Dec 9, 2005
Hi to all,
I am working on the trip report to DC.
However, since I am going to post the trip report and send that link to those in
government that were there. I need your support and you need to take five
minutes and support yourselves, and your comrades, and our widows, and our
children.
Some very positive issues were discussed and may even be resolved once the data
was brought forward.
Some disagreements came up as to which part of government has the legal power
and I will be addressing those issues back to them in my posting.
In one issue, I have already gotten an e-mail that stated the VA official did
not make himself clear and misspoke. Which I will also address in the real trip
report.
I think I made some headway on this length of time required for already
associated claims but I think it needs to be hit harder.
Of course in any conversation the issues do not always remain constant and the
issues of the BVA came up and I addressed some of those. Which I will expand on.
The VA tells me that is what Veterans wanted. I can understand why the VSO's
wanted it but if you look at the legal language no citizen, Veteran or not, in
any correct mind would want to be subjugated to this form of legalized anarchy.
Anyway in the posting I will be asking you to find the time to at least to thank
those that made this venue possible and thank those that are going to work some
of the issues, etc regardless of what state they are in. As you know these are
national issues not a state issue.
Please please do not let me down on this. Show them there is some strength out
there that supports veterans and the disingenuous way the government has treated
them regardless if it is the White House or the VA or both or the government in
general.
There are more meetings scheduled. You wanted a venue and someone to fight the
battle so please support and inform all others on your e-mail address books you
know, to please e-mail or write a hard letter of THANKS (which is even better)
to the folks that are supporting this venue and are listening - all be it
arguing but at least some are listening.
I can fight the fight on a level government playing field and this is about as
close as we are going to get to a level playing field without one of us being a
congressman or a senator. The most encouraging thing for me was after; some of
the audience came up and said you put up one hell of a fight. I hope so.
I hope you realize that even the NVSO's do not get this form of venue.
I will be working on the posting during the day. I may even do it partial as I
know everyone is interested in knowing what happened. I am still just exhausted
from the trip.
Best to all,
Kelley
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 14, 2005
Hi to all,
I finally have a partial trip report to put forth.
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/Dec6thtripreport.htm
I will finish the trip report update as I continue to work on it.
Best to all,
Kelley
-------------------------------------------
Hi to all,
Here is are several windows into the VA and its philosophy.
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/windowintheva.htm
Still working on the trip report.
Kelley
----------------------------------------
Latest book review is in from the Vietnam Veterans of America service
organization.
“Dear Mr. Kelley
I have received the book and am flabbergasted at the unquestionable truth that
you are exposing.
I failed to tell you that I have been the National Chairman of the Agent
Orange/Dioxin Committee of the Vietnam Veterans of America since 1989.
Also, I have about 10000 scientific studies, which are computerized and broken
down into 20 different categories; one category is immune system and another
neurological.
Your book is the best I have ever read and I have read all of them.
Please contact me.”
Maybe the book will do some good?
As any of you that read book know I have stated in my view there are two basic
issues of Central Nervous System damages to include peripheral and autonomic
nerves and the damaged Immune System that is just reeking havoc in autoimmune
disorders and cancers - any cancers including recent information shows that the
dioxin TCDD is probably the first ALL SITE carcinogen produced by man and it is
not specific by cancer site.
Of course, these two are outside of the birth defects.
And the battle will continue.
Kelley
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dec 13, 2005
Hi Gale,
Please keep posting if you would.
Got to keep the ball rolling on these issues.
While my book is about our Vietnam toxic chemicals (plural) legacy I do have a
chapter on Gulf War that shows how the White House/DOD/VA philosophy was learned
in our war then applied to the Gulf War issues in government collaborations.
This is not the government I was taught it was.
Not when you have the DOD with the Feres Doctrine and then the VA with its U.S.C
38 para 511; then throw in the BVA, which the VA tells me, this is what Veterans
wanted. I do not know of any citizen that would want to be subjected to total
government anarchy and that is exactly what our Nations Veterans as well as
their families face.
In the chapter I also point out the level of proof required when it was obvious
something was wrong, the delay's, the NAS/IOM pointing the finger for 10 years
at STRESS which seems to be the DOD/VA's way of not telling the truth as to real
causations, and that in my opinion based on some Los Alamos data and directives
put out and other issues I referenced - the majority of the Gulf War Issues was
dirty U-238. Certainly there could have been dioxins from the fires but there is
a difference in Gulf War and Vietnam and that being we were not passing it on to
our wives and girl friends, which would logically conclude some from of
radiation dose.
I also point out the Senator from Minnesota I think it was; was hot on the trail
of releasing and fighting this DU issue and the cover-ups before his untimely
death in that plane accident. He called it; I think it was, a dirty little
cover-up.
Anyway, please keep posting for me if you would.
Thanks,
Kelley
------------------------------------------------
Email forwarded from Charles 12/15/05. --Gale
Hi to all,
I will be sending you some e-mail with different subjects that I am addressing
back rebuttals to those in attendance at the Dec 6th Meeting in DC.
This will be relatively quickly as I finish up the one on the subject of peer
reviews. So please look for them.
What I would like you to do is copy/paste these emails or even just forward-it
to your congressman and senators if you have their real e-mail. Means more if
you are going directly to your representative and your state senators than for
me to do it.
Remember you can go to
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/index.html and use that to copy paste the
e-mail in.
