PUBLISHED REPORT: LITTLE ROCK VA TO COME UNDER FIRE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH VIOLATIONS
The
Washington Times reports: VAOIG will document
failure to report deaths of 105 veterans, lack of
consent forms, missing signatures from consent
forms, HIV research done in secret and more.
Story here... http://www.washingto
ntimes.com/news/2008/aug/05/violations
-rife-in-hospitals-studies-on-veterans/
Story below:
-------------------------
Violations rife in hospital's studies on veterans
Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
An investigation of research conducted at an Arkansas veterans hospital has uncovered rampant violations in its human experiments program, including missing consent forms, secret HIV testing and failure to report more than 100 deaths of subjects participating in studies.
The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on Tuesday will release its findings in a report on human subject protection violations at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System in Little Rock. The studies involved thousands of veterans who had volunteered for behavioral and drug experiments.
The investigation, which began last August, reviewed more than a half-dozen human experiments - including studies of colon, breast and prostate cancer - that had been conducted since 2006.
It found that entire consent forms were missing, signatures were missing from consent forms, HIV testing was conducted without documented consent, and research officials failed to obtain witness signatures in a study involving patients with dementia.
Additionally, the investigation found that researchers had failed to report "serious adverse events" during the experiments, including the deaths of 105 veterans. The researchers were required to report such events, regardless of whether they were accidental or linked to the experiments, to the Internal Review Board.
The board, which conducted oversight of the experiments, had been implemented and operated by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences but was transferred to the VA after the investigation began. The VA created a review board and halted all new experiments involving human subjects.
"The issues at the VA medical center in Little Rock were detected by VA employees, revealed through investigations by [the Food and Drug Administration] and VA's Office of Research Oversight, and ultimately referred to VA's Office of the Inspector General," said VA spokesman Matt Smith. "This is an example of VA detecting and fixing its own problems.
"The issues cited in VA's Inspector General report are being addressed through an aggressive action plan. The Little Rock research program is under heightened scrutiny to ensure no recurrence," Mr. Smith said.
"VA strives to provide world-class health care to its patients and that includes observing the highest professional standards in protecting people who agree to participate in medical research," Mr. Smith said.
The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences did not respond to calls for comment.
The VA employs strict guidelines for consent forms and witness signatures for experiments involving veterans to ensure that volunteers are fully informed of all risks and possible side effects associated with the experiments.
When a veteran signs a consent form, the principal research investigator is supposed to sign the form as well. However, the inspector general (IG) found that in one test the researcher did not sign nearly 200 forms until two months later. In four studies reviewed by the IG, times, dates and witness signatures differed on 103 consent forms.
In a review of several cancer studies involving 1,400 veterans, investigators randomly sampled the files of 105 patients and could locate only 20 consent forms.
The findings are being released on the heels of July 9 IG report prompted by a Washington Times/ABC News joint investigation that the VA failed to pass on new drug warnings and risks in a timely manner to more than 200 participants in a smoking-cessation study who were also taking the drug Chantix. The eventual warnings of hallucinations and possible suicidal behavior were issued too late for James Elliott, who was subdued by police with a stun gun during a psychotic breakdown.
The IG said researchers in the smoking study "did not ensure that patients involved in the smoking cessation study were notified of the risk of suicidal thoughts or behavior in a timely manner."
The IG also said it could not confirm whether warning letters reached the intended study participants, and more than half have not signed and returned amended consent forms advising that the drug may cause hallucinations or psychotic or suicidal behavior.
In Arkansas, the IG report found fault with the IRB operated by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, saying it "failed to identify and address severe and continuing noncompliance."
"Every protocol [study] discussed in this report was audited and deficiencies were identified and communicated to the IRB," the IG said. "The IRB did not suspend or terminate any of them prior to outside inspections."
In addition, the IG said there was a failure to ensure researchers had required skills and training to conduct the clinical trials, and that unlicensed research personnel performed some medical procedures it described as "minimally invasive."
One study to determine the success rate of heart surgeries required a cardiac catheterization one year later to see how open the arteries remained, but the procedure was performed on only one out of 70 patients.
In another study reviewed by the IG, the principal researcher told the IRB that no subjects were enrolled in the experiment, but told the Office of Research and Development that 47 veterans had been recruited for the study. The IG found that $138,000 had been spent on study-related expenses.
All research by one physician was suspended after it was discovered he was reviewing the medical records of 678 veterans for a study that never received approval.
As of March 18, the hospital was conducting nearly 300 active research projects, 200 of which used human participants and 55 that were evaluating investigational drugs. The IG recommended that the VA determine whether human subject research should continue at the hospital and to take appropriate administrative action.
In addition to creating the internal review board, the VA has since hired new officials to take over as chief of staff, assistant chief of staff for research and development and a new medical center director.
-------------------------
posted by Larry Scott
Founder and Editor
VA Watchdog dot Org
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
This is as outrageous as the human experiments conducted at Edgewood Arsenal between 1955 thru 1975, so much for complete and thorough oversight on human research projects, and the VA wonders why I refuse to "volunteer" for any of their new research projects, sorry once was enough for me, the government is no longer believeable when it comes to safety for human trial subjects.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
PUBLISHED REPORT: LITTLE ROCK VA TO COME UNDER
Veteran ordered imprisoned for defrauding VA
Veteran ordered imprisoned for defrauding VA
EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. - A federal judge in East St. Louis says an Air Force veteran from the Metro East must spend 10 months in prison for defrauding the U.S. government of benefits.
