injuries arising from combat issues are not in question here.


The FERES Doctrine is “judicial-legislation,” which under our Nations constitution is illegal.


With the protection of the FTCA and the FERES Doctrine afforded by this judicial-legislation to those engaged in decision-making process at the highest levels of government there has been little if any regard given to the long-term effects of those serving in the military with respect to areas of unknowns that even a slight risk of mortality or disability is in question.  No one in government can be held accountable and are considered totally “sovereign immunity decision-making bodies.” 


These decisions therefore are then “carelessly and irresponsibly” made at many levels of our government in its application of issues associated to the Military men and women.  (See Attachment 1 on the DOD Secretary allowing the radiation, chemical, and biological testing done on our Veterans.)


This doctrine would also assume no (zero) incompetence at any level of our government or its employees that caused death or disability (feigned and/or government directed).


Since the passing of this judicial-legislation, there has been a consistent and continuous Department of Defense history (Executive Branch) of abuses of the military men and women in such issues as:  Mustard Gas and Toxins testing, Nuclear Testing, LSD Testing, Project 112 and SHAD Biological Chemical Warfare testing, Edgewood Arsenal Testing, the use of toxic chemical herbicides (plural) at unprecedented toxicity and dose levels, and the possible mortality and morbidity impacts of thousands of rounds of Depleted Uranium in one concentrated area of the battlefield or other issues associated with the returning Gulf War Veterans who were sick, disabled, and dying.      


It is argued that if the FERES Doctrine were abolished the federal laws on the books to remedy fraud, waste, abuse, government entity collaborations and/or collusion, or dangers to the public health and welfare would be enforced, thus compelling the Government to prosecute rather than defend crimes.  Including those government crimes that go on for decades in denial of even taking place or when finally admitted to, when denial is no longer plausible and the evidence has been leaked to the point of demanding admittance of such facts.


Examples below document recent congressional attempts at getting the information from the DoD on behalf of those dying and disabled Veterans knowingly “and unknowingly” used as “Lab Rats for the Department of Defense.”


Congressional leaders and staffers please note the media uncovered, “decade long DoD denials were all lies”.  Please also note the continued denials by the Department of Veterans Affairs that these events took place denying the Veterans not only service connected medical health care but also service connected disability, as well as DIC payments for the Veteran’s surviving widow and offspring.  These stalling tactics and denials also prevent the Veteran from his state disability benefits that the Veteran earned in service to the nation as being “service connected disabled.”


In addition, congressional leaders and staffers take note of the continued years of DoD stalling of critical life saving information even though the events were documented and even begrudgingly admitted to by the government perpetrators.


Should members of Congress consider in the context of legally denying such events even took place for decades and then legally delaying the data from such “finally admitted to events” attributed to or contributed to the death, disability, and disgrace of the Veteran and/or family?  The answer for even the most illogical approach must be YES. 


Is this then “our government’s reward” for military service to this nation?


If a civilian entity did such things to a segment of our society, the congress would no doubt and deservedly so be outraged at causing or attributing to death and disability of tens of thousands of citizens.  “Government accountability” for outrageous and inhumane behavior would the election cry of many of our campaigning politician if it concerned civilian constituents.


Yet, for our Nations Veterans there is not even an eyebrow raised in concern of these events or how the Executive Branch can even consider these actions legal and not consider these actions inhumane treatment of Veterans.         


Exampled BELOW by the stalling of any pertinent data from congressional investigations that may have had an impact on the Veterans health, medical well-being, disability, and mortality


“A California congressman is calling for an investigation into the Pentagon's failure to investigate thoroughly the after effects of ocean- and land-based chemical and biological warfare tests conducted on military personnel in the 1960s and 1970s. 

“U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson, D-California, has for several years been pressuring the Department of Defense to disclose all that it knows about chemical and biological tests on military personnel involved then.  He has renewed his efforts following release Friday of a General Accounting Office report critical of the department.

“The report shows that the defense department continues to keep life or death information from veterans who may have been the subject of these tests, Thompson said in a statement released Tuesday.  These veterans have the right to know what agents they were exposed to.  There has been no disclosure about how many service members and civilians might have become sick from the tests.

“Maj. Sandra Burr, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Tuesday the department was not prepared to comment on Thompson's legislative proposal.

“The congressman said he would introduce legislation in early June that would establish a panel of independent investigators, composed, in part, of military veterans and those with medical and investigative experience, to ensure information regarding all chemical and biological tests are brought to light.

“No current defense department employees will be allowed on the panel, said Matt Gerien, a spokesman for the congressman.


 “The GAO report cites the defense department's inability to find records that would identify those service members involved in 21 land-based tests.  Is this just another government attack of convenient amnesia?  Although the defense department estimates some 350 U.S. and foreign civilians may have been exposed, it did not seek to identify the hazardous substances they may have been exposed to.

”The report notes the department limited its investigation of specific exposures to identifying former military personnel that could be eligible for medical services from the Department of Veterans Affairs, said the GAO.  Finally, the GAO said, the Pentagon did not pursue all possible sources of information during its investigation. 

Between 1962 and 1974, the defense department conducted a classified chemical and biological warfare test program, named Project 112, which exposed service members and civilians to chemical or biological agents.  The Pentagon has said the tests included spraying of chemical and biological stimulants and release of the deadly saran and VX gases.


“The ocean-going tests, known as Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD), were "to identify U.S. warships' vulnerabilities to attacks with chemical or biological warfare agents," said Pentagon officials.  The land-based tests, said officials, were aimed at learning "more about how chemical or biological agents behave under a variety of climatic, environmental and use conditions."

 “The Desert Test Center, based at Fort Douglas, Utah, conducted the tests. 


 “In October 2001, after seven years of inquiries from veterans, Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Pentagon finally confirmed that thousands of sailors were present during a decade-long series of classified tests to determine the vulnerability of U.S. warships to attack by chemical and biological warfare.  With more urging from veterans and their advocates, still other ocean- and land-based tests around the world were identified.” 


“WASHINGTON — It may have sounded awful when the Pentagon reported last year that nearly 6,000 soldiers may have been unwittingly exposed to germ and chemical weapons in 50 tests conducted worldwide from 1962 and 1974 by Army scientists based in Utah.


“However, congressional investigators said Friday that figure was just the tip of the iceberg.


“The U.S. General Accounting Office, a research arm of Congress, said those Pentagon-reported numbers were just for one series of experiments, called Project 112 or Project SHAD.  We have determined that hundreds of such classified tests and research projects were conducted outside Project 112,’ GAO officials said in a new report released Friday.


“In fact, the GAO said it quickly found that at least 100 secret germ and chemical experiments were conducted at Utah's Dugway Proving Ground alone, or more than double the number of tests conducted under Project 112 during the same time period.  The report said hundreds more secret tests were conducted in the 48 contiguous states.


“So the GAO said the Pentagon, which declared last June that its work in identifying potential chemical and germ arms victims for Project 112 was complete, should continue probing further now to try to identify soldiers and civilians possibly exposed in all those other tests.  In response, the Pentagon said it is planning to try to do so.


“The Deseret Morning News has shown through the years, through documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, that thousands of open-air trials occurred in Utah with chemical, biological and radiological weapons, often upwind from populated areas.


“The newspaper also first reported the Project SHAD and Project 112 tests, many of which were conducted at sea.  Some sailors had sought the newspaper's help, complaining they were suffering from cancer and nervous system ills they blamed on the tests.  However, The Department Of Veterans Affairs denied claims because the Army said the tests never occurred.


“Despite the newspaper obtaining reports and plans of some of those tests, the Pentagon continued for years to deny they occurred.