Of course, if you do not agree with the e-mail then that is your decision but at
least read the rationale in the rebuttal.
Thanks folks, we need to stick together on this.
Best,
Kelley
--------------------------------------
Email forwarded from Charles 12/15/05. --Gale
LINEAR DOSE RESPONSE TO THE DIOXIN TCDD
During the meeting on December 6th in DC, I put forward that the liner dose
response also is a scientific fallacy mandated in the government studies. This
as I pointed out in my presentation seemed to be lacking in integrity for many
reasons I documented and submitted and that was just a small portion of the
diseinginuash actions on file.
More recently, the EPA announced in many disorders there does not seem to be a
dose response for some medical issues. Including giving examples of the higher
dose that did not cause thyroid atrophy but the smaller dose did cause this
medical issue. In addition, the EPA has concluded that autoimmune disorders
require a threshold 100 times less than that of a cancer. Logic would dictate
exposures therefore would produce more autoimmunity than cancers. All be it the
autoimmunity perhaps lending itself to the development of cancers, any cancer.
This non-dose rate response is clearly conclusive in the Seveso, Italy "dioxin
only" disaster. Whereas unlike our toxic chemical legacy theirs was a single
distribution point of the toxic chemicals. Yet, to the surprise of the
researchers esophageal cancer and soft tissue sarcomas were more prevalent in
the lesser-exposed geographical areas (further away from the central
contamination point). In fact, if you look at the study there many such examples
of more observed cancers in the less contaminated area.
While the scientists did not show the ratio of "All Circulatory Diseases" with
respect to the contamination zone levels, this is indeed tragic.
In looking at the data there were more observed mortality from circulatory
diseases in the 15-year study than cancers. While the study did show cancer
sites with respect to contamination zone levels.
This data point could have been another indicator of the hypothesis put forth in
the Ranch Hand transcripts, not the Air Force redacted reports, concluding: That
one reason why the Ranch Hand was not seeing the cancers they had expected is
that the Ranch Handers were dying early from cardiovascular issues and not
living long enough to develop the expected cancers and cancer sites. It was also
brought out that many had died from cardiovascular issues before the first
physicals were given in 1982. This cardiovascular involvement was also found in
the Korean AO Impact Studies in which in the study they questioned why the Ranch
Hand study had not found this anomaly. Yet, clearly the Ranch Hand study had
found this trend.
One rationale the government and its contracted agencies (hired guns) have
stated over and over that, the dioxin TCDD is very common in many things.
Although, I have read where this concentration is now diminishing somewhat due
to various reasons. However, one must look at the cumulative effects in the body
of this toxic chemical swill.
I have found neither one study that shows the etiology of body expulsion of the
dioxin TCDD nor its rate of expulsion compared to the rate of ingestion or rate
of cell attachment. While the half-life of the dioxin, TCDD seems to
scientifically put at 7-10 years.
In the Dioxin Risk Analysis done by Emory University, their conclusion was the
dioxin TCDD might very well be the very first "All Site Human Carcinogen."
Thereby concluding that "any cancer" not just what the VA has deemed associated
can be a direct causation of this toxic chemical. In addition, this study found
that by doubling the TCDD background increases the risk of cancer anywhere from
12.1% to 13%. This is based on only a 5 ppt nominal in the general population.
For Vietnam Veterans this normal generic population exposure does not apply
since Vietnam Veterans would be expected to have an already higher baseline than
the "general public" that would accumulate this level over a much longer period
of time than the Veterans, which can certainly also be an impact. A much higher
dose rate as it where.
Then add on any normalized generic additional dioxin accumulation that we know
is prevalent, not just in this country but world itself, and it could be the
dose in Vietnam Veterans might not be the direct cause but the forming of a
higher baseline and rate would be the direct cause.
The issue is that the Emory scientists could not determine is if this increased
risk found is linear in function, step linear in function, or a logarithmic.
One must consider those facts and the relevancy to any "cause and effect" and as
they say, "ain't going to happen in our life time." The very best we will have
is an "increased risk of incidence" in my opinion and that has existed for
decades now for Veterans and their widows.
It is obvious the government mandates to a "liner dioxin dose response," except
for maternal birth defects (which is also unprecedented in our toxic chemical
legacy and certainly a double VA standard) is not even logical and only provides
government and chemical company exonerating evidence, not scientific
conclusions.
Charles Kelley
DMZ 67-68
----------------------------------------------
Email forwarded from Charles 12/15/05. --Gale
CAUSE AND EFFECT: MYTH OR LEGAL REQUIREMENT
Discussion:
Several comments were made during the VAC meeting on Dec 6th, 2005 that we "need
to know" "cause and effect" for these mass Veteran medical Issues to award
compensations for death and disability as associated, more than likely 95% of
them caused by government/DOD mistakes in our toxic chemical legacy.
My comment was, that we would never know what caused what, or even which toxic
chemical or group of toxic chemicals to what level caused what. This could only
be done, as I suggested, if you had a warehouse full of Veterans that were
willing to be tested to destruction by replicating dosages of each toxic
chemical, combinations of each toxic chemical, taking dapsone and not taking
dapsone, different methods of ingestions and different rates of ingestions. In
other words, replicating the entire toxic chemical war. Verifying one, does not
rule out combinations unless you do exclusionary testing also.