Forty-five-year-old Randall Timmons of Waterloo pleaded guilty in March to concealing material information from the Social Security Administration and making false statements to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Prosecutors say Timmons collected disability benefits after sustaining a back injury related to his time in the Air Force in the 1980s.
By 2001, with the help of spinal fusion surgeries, Timmons was well enough to go back to work.
But he never apparently told the Social Security Administration of his medical improvement and continued to collect benefits by insisting he was still disabled.
Bill to Add Cancers of the GI Tract as Herbicide Associated
Bill to Add Cancers of the GI Tract as Herbicide Associated. HR 6798
Yes, that is correct see link below. I can only say it is about time.
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/GITractCancers.htm
Bill to Add Cancers of the GI Tract as Herbicide Associated.
YES YES YES YES YES YES………………………………………YES!!!!
I received e-mail this morning from Mr. Peter Holstein of Congressman Kagen’s Office of which I am just ecstatic that finally the money, time, and the research time I spent is paying off for all Vietnam Veterans and Widows. In spite of my personal set backs on my claim; I am just thrilled to get this e-mail this AM.
E-mail as follows:
"Mr. Kelley, this is Peter Holstein in Congressman Kagen’s office. I wanted to let you know that my boss has introduced a bill to add all cancer of the GI tract to the AO presumptive list. The bill number is H.R. 6798. Of course, this is by no means a full solution, but it’s a start.
As you know, I’ve been working on this since last year, and sitting in with you on your meeting with Mr. Filner was catalyst. Thank you for continuing to pass on information on AO.
Please keep in touch, and let me know if you think your community would be interested in helping us get other members of Congress to cosponsor H.R. 6798 (right now we have two, Mr. Baca and Mr. McDermott).
Thanks again and keep up the hard work.
Peter Holstein"
Peter D. Holstein
Congressional Aide
Rep. Steve Kagen, WI-08
1232 Longworth HOB
(202) 225-5665
The link is at: http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_6798.html
On that link you can slide down to where it says read the bill. So far it is not posted there as of yet.
Now Mr. Holstein is asking for our help and we need to help him and Congressman Kagen as well as the two co-sponsors and ourselves and our widows.
Please please please call your DISTRICT congressperson and your two STATE senators and demand they support this HR 6798. In fact, I would ask them to sign on to co-sponsor the bill “as soon as possible” to support the Herbicide Veterans.
As you know the data has been there for some time without VA admitting the “increase in all site cancers is associated,” especially the GI tract. While this does not cover “quote ALL SITE CANCERS end quote”, it will cover GI Tract Cancers, which the GI tract is from the mouth to the anus.
Since it is going to committee it is imperative that you call all of the Congressional folks on the House Veterans Affairs Committee almost immediately.
As the cable guy says Let’s Git..er Done – NOW!
Show our support for this long overdue recognition of gastro cancers that are rampant in dioxin exposure victims and that must include "Herbicide Veterans."
Thank you so much for you help and please follow up on this as soon as you can with phone calls and letters.
This means all of you including spouses/widows/offspring and your separate Veterans Groups please you should also call in and send letters of support.
Thanks
Kelley
Bikers May Love McCain But Veterans Do Not
Bikers May Love McCain But Veterans Do Not
Share Print View Comments
If you follow the general storyline put forth by a mainstream media star-struck by a war hero, or simply observe the reception John McCain often receives at rallies held at veteran's organizations, it's very easy to accept and believe that all veterans everywhere practically worship John McCain. I've noticed this especially true of people who do not have a military background -- they often confuse enthusiastic support for McCain's SERVICE as support for his RECORD.
Troops cheer the man, the story goes, therefore they must want to vote for him. Veterans get teary-eyed and salute the flag when he appears, therefore they must be McCain supporters.
McCain's a war hero; he's got the military vote sewn up. Obama didn't serve, so he can kiss the military good-bye.
I have read this assumption in op-ed after op-ed, in blogpost after blogpost, even in commentary posted on blogs. It was especially glaring after Gen. Wesley Clark tangled with Bob Shieffer on CBS's, "Face the Nation," and Shieffer expressed dismay that, because Clark was critical of McCain's position on such things as the new G.I. Bill, that he was "denigrating McCain's service."
My husband, brother, father, brother-in-law are all Vietnam vets, and another brother-in-law recently retired at the rank of brigadier general of the U.S. Army special forces. (My dad retired from the Marine Corps at the rank of Master Gunnery Sgt.) My step-dad was retired Air Force and my sister did a hitch in the Air Force.
My son did two Marine Corps combat deployments to Iraq, (including the grueling Battle of Fallujah in Nov. of '04); my nephew did three combat deployments to Iraq with the Marines, and another nephew recently returned from a 15-month Iraq combat tour with an army Stryker Brigade -- part of Bush's troop escalation last year. Yet another nephew has done one deployment to Afghanistan with army special forces and is currently deployed in another part of the world.
For the first three years of the war, we had five Mills family members on active duty, and until my nephew's return from Iraq last month, we had a close Mills family member deployed to Iraq every year since it began in 2003 -- sometimes two at once.
I have spoken out against the Iraq war from the beginning and started blogging on it during my son's second deployment to Iraq, with his full support. Though I don't get paid for it, I've made it pretty much my full-time job, writing about "the troops" and the effects of repeat deployments on their health, sanity, and family life, and trying to end this godforsaken war.
