Jump to content


  • hate-ads-subscribe-now.jpg

  • Ad
  • Ad
  • 14 Questions about VA Disability Compensation Benefits Claims


    When a Veteran starts considering whether or not to file a VA Disability Claim, there are a lot of questions that he or she tends to ask. Over the last 10 years, the following are the 14 most common basic questions I am asked about ...
    Continue Reading
  • Can a 100 percent Disabled Veteran Work and Earn an Income?

    employment 2.jpeg

    You’ve just been rated 100% disabled by the Veterans Affairs. After the excitement of finally having the rating you deserve wears off, you start asking questions. One of the first questions that you might ask is this: It’s a legitimate question – rare is the Veteran that finds themselves sitting on the couch eating bon-bons … Continue reading

  • Ad
Sign in to follow this  

Drug Poisoning And Immunizations

Recommended Posts

I thought this site could be of value since its about doctor talking to doctors or other medical professions.


Happy reading!!

The Controlled Clinical Trial: An Analysis

by Harris L. Coulter, Ph.D.

In THE CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL: AN ANALYSIS, Harris Coulter, author of DIVIDED LEGACY: A HISTORY OF THE SCHISM IN MEDICAL THOUGHT and DPT: A SHOT IN THE DARK, critically examines the usefulness of randomised clinical trials. His thorough research, based almost exclusively on medical literature, reveals why the "controlled clinical trial" (CCT) cannot guarantee drug safety and efficacy.

Coulter argues that while allopaths talk pompously about this so-called "gold standard" of medicine, no controlled clinical trial matching the textbook definition has ever been performed. "Because the theoretical requirements are unrealistic and unscientific. How can you test a drug on 12 or 100 or 1,000 identical or 'homogenous' people all with the same thing wrong with them? Allopaths can't even find five homogenous patients. You'll always find things that are different between people, because we are all chemically, physically, structurally, and emotionally unique. The CCT can never tell a doctor how a given patient will react to a given drug at any given time. The findings from the so-called controlled clinical trial are useless in one-on-one doctor patient interactions."

THE CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL not only investigates the science behind the CCT, but also delves into its history and politics. According to Coulter, the CCT has become popular primarily for political reasons. "It's used as a stick to beat alternative medicine with for failing to perform these trials. Since these trials are very expensive it costs about $200 million today to get a new drug on the market the controlled clinical trial is really an instrument for limiting competition in medicine, and for raising the costs of medicines to the public."

He asserts that monopolistic objectives are not the only built-in fraud feature of the CCT. Fraud in safety testing of drugs is a strong likelihood. The clinical investigator is paid enormous sums of money by the very manufacturer of the drug, and financial temptation to perform dishonest trials is strong. It's a very lucrative business - many of them receive more than $1 million annually from their testing programs. Coulter dedicates a chapter of the book to demonstrate the extent of fraudulent drug testing. "Frightful examples of dishonesty, fraud, negligence, and other kinds of wrongdoing in clinical trials have been staple fare for readers of the [uS] daily press since the 1970s, when Congressional committees and subcommittees renewed their interest in the topic." One typical example cited is that in the United States in 1976 the General Accounting Office found that trials of a drug designed to prevent rejection of kidney transplants had led to 85 deaths in the 650 patients participating, and not one of these deaths was reported to the Food and Drug Administration.

Senator Edward Kennedy, conducting a Hearing of the Senate Health Subcommittee, noted that if only 10% of the data from ongoing clinical trials is defective, the problem is enormous. "When you consider the potential cumulative effect of faulty animal data coupled with faulty human data, you have the elements of a regulatory nightmare."

While Coulter doesn't dismiss the CCT outright - saying that if it's properly conducted it may have some role - he offers an alternative that helps overcome the problem of biological and physiological differences among patients.


Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry

by Dr John Braithwaite

The sordid behaviour of today's pharmaceutical corporations has been further demonstrated by Dr John Braithwaite, now a Trade Practices Commissioner, in his devastating exposé, CORPORATE CRIME IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY (1984).

International bribery and corruption, fraud in the testing of drugs, criminal negligence in the unsafe manufacture of drugs - the pharmaceutical industry has a worse record of law-breaking than any other industry. Describing many examples of corporate crime, which shows the depth and seriousness of the crime problem in the pharmaceutical industry, Dr Braithwaite's revealing study is based on extensive international research, including interviews of 131 senior executives of pharmaceutical companies in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and Guatemala.