Then do not forget the differences in formulas by each manufacturer. This is a
fact of replication and trust me I have seen this over my career that no two
manufacturing process are identical even though one company is doing exactly
what the other company says to do. It can be a person on the line that over
years has learned what to do in certain situations to make the lots pass
inspection. Something happens and the company lets that person go or the person
seeks employment elsewhere and the formula is lost as to what was intended. This
includes, variances in not only the levels of the one dioxin TCDD but variances
of other less notable dioxins, including that some lots will have additional
dioxins and closely related furans. Totally different dioxin isomers as well as
"dioxin like" isomers can be the difference.
This becomes particularly significant if you look at the statements made by Dr.
Teitelbaum who indicated in 1989 after reviewing Dow's formulation of Agent
White he found other dioxins, closely related furans, and xanthones that "had
never been made known to ANY FEDERAL AGENCY, including the EPA and the FDA."
While the myth is that Agent Orange was the most widely used herbicide and that
is true to a point. The most widely used toxic chemical was 2,4-D found in both
Agent White and in Agent Orange. Yet, all studies are based on 2,4,5-T and its
byproduct of the dioxin TCDD. Including that when the Board of Veteran Appeals (BVA)
turns down a Veteran the U.S.C. code used for legally denying that claim only
references the byproduct chemical formula for the dioxin TCDD.
Yet, the Veteran is submitting for Agent Orange herbicide (total) exposure
damages. When in reality he or she should be submitting for all herbicide
damages including Agents Orange, Super Orange or Agent Orange II, Agent White,
Agent Blue, the 15 commercially named herbicides that were used, and the other
variances of military herbicides used such as Agents Purple and Green. The
latter which seems to have the highest levels of the dioxin TCDD not Agent
Orange. Including that changes were made in the Agent Orange formula at some
point in time although I do not know when the cut off point was established. I
think the Columbia University study found that change in their completion of the
Herbicide tapes that for 40 years our government said, "it could not be done."
Yes, the dioxin TCDD is the most carcinogenic man made substance known to date.
In fact, many are starting to compare the carcinogenic properties and severity
of other toxic chemicals to the worst one, that being the dioxin TCDD. This does
not mean that Agent Blue as an example or any combination thereof did not also
affect many Veterans.
I developed Cyanosis in Vietnam that I never had before or since. Now is this a
coincidence that the only time in my life I had this issue was in Vietnam and
just a coincidence the herbicide Agent Blue that produces Cyanosis was being
used? That would be one heck of a coincidence.
Therefore "significant correlation at some level" or "increased risk of
incidence" is all that we will ever know and by the United States previous
rulings and by a "courts review with mandamus directions which were ignored" of
the intent of that philosophy by the congress; that is all that is required for
death and disability associated compensations.
My statements are based on the recent scientific statements regarding the single
dioxin TCDD. These statements conclude that what science thought they knew 20
years ago as to how the dioxin TCDD creates what it does in its multiple system
modifications; has gotten much more complex than just a binding of the cell
receptors. This damaging process leaving the cell as part of the body itself but
now blocking or modifying its functions. It is now suggested by science that the
dioxin TCDD also changes the cell DNA thereby making the cell no longer part of
the body.
Therefore if the congress even had a "mandated benefit of the doubt in 1984" by
the recent scientific statements that "benefit of the doubt" should be even
stronger. Yet, the disability commission was questioning if they should continue
to give the Veteran the benefit of the doubt. My question to the VA at the
disability commission meeting was, "Where is it given now?" The answer was,
"well they will just tell you they give it to you." Only the VA can get away
with saying some totally dumb answer like that. In my attachment three on the CD
I submitted on Dec 6th, it was obvious that even in 50/50 BVA case there is no
benefit of the doubt but only BVA legal power which I will address in a separate
submittal.
In addition, unlike most toxic chemicals, the TCDD damage is not just serial in
effect but more along the line of a series of events that can have parallel
branches to other systems. This is especially true in cytokine changes where the
changing of one not only has direct interference to another cytokine but an
indirect influence on the adjacent cytokines in a totally different type
response.
As I discussed I am working on a "failure modes and effects" of the known
cytokine changes in Vietnam Veterans from the Korean AO study. This will take
some amount of time but I think it is clearly the best analysis vehicle we have
at this point as a secondary root cause.
"Cause and effect" is certainly a "nice to know for a 200 year science project"
but not necessary in determining a medical diagnosis, cause, identifying medical
conditions, or even defined medical parameters.
There are many such disorders under the generic terms of "autoimmune disorders"
and even cancers that the study of medicine for centuries cannot provide the
"cause." Even the "effect" is qualified as "a syndrome" or similar or any number
of symptoms that a patient may have and not all patients will have all of the
symptoms, as every individual is different.
This medical presentation includes nominal testing values by shear repetition
that has established some boundaries of the disorder as being called "whatever."
Including that periodically as some researcher takes a shot at explaining the
additional ramifications or even precautionary testing found in some patients
that might offer to others data points that other scientist can also can build
on in an ultimate cause and effect. Does not mean they have found the "absolute
cause." Only that the additional data points do exist. What they mean to the
world of science is subject to interpretation by those in that medical and
scientific arena. This is a constant and continual process in finding some form
of cause and the related effects in the generic syndrome. To say that it would
encompass and define all those patients or even 70% of those patients that have
this disorder and their symptoms is a stretch. Indicators maybe, but not
inclusive to all.
Remember that even in the drug testing for new pharmaceutical drugs that not
every one will react the same or develop the same side effects of the new drug.