“However, after pressure from the national media, members of Congress, the VA and sailors, the Pentagon finally admitted in May 2002, that some initial research showed that such tests happened.  It said in June 2003 that it had identified all the places and the names of veterans likely involved.


“The new GAO study was ordered to measure the adequacy of that recent Pentagon work.  The GAO said the Pentagon generally did a good job of identifying all Project 112 tests and most of the veterans involved.  However, it said a few veterans and many civilian workers were likely missed because records of some tests have yet to be found.


“The Pentagon has entirely ignored other series of tests that may have exposed more people than Project 112, the report says.


“While there is no database that contains information concerning the biological and chemical tests that have been conducted, we determined that hundreds of such classified tests and research projects were conducted outside Project 112," the GAO wrote.


“In addition, information from various sources shows that personnel from all services were involved in chemical and biological testing," it said.  Many were designed by the old Deseret Test Center, which originally was at Fort Douglas and later relocated to Dugway before disbanding.


“A former Deseret Test Center scientist estimated that the number of chemical and biological tests conducted at just one location — Dugway Proving Ground, Utah was over 100, or more than double the number of tests conducted under Project 112," the GAO reported.  GAO said it found one old study that listed biological field tests conducted at locations including Dugway, Fort Bragg N.C., Fort Detrick Md., and Edwards Air Force Base CA.  The GAO noted that its office and others also previously reported, "Hundreds of radiological, chemical and biological tests were conducted in which hundreds of thousands of people were used as test subjects.”  Also, it previously reported that the Army Chemical Corps conducted classified research on incapacitating agents that used at least 7,120 volunteers.


“The GAO said that amid its probe, the Pentagon in February 2004 "began preparing a plan to identify tests outside Project 112 that might have exposed service members," and civilians.


"However, that office has not yet completed its plan for doing this," the GAO wrote.


“The GAO called for finalization and implementation of that plan.  It said the Pentagon "concurred with our report findings and recommendations and agreed to implement our recommendations."




Our brave men in SOG teams that went on Special Operations into Laos and Cambodia clearly stated they were sprayed in those countries, back when the United States Government demanded the Veteran prove exposures.  The United States Government Executive Branch/DoD denied any such spraying occurred in those countries.  The DoD/VA called our Honorable Veterans nothing but liars.  Our teams died from cancers with no acknowledgment or government support or even service connection.


Yet, we find an Air Force report called Corona Harvest ‘Defoliation Operations in Southeast Asia (A Special Report) that clearly states the Defoliation Operations were indeed taking place in both Laos and Cambodia as early as 1964!


Who has the honor here?  Those men that bravely served or the lying government DOD representatives?


Someone in the Executive Branch knew these missions were taking place in Laos and Cambodia as they prepared the Corona Harvest report published in 1970!


Yet, this Government and our Executive Branch want Americas Sons and Daughters to risk their lives for them and they themselves have neither honor nor integrity.


Should it make a difference to our congress if it is a private company or a government agency and/or agencies involved?  If the perpetrators are civilian or government, know they have harmed someone, or by not coming forward continue to harm someone, and they continue to let both happen then are not both guilty of misconduct resulting in death and/or disability?  The logical person would conclude that it should not make a difference if it is a government entity or government worker or not. 


If it does make a difference; then our government is now violating the constitutional intent of the separation of powers in stopping any form of collusion within a government agency or between government agencies against any one segment of society.


With the FERES Doctrine, congress agrees that only civilian companies/individuals should be held accountable for death and disablement.  Even as a direct result of decisions made by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs all working for the Executive Branch of government knowing full well with FERES they are not to be held accountable for crimes against humanity when it involves the “Veterans of our Nation.”  They in essence then become less than human.


Clearly, the usage of the FERES Doctrine as it is presently being applied; was not and is not intended to be used in the manner and for the actions the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs, (“Executive Branch”) currently uses this Congressional accepted doctrine.  A doctrine used in many venues against the United States Veteran/Veteran’s Family.  A congressional accepted doctrine that does not ensure “Equal Justice under the Law.”  Equal justice under the Law that is a “constitutional guarantee” and “constitutional mandate.”


The high court did state in its decision that if they misinterpreted Congress’ intention to not afford service members equal protection of the FTCA, then the Congress held the “ready remedy” to correct their decision.


Is this then the way Congress intended this despicable doctrine to be used in Executive Branch denial, collusions, and stalling tactics as Veterans die from Executive Branch causations?  Is this then their government reward for honorable and even valorous service to the nation?


Who then is to be held accountable for the crimes against humanity and our Constitution that continue to this very day due to the many misuses of the FERES Doctrine by White House/DOD/VA. 


The Presidents of the United States, Congresses, and the Federal Judiciary should be held accountable; when in fact no one is held accountable.


If the American people were aware of the constitutional and systemic abuses by the Department Of Defense (DOD) and Department Of Justice (DOJ), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) {Executive Branch} would they agree that this abuse was fair or good for our National Security and in the best interests of our country, its’ military, and veterans?


If the American people were aware of the constitutional and systemic abuses thus then supported by our own elected officials, would they agree with the present application and of those that they elected?


Do these men and women of our Armed Forces (past, present, and future) not have the right to know how our own congress has totally abandoned an entire segment of society and not protected this “government created” segment of society from the lack of separation of powers demanded by our constitution that this government created segment of society swore to protect with their lives?


As a minimum, “those currently serving and those that will serve in the future” must be informed of this government injustice.  They must be informed before they volunteer to give their life for a government that once they have honorably and even valorously served; the entire congress will not protect them from Executive Branch and possible legislative branch collaborations and injustice.


The one thing congress is mandated to do is to make sure that no one person or segment of society is subject to Executive Branch Tyranny.


For the Veteran and his family with the FTCA and the FERES Doctrine this unconstitutional injustice by our Department of Defense/Executive Branch is the norm, not the exception.


The unconstitutionality of the FTCA and the FERES Doctrine gives the Department of Defense/Department of Justice/Department of Veterans Affairs unfettered and unchallengeable ability for collaboration and conspiracy against the Veteran and his family creating death, disability, and despair.  



2. The combinational unconstitutional effects of the FERES Doctrine; United States Code (USC) 38, paragraph 511; and the legal system (Board of Veterans Appeals) established to directly stem the onslaught of Veterans and Veterans Widows claims for toxic chemical mortality and morbidity caused by the United States Government.  A combination of unconstitutional government control which by default, removes the Veteran and his family from the guaranteed constitutional demanded and mandated “Legal Justice for All.”



With this total created “government legal control” of the Veterans claims processes and even outside the constitutional courts definitions of “what is evidentiary and evidentiary weights to be considered;” you now have a complete circle of government deceit, stalling, denying, and collaboration at the highest levels of the Executive Branch with no (zero) ramifications for any decisions made when it comes to our “Nations Most Noble of all Citizens.”


When the Veteran or Veterans family member, after decades of fighting the DoD and the VA finally achieves a day in a real court of constitutional law, the first defense is always DoD/DVA invoking the FTCA and FERES Doctrine and the Veteran or family member does not have that right of a day in a real unbiased constitutional court. 


The real court then states because of these discussed issues are not even entitled to hear such cases as they have no power or directed power over the Secretary of the VA in Veterans Issues as a result of USC 38 Paragraph 511; that clearly states mandamus actions do not apply to the VA Secretary regarding anything associated to the Nations Veterans and by default their widows or orphans.


Is this what our congress considers, as educated men and women, constitutional justice?


One of the most despicable rulings in a long line of biased rulings is The Right to Know Act.