I am often surprised at how little the civilian world truly understands the military mind. After virtually an entire generation at peace (not counting the Gulf War, which ended practically before it began), there are people in their 20's and 30's who have no concept of military life beyond what they see in the movies or on the news.
For one thing, military types don't all march in lockstep anywhere except on the drill field. Some are conservative, some liberal, some in-between, and some don't care either way -- pretty much like the rest of us.
Military men and women everywhere appreciate courage under fire, period. I'd say that most all active-duty military and veterans greatly admire John McCain's service and the sacrifices he made as a POW. So if he comes to speak to them, they are going to leap to their feet and applaud him, cheer him, and listen respectfully to him speak. They might even try and get a photograph with him.
They are not, however, all going to vote for him.
For one thing, every single Iraq vet with whom I have spoken tells me that the one thing they want in a new president is an end to the war. Period. Whichever candidate comes closest to pledging to end that war, that is who has their support. And right now, that's Obama.
Even during the primaries, no other candidate, with the exception of Ron Paul, received as many active-duty campaign donations as Barack Obama. Paul, you may recall, also wanted to end the war.
Now, there are some active-duty and veterans who support McCain, of course, and would like to see him elected, and will vote for him and donate to his campaign.
But not nearly as many as you might think.
As Jon Soltz at VoteVets pointed out once: There is a difference between supporting a veteran's service and supporting his Senate voting record. And a large majority of veterans DO NOT support McCain's record.
But don't take it from me. Let's start by reviewing percentage-point ratings given by veterans groups of both presidential candidates, based on a minimum of 14 senatorial votes cast on issues ranging from additional inpatient and outpatient care of veterans to safety equipment for the troops deployed to Iraq to increased funds for improvements to veterans' health care facilities.
(It should be noted that the most junior senator, Barack Obama, was not in the senate yet during some of the votes counted, and yet still scored higher than McCain on veteran's issues.)
Disabled American Veterans
Key Votes--McCain 28%
Key Votes--Obama 92%
Vietnam Veterans of America
Key Votes--McCain 37%
Key Votes--Obama 92%
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Overall Grade: McCain D
Overall Grade: Obama B
My thanks to T Partier, who posted this at Talking Points MemoMarch 26 of this year
More damning is a piece put together by VoteVets.org, "Senator McCain's Real Record on the War in Iraq," on February 8, 2008.
This is a compilation of quotes given by McCain over the course of the war in which he not only insists that it will be over quickly, but praises Bush and Rumsfeld for the fine job they're doing, and quotes year after year after year in which he insists things like, "We're going to win this thing or lose this thing within the next several months." (November 2006)
It's fascinating reading, in light of his recent reversals from maintaining that our troops can remain in Iraq a hundred years or more to his sounds-better-to-voters idea that the war will be "won" by 2013--just in time for his reelection. (Sounds suspiciously like Richard Nixon's promise that he had a "secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam by the end of his first term.) -- even though he's quoted on September 16, 2007, saying that "I believe to set a date for withdrawal is to set a date for surrender."
In other words, if a Democrat pulls out troops, it's SURRENDER. If McCain pulls out troops, it's VICTORY.
Got it?
But what caught my attention about the VoteVets piece -- is that, not only did McCain vote against adequate rest time for troops who've served multiple 15-month deployments, but that he was one of only 13 senators who voted AGAINST adding $430 million for inpatient and outpatient care for veterans.
Even as he has consistently voted to prolong this war year after year after year at tens of billions of dollars every week, putting unimaginable strain on the troops, who are returning with terrible injuries that require all kinds of care, including traumatic brain injury -- the war's "signature injury" -- which has overtaxed a system completely unprepared to handle the overload of patients from a prolonged war... even so, he begrudges them a measly $430 million bucks, which would be about one day of war-costs.
The most thorough analysis of McCain's war and veteran's votes that I've found so far was posted at DailyKos on February 28 of this year.
Along with voting against adequate troop rest or any end to the war whatsoever, McCain also
** voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (the VA) for health care facilities.
** voted against $430 million (mentioned above) for outpatient care and treatment of veterans
** voted against increasing veterans' medical services funding by $1.5 billion
** voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in veterans' medical care by eliminating abusive tax loopholes
** voted to TABLE an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322 million for safety equipment for forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by that same amount
** urged other senators to TABLE a vote (which never passed) to provide more than $1 billion for National Guard and Reserve quipment in Iraq related to SHORTAGES in helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests
** voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650 million
And of course, even though an overwhelming majority of senators approved Jim Webb and Chuck Hagel's landmark update of the G.I. Bill, John McCain not only opposed it, but he also refused to cast a vote at all. He was one of only three senators who did not vote that day. (One of the others was Ted Kennedy, who'd just got out of the hospital after being diagnosed with a brain tumor.)
McCain's excuse? Fund-raiser.
Attitudes of troops toward the Iraq war has most notably been cataloged in a powerful survey taken by the Center for a New American Security of 3,400 active-duty officers from all branches of the military service, and published in the March/April of '08 issue of Foreign Policy.
Here are a few quotes:
These officers see a military apparatus severely strained by the grinding demands of war. Sixty percent say the U.S. military is weaker today than it was five years ago. Asked why, more than half cite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the pace of troop deployments those conflicts require. More than half the officers say the military is weaker than it was either 10 or 15 years ago. But asked whether "the demands of the war in Iraq have broken the U.S. military," 56 percent of the officers say they disagree. That is not to say, however, that they are without concern. Nearly 90 percent say that they believe the demands of the war in Iraq have "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin.