WHY?
Because we are all different.
Do we now consider U.S. Veterans the same biologically when no segment in the
world is considered the same? Of course not. Except it seems if the United
States Government has to foot the bill for their own pre-warned government/DOD
mistakes then this totally unrealistic compensation for death and disability
policy is invoked.
The exclusion to this is in the Gulf War Syndrome. Which I think the VA is
mandating that it be called Gulf War Illness as if they have more data than they
are telling as to the parameters and what exactly is happening.
This consists of, as I understand it, a number of set symptoms that develop and
are developing in our Gulf War I Veterans. What the qualification procedures
are, testing procedures are and testing data you must meet, or how many of what
do you have to have or test to; is unknown to me and for this discussion is
irrelevant.
The very fact that the VA did this is "unprecedented" in their history, which I
can find anyway; is totally relevant.
While I must give credit for a VA sane and rational policy. Without looking at
how the VA is treating this illness, not syndrome, and the qualifications for
such illness; I cannot comment on how "genuine" this VA precedent setting rule
actually is to our Gulf War Veterans.
Charles Kelley
DMZ 67-68
----------------------------------------
Email forwarded from Charles 12/15/05. --Gale
U.S.C 38 Para 511
During several discussions in our meeting the issues of U.S.C 38, para 511 came
up.
"U.S.C 38 Paragraph 511
(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a
decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by
the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject to
subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such question shall be
"final and conclusive" and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any
court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.
Now the way this is written if you break it down, in my opinion:
The VA Secretary has the total legal authority as a "federal administrator
position only" (no different than a social security administrator position
without that same legal power) to interpret any law or any congressional mandate
that applies to Veterans as to what he or she thinks including the
appropriateness as to application or inappropriateness of application of any
mandated laws that cover Veterans. In other words, you can pass all the laws or
congressional mandates you want and the VA Secretary has the power to determine
anything that he wants, as it applies to Veterans. Including, the addition of
more stringent policies and procedures.
Now the VA says, almost as if it is an everyday thing, that you can take issues
to the Supreme Court or a District Court. Yet, the first thing that comes out of
the government lawyers is you do not have that authority and now every time, you
have to fight that battle first, which can take decades for heaven sakes. Then
the court states even when you get to that point that they have no legal
authority to review this issue, no matter what it is.
Including any action that involves a "mandamus act." What that "otherwise" in
U.S.C 38 paragraph 511 actually means is certainly ambiguous and legally
arguable for decades, I would conclude.
"Mandamus act" - an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a
ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for
the official's discretion; used only when all other judicial remedies fail.
Therefore, even a direct court legal written "command to perform," no longer
applies to the Secretary of the VA when it comes to Veterans issues.
This becomes more obvious when you consider the courts review in 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 the dioxin TCDD and various diseases."
While the VA did not challenge the courts rulings or the courts ruling to force
the VACEH to revisit and review all the previous findings and rulings and what I
deem "biased processed decisions" under the "new court mandated protocols of
evidence required" and not "cause in effect," which according to the courts
ruling was to stringent and was not the intent of congress.
The VA instead just ignored the courts findings and the VACEH was replaced by
the NAS/IOM.
The legal issue here, as far as I am concerned, is no different than the Feres
Doctrine, which violates the separation of powers regarding the DOD, demanded by
the constitution, not a suggestion.
You have a "federal agency administrator" that is given legal powers beyond the
scope of any one persons pay grade, including constitutional law. Consider that
the White House appoints the administrator; that now is given what has to be
deemed unfettered legal control over an entire segment of society operating at
White House Philosophy.
Including in our toxic chemical issues much campaign money is given to those
running for president and some of those in congress by the chemical companies
themselves. Thereby, certainly establishing a "conflict of interest" in not only
the president but also some members of congress and very definitely "the March
Orders of the VA."
I do not think this is what is called "separation of powers" or even comes close
to that definition. In fact, this process could be called many things, besides
constitutional.
"The reality of the VA is that it combines executive, legislative and judicial
branch functions all into one Department."
Charles Kelley
DMZ 67-68
------------------------------------
Email forwarded from Charles 12/15/05. --Gale
BVA
During the DC meeting on December 6th, it was put forward that the Board of
Veterans Appeal (BVA) was what the Veterans had fought for and actually wanted.
I indicated that I did not like it for many reasons including it seems to be
more of a legalized Veterans lottery including the fact that BVA precedence's
could not be cited or ruled as evidence. This is the backbone of our entire
constitutional legal system. Otherwise, judges and lawyers would still be
arguing who is going to pay for the Boston Tea Party damages. Moreover, it seems
this is the exactly what the BVA is set up to do.
Now I was not involved during this time so I do not know how it came about. Only
that I know "lets get the Veterans one more time" Senator Specter had a large
hand in getting it established. In his direct words, "if it does not work out we
can always do away with it." Fat chance of that. It is not working, except for
the mandated budgets by the White House as intended as the flood of toxic
chemical claims was going to flood the government in the mid 1980's. The time
line is certainly a coincidence.
Now if Veterans knew how one sided and actually unconstitutional this court was
to be I for one cannot imagine any Veteran or Veteran's widow wanting this form
of so-called justice.
I ask the congressmen and senators I am copying would you want to be judged by a
court and legal rules like this.
With rules like:
· Cannot use previous BVA rulings as precedence.