The book shows how pharmaceutical multinationals defy the intent of laws regulating safety of drugs by bribery, false advertising, fraud in the safety testing of drugs, unsafe manufacturing processes, smuggling and international law evasion strategies. At the time of researching the subject, Braithwaite was a Research Criminologist at the Australian Institute of Criminology and a Fulbright Fellow affiliated to the University of California, Irvine and the United Nations Center on Transnational Corporations.

"Data fabrication is so widespread", says Dr Braithwaite, "that it is called 'making' in the Japanese pharmaceutical industry, 'graphiting' or 'dry labelling' in the United States." He further states:

"Pharmaceutical companies face great temptations to mislead health authorities about the safety of their products. It is a make or break industry - many companies get virtually all their profits from just two or three therapeutic winners. Most of the data that the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee relies upon in deciding questions of safety and efficacy is data from other countries, particularly the US. Inquiries into scientific fraud in the US have shown there is a substantial problem of fraud in safety testing of drugs in the US, just as has been documented in Japan."

The book reports that between 1977 and 1980 the United States Food and Drug Administration have discovered 62 doctors who had submitted manipulated or downright falsified clinical data. A study conducted by the FDA has revealed that one in five doctors investigated, who carry out field research of new drugs, had invented the data they sent to the drug companies, and pocketed the fees. Citing case examples, Dr Braithwaite states: "The problem is that most fraud in clinical trials is unlikely to even be detected. Most cases which do come to public attention only do so because of extraordinary carelessness by the criminal physician..."

According to Dr Judith Jones, Director of the Division of Drug Experience at the FDA, if the data obtained by a clinician proves unsatisfactory towards the drug being investigated, it is quite in order for the company to continue trials elsewhere until satisfactory results and testimonials are achieved. Unfavourable results are very rarely published and clinicians are pressured into keeping quiet about such data.

It is very easy for the drug company to arrange appropriate clinical trials by approaching a sympathetic clinician to produce the desired results that would assist the intended application of the drug. The incentive for clinical investigators to fabricate data is enormous. As much as $1000 per subject is paid by American companies, which enables some doctors to earn up to $1 million a year from drug research, and investigating clinicians know all too well that if they don't produce the desired data, the loss of future work is inevitable.


Poisonous Prescriptions

by Dr Lisa Landymore-Lim

"Given that a poison is ANY substance that when introduced into or absorbed by the body injures health or destroys life, most of today's pharmaceutical preparations, because of their harmful effects, may be labelled poisonous."

The above opening to POISONOUS PRESCRIPTIONS (1994) gives the gist of the author's view on allopathic drugs. A view that could not be easily dismissed by health authorities, as Dr Landymore-Lim, a British scientist, is well qualified by their own standards. She graduated in 1983 from the School of Chemistry and Molecular Sciences, University of Sussex, England, with a First Class Honours degree in Chemistry by Thesis. In 1984 she was awarded a study scholarship by the Swedish Institute, and has worked briefly for the Medical Research Council at the National Institute for Medical Research, London, and at the Dunn Nutrition Unit, Cambridge. Concerned about preventing disease, Landymore-Lim is now an independent consultant and investigator, focusing on the harmful effects of pharmaceutical drugs and other chemicals.

POISONOUS PRESCRIPTIONS, which evolved from the author's clinical research conducted in the UK, provides readers with an insight into the poisonous nature of pharmaceutical drugs. The book includes information on a number of commonly used drugs in the United Kingdom and other industrialised countries, paying particular attention to those that are routinely pushed onto babies and young children.

Among the numerous other adverse reactions that are inherently linked to all drugs, Landymore-Lim's investigations have found that diabetes and asthma can result from exposure to antibiotics and other commonly used pharmaceutical drugs. To support her assertions she provides ample evidence from hospital records and her own studies and she explains clearly and simply the complex mechanisms behind the diabetes and asthma-causing properties of chemicals. In dispelling the authorities' widely held misconception that diabetes is largely a genetic disorder Landymore-Lim provides statistics and graphs showing how the incidence of diabetes in industrialised countries has dramatically increased in the last 40 years, coinciding with the rapid rise in the use of drugs during that time period.