A full 80 percent of the officers surveyed did not think that the U.S. was in a position right now to handle another war. When they were asked to rate their confidence in the U.S. presidency on a scale of one to ten, the officers gave Bush a rating of 5.5 -- higher than the civilian world rates him but hardly a ringing endorsement.
One of the biggest misperceptions I've seen of civilians toward military is that they assume that military-types are always gung-ho for war.
I can tell you right now that the only troops I've ever seen "gung-ho" are young teenagers on their first deployments who have not yet been asked to fight. I have never, ever spoken to a combat vet who WANTS to go to war or wants to return to fight. Yes, there are some, but the vast majority, those who know the true costs of war first-hand, have no desire to glamorize it.
The survey bears that out. In spite of the fact that Republicans love to paint Barack Obama's emphasis on diplomacy as well as political solutions over military as weak or soft or inexperienced or naive, the truth is that, quote:
Nearly three quarters of the officers say the United States must improve its intelligence capabilities--the highest percentage of any of the choices offered. Active-duty officers and those who have retired within the past year give a much higher priority to nonmilitary tools, including more robust diplomacy, developing a force of deployable civilian experts, and increasing foreign-aid programs.
Again -- in line with Obama's positions -- military officers surveyed repeated that modern warfare is, by its very nature, guerilla warfare and cannot be won by conventional warfare methods. Time and again those surveyed emphasized the importance of increasing our special forces, who are trained in a much different kind of skill-set than the average infantry troop.
Special forces troops go into a hot situation in groups of no more than a dozen. They are usually bearded and dressed in local garb. At least one of them speaks the language fluently and the rest have a rudimentary grasp of it. It is their job to get close to the power-broker of the area, be it a warlord, sheik, or gang leader -- and broker a trade of some kind that will, essentially, rat out the true terrorists.
This has been done successfully with regular ground troops in the Anbar province of Iraq, and is very similar to what SF does all the time. My brother-in-law did much of this kind of brokering with Bosnian warlords, and before he retired, was flown into Afghanistan to repeat the success he'd known in the Balkans.
Repeated deployments have damn near ruined the junior officer corps of the military, with even a historic high of 58 percent of West Point officers quitting the military as soon as their commitment ends, rather than staying to make a career of it.
In other surveys, military families have also soured on the Iraq war an want it to end -- something like 60 percent of them.
These are all issues that concern the military. Do they leap to their feet and cheer a man who held up under five years of enemy torture in a war? Absolutely.
But do they vote for him?
It depends upon how well they know his record. Those who understand that he has voted against veteran's issues far more frequently than for them, will not vote for him.
Cheer for him? Yes.
Vote for Barack Obama?
Probably.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Violations rife in hospital's studies on veterans
Violations rife in hospital's studies on veterans
PUBLISHED REPORT: LITTLE ROCK VA TO COME UNDER
FIRE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH VIOLATIONS -- The
Washington Times reports: VAOIG will document
failure to report deaths of 105 veterans, lack of
consent forms, missing signatures from consent
forms, HIV research done in secret and more.
Story here... http://www.washingto
ntimes.com/news/2008/aug/05/violations
-rife-in-hospitals-studies-on-veterans/
Story below:
-------------------------
Violations rife in hospital's studies on veterans
Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
An investigation of research conducted at an Arkansas veterans hospital has uncovered rampant violations in its human experiments program, including missing consent forms, secret HIV testing and failure to report more than 100 deaths of subjects participating in studies.
The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on Tuesday will release its findings in a report on human subject protection violations at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System in Little Rock. The studies involved thousands of veterans who had volunteered for behavioral and drug experiments.
The investigation, which began last August, reviewed more than a half-dozen human experiments - including studies of colon, breast and prostate cancer - that had been conducted since 2006.
It found that entire consent forms were missing, signatures were missing from consent forms, HIV testing was conducted without documented consent, and research officials failed to obtain witness signatures in a study involving patients with dementia.
Additionally, the investigation found that researchers had failed to report "serious adverse events" during the experiments, including the deaths of 105 veterans. The researchers were required to report such events, regardless of whether they were accidental or linked to the experiments, to the Internal Review Board.
The board, which conducted oversight of the experiments, had been implemented and operated by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences but was transferred to the VA after the investigation began. The VA created a review board and halted all new experiments involving human subjects.
"The issues at the VA medical center in Little Rock were detected by VA employees, revealed through investigations by [the Food and Drug Administration] and VA's Office of Research Oversight, and ultimately referred to VA's Office of the Inspector General," said VA spokesman Matt Smith. "This is an example of VA detecting and fixing its own problems.
"The issues cited in VA's Inspector General report are being addressed through an aggressive action plan. The Little Rock research program is under heightened scrutiny to ensure no recurrence," Mr. Smith said.
"VA strives to provide world-class health care to its patients and that includes observing the highest professional standards in protecting people who agree to participate in medical research," Mr. Smith said.
The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences did not respond to calls for comment.
The VA employs strict guidelines for consent forms and witness signatures for experiments involving veterans to ensure that volunteers are fully informed of all risks and possible side effects associated with the experiments.
When a veteran signs a consent form, the principal research investigator is supposed to sign the form as well. However, the inspector general (IG) found that in one test the researcher did not sign nearly 200 forms until two months later. In four studies reviewed by the IG, times, dates and witness signatures differed on 103 consent forms.
