With apologies to our regular visitors here

Subject: RE: Myelodysplastic Syndromes & the Vietnam Veteran - THIS IS URGENT AND HIGH PRIORITY - please get this out to every veteran/org you can.

As most of you know Aaron & I have a granddaughter that is very ill with Aplastic Anemia - I've just returned from SLC as she received her first round of treatment. The AAMDS.org website is where we were directed for information, while on the phone today requesting info packets, it was mentioned to me about all of the Vietnam and Vietnam Era Veterans that are being seen for Myelodysplastic Syndromes caused by Agent Orange Dioxin Exposure - yep you heard me right, another to add to the Silver Rose Brochure? Maybe it's a form of one illness that's on there, but I don't recognize this one. It is a Bone Marrow Cell Disease that if untreated can become AML - need to look that up but I know it's Leukemia.

This is one of the questions I have been posing to our VA, Congress, and IOM as to how you can have the cancers we have associated which is a biological descriptor in B and T cell dysregulaton and confusion and not have the smoldering cancers, smolder leukemia’s, and other autoimmune disorders that for whatever reason are maturation arrested. How can this dioxin created damaged biological process or processes be so unique and so specific as to cause only those cancers VA/IOM deem it causes?… and that the outcome will in fact only be very specific cancers. When that same destructive process is associated to many other diseases, multiple testing anomalies, and other classified disorders such as connective tissue disorder or immune system disorders.

The VA/IOM keeps demanding biological plausibility or some sort of causation which is way above what a real court would demand for the general population and we already had a court rule on this in 1989 stating undue hardship. Considering the level of known dioxin damages at almost the lowest level of cellular development and programming functions (cell development, cell functions, cell communication, etc) then the list we currently have is nothing short of anemic as to what are the outcomes.

See Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans Admin., 712 F. Supp. 1404, 1408. (N.D. Cal. (1989). wherein the court found after reviewing the legislative history of the Act "that Congress intended service connection to be granted on the basis of "increased risk of incidence" or a "significant correlation" between dioxin and various diseases," rather than on the basis of a casual relationship.

This biological plausibility statement in fact should be, “it would be biologically implausible” given the level of damage in dioxins, furan dioxin like, and PCB isomers that this damage would be unique to any specific cancer or cancer site and that given the findings of immune system disruption and dysregulation at the third level of biological plausibility; any cancer or any autoimmune disorders especially in connective tissue issues and neurological damages should be associated. Especially since the data shows, there are significant increases in a segment of society (Vietnam Era Veterans) and that would conclude an increased risk of incidence over another population, which is what the court decided in 1989 was good enough.

Then let us not forget the Congressional Mandated Benefit of the Doubt, which seems to be more of myth than real honest incorporation and application by the Executive Branch run Veterans Affairs.

In fact, studies have shown in quantitative analysis of four combined studies there is little difference in all cancer sites and conditions and specific cancer sites and conditions association. Then when one considers the individual that for some reason their immune system has arrested the development but by doing so now has developed an autoimmune condition or developed a smoldering cancer condition and it is not associated to the exposures is somewhat dubious, subjective, and may have many government biases associated with these illogical and very unscientific conclusions by VA/IOM. In nuclear radiation for instance, not everyone will develop a specific cancer from the same exposures and not all will develop cancers but the immune system it damages creating more issues. In fact, autoimmune or depleted immune or both which science and the toxicology experts has found associated and can be created by these isomer exposures is probably the most horrific of all the outcomes. There is not much that can be done except in some cases the identical treatment for cancers is used as treatment protocol. Adding more biological insaneness by not concluding the same biological process that created the cancers is not associated to the underlying cellular issues creating the immune condition. Makes little if any sense other than budget control.

When in fact the New Zealand study found on-going persistent chromatoid damages just last year in their Vietnam Veterans that were 3 times worse than the Christmas Island nuclear testing. While the study was small, it used the exact same testing protocol used in nuclear testing. One of the concerns of the study was how many generations this chromatoid repair damage will linger in evolution. The question becomes then... can this damage even skip a generation?