Therefore, it is a court but then it is not a court in the real legal world.
Perhaps this is why it takes decades instead of minutes to get a ruling since no
precedence's are allowed.
· "The Board notes, however, that in May 2003, VA gave notice that the Secretary
had determined that a presumption of service connection based on exposure to
Agent Orange used in Vietnam during the Vietnam era "was not warranted" for a
number of disabilities, including "chronic persistent peripheral neuropathy." 68
Fed. Reg. 27,630 (May 20, 2003)."
·
The head court judge appointed by the President defending the White House/DOD
and their insane decisions to use these toxic chemicals, as it where, has
already ruled against the Veteran before the Veteran even gets into this mockery
of a legal system.
· "The Board gives much more weight to the NAS/IOM analysis than to the opinion
of the private treating neurologist because the NAS analysis is based on the
most recent scientific and epidemiological data. The opinion of the VA examiner
that there is no objective evidence of an etiology for the peripheral
neuropathy, considered in conjunction with the NAS analysis, shows that the most
that can be determined without a resort to speculation is that the veteran's
peripheral neuropathy is idiopathic in nature; it is of undetermined cause. See
Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S.
1046 (1998)
The judge and jury now gives more weight to some hired guns hired by the very
government you are seeking damages from who also seek operating money and grants
from the same government. Obviously, this is a conflict of interest considering
the evidence that I submitted in my presentation CD on Dec 6th that shows even
the tainted government studies found the "magical linear dioxin dose response to
chronic polyneuropathy," as well as the other studies I cited.
Including the many questions surrounding the NAS/IOM as to what level of
anything they are looking for.
An example of this is from the 2000 oversight committee meeting when Congressman
Shays asked Mr. Butler of the NAS/IOM many questions and as the congressman
concluded, he felt like he was playing a chess match in trying to get a straight
answer out of Mr. Butler. I felt the same way in discussing several issues as to
what level of evidence or proof they required for recommendations and could get
no (zero) mandated decision matrix or level of proof per category. Yet, these
scientists are judging Veterans.
If the congress does not feel they are entitled to the exact formulas and levels
of proof I can assure you those that are being denied do feel we are entitled to
know how this is being accomplished and at what level. Otherwise, it meets the
definition of nothing but "government anarchy" directed by the White
House/DOD/VA.
The finest citizens this nation has to offer deserve better.
What I found totally NAS/IOM hypocritical in this oversight meeting is Mr.
Butler concluded they used some protocols from the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC). Yet, clearly as far back as 1977 the IARC found:
· IARC identified 6 out of 7 different populations occupationally exposed to
chlorinated phenolic compounds where neuropsychological symptoms or depressive
syndromes were established (IARC, 1977b).
· IARC noted that PNS damage was also found in the same six dioxin exposed
populations, including polyneuropathies, lower extremity weakness, and sensorial
impairments (sight, hearing, smell, taste). (Sound familiar to any of you
Vietnam Veterans reading this?)
· In 1986, the IARC clearly restated it's finding that dioxin had been found to
be associated with peripheral neuropathies and personality changes (IARC, 1986).
The NAS/IOM approves of the protocols used by the IARC but obviously disagrees
with the IARC's scientific findings using the same protocols. That needs some
explaining or is the VA overriding all scientific evidence regardless of what
protocols are used or changed in the middle of a study as the evidence becomes
more and more damning.
The BVA then uses the statements made by the medically astute Secretary of the
VA and gives more weight to the very questionable NAS/IOM to deny peripheral
neuropathies. What the board did not give is the mandated benefit of the doubt
demanded by congress which is obviously ignored by the VA and did not even give
the established world of medicine doubt that in 33% of the neuropathy cases the
causation or as the VA counselor judge and jury so eloquently put it; etiolgy
will never be known!
· Board has fact-finding authority to assess the quality of the evidence before
it, including the duty to analyze its credibility and probative value, as well
as authority to discount the weight and probity of evidence in light of its own
inherent characteristics and its relationship to other items of evidence."
·
The court you are seeking justice from decides what is relevant and what is not
relevant and its evidentiary weight. What kind of justice is this?
Is this not like the Ford Motor Company setting up its own legal court for the
Pinto explosions in the 1960's? With Ford appointing the judges and making all
the rules of acceptable evidence before the judgment even begins. Like failure
to properly protect gas tanks does not constitute the reasons for the Pinto gas
tanks exploding upon impact in this court. Next case please!
Once again, I ask the congressmen and senators I am copying, would you want to
be judged by a court like this. I know many companies that lost billions over
product liability that would like to have a court like this that they could run
like the VA is running our Veterans Court.
Past time the constitutionality of this what the government calls a court was
questioned and more and more Veterans "will be speaking out" as they loose their
fear of local VA shop reprisals as well as BVA reprisals in on going cases when
they realize they cannot win no matter how much direct evidence they have.
The Nation's Finest do not deserve this form of government treatment and the
word is getting out to the nation as to how the government really treats the
Veterans of this nation.
Charles Kelley
DMZ 67-68
-------------------------------------------
Email forwarded from Charles 12/15/05. --Gale
Ranch Hand and peer review and the hypocritical NAS/IOM.
During the DC meeting on December 6th it was discussed if the, questionable in
my opinion, Ranch Hand study had been peer reviewed.
While sections of it have been published and peer reviewed the charges of
crafting for publication and review in my opinion are legitimate charges.