In the denial of one part of a claim by the government of the Veterans Claim, the rest of the claim, no matter how many parts, is similarly denied and no one by law has to notify the claimant of such denial – the Veteran or the Widow of such other denials and the biased clock starts with no notification.  When the clock stops, it has serious ramifications as to how evidence and what level it must meet after the clock stopping to be even introduced.  Is this a justice system or what?  Of course not!


Contrary to this ruling; the Secretary of Veterans Affairs goes before congress and professes the reason why (excuses) the Veterans’ cases take so long, years and even decades, is there are many parts and they all have to be decided before the claim is finalized.


When the congress asks about performance of the federal agency the Secretary then crows the agency has handled or processed so many thousands of claims.  What congress does not address or even ask, since they really do not want to know, is what does that mean; “handled or processed.”  How many are in what level of denial, how many are in appeal, how many have been sitting for over two years waiting for the Secretary’s Agency to do something?


In the year, 2000 just a short seven years ago before Congressional oversight committee and under oath, it was testified that out of an estimated on the ground troops in Vietnam of three million men and women only 7,585 Veterans were drawing compensations for Agent Orange Exposures.


While that fact did raise a few eyebrows, nothing was really said about demanding to know why by the Congress.  Why did only 7,585 qualify for Agent Orange damages when in fact the herbicides were used nation wide by the millions of gallons and there were only .0025% of the entire “boots on the ground Veterans” effected and actually drawing compensation for such toxic chemical damages.


By sciences own admission the most carcinogenic manmade toxic dioxin isomer created used in unprecedented toxicity formulas and unprecedented application rates in the millions of gallons and only .0025% of those exposed to these conditions qualify for compensations in the VA and BVA legal system set aside for only Veterans.


A President once said,  “When you create the Veteran you do not lay aside the citizen.”  Yet, it seems in this case that is exactly what our government, with the help of our elected officials in Congress has done.  Set aside for government mandated yearly Veterans budget control.



At the Behest of the White House and Congress, the VA and BVA tries in its court, the same identical case 10,000 times rather than one case and arrive at 10,000 rulings within an hour.  Instead, the same case, with the same evidence, the same contentions, the same circumstances with the only difference being the name and rank is tried and ruled on differently ad infinitum.  No legal precedence is used as our real legal system does to speed up legal decisions and legal matters in our nation.  Therefore, the entire premise of the VA and BVA legal system seems to border on nothing but government budget control; not justice.


Senators Specter and Frist go on the floor of the senate and state the asbestos lawsuits had become nothing but a litigation lottery.  How is that different from the lottery created by Congress for the Veterans if the entire legal system is not based on precedence?  Veterans and widows wait their turn in the yearly mandated budget control lottery tool – the governments’ legal system set-aside for Veterans and their widows. 


One of the most recent examples of these total Veterans legal biases afforded the government by these insidious “Acts, Doctrines and Codes” versus the rest of the nation is the tragic development on September 11, 2002 when a cowardly enemy attacked our nation.


Yet, in comparison of how the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch handled this NATIONAL TRAGEDY event versus our Government Created Vietnam Veterans Toxic Chemicals (plural) Legacy in history is the difference between night and day – black and white; “justice or injustice.”


ATTACHMENT 2 documents the historical comparisons.



3. Impacts of government caused toxic chemical damages to the Vietnam Era Veteran and the Veterans family.



Attachment 2 documents many of the government issues of what has gone on the last 40 years.  Not in Justice for America’s Veterans and/or their surviving widows and orphans but a controlled legalized stalling of an admittance of guilt.


The Veterans and their doctors were not warned of what the Veteran medically faced the rest of his or her life.  Outreach has and continues to be minimum at best, for obvious monetary reasons.


Veterans struck down by government caused degenerating disorders and the very adversarial system set up to delay and deny service connection in the form of medical treatments and/or compensations were and are forced into disability early in life.  The results in some cases were catastrophic not only in life long savings lost but in family assets such as homes or even families were and are being lost.


Widows are forced into this battle for their dead heroes as they made bedside promises.  Bedside promises to not let this government get away with what has gone on the last 40 years as spouses died in much pain.  Spouses forced into a battle that they should have remembered the sacrifice with honor and dignity.  Instead, the memories of the fight against our own government and the despicable way the heroes of their life were treated by an ungrateful Nation and Government loom ever so amplified as they see how the promises are still made to those present Sons and Daughters that do not understand how our government will treat them next in their mandated budgets.  Protecting from the media and the rest of the nation the real cost of war and White House mistakes.


Some of these Veterans and their families end up on the streets or living in cars.  Yet, when one finally gets a government official to see what has happened in the individual case by the VA and BVA the widow is awarded a positive ruling within weeks and the an apology takes place; too late to prevent the loss of home or a life’s worth of partnering together to build a life and family and too late to save a lifetime of building dignity and personal responsibility.


This then is our Governments reward for Veterans sacrifice.  Not what is portrayed in campaign speeches and broken promises and in an adversarial system set up only to deny and stall the help needed.      






One can clearly see in this submittal and challenge the following:


·        The lack of logic or even common sense in only recognizing .0025% of those Veterans that were exposed were effected by the most carcinogenic man made isomer yet to date in our history.


·        The continual changing of the VA rules in order to deny service connection.


·        Thus, the regulation promulgated by the VA established an overly burdensome standard by incorporating the causal relationship test within the text of the regulation itself.  38 C.F.R. 1 3.311(d) ("(s] ound scientific and medical evidence does not establish a cause and effect relationship between dioxin exposure" and any diseases…


Sound scientific and medical evidence does not establish --- What court or judge in our land today can make that pronouncement that sound scientific and medical evidence does not prove a case.  Only in a Veterans Court can this statement stand up.


·        Unfortunately, political interference in government-sponsored studies associated with Agent Orange has been the norm, not the exception.  There is a documented systematic effort to suppress critical data or alter results to meet preconceived notions of what alleged scientific studies were meant to find.


·        In 2000, a few scientists came forward, under oath, and stated the data flow of what was being found was not being brought forward.


·        In 2007, even more Ranch Hand Scientists came forward and indicating the Ranch Hand cohort exposure assumptions have greatly flawed the studies conclusions.


"It spoils everything," Michalek told The News.  "It's as if you're running a clinical trial on a new medication, and you found out some of the people who were in your placebo group were actually taking meds.  That would spoil your whole study.  And that's what's going on here in this study."


·        Birth defects, miscarriages, and stillborn effects have been greatly minimized.


·        Paternal exposure birth defect outcomes have been not only minimized but also covered up as far back as 1984.


These Honorable Veterans did nothing wrong in their life except trust a government that when it comes to Veterans Issues can no longer be trusted with this legalized form of Government tyranny granted to Executive Branch by our Congress.


Certainly the spouses and orphans and the damaged offspring did nothing wrong against this government.  Yet, they are also treated as if they were an enemy of our nation.


One day in the near future this nation is going to need all its Sons and Daughters to come to the government’s aide.


Who could blame them with all that has gone on if they just said NO!  While our nation does deserve to be protected and defended, our government officials and our government no longer fit that category. 


The price is too high for Veterans and their families to pay to survive the enemy and then face the government collaborations, conspiracy, collusions, and White House edicts/memos/tactics not to find associations to wartime service and mortality and/or disability because of the cost of supporting the Veterans and their families would be too high a price to pay.


Freedom and the SACRIFICE for that freedom now has a government price tag associated with it!