AML, described by the grandmother, is Acute Myelogenous Leukemia or Acute Myeloid Leukemia. This form of leukemia is denied by VA/IOM even for Veterans. Yet, the Seveso, Italy disaster that had a central distribution point, which could be tracked with wind speed and direction on that day is one study that can used as dose issue did find AML associated. Although many medical impacts according to EPA do not have the dose response, that IOM uses to deny many of our issues. If a study does not find this mythical dose relationship then IOM just says not associated. Ranch Hand also used some of this unproven protocol in their assessments as if dioxin was some sort of antigenic poison. IT IS NOT! Even when an increase, for example, demonstrated a four hundred percent increase in the cohort if it did not show some sort of linear expression to the dioxin, TCDD; then it was dismissed and not even reported. Dioxin is persistent but not antigenic such as a spider bite, poisons, snake bits, or other forms of materials that are antigenic. Seveso, with its central distribution point, also found little difference in all site cancers and specific cancers.

Then lets not forget the recent revelation concerning Ranch Hand the study conducted for 25 years supposedly the

study of all studies on dioxin was so tainted in the words of the head scientist for 12 years is:

"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." "It spoils everything,"

Yet, IOM has clearly stated in the past that even though they reviewed hundreds of studies they primarily relied on the Ranch Hand study to make decisions. A flawed and spoiled study; yet, still used since 1991 to deny associations.

However, germane to this discussion Seveso also found both CLL and AML. CLL being a form of leukemia called Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia or Chronic Lymphoid Leukemia. CLL is already on our infamous (less than truthful) list of government created cancers and other issues with time limits on them.

Ironic, the issues with time limits one would think that in order to assign time limits you would have to know the exact etiology of the "dioxin" created disorder. Yet, no one at VA or IOM can tell us, or the rest of the world’s medical doctors for that matter, what that exact "dioxin created etiology is" and how it will develop within one year and how it will resolve within two years. That my friends, is not only pure subjective medical hypocrisy but pure unscientific speculation for budgets and nothing else. Not with the widespread issues of development of those that had time limits put on them of which massive amount of Veterans actually are diagnosed daily, compared to the general population.

As concluded, Seveso found both leukemias but AML had a higher risk ratio in males at RR = 3.8, while the females remained not significant at RR = 0.7. Apparently, even in animal studies a trend has been found in gender male/female development not only in RR but also in lag time. Why this would not be unexpected is somewhat confusing given the low level that cellular damages that are being done and the difference in some male and female cellular functions.

The wonderful lady on the phone said that they have many Vietnam Era Veteran Patients who are not being treated and being denied compensation at the VA for this serious and sometimes deadly disease. I explained to her the process, and I explained to her the progress at the VA and she has a clear understanding as to why the VA has not approved this illness and she was right on the money with her information. She agrees that in time, the VA will be screening, treating, and compensation Vietnam Era Veterans for this illness. The AAMDS has numerous Vietnam Era Veterans that never stepped foot in Vietnam but were exposed to AO Dioxins as well as those that did, one she mentioned as example served at the test site for AO before it was released for use. Sound familiar?

Define “that in Time” from above - This simply means as in all Veterans Issues history will repeat itself and time means deny until there are very few left, using whatever means illegal or legal those that even claim such disorder associations. Let us not forget just last year for the first time VA was publicly looking for WW2 Veterans that were exposed to mustard gas and some form of created biological toxins finally admitting DoD had done such. That VA, after 62 years of denial was looking for them to compensate them. Now how many do you think were possibly left? That folks is what I call a political crock! Then we have all the BCW testing done in SHAD, Project 112, Edgewood Arsenal testing, all of them denied for at least three decades by DoD and supported by VA. Still VA will not compensate our Veterans for this BCW lab rat usage of our Veterans.

I wish someone would explain the process to me, as the grandmother seems to understand. So far, I have seen nothing in writing on established protocols for establishing service-connected disorders either to exposures or to the overwhelming disorders found only in Vietnam Era Veterans associated to service in that era. I do not think many Veterans/Widows care if it is directly found associated to herbicides or just military service. In fact, the name should be changed from Vietnam Era Veterans to “DoD Herbicide Usage Veterans Era.” That seems to be from the early 1960’s to the late 1970’s with a lag time of at least 10 to 20 years.