In a review of several cancer studies involving 1,400 veterans, investigators randomly sampled the files of 105 patients and could locate only 20 consent forms.
The findings are being released on the heels of July 9 IG report prompted by a Washington Times/ABC News joint investigation that the VA failed to pass on new drug warnings and risks in a timely manner to more than 200 participants in a smoking-cessation study who were also taking the drug Chantix. The eventual warnings of hallucinations and possible suicidal behavior were issued too late for James Elliott, who was subdued by police with a stun gun during a psychotic breakdown.
The IG said researchers in the smoking study "did not ensure that patients involved in the smoking cessation study were notified of the risk of suicidal thoughts or behavior in a timely manner."
The IG also said it could not confirm whether warning letters reached the intended study participants, and more than half have not signed and returned amended consent forms advising that the drug may cause hallucinations or psychotic or suicidal behavior.
In Arkansas, the IG report found fault with the IRB operated by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, saying it "failed to identify and address severe and continuing noncompliance."
"Every protocol [study] discussed in this report was audited and deficiencies were identified and communicated to the IRB," the IG said. "The IRB did not suspend or terminate any of them prior to outside inspections."
In addition, the IG said there was a failure to ensure researchers had required skills and training to conduct the clinical trials, and that unlicensed research personnel performed some medical procedures it described as "minimally invasive."
One study to determine the success rate of heart surgeries required a cardiac catheterization one year later to see how open the arteries remained, but the procedure was performed on only one out of 70 patients.
In another study reviewed by the IG, the principal researcher told the IRB that no subjects were enrolled in the experiment, but told the Office of Research and Development that 47 veterans had been recruited for the study. The IG found that $138,000 had been spent on study-related expenses.
All research by one physician was suspended after it was discovered he was reviewing the medical records of 678 veterans for a study that never received approval.
As of March 18, the hospital was conducting nearly 300 active research projects, 200 of which used human participants and 55 that were evaluating investigational drugs. The IG recommended that the VA determine whether human subject research should continue at the hospital and to take appropriate administrative action.
In addition to creating the internal review board, the VA has since hired new officials to take over as chief of staff, assistant chief of staff for research and development and a new medical center director.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I am beginning to think that the government should not be allowed to do any "human experiments" regardless of the rules, to many federal employees abuse the system, this has been going on since at least WW2 and the chemical weapons experiments that started in 1942.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Agent Orange in Panama
You served in Panama! Do you have a claim pending for illinesses caused by AO? appeal low rating, If Not, file/refile for exposure to AO in Panama... send all the Documentation you can find, including
references to these web sites and info there in. double check the illinesses that are presumed service connected for AO
http://www.gmasw.com/
http://www.gmasw.com/ao_out.htm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/agentorange/defoliants.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/mustreads/1999/08/081699.html
http://bluewaternavy.org/general/panama1.htm
http://www.panna.org/resources/gpc/gpc_199908.09.2.19.dv.html
This article is from the Global Pesticide Campaigner (Volume 09, Number 2), August 1999.
The complete issue is available. More about the Global Pesticide Campaigner.
News Note: Agent Orange in Panama
The Dallas Morning News recently reported that the U.S. military conducted secret tests of Agent Orange and other toxic herbicides in Panama in the 1960s and '70s, potentially exposing civilians and soldiers to highly dangerous chemicals. According to eyewitness accounts and documents, hundreds of barrels of Agent Orange were shipped to Panama during the Vietnam War to be tested in simulated tropical battlefield conditions of Southeast Asia. The chemical was a mixture of the herbicides 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T and also contained dioxin generated during formulation of 2,4,5-T. While the two herbicides break down in the environment rather quickly, dioxin is a highly persistent compound that remains in the environment for decades and can cause cancer, birth defects and other health and developmental problems.
The U.S. Southern Command, the operational authority in Panama, said it was not aware of any tests using Agent Orange that had taken place there. However, the U.S. Veterans Affairs Department acknowledged that use of Agent Orange or similar herbicides contributed to the deaths of at least three U.S. servicemen stationed in Panama in the 1960s and '70s. In testimony at a Veterans Affairs hearing regarding one of these cases, a former operations officer for herbicide research at the Army biological research and development laboratories in Maryland stated that "several hundred drums" of Agent Orange were shipped to Panama in the late 1960s.
For years, the Panamanian government has been trying to find proof that the U.S. used chemical weapons and herbicides there in an effort to obtain compensation for cleanup costs as well as possible damages. Panama is already seeking as much as US$500 million from the U.S. military in damages and cleanup costs related to thousands of acres used for weapons tests since World War II.
Sources: "Report: U.S. Exposed Many in Panama to Agent Orange," San Francisco Examiner, August 20, 1999.
"Report: Agent Orange in Panama," Associated Press, August 20, 1999.
Contact: PANNA.
http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/739197221/m/3580019560001
Agent Orange tested secretly in Panama August 20, 1999
The US military tested Agent Orange and other herbicides by secretly spraying them in Panama at the height of the Vietnam War, according to the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Members of the U.S. military, as well as civilians, may have been exposed to the extremely toxic chemical. Though it says all reports are unproven, the military reportedly tested the chemical over Panama because its tropical forests are similar to those in Vietnam. In Vietnam, The US sprayed Agent Orange to rapidly kill the tropical forests in which they suspected Viet Cong guerillas were hiding. According to one American veteran, the military sprayed Agent Orange near populated areas in Panama, including a beach, a club, and a lake from which Panama City gets its drinking water. In addition to those who may have been exposed to the chemical in the '60s and '70s, an environmental sciences expert said Agent Orange could last in the soil for decades. Panama is already seeking up to $500 million from the US for cleanup, and they expect claims of personal damages as well. Some point out that the US did not know how dangerous Agent Orange could be for those exposed. The Veterans Administration now recognizes nine diseases and disorders to be linked to Agent Orange exposure.