Attachment 1




REFERENCE: DOD Secretary 26 February 1953 NO non-consensual, human experiments Memo pgs. 343-345. George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code; Human Rights in Human Experimentation (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992)


Memorandum for the Secretary of the Army Secretary of the Navy Secretary of the Air Force


26 Feb. 1953


SUBJECT Use of Human Volunteers in Experimental Research


1. Based upon a recommendation of the Armed Forces Medical Policy Council, that human subjects be employed, under recognized safeguards, as the only feasible means for realistic evaluation and/or development of effective preventive measures of defense against atomic, biological or chemical agents, the policy set forth below will govern the use of human volunteers by the Department of Defense in experimental research in the fields of atomic, biological and/or chemical warfare.


2. By reason of the basic medical responsibility in connection with the development of defense of all types against atomic, biological and/or chemical warfare agents, Armed Services personnel and/or civilians on duty at installations engaged in such research shall be permitted to actively participate in all phases of the program, such participation shall be subject to the following conditions:


a. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. (1) This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.


(2) The consent of the human subject shall be in writing, his signature shall be affixed to a written instrument setting forth substantially the aforementioned requirements and shall be signed in the presence of at least one witness who shall attest to such signature in writing.


(a) In experiments where personnel from more than one Service are involved the Secretary of the Service which is exercising primary responsibility for conducting the experiment is designated to prepare such an instrument and coordinate it for use by all the Services having human volunteers involved in the experiment.


(3) The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment.  It is a personal duty and responsibility, which may not be delegated to another with impunity.


b. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.


c. The number of volunteers used shall be kept at a minimum consistent with item b., above.


d. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.


e. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.


f. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur.


g. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.

h. Proper preparation should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.


i.  The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons.  The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.


j. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.


k. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.


1. The established policy, which prohibits the use of prisoners of war in human experimentation, is continued and they will not be used under any circumstances.


3. The Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force are authorized to conduct experiments in connection with the development of defenses of all types against atomic, biological and/or chemical warfare agents involving the use of human subjects within the limits prescribed above.


4. In each instance in which an experiment is proposed pursuant to this memorandum, the nature and purpose of the proposed experiment and the name of the person who will be in charge of such experiment shall be submitted for approval to the Secretary of the military department in which the proposed experiment is to be conducted.  No such experiment shall be undertaken until such Secretary has approved in writing the experiment proposed, the person who will be in charge of conducting it, as well as informing the Secretary of Defense.


5. The addresses will be responsible for insuring compliance with the provisions of this memorandum within their respective Services.


/signed/ C. E. WILSON

Copies furnished: Joint Chiefs of Staff Research and Development Board


Downgraded to UNCLASSIFIED

22 Aug 75



Anyone that has been in the service would know just how easy it would be to get a teenager or a young soldier to participate in such inhuman programs.  The promise of a leave or an unchallenged borrowed leave time would be just the trick.


Also please note the DOD Secretary must approve all such testing plans.  Yet, our DOD Secretaries continually deny knowledge of such events uncovered by our nations media or the Veterans testing groups themselves.  When Veterans become sick and dying and suspect an involvement their questions and the questions of their doctors go unanswered.  Even when a congressperson asks direct questions, this once again adversarial Veterans Agency denies or stalls any knowledge.


CERTAINLY, gives pause about supporting the government by serving in the MILITARY.



Attachment 2



9/11 EVENTS (A National TRAGEDY)


·        Immediately millions of dollars per victim went to the < 3,000 families of that attack by our enemy.


·        Investigations launched as to how this event occurred.







For our Nations’ Toxic Chemical Veteran “Victims,” ALSO A NATIONAL TRAGEDY, slowly killed or disabled by our own government and its government decisions - the efforts by our Executive Branch and Legislative Branch has been to make sure the “VETERAN Victims are held accountable;” not the United States Government and its government contracted TOXIC chemical herbicide companies.


The differences characterized below, is part and parcel to what tragic impact the FERES Doctrine and United States Code (USC) 38, paragraph 511, and Board of Veterans Appeals has had on the Vietnam Veteran and the Veteran’s family by allowing government and government entities; collaboration, conspiratorial actions, use of command influence, changing of scientific drafts, changing of cleared for publication medical impacts and scientific findings, 100’s of millions of dollars in studies meant to assist the Veteran (at congressional face value anyway) controlled to the point of very little intellectual or scientific integrity and value was left associated with the studies;  at least in the governments redacted and published reports.


Studies in fact only done to protect our government as well as its allies, the chemical companies themselves.     




Vietnam Veterans Toxic Chemicals (plural) Legacy



·        As returning Vietnam Veterans reported developing ischemic medical disorders that were common among the Nations returning warriors; the first government response was to distance the medical disorders from being “service connected” and/or “caused by government actions of the use of herbicides.”  Government denial that these significant medical disorders even existed was of utmost importance rather than government investigational actions.


·        The VA, at the behest of our government, denied 10’s of thousands of Veterans claims for service connection mortality or morbidity in our returning Veterans.  Veterans who by all definitions were killed or disabled by our own government in combat service to our Nation against its enemies.   


·        As data became more evident and DoD denial was no longer plausible that the Veterans and their families had every reason to be concerned.  The Veterans Administration (VA) on behalf of the White House took the lead in distancing our government from the causations of such reported strange mortality and morbidity disorders in our young returning military.  Concerns from the men and women military as well as their concerned parents and spouses regarding the many forms of government herbicides, insecticides, malaria medication surfaced and questions began to rise.


·        As the data became numerous and more validity was found that these increased mortality and morbidity concerns were legitimate and did exist, the VA’s first response was to meet with Government contracted chemical company medical directors and chief scientists behind closed doors.


·        When honest VA workers, with actual integrity, realized the Veterans were all recanting the same story, many of the medical issues were similar, and the discovery that the government was using unprecedented dose rates and toxicity toxic chemicals; they poured over maps of Vietnam marking areas that had been indicated by the Veterans.  They found and uncovered the “common threads” connection.  They in turn contacted the manufactures and began asking questions regarding the toxic chemicals and any testing they had done.  As soon as VA management discovered this, the VA employees in their attempt to help the sick and dying Vietnam Veterans were told to “cease and desist.”


·        One disgusted VA worker, Ms. Maude DeVictor, actually going outside the VA mandates of the “cease and desist command.”  Instead choosing with integrity to take the gathered data to the media.  Aired on March 23, 1978 “Agent Orange:  Vietnam’s Deadly Fog” reported the issues and our governments’ total disregard for Vietnam’s returning toxic chemical damaged War Veterans.  Horrified at the public airing VA mounted a propaganda challenge that this was just media sensationalism.  VA did not address the findings.  They instead only attacked the media.  Continuing on to present day this seems to be the practice of the VA when any investigative reporters try to tell our nation the truth regarding DoD and VA practices allowed by the FERES Doctrine and United States Code (USC) 38, paragraph 511 and the shabby despicable treatment of our government created dead and dying warriors. 


·        VA does not even want it publicly known that one reporter discovered cash bonus were being paid for those in the local VA offices that denied Veterans Claims!


·        Instead of non-bias, the VA demonstrated its’ government White House March Orders by appointing Dr. Gerrit Schepers of the VA’s Washington Office to lead VA’s Agent Orange Policy Group.  Dr. Schepers former job was as SCIENTIST for Monsanto Corporation, a major manufacture of the toxic chemicals used on our Veterans.


·        Our Government and its representatives, such as VA and DOD, even with the many unknowns, mandated that a “cause and effect” for the illness be found in order to be service connected or presumptive to exposures.  The term “cause and effect exposures” was reduced from exposures to at least six “militarized toxic chemical herbicides” and many commercially named herbicides to one single isomer among the many isomers the Veterans were exposed both in series and in parallel exposures events.  The studies were reduced to those that would be exposed by skin exposures only.  Nullifying those that were exposed by lung and gastrointestinal ingestion, which is medically proven, is the more easily absorbed bodily method.  As described above, government studies were manipulated to create government exoneration tools.