No doubt that if Dr Landymore-Lim's information breaks through the Media censorship it will send shock waves through the medical profession. We support her efforts and urge you to assist her group's on-going research. The Prevention of Diseases & Disability (PODD) would like to hear from anyone in Australia who has suffered from any serious drug-related condition to be included on a register.


Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System

by Viera Scheibner Ph.D.

This book (published 1993) is a concise summary of the results of orthodox medical research into vaccines and their effects. It aims to inform medical professionals, parents and the general public about short and long-term dangerous side-effects, including brain damage and death, of vaccines; of the ineffectiveness of vaccines in preventing infectious diseases, as shown by epidemics in fully vaccinated populations; and the causal link between DPT and polio vaccines and cot death.

Dr Viera Scheibner, retired Principal Research Scientist for the NSW Government with a doctorate in Natural Sciences, has published 3 books and some 90 scientific papers in refereed scientific journals in Australia and overseas during her distinguished career.

She and her husband, Leif Karlsson, an electronic engineer specialising in patient monitoring systems, developed Cotwatch, a true breathing monitor for babies. Vaccination proved to be the most prominent stressful event to sound the alarm. A microprocessor version of Cotwatch recording babies' breathing patterns presented the effect of vaccination clearly on the computer print-outs and the link between vaccine injections and cot death became painfully obvious.

Following this finding, Dr Scheibner studied some 30,000 pages of medical papers dealing with vaccination. She found no evidence that vaccines are safe or effective. Vaccines are highly noxious. They contain formaldehyde, aluminium phosphate, thiomersal (mercury compound), foreign proteins (antigens) and contaminating animal proteins and viruses from the tissues used as growth medium to culture the viral and bacterial components of vaccines. None of these substances should ever be injected into human beings. They erode the immune system and alter the immunological response to diseases.

The appearance of many new, autoimmune diseases like asthma, affecting alarming numbers of children, childhood leukaemia, and cancer, the enormous upsurge in the incidence of cerebral palsy and infantile convulsions seen in children of vaccination age and not before, should all be taken as serious warnings. Infectious diseases contracted at the appropriate age and allowed to run their course are beneficial because they serve to prime and mature the child's immune system.

The overwhelming evidence from the numerous human clinical and epidemiological studies cited by Dr Scheibner demonstrates beyond any doubt the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccinations and her book is a most valuable contribution towards exposing the myth of vaccinations.


The Cot Death Cover-Up?

by Dr Jim Sprott

THE COT DEATH COVER-UP? is the culmination of over fifteen years of cot death research by the author, a highly respected consulting chemist and forensic scientist from New Zealand.

In 1986 Sprott arrived at the conclusion that babies were succumbing to cot death because of inadvertent gaseous poisoning by an extremely toxic nerve gas generated by microbiological action on something within the baby's cot, but he wasn't able to identify the gas. Then in 1989 consulting scientist Barry Richardson, working independently in Britain came to the same conclusion and in addition identified the offending gases. It was not long before the two teamed-up to work on what they describe as the "Richardson Hypothesis".

According to Sprott the three identified gases that were generated from mattresses on which babies died of SIDS are "phosphine, arsine and stibine, all extremely toxic 'nerve gases'. They are produced by the action of the otherwise harmless fungus Scopulariopsis brevicaulis on substances containing phosphorus, arsenic and antimony. These elements are often present in cot and other mattresses." These odourless but intensely poisonous gases, with toxicities about 100 times as great as hydrogen cyanide (prussic acid), act upon the baby's nervous system to inhibit breathing and heart function.

The problem, in fact, has been first identified as far back as the 1880's when the mystery of thousands of unexpected child deaths throughout Western Europe and the UK was solved by Italian chemist Gosio. He had discovered that deaths were due to a toxic gas, arsine and/or alkyl homologues generated by the micro-organism Scopulariopsis brevicaulis (then known as Penicillium brevicaules). It acted upon copper arsenate, used in green pigments in wallpaper, and arsenious oxide, used as a preservative in wallpaper glue.