Including that some of these were published overseas, including the birth
defects report.
While the question as to whether it actually has been peer reviewed or at least
the redacted study peer reviewed is irrelevant.
The NAS/IOM has been using this report since day one as their Gold Standard.
While they should have been using the actual un-redacted scientific transcripts.
In fact, the NAS/IOM states that while they have reviewed other peer reviewed
studies and are mandated to only review peer reviewed studies; their focus has
been on the Ranch Hand Study. Using this study as a Gold Standard, this with all
the questions of integrity in this study is questionable on even this
perception, which was also backed up by charges by the GAO itself in 2000.
This was also noted in the oversight review of 2000 while Mr. Butler of the
NAS/IOM played chess with questions and answers, as described by Congressman
Shays in the transcripts, as to exactly what information they were using. In
other words, the NAS/IOM did not want to directly answer questions as to what
they were in fact doing.
More recently, this game of chess in answering direct questions was prevalent on
September 16th at the Disability Commission meeting. Whereas I had presented on
the 15th and one of the Commissioners, Commissioner Grady actually took my
evidence and read it the night before the NAS/IOM program manager presented his
"holier than thou" presentations the next day.
When Commissioner Grady asked if they used the Ranch Hand report in their
analysis and decisions the chess match continued. As the NAS/IOM program manager
replied that, he thought Dr. Stellman had reviewed the Ranch Hand studies. While
that in itself may be true as Dr. Stellman stated in the American Legion
Magazine that they way you do a study is work with folks not manipulate the
findings. There is no doubt Dr. Stellman has reviewed the Ranch Hand reports.
The question is in what context did Dr. Stellman's review take place. I do not
think it is in the context Commissioner Grady was asking.
However, the question was side stepped because obviously the NAS/IOM program
manager that made that statement is aware; there is a whole committee of NAS/IOM
members that review this information and make decisions that affect the Veterans
and their families. Which is what Commissioner Grady's question was made to
reveal and address. Instead, it was Dr. Stellman of the NAS/IOM that this
representative suggested was the sole reviewer of the Ranch Hand reports and by
default had little influence in the decisions made by the committee. This
perception is patently false.
Including what this NAS/IOM guy left out was that the Ranch Hand leaders brief
the NAS/IOM committee members in person.
The request for Veterans to come forward and discuss issues was made by the
NAS/IOM in the American Legion Magazine. I contacted the NAS/IOM that I wanted
to present some data since they had requested it of Veterans. I was informed
that I was to be given 15 minutes after I requested at least one hour. The only
briefer that got one hour? Guess who? The Ranch Hand study.
A disabled Veteran is to drive 17 hours at his own expense to present as
requested in trying to defend his comrades and buddies against the government
and is to be given 15 minutes total.
Therefore, the issue of whether the Ranch Hand has been peer reviewed in making
these monumental decisions and what I call government tainted decisions is
totally irrelevant.
Charles Kelley
DMZ 67-68
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:24:12 EST
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/ResponsetoDAV.htm
RESPONSE TO A DAV REPRESENTATIVE
Dear Ms XXXXXXX of the DAV,
I read with interest your e-mail remarks concerning Veteran XXX XXXXXXX and I
certainly agree there should be no name calling to anyone.
Veterans need to deal with the government/VA biased issues with our politicians
with data and logic. Even this is non-effective since our own government,
congress included, has created a separate executive, legislative, and judicial
branch outside of the real elected form of government. This might even be the
way politicians protect themselves from Veteran voters and their family, as if
it is not their fault.
It is entirely their fault, as they have let White House after White House
create this VA unconstitutional form of anarchy treatment to only one segment of
society.
While I do not condone name-calling, when a Veteran realizes his own government has turned against him or her; the frustration becomes unbearable and the lashing out starts at anyone to blame. This includes the VSO’s that also seemed to have let this collaboration continue and even grow stronger. In some cases, this frustration of knowing that our own government is covering up issues they have suffered with for decades becomes debilitating in itself as they slowly lose the will to fight an enemy federal agency that will not answer questions and cowardly will not address the real issues. Even our congressmen and senators tell us there is not much they can do with this runaway federal agency.
It is very doubtful our founding fathers
envisioned this move by our own government to cover up their own mistakes made
by the "Feres Doctrine protected DOD" and the supplemental follow on
"unconstitutional form of government budget control" within the Department of
Veterans Affairs that is more in tune to White House mandated budgets. Rather
than any form of truth and justice for the Veterans, widows, and their
families.
While it is true, individual DAV VSO's such as you and others have helped some
Veterans, it must be pointed out that this system is more of a “Veteran's
Lottery” versus any kind of “Veteran's Justice” for government/DOD mistakes.
While you stated as individuals those in the DAV, VFW, and AL are not going to
support this march. What is more important to Veterans is: do or will the
National Organizations support such a march. I think you will find your
National Organizations with few exceptions “will not stand with Veterans.”
They now have too much to lose in government benefits given at the behest of the
Department of Veterans Affairs, not law, to even protest in a whisper. The
government non-political pacts they sign to get these "benefits," guarantee a
"lack of performance" at the National levels.
The only VSO that seems to not be afraid of the VA is the VVA in taking even
those in the VA that have participated in scientific misconduct to task in the
courts system. The difference is this VSO is final and not perpetual. When the
last Vietnam Veteran dies, so does the VSO.