·        The governments search for “cause and effect” was government mandated protocol reduced from the cause and effect from exposures to 2,4,5-T, and 2,4-D, Arsenic Acid, Nitrosomines, *Hexachlorobenzene, Picloram (a DOW proprietary chemical), a complete isomer change in Agent Orange called “Super Agent Orange” (Agent Orange II used in 1967-1969)


*Hexachlorobenzene when oxidized in the body becomes a form of Pentachlorophenal.


·        While the search for medical issues according to those in Government, positions have indicated only Agent Orange, since it was the most used; is the only toxic chemical the government should have to exam as to its mortality and morbidity outcomes.  This is just more Government/DOD/VA propaganda and exoneration processes.  2,4,5-T was used in Agent Orange as a 50/50 mixture of 2,4-D.  Yet, 2,4-D was also used separately under the nomenclature of Agent White in the millions of gallons.  Perhaps the 110th Congress can ask the government mathematicians how it is that with this stated and proven use; some from of DOD Voodoo mathematics can conclude that 2,4,5-T was the most widely used.


It should be noted here for the 110th Congress that as of 1979-1985 most of these chemicals were banned from use in this nation for civilians even at the reduced civilian toxicity levels and reduced civilian application rates.  Is this just another government coincidence; or the gathered medical data from our government created dead, dying, and disabled Vietnam Veterans in overwhelming numbers?  No segment of society in the history of the world has been exposed to such toxicity, variety of toxic chemicals, and dose level of so many toxic chemicals.  With the half-life of these toxic chemicals indicating parallel exposures or simultaneous exposures, can anyone in science deny proven chemical phenomena called synergy or exponential outcomes?  The answer is yes.  The DOD, the VA, and the government contracted National Academy of Science some how have disproved these world recognized 100-year-old fact of chemical synergy reactions.


·        The Air Force report in 1970, “Corona Harvest” clearly reported a physical chemical reaction took place when trying to spray Agent Orange followed by Agent Blue.  Does this now mean that even with a physical chemical reaction once in the body the medical outcomes are only associated with the toxicity of one isomer of Agent Orange?  It seems the United States Government contracted scientists have indeed concluded these facts and no residual synergistic (exponential) medical outcome failures will be created in our exposed Vietnam Veterans.


·        From 1979-1991, the Veterans Administration Committee on Environmental Hazards decided the Veterans legal fate as to “presumptive issues” for mortality and morbidity.  Some members had already publicly stated their scientific opinion that conveyed the message that might as well stated that dioxins were like Orange Juice and good for you. 


·        Dr. Lawrence B. Hobson (Director, Office of Environmental Medicine, Veterans Health Services and Research Administration), claims that TCDD ‘presents no threat from the exposures experienced by the veterans and the public at large," and virtually accuses scientists who find that such health effects do exist to be nothing more than witch doctors.  {See Hobson, ‘Dioxin and Witchcraft" presented at the 5th International Symposium on Chlorinated Dioxins and Related Compounds (September 1985).}


·        The flaws in this 1979-1991 committee, as well as bias, were great as they reviewed studies in what was supposed to be an attempt to correlate the disorders Veterans were having in mass to other exposure victims.  Other dioxin isomer, (TCDD) exposure victims were not in the same category as Vietnam Veterans.  The reason being:


       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.


       Although the military dispensed Agent Orange in concentrations 6 to 25 times the manufacturer’s suggested rate, "at that time the Department of Defense (DOD) did not consider herbicide orange toxic or dangerous to humans and took few precautions to prevent exposure to it.”  Yet, evidence readily suggests that at the time of its use experts knew that Agent Orange was harmful to military personnel.


Dr. Richard Clary, government scientist with the Chemical Weapons Branch, clearly stated in 1979:


·        When we (military scientists) initiated the herbicide program in the 1960’s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide.  We were even aware that the military formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the ‘civilian’ version due to the governments lower cost and GOVERNMENTS required speed of manufacture.  However, because the material was to be used on the ‘enemy’, none of us were overly concerned.  We never considered a scenario in which our own personnel would become contaminated with the herbicide.  In addition, if we had, we would have expected our own government to give assistance to veterans so contaminated.



·        By default, the Secretary of the VA with the concurrence and direction of the Executive Branch is legally deciding class action claims and “individual claims” in the use of presumptive disorders associated to the toxic chemicals exposures.  Neither veterans nor their widows have a legal chance to prove their cases in this government forum.


·        As defined above even in the individual cases at the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) after the Veteran or his widow has successfully ran every government gauntlet thrown in their way.  The BVA simply states even in 50/50 evidentiary case, clearly admitted to in the BVA decision, it gives more evidentiary weight to the statements made by the Secretary of the VA, at the behest of the appointing White House, that the medical issue is “not associated” to the Veterans toxic chemical exposures during his wartime service and the claim for disability or mortality is denied.  Is this then a legal system?


·        Evidence found, corrupted, and paid for by the taxpayer is withheld from the Veterans or the widow or their legal representation. 


·        In 1979, the Scientist appointed to design a study mandated by congress was opposed to providing veterans information about possible side effects of Agent Orange exposures.


·        Found in the Ranch Hand transcripts of 1999, the controlling government entity, the Air Force invoked that the scientific drafts were exempt from the “freedom of information act.”


There is history for this invocation of this protectionism, since it was found in 1984 many differences between what the scientists conveyed in the scientific draft and the actual Air Force redacted report.  Senator Daschel, in comparing the TWO, clearly stated this was nothing but “fraudulent government conclusions.”


·        In the same transcript as above in 1999, it was found the Ranch Hand scientists were laughing at the wording used as to whether the Air Force was going to “change” their scientific draft work or “airbrush” their scientific work.  Does any member of the 110th Congress find this statement or the actions of the Air Force funny?  This study is part of the Veterans’ judge and jury circle of government deceit.  Via this study is used as the “gold standard” for dioxin issues.  (Not only nationally but internationally, as international studies compare their findings to the findings of Ranch Hand that I have pointed out with evidence has and is tainted on behalf of the United States Government.)  Once again, as referenced above, by default used against the Veterans or their widows as evidence (tainted evidence) to be used by other government contracted agencies to decide “presumptive service connection” (deciding the Veterans individual legal claims as well would be class action legal actions).  Ultimately used by the BVA in statements of denial based on the TAINTED weighted evidence given by the Secretary of the VA in legal actions against the Veteran or the Veteran’s widow.        


In 2000, the congresses own-recorded oversight transcripts recorded one of the original Ranch Hand study scientists testifying under oath:


·        The use of command influence.


·        The changing of medical concluding statements found in science and statistics that were already approved for study publication.


·        Entire chapters rewritten to de-emphasize what were found as increase in associations.


·        Protocol Violations


·        Medical disorders found statistically increased by 50% or larger were omitted from this taxpayer study meant to help the Veterans because they did not meet the government linear mandates of cause and effect to the single dioxin isomer, TCDD. 


·        Medical disorders associated with the exposure to the single dioxin isomer, (TCDD) in science today do not show a linear effect in all disorders found.  In a study of low level exposures when comparing many exposure studies of the single dioxin isomer, (TCDD) science has concluded using quantitative exposure-response analysis:


·        There is no threshold of exposure below, which there is no cancer risk.


·        This exposure issue is down in the noise level for those Vietnam Veterans who had 65 ppt in their body 30 years after the Vietnam exposures.


It should be noted here for the 110th Congress that TCDD levels were estimated in the Vietnam Veterans exposures from .5 parts per million (ppm) to 74 parts per million (ppm).  In sampling tests 10 years after the war, even this estimate went up.