THE COT DEATH COVER-UP? contains ample evidence supporting Sprott and Richardson's findings. Among the many graphs it contains one that demonstrates the rapid drop in cot deaths in Britain in 1986-1994. The graph, based on official statistics, shows that when the findings were first made public in mid-1989 the SIDS rate started to fall immediately, dropping 35 per cent by the time the official "Back to Sleep" campaign was launched in December 1991. In the period 1989-1994, Britain saw a staggering 70 per cent reduction in the SIDS rate.

Despite these remarkable results, Sprott and Richardson were fiercely opposed by their respective country's health authorities and official SIDS groups. Their struggle for official recognition of their findings is reminiscent to that of other independent SIDS researchers such as Dr Archie Kalokerinos and Dr Glen Dettman, who had proved that severe depletion of a child's vitamin C level, precipitated by various insults including childhood vaccinations, could predispose it to SIDS.

The author says that the book is not aimed at academics (although its first-class material should suffice their snobbery), but is aimed at parents - parents who have to suffer the consequences of a system that puts them and their babies last in the "war" against this human tragedy known as SIDS.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By VETOVET
      Please, welcome new VET2VET podcast episode:
      Today we are joined by Thomas Wendel, DAV National area supervisor for West Cost Region.
      Thomas E. Wendel served in the U. S. Marine Corps from 1983 until 1997.
      Since 1999, Tom has worked assisting veterans in processing various entitlement claims on the local, state and federal levels; first in Clare County as a county service officer and then when he came to work for the Disabled American Veterans in 2000. In 2008 he was promoted to the position of supervisor of the DAV Service Office in Detroit and later he was promoted to the position of supervisor of the DAV National area for West Cost Region.
      DAV is America’s largest, most effective veterans service organizations dedicated to the needs of those injured, ill or wounded in service. We have more than 1,300 Chapters in communities nationwide to help make sure veterans from all generations and their families get the benefits and support they deserve. Today, nearly 1.3 million veterans belong to DAV, and we encourage you to add your voice to the cause. Our programs and free services help all veterans get the health, disability and financial benefits they earned. Take advantage of our benefits claims assistance, medical transportation and employment resources. Your local DAV Chapter is a great way to connect with fellow veterans in your area.
      ▶ facebook.com/VETOVET2
      ▶ itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/vet2vet/id1077206523?mt=2
      ▶ twitter.com/VETOVET2
      ▶ youtube.com/c/VETOVET2
      ▶ plus.google.com/u/0/+VETOVET2
      ▶ goo.gl/app/playmusic?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Iiqawbuzg7eviiyqm6xz7kju62m?t%3DVET2VET
      ▶ feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:198832065/sounds.rss
      ▶ soundcloud.com/vet2vet
      ▶ stitcher.com/s?fid=80842&refid=stpr
    • By VETOVET
      Please, welcome new VET2VET podcast episode:
      Today we’re talking about SERVICE CONNECTION.
      When we talk about service-connecting a medical condition, disease, injury or illness to military service, we are talking about proving the relationship between the two.
      1) Direct Service Connection
      2) Service Connection by Aggravation
      3) Presumptive Service Connection
      4) Secondary Service Connection
      5) Service Connection due to Injury Caused by Treatment in the VA Healthcare System
      6) Special Service Connection Rules for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
      ▶ facebook.com/VETOVET2
      ▶ itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/vet2vet/id1077206523?mt=2
      ▶ twitter.com/VETOVET2
      ▶ youtube.com/c/VETOVET2
      ▶ plus.google.com/u/0/+VETOVET2
      ▶ goo.gl/app/playmusic?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Iiqawbuzg7eviiyqm6xz7kju62m?t%3DVET2VET
      ▶ feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:198832065/sounds.rss
      ▶ soundcloud.com/vet2vet
      ▶ stitcher.com/s?fid=80842&refid=stpr
    • By militarynurse
      Seems the VA can on occasion consider obesity merely as a "symptom"* and perhaps even the type of symptom that the VA alleges is caused by the Veteran's own willful misconduct of overeating or being inactive so it can deny the claim. However, since the American Medical Association ( AMA ) recently in June of 2013 has officially declared that "obesity is a disease", might that allow disabled veterans whose service connected condition(s) led to excessive weight gain to now find more success claiming obesity as a ratable secondary medical condition or a disease aggravated by the Veteran's service connected condition(s)?