As you may or may not know the head of the Congressional VAC, Congressman Buyer,
has now said that the main VSO's will not be allowed to address a joint session
of congress and any presentations will be made only in the Veteran Affairs
Committee.
Your own DAV commander's statements regarding this issue were as follows:
"Chairman Buyer is not interested in a meaningful dialogue
with the veterans community," said DAV National Commander Paul W. Jackson.
"How could the Chairman expect us to analyze and comment on the President's
budget request before it is even made public? On the other hand, is it his
intent to blunt criticism and suppress diverse points of view regarding funding
levels and policy initiatives in the President's budget?" Commander Jackson
said.
"The revised schedule for hearings and the change in format amount to a slap in
the face of individual veterans as well as the groups that represent them in the
public policy arena. Chairman Buyer has slammed the door in the face of
America's s veterans," Commander Jackson said.”
It seems that National VSO's are becoming victims of their own greed and the
lack of really supporting Veterans. Every year they are less and less relevant
to the political partisanship in our nation to the real pandering public who
expect the government to support them "in all areas" for doing nothing for the
nation.
House and Senate members no longer care that the DAV or any other VSO has over
one million members. They know because of the ineptness of the DAV, as well as
other VSO's; in mounting, any challenge to a political issue all threats or even
concerns are now meaningless.
Moreover, they will get a 60/40-split vote no
matter what they do to the Veterans and their families.
Including killing or maiming them because of lack of medical data given out,
they knew existed in 1984. Yet, they remained silent because the White House
clearly chose not to take responsibility for the national disasters they caused
within the Veteran community.
I agree with Veteran XXX XXXXXX the name of the march is illogical, and has some
"give me" connotations that are associated with it and not "earned and then
denied benefits"; and should be called something such as a "Veterans March
for Constitutional Rights" or similar. If that one issue was resolved
then most of the other issues would go away and some federal employees,
including VA cover-up scientists, would be in the federal prisons.
Just in one issue of one example: How can any VSO that says they support
Veterans condone the following?
U.S.C 38 Paragraph 511
(a) The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a
decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by
the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. Subject
to subsection (b), the decision of the Secretary as to any such question shall
be "final and conclusive" and may not be reviewed by any other official or by
any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise.
This is not the constitutional justice Veterans
fought and died for. That is nothing but government anarchy.
Including any action that involves a mandamus act! What that "otherwise"
in U.S.C 38 paragraph 511 actually means is certainly ambiguous and legally
arguable for decades, I would conclude.
"Mandamus act" - an extraordinary writ commanding an official to perform a
ministerial act that the law recognizes as an absolute duty and not a matter for
the official's discretion; used only when all other judicial remedies fail.
So even a direct court legal written command "to perform," no longer applies to
the Secretary of the VA when it comes to Veterans Issues.
This becomes more obvious when you consider the courts review in 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 the dioxin TCDD and various diseases."
While the VA did not challenge the courts rulings or the courts ruling to force
the VACEH to revisit and review all the previous findings and rulings and what I
deem "biased processed decisions" under the "new court mandated protocols of
evidence required" and not "cause in effect," which according to the courts
ruling was too stringent and was not the intent of congress.
The VA instead just ignored the courts findings and the VACEH was replaced by
the totally biased NAS/IOM.
The legal issue here, as far as I am concerned, is no different than the Feres
Doctrine which violates the separation of powers regarding the DOD demanded by
the constitution, not a mere suggestion; but a mandate. Yet, the Veterans
putting their faith and money into VSO's who by their own doings are totally
helpless to stop such issues.
Take the above USC 38 511 and change that from Veterans issues to "illegal alien issues" with no (zero) rights to the order of precedence in law including the Supreme Court. The public, national media, lawyer groups, civil rights groups, and congressional pandering outcry would be beyond a simple protest. It would be reported for months on end on the front pages of national outlets and news analyst shows would go on ceaselessly, including historical perspectives at every turn of the next 20 national elections.
Yet, with very few exceptions the national media will not cover or report our Veterans' plight in the very same issues of being unconstitutional.
Even the VA quality audits by the VSO's that uncover Veteran's claims being set aside for over five years and not worked because the local VA shops get no (zero) credit for working that category of claims is not reported by the national media as just a "despicable government disgrace." This is not a one VA shop issue but a National Issue even by the AL's own admitted statements. Yet, it goes unreported in the national press.
Had this been anything but a "Veterans Issue" it would be all over the press that a federal agency was sitting on claims for over "half a decade" because they got no (zero) middle management credit. Congress is also aware of these findings and yet still cannot take the VA in tow and demand some form of integrity.
While the VSO's crow about budgets, Veterans issues are
much more than just budgets. It is about the lawlessness in our government and
our own federal agency. They do however, seemed to be a very willing back drop
for presidential and congressional BS as they spew their government rhetoric of
how they support the warriors of the nation. BUNK!
In fact, Veterans are now starting to ask the question as to why Veterans face a
mounting challenge each and every year rather than a VSO forced mandated budget
with deltas from that budget in time of war. We see no such issues for
assisting illegals with billions of dollars of medical care 24 hours a day and
seven days a week. Unlike Veterans who must wait 12 months to get in the system
and then an appointment request is months of waiting.
Here again it seems the VSO's will not unite and make these non-sensible
approach budget issues, which is the real cost of war, a political venue.
Again, they are helpless in these issues by their own doings and have become
nothing but as one of my gunfighter Marines called them, "nothing but an
extension of the VA itself."