It should also be noted that the entire town of Times Beach, Missouri was evacuated because of “pooled stock only” estimated at 2 part per million.  Of course this was the governments response for civilians only!


In the same Congressional oversight transcripts another Ranch Hand scientist testified.



This White House after White House treatment of Veterans and their families will come home to bite those in power eventually. 


When that day comes, this nation has no one to blame but the elected leaders themselves.


The Veterans did what they were supposed to do and commanded to do with honor, integrity and in some cases valor.


The same cannot be said for our Presidents, politicians, and appointed government officials.



Attachment 3



Media Reports


Here are three recent Media Reports on the admitted to flaws of the Gold Standard the White House and the Department of Veterans Affairs uses in denial of compensation for morbidity and mortality associated with Herbicide Exposures. 


In one finds that the comparison group was tainted in the finding of cancers then certainly statistics used for other medical issues found and then denied based on faulty cohort assumptions would be just a flawed.


Instead of comparing apples to oranges as the study was supposed to do.  The study now finds it has been comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges and the outcomes were predictable. 


Exactly what the White House, The Department of Veterans Affairs, and even some our elected Congress wanted them to find – very little.




Attachment 3



Agent Orange study findings called flawed


Two scientists involved in 25-year, $140 million study say it may underestimate cancer risks for Vietnam vets

By Clark Brooks


A design flaw in the federal government's $140 million study of the health effects of Agent Orange on Vietnam veterans has resulted in a quarter-century of inaccurate findings, two scientists involved with the study told The Greenville News.

Begun in 1978 to help settle compensation claims, the Air Force Health Study will end this week as it began, in controversy, with tens of thousands of veterans still seeking answers to chronic illnesses they attribute to herbicides used during the Vietnam War.

Agent Orange and other herbicides sprayed in Vietnam to destroy enemy crops and jungle cover contained cancer-causing dioxin.  The U.S. Air Force, however, is closing up shop on the study having found no increased incidence of a serious illness other than diabetes.

The study has compared airmen directly involved with the spraying missions, called Operation Ranch Hand, to Air Force veterans who served in Southeast Asia but had no role in spraying.

However, hundreds in the comparison group spent time in Vietnam and may have been exposed to herbicides, too, said Joel Michalek, who worked on the study from the beginning and was its principal investigator for 14 years until he left in May.

"It spoils everything," Michalek told The News.  "It's as if you're running a clinical trial on a new medication, and you found out some of the people who were in your placebo group were actually taking meds.  That would spoil your whole study.  And that's what's going on here in this study."

Michalek co-authored two articles published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in 2004 and 2005
that found significant rates of cancer in the Ranch Hand and comparison groups.

Air Force spokesman Ed Shannon declined to make officials available for comment.  Shannon was asked why Michalek's analysis published in the Journal showing cancer trends in the comparison group of veterans was not used in the analysis for the final Air Force report published last year.

The Air Force noted in an e-mail reply that a "recently published analysis" showed an increased cancer risk in Ranch Hand and comparison veterans. 
Shannon said Saturday there would be no further Air Force analysis.

In a follow-up e-mail, the Air Force said the final report included only the veterans who attended the last round of medical tests in 2002 and that all physical examination reports follow the same basic analytical plan.

Michalek's finding of cancer in the comparison group was not used in the analysis for the Ranch Hand report.

Michalek said he followed up on the cancer articles with an analysis that allowed for the exposed control group and other factors
and found a doubling of cancer in the Ranch Hand group.

Further research needs to be done to strengthen these findings and figure out what other diseases the Air Force scientists may have missed because of the exposed comparison group, Michalek said.

The comparison veterans, he said, are similar to average Vietnam veterans, from nurses to truck drivers, who spent most of their time in base camps.  The comparisons' data also should be studied further, he said.

The results could matter greatly to thousands of Vietnam War veterans who've never received compensation for debilitating illnesses that earlier Ranch Hand study findings said couldn't be linked to Agent Orange.

A Department of Veterans Affairs analysis in 1998 found
92,276 Agent Orange claims for compensation had been filed by veterans and their survivors.  Of those, 5,908 had been approved.

The analysis was done before diabetes was added to the list of diseases eligible for compensation, which would make both columns much higher today, said Jim Benson, a VA spokesman.  {My comment would be Jim Benson is defending the low approval rate, which would reflect White House mandated Budget Control – NOT JUSTICE!}

The VA no longer tracks Agent Orange claims because many veterans apply for more than one type of compensation per claim, he said.  {Another misleading statement by Mr. Benson.}

The Ranch Hand study has followed about 1,000 Ranch Hand veterans and some 1,300 comparison airmen who served in Southeast Asia.

Although the study will end Saturday for the Air Force, legislation pending in Congress would turn over all the data and specimens to the Institute of Medicine's Medical Follow-up Agency, which would collaborate on analyses with scientists outside the government.  {Just think another 25 years of study until all Vietnam Veterans are dead.}

Michalek left his civilian Air Force job for the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio.  He said he would apply on behalf of the school to be a collaborator.

Greer soldier sprayed

The U.S. military sprayed more than 18 million gallons of herbicides over 3.6 million acres of South Vietnam from 1962 to 1971.  Nearly two-thirds of it was Agent Orange.

Richard Leoffels of Greer saw the planes spraying overhead when he was an Army infantryman with the 1st Cavalry Division in 1968-69. Sometimes the wind blew it onto him and his buddies as they set up for ambushes, he said.

He didn't give it much thought, he said, even as he occasionally crawled through areas saturated with herbicides.  He was more concerned about the enemy.

"I didn't know anything about Agent Orange until I came back, did some reading and saw a couple specials on TV," he said.

Red blotches appeared on his legs in 1969, just a minor annoyance, he said.  Later, he would suffer a litany of more serious conditions.

The Air Force has announced in periodic updates since 1984 that the Ranch Hand veterans are about as healthy as the comparisons and have no significant increase in cancer or heart disease or any other serious illness except diabetes.

Ranch Hand and comparison veterans were thoroughly examined every three to five years, beginning in 1982.  The results were recorded in thick Air Force reports.

The final one of those, published last year, presented the results from the sixth and last round of testing, conducted in 2002.  It concluded the cancer analysis "did not suggest an adverse relation between cancer and herbicide exposure."

Ron Trewyn, a biochemist and member of the Ranch Hand study advisory committee, reviewed that report's cancer chapter.

He argued strongly during advisory committee meetings that the cancer chapter should include all the cancer data used to write the 2004 and 2005 articles in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.  It didn't happen, he said.

"They referenced those papers, but they left all the data out from those cancer papers that were done that showed the cancer effects," he said.  "It's huge, because then the conclusion is there's no cancer effect, when as part of the study, the same investigators, just analyzing the data in a different way, found that when they did that,
lo and behold, then there were significant cancer effects.

"And so for the final report to say there's no cancer effect when the investigators themselves published papers saying there is a cancer effect,
that's just flat scientifically wrong."

Without factoring in the new information about the comparison veterans, Trewyn said, the Air Force got the same,
predictable results.

"When they use an exposed control group and they say the two groups have roughly the same amount of cancer and so forth, what is that finding good for?  Nothing," said Trewyn, vice provost for research and dean of the graduate school at Kansas State University.

And it doesn't take a scientist to figure that out, he said.

"This is common sense now, a lot of it," he said.  "It's like now wait a minute.  This just does not pass the smell test or the common sense test."

Trewyn, who said he began wondering about exposures in the comparison group in 1999, did cancer research for 20 years.

Because many comparisons were exposed to the same environmental conditions as the Ranch Hand veterans, all major health outcomes need to be re-examined, he said.