      Service connection is not warranted for obesity. Claiming
      service connection for obesity amounts to claiming service
      connection for a symptom, rather than for an underlying
      disease or injury which may have caused the symptom. In this
      respect, obesity, in and of itself, is not a disability for
      which service connection may be granted.

      The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
      (Federal Circuit) has defined "injury" as "damage
      inflicted on the body by an external force." See Terry v.
      Principi, 340 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003), citing
      Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 901 (29th Ed. 2000).
      Thus, obesity caused by overeating or lack of exercise is the
      result of the veteran's own behavior, and as such is not an
      "injury" as defined for VA purposes. See Terry v.
      Principi, 340 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (defining
      "injury" as "damage inflicted on the body by an external

      The Federal Circuit also defined "disease" as "any
      deviation from or interruption of the normal structure or
      function of a part, organ, or system of the body." Terry,
      340 F.3d at 1384, citing Dorland's at 511. Obesity that is
      not due to an underlying pathology cannot be considered to be
      due to "disease," defined as "any deviation from or
      interruption of the normal structure or function of a part,
      organ or system of the body." Id. The body's normal
      storage of calories for future use represents the body
      working at what it is designed to do. It is well settled
      that symptoms alone, without a finding of an underlying
      disorder, cannot be service-connected. See Sanchez-Benitez
      v. Principi, 259 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001)." - from a BVA 2009 Decision


      "Obesity or being overweight, a particularity of body type,
      alone, is not considered a disability for which service
      connection may be granted. See generally 38 C.F.R. Part 4
      (VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities) (2009) (does not
      contemplate a separate disability rating for obesity).
      Rather, applicable VA regulations use the term "disability"
      to refer to the average impairment in earning capacity
      resulting from diseases or injuries encountered as a result
      of or incident to military service. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet.
      App. 439, 448 (1995); Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296
      (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2009). The question is thus whether
      the current obesity is a disability-i.e. a condition causing
      impairment in earning capacity. In this case, there is no
      such evidence.

      The veteran has not asserted that obesity causes impairment
      of earning capacity; instead he asserts that his obesity has
      caused other disabilities to manifest. There is also no
      other evidence that the claimed obesity is a disability.
      Inasmuch as the Veteran does not have a disability manifested
      by obesity and obesity is not a disease or disability for
      which service connection may be granted, the Board concludes
      that obesity was not incurred in or aggravated by service and
      may not be presumed to have been so incurred. This claim is
      not in relative equipoise; therefore, the Veteran may not be
      afforded the benefit of the doubt in the resolution thereof.
      Rather, as a preponderance of the evidence is against the
      claim, it must be denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 2002)" - from a 2010 BVA Decision

      But didn't the VA as early as 2006 already characterize obesity as a disease?

      "Obesity is a complex and chronic disease that develops from an interaction between the individual’s
      genotype and the environment." - http://www.healthquality.va.gov/obesity/obe06_final1.pdf

      "The AMA's decision essentially makes diagnosis and treatment of obesity a physician's professional obligation." - Los Angeles Times

    • By JohnO
      I have a computation question concerning my recent award letter. Am I doing the calculation correctly?

      I already have a 20% rating for DMII. I was recently given a test concerning peripheral neuropathy/diabetic neuropathy in all four limbs. The award for my four limbs is as follows:

      30% for upper right limb, 20% for upper left limb, 20% for lower right limb, 20% for lower left limb.

      From the regs:

      <a name="38:">§ 4.26 Bilateral factor

      When a partial disability results from disease or injury of both arms, or of both legs, or of paired skeletal muscles, the ratings for the disabilities of the right and left sides will be combined as usual, and 10 percent of this value will be added ( i.e. , not combined) before proceeding with further combinations, or converting to degree of disability. The bilateral factor will be applied to such bilateral disabilities before other combinations are carried out and the rating for such disabilities including the bilateral factor in this section will be treated as 1 disability for the purpose of arranging in order of severity and for all further combinations.

      Using the above referenced reg., do I combine the upper limbs and add 10% then do the same for my lower limbs, or do I combine all four limbs and add 10%?