The stakeholders have no clear definition of what VA/IOM does in decision protocols that are published measurable, defined, and addressable as to their validity by science itself. IOM keeps harping on peer review yet the stake holder’s; dead, dying, and disabled Veterans have no peer review or anything regarding the protocols they use to deny what are seemingly obvious connection to either herbicides or service in an area. Of course the less they publish these and have undefined and non-measurable and clearly defined data points of protocol of what is associated then of course the more subjective they can be. More importantly for legal decisions is the level of certainty that must be achieved, which is why we need clear, concise, measurable, defined decision matrices/protocols.

An example of this is the VACEH that operated from 1979 to 1991 in what seemed to be smoke filled back rooms making hasty decisions on presumptions that would lead to health care and compensation decisions. Yet, in late 1989 when the peers of these scientists where allowed to look at what they were actually doing as far a decisions and actual protocols used the comments were:

A distinguished group at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Institute in Seattle, Washington, upon reviewing the Advisory Committee transcripts, concluded that the Committee’s work was "not sensible" and "rather unsatisfactory" in its review and classification of the various studies it reviewed. Additionally, these scientists regarded Dr. Lathrop’s views as "less than objective" and felt that the possibility exists that "his extreme views (e.g., in respect to the role of dose--response testing) may have unduly affected the Committee’s work.” Finally, the Hutchinson scientists argue that the issue of chemical-specific effects, in which animal studies have been sufficient to demonstrate the carcinogenicity of dioxin, is an important factor "not well considered by the Committee.

(e.g., in respect to the role of dose--response testing) How many times have you heard me say the same thing yet this peer reviewer calls this an extreme view? I would say it is highly illogical and not scientific as well as extreme! Yet, IOM still to this day seems to demand such findings with no evidence the correlation even applies in all outcomes.

I would also add here the statements by a Baylor University Doctor on animal studies:

“This letter is to support your claim about Agent Orange. The U.S. Government and the VA have many documents about this situation and they know your claim has merit. The red tape and the smoke and mirrors are just to decrease payment or delay payment or both. I am sorry you are having so much trouble.

“Your autoimmune condition proven by biopsy and by response to treatments, has to have been caused or significantly aggravated by Agent Orange because Agent Orange and other chemicals like it have been proven to cause neuropathy, and in animal studies to produce autoimmune disease.

“Usually when I make a statement like this the VA will come back with a request for more letters and more documentation, but I think they need to be specific and not open ended and tell me how many human and animal studies published in the internationally recognized scientific literature they would require to pay your claim.

“Otherwise they will just keep asking and asking for more and more papers and documents and we will get no where and you will be frustrated and so will I.”

A second peer reviewer Dr. Robert Hartzman (considered one of the U.S. Navy’s top medical researchers) effectively confirms the views of the Hutchinson group. Dr. Hartzman states that "the preponderance of evidence from the papers reviewed [by the Advisory Committee)… attests that: an inadequate process is being used to evaluate scientific publications for use in public policy. The process uses scientific words like ‘significant at the 5% level’ and a committee of scientists to produce a decision about a series of publications. However, in reality, the Committee was so tied by the process, that a decision, which should have been based on scientific data, was reduced to vague impressions... Actually, if the reading of the rules of valid negative found in the transcript is correct (‘a valid negative must be significant at the p=. 05 level’ that is statistically significant on the negative side) none of the papers reviewed are valid negatives.

(…reduced to vague impressions...instead of science) not quite the same as what I have been saying is nothing but subjective decisions…but close.

Dr. Jeanne Hager Stellman, PhD (Physical Chemistry) and Steven D. Stellman, PhD (Physical Chemistry), also echo the sentiments expressed by the Hutchinson Group and Dr. Hartzman on the validity of the Committee’s proceedings and conclusions. In fact, the Stellmans’ detailed annotated bibliography and assessment of numerous cancer studies relevant to herbicide exposure presents a stunning indictment of the Advisory Committee’s scientific interpretation and policy judgments regarding the link between Agent Orange and Vietnam

A fourth reviewer, a distinguished scientist intimately associated with government sponsored studies on the effects of exposure to Agent Orange, states the same conclusions reached by the other reviewers:

The work of the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Hazards, as documented in their November 2, 1989 transcript, has little or no scientific merit, and should not serve as a basis for compensation or regulatory decisions of any sort...

From a mere reading of Committee transcripts, these peer reviewers detected overt bias in the Committee’s evaluation of certain studies. In fact, some members of the Advisory Committee and other VA officials have, even before reviewing the evidence, publicly denied the existence of a correlation between exposure to dioxins and adverse health effects.