"There have been industrial studies related to dioxin where as they looked back at it they thought they had a few exposed in the control group
and so the statistics went to hell," he said.

In the Ranch Hand study, it's more than a few.  At least 600 members of the comparison group spent time in Vietnam, Michalek said.

New rates found

Michalek said the breakthrough that led to the new data analysis came when he started to look not just at the numbers but also at the men behind them. 
Where in Southeast Asia did the Ranch Hand and comparison veterans serve?  For how long?

He learned some Ranch Hand veterans didn't take part in spraying because none was done while they were there, and those who served earlier in the war had higher levels of dioxin.

When he factored in that information along with the exposed comparison group, Michalek said he
found a doubling of cancer among Ranch Hand veterans with the highest dioxin exposures.  He also found cancer increasing with dioxin exposure, the first time such a trend has been seen in the Ranch Hand study, he said.

Michalek said he also found a stronger showing than previously for diabetes.

Advisory committee members wanted him to get the new cancer and diabetes findings published in a scientific journal, and he told them he intended to, according to minutes from the June 2005 committee meeting.

However, Col. Karen Fox said during the committee's final meeting this month in Rockville, Md., that the Air Force
has no plans to publish the new findings in any Air Force report or scientific journal, The News reported earlier this month.

Fox, responding to extensive questioning from advisory committee members, said the Air Force told Michalek to destroy the data.

Fox, who succeeded Michalek as principal investigator of the study, declined to be interviewed by The News during breaks in the meeting.

She said during the meeting the Air Force "tried to enter into a relationship" with Michalek to write the cancer and diabetes papers, but "he elected not to do that."

Michalek said the Air Force told him he would have to contract with Science Applications International Corp., which does data analysis for Ranch Hand study reports.  He said he negotiated with SAIC but wasn't hired.

Maurice Owens, a project manager for SAIC, told The News the company decided it would be a conflict of interest to work with Michalek because he had been a scientist for the Air Force.

There is precedent for such a hire, however.  Col. George D. Lathrop, who helped design the Ranch Hand study, moved to SAIC during the 1980s after he retired from the Air Force.

Owens said he couldn't comment on that.

Michalek said he began writing the cancer paper without pay.  He said he finally gave up when he got a letter
from the Air Force dated July 6, 2006, ordering him to delete the data.


(Now the above statement is what Government Justice is for its Nations Vietnam Veterans “delete the incriminating data.”  Sounds like pre war Germany circa 1939 for christ sakes!}  {Congress allows this injustice to CONTINUE to this day.}

Rick Weidman, who has monitored the Ranch Hand advisory committee meetings for Vietnam Veterans of America,
said he believes the Air Force had no intention of letting Michalek write the cancer paper on his own.

"They didn't want him to publish because they wanted to be able to censor it," Weidman said.  "That's just plain as day to us."

Getting compensation

Because Ranch Hand study reports had said the health of the Ranch Hand and comparison veterans was about the same; some members of Congress sought other ways to settle compensation claims.  The Agent Orange Act of 1991 established a compensation list.

The first entries were non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, soft-tissue sarcoma and chloracne, a skin condition.  The act also authorized the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate dioxin research from a host of studies, mostly of civilians.

Using the results of that research, the Department of Veterans Affairs has added nine diseases, mostly cancers.

Leoffels suffered his first of three strokes in 1998.  They were minor as strokes go, but for a time, he couldn't control his left leg.

He was working as a letter carrier for the post office, a good job, he said, but not one a person can stagger through.

"People were calling the post office and saying, 'Hey, the mailman is walking around drunk,'" he said.

Circulatory disorders are on the long list of diseases and conditions for which the NAS has not found enough evidence of a dioxin association to be included for compensation.

Leoffels, 58, does receive compensation for type 2 diabetes, he said, $112 a month.  It's the one illness on the list that might owe its spot to the Ranch Hand study, said David Tollerud, an epidemiologist who headed the NAS research during the 1990s.

Spina bifida, a birth defect, is the only other condition on the list that received an assist from the Ranch Hand study, he said.

'Flawed design'

Tollerud, a professor of public health at the University of Louisville, chaired the IOM panel that recently recommended the Ranch Hand data and specimens be saved for study outside the Air Force.

He briefed the Ranch Hand advisory committee during a meeting in February.  He called the biological specimens accumulated over 25 years "a trove of valuable research material," according to the minutes from that meeting.

Tollerud also pointed out some study limitations,
including the study's "flawed design and execution" and "potential herbicide exposures in the comparison populations," the minutes show.  {Just as the author of this challenge Charles Kelley did in 2004 in Washington, DC.} 

In an interview with The News, Tollerud said his comments were not meant to be condemning but to recognize limitations that future researchers need to take into account.

As for the exposed comparison group, he said, "The general result of that kind of a complication in a study design would be to do what we call bias it toward the null, meaning that it
might make it less likely that you would observe findings that were really there."

Leoffels said he is in favor of continuing the Ranch Hand study
as long as it is done outside the Air Force.

"Why throw away $140 million?" he said.

Leoffels said he lost his job as a letter carrier to post-traumatic stress disorder.  The VA compensates him for it, offsetting what he believes he should be getting for Agent Orange damage, but isn't.

He helps other vets navigate the VA, though many get discouraged the first time they are turned down and never go back, he said.

Leoffels said it shouldn't be so difficult for veterans to get the help they need.

"I think what
the government wants is for us to die off so they don't have to pay us anything," he said.




Attachment 3




Agent Orange cancer findings won't get in report, Air Force says
Study's chairman raises questions about decision to leave data out

Published: Sunday, September 10, 2006 - 6:00 am

By Clark Brooks


ROCKVILLE, Md. -- Cancer findings described as potentially significant by the chairman of an advisory committee won't be in the final report of a 25-year government study of the effects of Agent Orange on Vietnam veterans.


The $140 million study of airmen who sprayed herbicides in a series of missions called Operation Ranch Hand was designed to be used as a basis for compensation for thousands of veterans.  It ends Sept. 30, 2007.


The analysis showed a doubling in cancer rates among the highest-exposed veterans, according to information submitted to the advisory committee.


The Air Force has no plans to publish the new cancer findings in any Air Force report or scientific journal, Col. Karen Fox told the civilian advisory committee during a meeting in Maryland in response to spirited and sustained questioning during the panel's final meeting Thursday. 


Fox said the Air Force instructed the scientist who conducted the analysis to destroy the data.


Michael Stoto, committee chairman and a professor at Georgetown University, said the new analysis included "some interesting and potentially important findings" about the health of airmen involved in herbicide spraying missions during the Vietnam War.


"Frankly," Stoto said at one point in the hearing, "when it shows a significant finding and it seems to have been suppressed, that doesn't add credit to the study.”  However, Stoto said later in the hearing he perhaps should not have used the word "suppressed."


In an interview during a break in the meeting, Stoto said the discussion was triggered by questions The Greenville News posed to him about the status of the unpublished data the week before the meeting.


The U.S. military sprayed 18 million gallons of herbicides over 3.6 million acres of South Vietnam from 1962 to 1971 to destroy enemy crops and hiding places and to clear areas for American base camps.  The majority of it was Agent Orange, which contained cancer-causing dioxin.


Agent Orange and other herbicides, some of which also were tainted with dioxin, were named for the color of the stripe around their 55-gallon storage drums.


Sapp Funderburk, an Air Force veteran who lives in Taylors, recalls loading orangeiped drums on aircraft in 1969 when he was an airfreight sergeant in charge of special handling at Phu Cat Air Base.


"They told us they were Agent Orange, so wear these gloves," he said.  "They were big, heavy rubber gloves like you see in a science fiction movie."