Agent Orange Affects Soldiers' Health by John Lindsay-Poland
Chemical bomb shell on San Jose Island, Panama.
The United States conducted military tests with Agent Orange in Panama in the late 1960s, according to a former military officials and some veterans who now suffer from Agent Orange-related diseases. A veteran who has a medical claim before the Veterans Administration wrote to Panamá Update in June that he saw U.S. Special Forces drop Agent Orange onto Fort Sherman in 1969 or 1970 and "watched the jungle disappear over the next few days." An Army engineer whose duty it was to take water samples, he also found high levels of Agent Orange in the coral reefs on Pacific side of the canal. Lake Gatun, where he witnessed the spraying, spills out of the canal into the Pacific reefs.
He now suffers from peripheral neuropathy, a disease common to veterans exposed to Agent Orange. In addition, Pamela Jones, the widow of another Army veteran who served in Panama, was awarded benefits in February by the Veterans Administration because of her husband's exposure to Agent Orange in Panama in the early 1970s. At her benefits hearing, the government's former head of the Agent Orange litigation project, Charles Bartlett, testified that several hundred barrels of Agent Orange had been shipped to Panama in the mid-1960s for tests. He said that after the tests the barrels remained in Panama for use in controlling weeds. At least nine witnesses have confirmed that the military sprayed heavily with Agent Orange in an area of Fort Sherman known as the "drop zone" in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The "drop zone" is located not far from a popular beach, recreation center and sporting club on the shores of Lake Gatun. The revelation is important because it establishes that Southeast Asia was not the only place where the United States exposed soldiers, and perhaps others, to Agent Orange.
Until Jones won her claim, the Veterans Administration had institutionalized Agent Orange-related benefits for those who fought in Vietnam, and excluded others from consideration for such benefits. One of the veterans awarded benefits because of his exposure to Agent Orange was Joseph Oppedisano, who served with the Army in Panama in 1956-58. Although Oppedisano's documented exposure to Agent Orange occurred later, in Camp Drumm, New York, while in Panama he became very sick after training with chemical agents. On January 4, 1958, the entire island of Flamenco where he was stationed was defoliated, Oppedisano told Panamá Update. "We had about ten million fish die. They got stuck on the rocks and made a stink," he said. He thought it was a secret military test. He and other soldiers on the island became violently ill and were hospitalized. One of those soldiers, Israel Jewetz, testified that "the areas where we were barracked were sprayed with chemicals every day to control insect populations and prevent malaria and yellow fever outbreaks." Oppedisano developed hairy cell leukemia as a result of his exposures. The Dallas Morning News spoke to both the veteran and Ms. Jones, and published two stories on August 20 and 24 about the issue.
In the August 20 story, U.S. Southern Command spokesman Raul Duany said that if Agent Orange was sprayed, "it wouldn't pose a threat today because it should have dissipated by now." However, the dioxin contained in most Agent Orange - the toxin that causes disease - remains in the soil for decades. The retired officer who ordered the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam as a defoliant contradicted Duany's claim. "It does not dissipate," said Admiral Elmo R. Zumwault, Jr. "If it's true that Agent Orange was tested in Panama, it is clear that the spokesman was wrong about the residual stuff."
Pesticides May Be Affecting Health
New information is also emerging about the heavy use of other kinds of pesticides in military bases in Panama besides Agent Orange, such as DDT and Chlordane, which were sprayed in residential areas of the Canal Zone, often daily, against termites. Both pesticides are banned in the United States. According to a preliminary study commissioned by Panama, "Though there is not enough data to establish a concise exposure scenario, there are plenty of indicators that demonstrate a significant human health hazard exists." The study, which took samples from Corozal and Clayton, concluded that "DDT, DDD, and DDE were all found in high quantities" on the two bases. But the United States has not given Panama information on the application rates of these pesticides, according to a consultant for the Panamanian government. This is forcing Panama to consider health studies that can demonstrate the ill effects of the pesticides on surrounding populations. An employee of Lockheed-Martin, which has been under contract to the Defense Department since 1996 to haul out toxic wastes from Panama, reported receiving a broad range of wastes.
"We were handling cyanides, asbestos, poisons, known carcinogens, herbicides, pesticides," said Alfredo Smith, a supervisor at the Lockheed warehouse on Corozal base in Panama. "Some of this stuff had labels going back to the 1950s." Smith told The Dallas Morning News that a Panamanian working under him began coughing up blood one day, after handling an unmarked barrel filled with a chemical powder. Smith himself experiences headaches, rashes, and other problems, and is suing Lockheed-Martin for lax safety procedures. Press reports on chemicals used in the canal area have stimulated a number of memories about problems in the past. Former Canal Zone resident Don DeStaffino remembered a 10- or 12-year-old Panamanian child who died in the 1970s "in a jungle area of Howard AFB/Ft.Kobbe... The substance with which he came in contact that caused his death was in a 55 gallon barrel. I believe it was a yellow color, and a gel rather than a powder. I think the substance was claimed by the Air Force as a paint remover."