This blatant lack of impartiality lends credence to the suspicion that certain individuals may have been unduly influenced in their evaluation of various studies.

Was there scientific bias by the VACEH from 1979 to 1991 with Veterans/Widows/surviving minor offspring and associations? I think once some honest peer reviews were made aware as to what VA was doing demonstrated and found that bias factors with remarkable consistency between reviewers.

VACEH by the way is Veterans Affairs Committee on Environmental Hazards. This committee denied everything until late 1990. Orange Herbicide was good for you just like Orange Juice.

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). Nah.. no Veterans Affairs bias here in this decision process at all. Completely objective and based on science not ones personal view or paid for biased view. Horse Hockey!

The IOM took over in 1991 after the reviews got out of how biased the VACEH was in their recommendations. However, we still have no established in writing defined process of how IOM makes its conclusions and to what level it must be as to certainty not only to recommend a positive association but the four levels of pronouncements. Once again, we have a vague subjective committee making what must be considered legal decisions for Veterans Affairs and the stakeholders have no idea how it is done nor can we have their processes reviewed by comparable independent prestigious scientists not beholding to our own government for monetary rewards.

I understand there is a meeting in June in San Antonio by IOM and wants to have Veterans concerned with their issues of AO there to discuss. What good does that do if the IOM decision making process is so hidden and not documented so that it can be addressed. Are we not now back to 1979 with the plaintiffs having no right to what is used against them? Are we still at the vague subjective impressions or with dose response bias? How do we know, if the process is so undocumented?

I have no data on the meeting other than what I have shown above. Anyone wanting to go or more information contact the IOM. Although how one would argue against the unknown IOM process is questionable.

I tried at the Disability Commission commission meeting and got no where with one of the IOM members and some doctor from Harvard or Yale, I forget now. In fact I asked at point blank range...if I have a study that demonstrates Disorder X at an Odds Ratio after regression of 2.69 and an association to dioxin of p = 0.039 and a difference between Vietnam Veterans and non-Vietnam Veterans of p = .0042 and another civilian study that shows a three to five fold increase in Disorder X depending on age, and an additional study that over a period of five years that found:

“Data showed a significant increase in the index of Disorder X. Another run through the data showed it correlated significantly with dioxin.”

“A significant and adverse relationship between Disorder X and dioxin body burden was found.”

"... we consistently found a statistically significant increased risk of all indices of Disorder X among the dioxin exposed cohorts.

Then what else do I need to get it recommended for association. The answer was nothing more was needed. Yet here we sit still waiting for this "eventual thing" to happen.

Yes, I submitted the data on the spot to the IOM but as you know nothing has happened.

They demand study peer review; yet, we cannot on their processes. In fact, the ranking member of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, Mr. Buyer just the other day in trying to undermine Congressman Filner, wanted to know if something was peer reviewed. Yet, he will not demand that we have access to the same rights to legal decisions that impact the Veterans segment of society. Ironic and very convenient for Congressman Buyer on how that works... is it not?

Until we get this in writing, that we can take to into a legal setting as to its appropriateness with peer review or back to our elected officials or the court system then “eventually approved” can mean infinity. For VA the longer the better on behalf of our Commanders and Chiefs who could care less about used up government assets, THE VETERAN.

The purpose of this email is not a VA bashing, I feel that in time, the VA will be treating and compensating for this illness as well, I am certain of that. It needs to be processed as was the Blue Water Navy Case, and it may take that long but it will happen.

Here again I part company. The Blue Water Navy issue for all intensive purposes is a Congressional issue… not VA. Veterans Affairs keeps denying and stalling based on “they are unclear as to the intention of Congress of whom to cover in the Agent Orange issue with the bill and Acts they have passed.” Yet, this on behalf of the Executive Branch the employer of VA has gone on for way to long. Would it not have been just a little bit easier for the Secretary to go back to congress and ask them, is this what you intended? Alternatively, could you clearly identify those you want covered and the dates?

Of course, our Congress is not ignorant of what is going on either. They would rather have the ball in the VA’s court as opposed to their court. Why?