      Calculation, combining upper limbs then adding 10% and same with lower limbs:

      30% upper right, 20% upper left, 20% lower right, 20% lower left, 20% DMII.

      From the combined rating table, Table I, 4.25.2:

      1. 30 combined with 20 is 44%, add 10%, then 48%
      2. 20 combined with 20 is 36%, add 10%, then I have 39.6% or 40%
      3. 48% combined rating for upper limbs, 40% combined for lower, 20% for DMII
      4. Then, 48 combined w/ 40 is 69; 69 combined with 20 is 75.
      5. Combined rating is 75% rounded to 80%.

      More from the reg on applying the bilateral factor:

      (a) The use of the terms “arms” and “legs” is not intended to distinguish between the arm, forearm and hand, or the thigh, leg, and foot, but relates to the upper extremities and lower extremities as a whole. Thus with a compensable disability of the right thigh, for example, amputation, and one of the left foot, for example, pes planus, the bilateral factor applies, and similarly whenever there are compensable disabilities affecting use of paired extremities regardless of location or specified type of impairment.
      (b) The correct procedure when applying the bilateral factor to disabilities affecting both upper extremities and both lower extremities is to combine the ratings of the disabilities affecting the 4 extremities in the order of their individual severity and apply the bilateral factor by adding, not combining, 10 percent of the combined value thus attained.
      © The bilateral factor is not applicable unless there is partial disability of compensable degree in each of 2 paired extremities, or paired skeletal muscles.
  • Our picks

    • I was rated at 10% for tinnitus last year by the VA. I went to my private doctor yesterday and I described to him the problems that I have been having with my sense of balance. Any sudden movement of my head or movement while sitting in my desk chair causes me to lose my balance and become nauseous. Also when seeing TV if there are certain scenes,such as movement across or up and down the screen my balance is affected. The doctor said that what is causing the problem is Meniere's Disease. Does any know if this could be secondary to tinnitus and if it would be rated separately from the tinnitus? If I am already rated at 10% for tinnitus and I could filed for Meniere's does any one know what it might be rated at? Thanks for your help. 68mustang
      • 15 replies
    • Feb 2018 on HadIt.com Veteran to Veteran. Sharing top posts and a few statistics with you.
      • 0 replies
    • I have a 30% hearing loss and 10% Tinnitus rating since 5/17.  I have Meniere's Syndrome which was diagnosed by a VA facility in 2010 yet I never thought to include this in my quest for a rating.  Meniere's is very debilitating for me, but I have not made any noise about it because I could lose my license to drive.  I am thinking of applying for additional compensation as I am unable to work at any meaningful employment as I cannot communicate effectively because of my hearing and comprehension difficulties.  I don't know whether to file for a TDUI, or just ask for additional compensation.  My county Veterans service contact who helped me get my current rating has been totally useless on this when I asked her for help.  Does anyone know which forms I should use?  There are so many different directions to proceed on this that I am confused.  Any help would be appreciated.  Vietnam Vet 64-67. 
    • If you are new to hadit and have DIC questions it would help us tremendously if you can answer the following questions right away in your first post.

      What was the Primary Cause of Death (# 1) as listed on your spouse’s death certificate?

      What,if anything, was listed as a contributing cause under # 2?

      Was an autopsy done and if so do you have a complete copy of it?

       It can be obtained through the Medical Examiner’s office in your locale.

      What was the deceased veteran service connected for in his/her lifetime?

      Did they have a claim pending at death and if so what for?

      If they died from anything on the Agent Orange Presumptive list ( available here under a search) when did they serve and where? If outside of Vietnam, what was their MOS and also if they served onboard a ship in the South Pacific what ship were they on and when? Also did they have any major  physical  contact with C 123s during the Vietnam War?

      And how soon after their death was the DIC form filed…if filed within one year of death, the date of death will be the EED for DIC and also satisfy the accrued regulation criteria.
        • Like
      • 14 replies
    • VA C and P Exam – Do’s and Don’ts – VA Compensation Pension Exam


      The following is written from a VA Compensation and Pension Examiners perspective relating to psychiatric exams. It is a good guideline for all exams but I only did psych exams. I’ve been examined by the VA for multiple problems and this is my format when I go to be examined. A little common sense and clarity ...

      Continue Reading
      • 0 replies