Sources: Interview with Joseph Oppedisano, 9/6/99;
brief supporting Oppedisano appeal to Board of Veterans Appeals, 9/21/92;
"Exposure Scenario Characterization for Human Health Risk Assessment due to Pesticide Contamination in the Canal Area," September 2, 1999;
Dallas Morning News 8/20; 8/24; 10/11/99;
Stars and Stripes 9/12/99;
e-mails to FOR by veteran, 6/99;
Don DeStaffino communication 10/12/99.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: VeteranIssues-owner@yahoogroups.com [mailto:VeteranIssues-owner@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jerry johnson
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 5:57 PM
To: VeteranIssues-owner@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [VeteranIssues] FW: FYI - Exposure to Herbicides in Thailand is Conceded
Col Dan,
I get a lot of traffic concerning agent orange but I never hear anything about Panama. In 1977 we used to have jungle operation manuevers in the Rio Hato training area as well as other JOTC operations in the atlantic area near and around Fort Sherman and Gulick. I have personally witnessed the chemical defoliant browning process in clearing some of those areas when we were out and now have a strong curious intuition that what I may have witnessed could have been Agent Orange in use. Do you know or have heard of anything concerning the use of Agent Orange in Panama? It seems that it was in use at almost all overseas assignment where there is a thick canope jungle foliage, so why not Panama!
Oh Yeah!, Thanks for putting out that info on Hep C. I am a HepC Vet. I have only 2/3rds of a good liver left and suffer the extreme effects of this illness, in addition to diabetes, chronic high blood, gastro problems, anorexia, and much more. Most times I can only have a liquid diet because I have no appetite. In 2002 when the sickness struct me hard is the time when I found out. I was working for DoD, as a civilian in Bosnia in support of our troops in the field, and had to resign my job because of the disease and a 1 year Inteferon treatment, which failed because it had incubated in my system too long, over thirty years, since 1977 when I was in Panama. The military doctors knew but they never told me, nothing period. But, believe it or not, it is actually indicated in writing in my military medical records as Non A-B Hepatitis, with dates and discussions between different med corps staff divisions, but never with me. I served in the army from 71-73 and from 1976 to 1996, over 20 years total, not to count my civil service and to have this happen to me now is unbelievable. I have been stuck at home every since. Social Security came through within ten months of me filing, but the Pittsburgh VA...............after waiting six years and winning a BVA at Wash, DC in March, the Pittsburgh VRO, two weeks ago, only rated me at 10%. Buy Social Security standards I'm disabled and homebound for the same illness that the VA just granted to me as being service connected at 10%. I know, nothing never sounds right when you're dealing with those guys. I live in germany so all vet services from here goes through their RO as the local. I was a professional soldier and fighting is what I do, when I have to, with justice and honor fueling the machine. So I'm still fighting. Anyway, thanks for letting me vent that, also for you're dedication to your informative web group, and for that info on Hep C. I have already forwarded to my e-list, and now trying to find the DVD for a better view of the film to show my wife and children.
J.L.Johnson
SSG(Ret)
Sunday, August 3, 2008
McCain: Make combat-disabled top VA priority
McCain: Make combat-disabled top VA priority
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Jul 24, 2008 10:50:06 EDT
Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s call to “concentrate” veterans’ health care on those with combat injuries is raising questions about the Arizona senator’s commitment to funding the ailing VA system.
Rep. Bob Filner, D-Calif., said a system that treats combat veterans and non-combat veterans differently is inherently unfair. “We can care for both combat veterans and non-combat veterans if we just decide it is an important thing to do,” Filner said Wednesday, one day after McCain talked at a Dover, N.H., town hall meeting about the need to concentrate veterans’ health care on people with injuries that “are a direct result of combat.”
“Right now, there are people who drive a long way and they stand in line to stand in line to get an appointment to get an appointment,” McCain said.
Filner agreed veterans are being ill-served by the Veterans Affairs Department, but he disagreed with the idea that only combat veterans deserved attention. “We are not providing adequate health care for combat veterans. We are not providing adequate care for veterans who never saw combat,” Filner said.
Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, said McCain “appears to want to significantly narrow the number of veterans who can use VA, and that would alarm many veterans.”
Sullivan said veterans “should be very concerned by any effort to restrict access to VA health care and benefits by excluding other veterans with medical conditions clearly linked with their military service, such as illnesses related to Agent Orange poisoning, injures incurred in the combat zone, injuries due to training, and the adverse side effects of vaccines and experimental drugs.
“Our veterans and the American public need to know that VA remains mired in crisis due to the poor planning by the Bush administration to handle the tidal wave of 325,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran casualties now being treated at VA hospitals and clinics,” Sullivan said.
McCain’s campaign press staff did not return telephone calls asking for additional comment.
The VA already has a priority system that puts at the top of the list for care people with service-connected disabilities rated at 50 percent or who cannot hold a job because of their service-connected disability. The severity of the injuries or disease is the chief factor in being placed in enrollment priority 1, not whether the problem is the result of combat or from peacetime service.
At the bottom of the VA’s list are veterans with moderate incomes who do not have any service-related health problems.
The Bush administration has barred veterans at the bottom of the priority list from even enrolling in the veterans’ health system, a decision that Democrats in Congress have talked about overriding.