The why is simple? Veterans/Widows/surviving minor offspring have virtually no rights in combating the Veterans Affairs. So how does this segment of society make a federal agency accountable that has legislative, executive, and judicial branch powers? Congress itself has made sure that segment cannot have the same rights as any other citizen no matter how biased and unknown the processes are and not as discussed clearly identified. Then when you go up the ladder we have courts assigned to Veterans Issues only. How is that even constitutional? Do we have courts assigned for federal employees only or for only black citizens, or how about Jewish citizens or even illegals? Nope! Veterans/Widows/surviving minor children seemed to the only segment that is not entitled to open justice but what the VA working on behalf of the Executive Branch deems closed justice. The Feres Doctrine is part of this equation, which is nothing short of despicable for our Veterans.

Even when we know something is amiss there is nothing we can do as it stands. VA asks IOM not to comment on the Blue Water Navy issues because it is in litigation. So scientific data that could have possibly be used for Veterans and on their side... science remains silent because VA said so. I think that just might be considered withholding evidence and not quite sure but I think that is illegal.

Whom do we hold accountable? We cannot. Yet, if VA went back to Congress and asked whom did you mean to cover in the bills and Acts you passed and their answer was not what Veterans/Widows/surviving minor children deemed appropriate; then we have someone to hold accountable, at least at the voting booths at district and state levels.

If one considers Veterans Affairs the Judge and IOM the jury; then how many of you would expect to walk into a legal setting trying to prove your case as a plaintiff and the VA court judges and court council have already been told before you even present your case that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has legally pronounced, somehow and someway of which we as plaintiffs are not entitled to know how or have it defined in a manner that we can address legally, that disorder A-Z is not associated to herbicide exposures. Sound totally biased and one sided? You bet it is. The Veterans/Widows/surviving minor children have lost before the case is even presented.

Do not believe me then look at all the BVA decisions and see how they cite this so-called legal decree in the denial decisions.

Of course parallel to this no one has been able to explain to me how in a BVA court ruling setting with searchable criteria for previous decisions by BVA; how it is that men who served in the same area, during the same time period, doing the same thing: You get conflicting decisions of approval, denial, or remands with cases that are identical or very similar. Again, this does not seemed to be justice but a form of budget control using subjectivity, unproven statements by the Secretary of the VA; not real evidence.

Then we VA "staying cases and decisions" that have nothing to do with Blue Water for Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and other areas and even state side exposures, etc, that Veterans have clear evidence they were exposed and have exactly what was in on the very lacking infamous list of presumptive disorders. Did not serve in Vietnam even though you dying or disabled tough luck. VA just automatically throws your case into the Haas arena and once again, using illegal stalling tactics denies the Veterans/Widows/surviving minor children any form of justice that have nothing to do with Blue Water Navy.

I also disagree with informing VSO’s as if they care to have an impact. VSO’s have done little if anything at the national or political level to stop this form of injustice. Christ they have not even made suggestions that given a positive decision is made at the BVA level, all similar cases should be automatically approved and stop this trying the same case 10,000 times rather than try one and approve 10,000, as an example.

I will agree progress has been made at the VA but not for the good of the Veterans/Widows/surviving minor children. They have just found more insidious ways to deny, stall, and control the budget for the Executive Branch while Veterans die off, leaving their widows to continue the fight, until they get disgusted and give up.

In fact if one takes into account the VACEH and now the undocumented IOM processes Veterans have not gotten a fair assessment in the health care much less compensations for death and disability for a minimum of 30 years now. I would guess that when it reaches 60 years like the WW2 Veterans commented on above the VA will put out a call looking for any survivors to compensate them. Although since the government has never liked the outspoken Vietnam Vets they will probably add another five years to that just for good measure just for speaking out and challenging them and their status on Mount Olympia as Gods.

However, I will say there is some good news on the horizon, maybe even next week, in some arenas such as neurological damages with some members of our congress taking the bull by the horns as it were and submitting legislation to override VA with some of their own bills. This has been a long fight for over 40 years and finally I think congress is starting to realize the wide spread impacts of the “DoD Herbicide Usage Veterans Era” that has been debunked and minimized by "our friends" at the VA/VACEH/IOM for over 40 years now.

When this bill comes out it will up to each and everyone of you to make sure your representatives and senators support the passing of such bills.

I know this - when I met with Congressman Filner he was and still is concerned about Vietnam Veterans who have been waiting for this "eventually in time" discussed above to take place. Many are no longer with us to see some of these small victories that so many have tried to fight.