Veterans have learned the VA and its appointed secretary are not our allies
and are more interested in White House budgets than issues of cover-up,
thievery, out and out stalling when a Veteran is dying of an AO cancer in hopes
the Veteran will die first before his claim is approved (conflict of
interest), scientific misconduct, and not changing the old rules that reflect a
war wound versus a toxic chemical or Gulf War cancer wound.
I was at the Disability Commission and presented at the meeting in Silver
Springs, MD and saw first hand the lack of performance by the VSO's as they made
their presentations. They came in just in time to speak and then left right
after. What they said, or more to the point what was not said, was even more
reflective of their total ineptness to fight for Veterans.
One of the issues being discussed; should the VA continue to give the Veteran
the "Benefit of the Doubt." Now I have studied this issue for four long years
and wrote a book on this issue at:
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/book/bookorders.htm
with book reviews.
My question to the Committee since none of the VSO's would ask: Where is the
benefit of the doubt given and what kind of level are we talking? Since I
have found BVA claims where everyone stated there was a 50/50 chance it was
toxic chemicals and "my Marines claims" were still denied by the anarchy and
totalitarian philosophy at the VA. Moreover, how can anyone ascertain what
the ramifications are of not doing something when we have no idea
where in the process it is given or even what the VA's process actually is?
I gave about eight examples of where it was not located and the very astute VA liaison Rep that was there said in his VA like answer. “They, the VA, will just tell you they give the Veteran the Veterans' the Benefit of the Doubt mandated by congress.” BUNK!
So just trust us, the VA, we are doing it
somewhere!!!!!!!! I think we seen too much of that "trust me," I am your
Government Agency stuff the last 40 years.
So lets see in a simplistic analogy: How does this new blue color compare with
the "other color" and no one knows what the "other color" is or was! And what
are the impacts? Just classic VA rhetoric.
So yes, I agree there should be no name calling. Although, I certainly
understand the anger of the Veteran.
However, if one Veteran calling you names or calling for the shutting down of
the VSO's will stop you from supporting Veterans then I would suggest your heart
was not in it to begin with.
The VSO's themselves are making themselves irrelevant and there is nothing you
can do as a member to stop it.
Beer, Bingo, Barbecues, and bottom line Bank Accounts seemed to be the VSO's
answer to the Veterans and their families in fighting what has to be called
Government/White House/VA corruption and collaboration.
Rest assured this is fast becoming a National Security Issue as more and more
data gets out.
America's sons and daughters must be given the "right to know" that after they
serve our government all rights to the protection of the constitution afforded
to even enemy combatants are now forfeited by them, as they become yesterday's
obsolete government assets.
They should be able to make the choices based on facts; not the White House and
Congressional rhetoric that comes out of inside 495.
Men and women going into our Armed Forces today must ask themselves these questions:
Are these collaborative and corrupt government politicians when it comes to Veterans Issues worth fighting and dying for?
Is this NATION, regardless of collaborative and corrupt government politicians when it comes to Veterans Issues, worth fighting and dying for?
If they ever bring back the draft, you, as well
as the nation, will have your answer!
I will close my response with a statement by Congressman Shays from the 2000
Government Oversight Review of the Ranch Hand Study:
"At what level do you think Government should consider compensation? Should we
have a no shadow of a doubt? The reason why I am asking the question is I have
concluded, based on our work that we have done on Gulf War illnesses, based on
our review of Agent Orange, that I have to be honest with our veterans.
By the time we will know the scientific data, you are dead. You
will either have died early or you will have died in your old age in pain,
but you will not get help from the Federal Government."
Veterans of this nation, in all reality, stand alone in these issues regardless
of how many VSO's are making money off of the Veteran's pain and suffering.
Charles Kelley
SP5Kelley2nd94th@aol.com
DMZ 67-68
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:34:08 EST Email forwarded from Charles. --Gale
new
links posted
Hi to all,
I have posted a few more links:
One concerns - how do you get the VA to comply with a direct court order. As
you will see, I am not sure the VA has to comply with any court order all be it
I am not well versed in legal affairs. Nevertheless, it seems the USC 38 and
such guarantee the VA immunity from any court mandates and are above the law
when it comes to any issues that are associated to any Veteran or Veterans
Benefits.
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/ResponsetoVeteran1.htm
The other - I was contacted by an Aussie Veteran on their meeting with the
biased NAS/IOM some time next week. He wanted to know what I considered biased,
so they might be able to address some issues and get some questions answered.
This is a long posting but I did not want to leave anything out. The last two
sections are most important although in my opinion the evidence I documented is
also overwhelming.
That is located at:
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/aussieinformation.htm
I received a nice e-mail from Fred Wilcox who is the author of "Waiting for an
Army to Die: The Tragedy of Agent Orange.
Mr. Wilcox has been in this fight much longer than I have and I appreciate all
his efforts and his continuing efforts, as we all should.
I have had to stop answering a few e-mails to get the Aussie report done but
will get to those as soon as I can.
The response to the posting on the VSO's has been just great, most suggest the
data, and philosophy is right on target. That previous posting was at:
http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/Chas/ResponsetoDAV.htm
Some have written in asking what is next - how do we fix it.
I do not know but I will get a link up of what I intend to do, what I am
currently working on, and what I think Veterans and their families should be
doing to put an end to this form of treatment starting NOW!
All the best,
Kelley