Funderburk, who was diagnosed with cancer of the larynx in December 2001, said that in the tropical heat and humidity, the instant he lowered his hands, the gloves slid off.


He had to unscrew a plug to open a hole to relieve the pressure in the drums, he said, and Agent Orange sloshed over him.


Veterans complaining of health problems they said were caused by Agent Orange began filing claims in the late 1970s, and Congress funded the Ranch Hand study to investigate the health effects of herbicides.  The study, also known as the Air Force Health Study, began in 1982.


Although the study is ending for the Air Force, the Institute of Medicine wants the government to preserve the data sets and frozen biological specimens of about 1,000 Ranch Hand veterans and 2,000 comparison airmen who did not spray herbicides.


A recent IOM report said the materials are valuable and should be studied further.


Legislation pending in Congress would turn everything over to the IOM's Medical Follow-up Agency, which would collaborate on analyses with other scientists and research centers.


The Air Force scientists never reported significant incidences of cancer in any of the study's periodic reports on the participants, who were examined every three to five years.


Nor has the Ranch Hand data ever yielded a finding of cancer increasing with dioxin exposure until the new analysis that was the topic of discussion at last week's advisory committee meeting.


That analysis showed a doubling of cancer among Ranch Hand veterans who have the highest blood-serum levels of dioxin.  Committee members were aware of the findings because the work was done by Joel Michalek, a civilian scientist with the Ranch Hand study from the beginning and its principal investigator for 14 years.


Stoto said in an interview the week before the meeting that the cancer analysis, which Michalek presented to the advisory committee in a June 2005 meeting, "really needs to be published."


Michalek's data analysis, as detailed on slides presented at that meeting, shows cancer increasing with dioxin exposure.  A separate analysis showed a stronger diabetes finding among Ranch Hand veterans than previously, Michalek said.  Ranch Hand scientists reported a significant risk of diabetes among exposed veterans seven years ago.


Michalek, who did not attend the meeting, told The Greenville News he did the analyses before he left the Air Force in May 2005 for a job as a professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.  He said he wants to use a similar approach to examine a variety of other health outcomes in the Ranch Hand group.


In his cancer analysis, Michalek said he took into consideration that there were intervals during the war when no spraying was done, and that Agent Orange and other herbicides may have been more heavily contaminated with dioxin earlier in the war.


Fox, who succeeded Michalek as principal investigator, told the advisory committee she had doubts about his analyses.


"I don't think there was a hypothesis before he started crunching the data," she said.

Michalek disagrees.


"We tried to question all of our assumptions and incorporate external information about the war to once again test the underlying hypothesis that exposure to Agent Orange may be related to the risk of cancer," he said.  "I hope the new custodian will find a way to give other researchers access to the study material so these methods and results can be peer-reviewed."


Fox, responding to questions from the advisory committee, said that in spite of her misgivings about Michalek's analyses, the Air Force tried to work with him on the cancer and diabetes papers after he left, but Michalek didn't follow through.


"We tried to enter into a relationship with him for him to write those papers," Fox said.  "He did not do that."


Michalek said he negotiated with Maurice Owens, a project manager for Science Applications International Corp., which is under contract to do data analysis for Ranch Hand study reports.  Owens, who attended the advisory committee meeting last week, told The Greenville News that SAIC decided working with Michalek would be a conflict of interest because he had been a scientist for the Air Force.


Michalek said he has since done as ordered and deleted the Ranch Hand data that was in his possession.


Fox declined to be interviewed during breaks in the meeting.


Ron Trewyn, a biochemist and member of the Ranch Hand study advisory committee, said during the meeting that if Michalek had left one university for another, he would have been able to complete unfinished research papers.  He asked Fox why Michalek couldn't do that for the Air Force.


The scientist is "more than welcome" to talk to whatever entity winds up as custodian of the data and specimens, Fox said.


Trewyn, a Vietnam veteran, said in an interview that getting the new cancer analysis published is important to veterans who are not yet being compensated for cancers and other illnesses related to their service in Vietnam.


The Agent Orange Act of 1991 established a compensation list.  The first entries were non-Hodgkins lymphoma, soft-tissue sarcoma and chloracne, a skin condition.  The act also authorized the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate medical and scientific data about the health effects of dioxin exposure from a host of studies, mostly in the civilian population.


Based on NAS research, the Department of Veterans Affairs has added nine diseases, among them diabetes and respiratory cancers, which include cancer of the larynx.  Prostate cancer and multiple myeloma are also on the list.


Among those the NAS is studying that have not yet made the list are bone cancer, melanoma, testicular cancer, urinary bladder cancer, breast cancer, and most leukemia.


The Department of Veterans Affairs no longer keeps statistics on Agent Orange claims because of variables such as veterans applying for more than one type of compensation per claim, said Jim Benson, a VA spokesman.


The San Diego Union-Tribune reported in 1998 that 92,276 Agent Orange claims had been filed by veterans and their survivors, and 5,908 of them had been approved.


Funderburk, the Taylors veteran, receives compensation in the form of monthly checks from the VA.  Nevertheless, he thinks it's unfair that thousands of other Vietnam veterans with cancer are not getting help.


Trewyn, vice provost for research and dean of the graduate school at Kansas State University, said cancers caused by exposures in Vietnam could show up anywhere.



"Some people are going to be susceptible to one type of cancer versus another," he said.  "Having done research on cancer, it doesn't surprise me at all that you find this at a whole host of different sites."


Or, as Funderburk put it, "To me, cancer is cancer is cancer."



Attachment 3




Agent Orange exposure tied to ills in Vietnam vets

Thu Nov 9, 2006 10:49 AM ET


NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Vietnam veterans who sprayed the herbicides like Agent Orange decades ago in Vietnam are at an increased risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and chronic breathing problems, a new study shows.


Agent Orange, a weed killer containing dioxin, was widely used during the Vietnam War, Dr. Han K. Kang of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington, DC and colleagues note in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine.  Overall, two thirds of the herbicides used during the conflict-contained dioxin.


To understand the long-term effects of exposure to the chemicals, Kang and his team compared 1,499 members of the US Army Chemical Corps to 1,428 vets who had worked in chemical operations jobs but did not serve in Vietnam.  The Chemical Corps members had been responsible for spraying herbicide around base camp perimeters, as well as aerial spraying of the chemicals from helicopters.


Study participants were surveyed by telephone in 1999 and 2000.


Tests of a subset of the study participants, including 795 Vietnam vets and 102 non-Vietnam vets, showed the Vietnam vets had higher levels of dioxin in their blood.


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.  {Veterans are still not compensated for liver problems or liver disease associated to Agent Orange or Service in Vietnam.  To the Veterans and their spouses it makes little difference how the VA or the congress wants to associate the liver problems as associated for mortality and morbidity compensations.  It seems to be only an excuse not to compensate even though data proves the Vietnam Veterans was correct all along and that by at least 5 to 1 in increased liver mortality and morbidity than the rest of the United States Population.}


However, exposure to herbicides among Vietnam veterans conferred a 50 percent increased risk of diabetes, a 52 percent greater heart disease risk, a 32 percent increased risk of hypertension and a 60 percent greater likelihood of having a chronic respiratory problem such as emphysema or asthma.


An increased cancer risk also was seen among the Chemical Corps members, but this was not significant from a statistical standpoint.


"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.”


 You will notice the VA is very careful in stating non-malignant lung disease and not using the medical term Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD) that has been found in dioxin exposures as well as Vietnam Veterans.  While the concert of VA and BVA directed by our White House has continuously denied this disease of the processes associated with pulmonary functions. 


SOURCE: American Journal of Industrial Medicine, November 2006.