From June 2001

…In the meantime, VA is evaluating an April IoM report that finds "limited or suggestive" evidence that Agent Orange exposure in parents can lead to acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in their children. Principi announced in April, following the release of the IoM report, that he would ask Congress to enact legislation that would give VA the authority to create special benefits for those children.

However, the department’s typical evaluation of the IoM findings, which includes forming an internal working group that reports to the VA secretary, was complicated last month by the announcement that one of the studies cited by the IoM was being revised to show that its findings of risk of AML were not statistically significant.

Now what is this internal process or we once again not privy to those being paid to find something wrong in order to deny legal decisions? In fact, this statement and undefined process contradicts the statements made under oath by VA in 2000 in the congressional transcripts that clearly state they are accepting everything the IOM has recommended as associated and approved such.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), which carried out the study cited by IoM, said that it found an error in the way it calculated the expected prevalence of AML and other cancers in the general community. "The new calculations show that the prevalence of these conditions in the children of Vietnam veterans, while higher than normal and suggestive of increased risk, is not raised to a statistically significant extent," AIHW said in a press release.

AIHW is revising its study, which was released late last year, and is expected to release the new study soon. The results of that study may influence both VA’s evaluation, as well as whether the IoM issues an interim Agent Orange report based on the updated findings.

The IoM report, released at the end of April, found that there was limited or suggestive evidence linking AML to Agent Orange exposure of parents. In the report, the IoM committee highlighted three studies to support its conclusion. One was a study of AML, which was adjusted for any outside factors that showed that service in Vietnam or Cambodia was associated with an elevated risk. The second study was the Australian study, which found greater than a four-fold risk of AML in children of Vietnam veterans, but outside factors other than age and gender were not controlled in the study. The third study reported a 2.7-fold increased risk of AML in the children of fathers with self-reported exposure of more than 1,000 days to pesticides and weed killers in an occupational study.

The new Australian findings are unlikely to have an impact on the legislation introduced in April by Rep. Lane Evans (D., Ill.), ranking member of the House VA Committee, and Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D., Texas), ranking member of the VA benefits subcommittee, to provide compensation and benefits to the children of Vietnam veterans who are disabled potentially as a result of their parent’s military service. A staff member for Rep. Evans said even with revisions, the Australian study is expected to show a greater than normal risk of AML for Vietnam veterans.

The bill, "Vietnam Veterans Children’s Disability Act" (HR 1541), would give the VA secretary the authority to determine which disabilities may be associated with parental herbicide exposure, and would mandate benefits for veterans’ children who have been diagnosed with AML.

"Today we know children of veterans have disabilities associated with herbicide exposure experienced by a parent during military service on behalf of our nation," Rep. Evans said. "While we hope no additional diseases such as AML will be associated with parental herbicide exposure, this legislation will authorize the VA secretary to provide just compensation and necessary health care for additional diseases which may become associated with such exposure without requiring specific legislation for each disease."

In the meantime, I am pleading with every one of you to get this information out to your membership and begin talking about it. Also, AAMDS Foundation just asked if they can direct patients to the Order of the Silver Rose for information on the 43 AO caused Illnesses & assistance in filing a claim and/or getting medical treatment, we accept that responsibility as always. Since we refer Veterans to all the Vet Orgs, we can to their VSO/VSR's when or if needed for further assistance, you too will be hearing from these Veterans. I urge every one of you to get this information out, to have it available, and to study this so that you can help our Veterans with accurate information.

Aaron & I will be including brochures on this at our booth from now on with Gary's approval, as we do the National Birth Defects Foundation materials. This info is being shipped to us now; you can request some as well through the number or email listed below.

The Web Site Link is below and Leigh at AAMDS requested I include her name & phone number in this email and asked that you call her with any questions you may have, they are a wonderful organization that has a wealth of knowledge and resources. They have already been incredible in regards to our granddaughter and the info they make available not only to us, but also to her teacher and school nurse.

Please pass on-Vietnam Vets; Korean Vets

Of course, our Congress is not ignorant of what is going on either. They would rather have the ball in the VA’s court as opposed to their court. Why?

Do not believe me then look at all the BVA decisions and see how they cite this so-called legal decree in the denial decisions.

From June 2001

Contact: Leigh Clark