Additionally, the Bush administration has drawn distinctions between combat and non-combat injuries as it has worked with Congress on a wide range of benefits issues, including increases in death gratuity payments, traumatic injury insurance and the ability of military retirees to concurrently receive military and veterans’ disability benefits.
Congress went along with the Bush administration on treating military retirees with combat or combat-related injuries better in terms of pay than veterans with non-combat disabilities. Initially, Congress agreed to restrict traumatic injury insurance for active-duty service members to combat-related injuries but expanded the program to include all active-duty injuries, in or outside of a combat zone, after service members and their families complained.
McCain, like many other Republicans, have been slow to endorse providing additional money to the Department of Veterans Affairs when Democrats have been pressing for large increases. McCain and other Republicans have argued there is enough money available to treat veterans if the VA were to operate more efficiently.
Part of the reason McCain has opposed increases in veterans’ spending is his strongly held position against wasteful spending that often leads him to oppose any increase over the executive branch’s budget request.
McCain, a disabled Vietnam veteran and former prisoner of war, has supported the idea of allowing disabled veterans to use non-VA facilities for some medical care, especially in rural areas where there are other federal health care facilities. This would be done by giving them a universal health access card.
While McCain’s votes — particularly votes against increasing the VA budget — have sometimes left him at odds with some veterans and major veterans’ service organizations, the political action committee of Veterans of Foreign Wars, the nation’s largest group of combat veterans, has endorsed McCain for every election since 1984, according to FactCheck.org
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I don't understand why any veterans group actually supports John McCain for any public office with his voting record on or for veterans issues, when it comes to wallet issues for veterans he votes against them all the time.
VA Announces New Nursing Academy Sites
VA Announces New Nursing Academy Sites
WASHINGTON, July 31, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Department Strengthens Partnerships with Seven Nursing Schools
To provide compassionate, highly-trained nurses to serve the health care needs of the nation's veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is establishing new partnerships with seven of the country's finest nursing schools. The partnerships will bring to 10 the number of collaborations between the Department and nursing schools under the VA Nursing Academy.
"The expanded role of VA in the education of nurses will ensure the Department has the nurses needed to continue our world-class health care for veterans," said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Dr. James B. Peake. "The VA Nursing Academy expands our teaching faculty, improves recruitment and retention, and creates new educational and research opportunities."
The VA Nursing Academy is a virtual organization with central administration in Washington. It expands learning opportunities for nursing students at VA facilities, funds additional faculty positions so competitively selected nursing school partners will accept additional baccalaureate-level students, and increases recruitment and retention of VA nurses. The five-year, $40 million program began in 2007.
Seven nursing schools will form new partnerships with nine VA medical centers and join the VA Nursing Academy this year. They are:
VA Facility School of Nursing
Charleston, S.C. - Medical University of South Carolina
Hines, Ill. - Loyola University of Chicago
Michigan Consortia - University of Detroit (Detroit, Saginaw, Mercy, and Battle Creek, Ann Arbor) Saginaw Valley State University
Oklahoma City, Okla. - University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
Providence, R.I. - Rhode Island College
Tampa, Fla. - University of South Florida
Partnerships already in the VA Nursing Academy include the VA medical center in Gainesville, Fla., with the University of Florida; the VA medical center in San Diego with San Diego State University; the VA medical center in Salt Lake City with the University of Utah; and the VA medical center in West Haven, Conn., with Fairfield University in Connecticut.
VA expects to add several more nursing-school partnerships.
The American Association of Colleges of Nursing has reported that in 2006 more than 38,000 qualified applicants were turned away from entry-level baccalaureate degree programs in nursing schools because of insufficient numbers of faculty, clinical sites, classroom space and clinical mentors. VA currently provides clinical education for approximately 100,000 health professional trainees annually, including students from more than 600 schools of nursing.
VA's "Enhancing Academic Partnerships" pilot program enables competitively selected VA-nursing school partnerships to expand the number of nursing faculty, enhance the professional and scholarly development of nurses, increase student enrollment by about 1,000 students and promote innovations in nursing education.
Further information about the pilot program can be obtained from VA's Office of Academic Affiliations web site at www.va.gov/oaa.
SOURCE U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
http://www.va.gov
House OKs ’09 VA, construction spending
House OKs ’09 VA, construction spending
By Karen Jowers - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Aug 3, 2008 9:33:39 EDT
With the threat of a presidential veto looming, the House today passed a $118 billion veterans and military construction funding bill by a 409-4 vote.
The White House isn’t threatening to veto this bill, which includes $93.7 billion for veterans and $24.8 billion for military facilities; rather, it is threatening to veto all other federal funding bills unless they are reduced by the House’s proposal to add $3.4 billion to the Bush administration’s request for veterans’ spending. The Senate’s version of the bill proposes to spend $4.4 billion more than the administration requested.
The House bill provides $24.8 billion for construction on military bases, more than $400 million above the president’s request. That includes $336 million for quality-of-life projects such as improvements in housing for military trainees and in health care facilities.
Included in the $93.7 billion for veterans is $47.7 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans’ medical care, claims processors and facility improvements. An additional $100 million would allow VA to increase the mileage reimbursement rate for veterans traveling to VA centers for care to 41.5 cents per mile from the current 28.5 cents.
It also would include $1.6 billion to provide veterans with new-generation prosthetics, $116 million above the president’s request.
The House bill also would provide $200 million for fee-based services to improve access to care for veterans in areas where VA facilities are not available.
