Recent Iom Meeting In San Antonio Update On Parkinson’s

[allan]

Recent IOM meeting in San Antonio update on Parkinson's

http://www.2ndbattalion94thartillery.com/C...inson's.htm

IOM meeting in San Antonio update on Parkinson’s

Kelley,

Just an update,

The presentation to IOM went better than I would have every guessed. We presented for a little over an hour on the Parkinson's issue.

But first let me tell you this. This Dr Michalek who was one of the main people involved with the Air Force Ranch Hand Study, was a drop in, he gave a quick talk and then took questions.

I ask him about the study group and the control group. "I understand that the study group for the ARHS was the Air Force Personnel involved in the spray operation of Agent Orange in Vietnam, and that the control group was other Air Force personnel not in the spray operation but also stationed in South East Asia."

He responded yes and gave a short explanation. I then ask him if he found it problematic that the study group was exposed in the spray operation and that the control group was also exposed.

That set off an admission that it was a problem and he wish they had used a different control and for the next few minutes he discredited the study based on this.

So we got an admission in front of the study group that the study was flawed. I was able to expound on that as I gave my presentation and even modified my presentation to fit the situation.

I told the Committee that it would help if they pointed out the fact of the flaws in their report.

We got every thing we wanted to present presented and got a process to send more of our research to the group as we do it.

Take care and thank for the information you are putting out. We will be back on the political warpath soon.

Alan

To All,

I wish I would have been there because my questions regarding this issue of flawed government study, and that is in the context of this asinine peer reviewed study requirement, would have been two fold.

• Does the IOM consider the Ranch Hand Study peer reviewed either as a whole or by medical functions? If so then what could does a peer review do if this study can be so flawed as to miss the simplest of cancer associations much less the underlying sub-clinical persistent issues of dioxin that have effects over life in many many other issues outside of a cancer.
  
  
  
  • If they do not consider the Ranch Hand Study peer reviewed than how is it they, the IOM, use this study to override other studies with statements such as …”we reviewed many studies but primarily used the results of Ranch Hand study….” Of course in every case this statement was used to deny the associations found in other studies associated to dioxin exposures.
    

  A corrupted gold standard that Congress refuses to do anything about even though 160 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent and Veterans waited 25 years while dying and becoming disabled. A study used as a denial tool for the Veteran and family. (More on this later as I finish my Executive Branch abuses in these issues that reaches the top of the White House and what Congress has known all along.)

  A taxpayer funded study according to Congress, funded and designed to generate significant scientific data and analysis to be used by the VA and others in making “health care and compensation decisions” regarding Vietnam Veterans (which should have been all DoD exposed herbicide Veterans from 1962 to1975).

  A taxpayer funded study where Government interference in government-sponsored studies associated with “Agent Orange” has been the norm, not the exception (which should have been herbicides (plural) not a single isomer).

  (More on this later as I finish my Executive Branch abuses in these issues that reaches the top of the White House and what Congress has known all along.)

  For those of you that do not realize what has happened just in the single flawed assumptions of exposures let me give some examples.

  This would be like a pharmaceutical company running a clinical trial on a new medication, and you found out some of the people who were in your comparison group were actually taking medications. That would spoil your whole study and all associated statistics, Odds Ratios, and all confidence. In other words, the study would be spoiled as if it never happened. That is what Ranch Hand has done in many venues not just in flawed assumptions of exposure status. That is not to say the data is not there at some level but it needs to be revaluated the correct way using the correct methodology.

  Another example:

  A two-story building has some contaminate in it that is making people sick. A government-controlled study comes in and compares floor 1 to floor 2 and finds that many are getting sick on both floors. The result is a government study is then published that says there was little difference in floor one and floor two, therefore there is no increase in sickness that can be found. No comparison to the same two story building next door with no contaminate was ever done to evaluate any kind of increase in mortality or morbidity or increase risk of incidence. The conclusion…there is nothing wrong with the building with the known contaminant hazard. Nice touch but certainly not factual in empirical data comparisons… provided it is even done.

  Another example:

  More along my line of former work: Given you are having microcircuit failures in both hard failures and degrading of performance. It is established that during one part of the “A” assembly process contaminates are being introduced that can be sub clinical in diagnosis, yet the failure is starting and is time dependant plus other factors before manifestation in hard failure or degradation of system performance manifests to where a testing anomaly is uncovered.

  At the same time we find in another step of the process of assembly, the “B process” the same and/or different contaminates is being introduced into the now sealed microcircuit.

  If we compare the failures in the “A” assembly process to the failures in “B assembly process with the known contaminants but not knowing how much of what is each contaminate; do we then just compare the two process of A + B and then go report we have no failure increases at all, since they are all similar. If I did that I would have been fired immediately. That is basically what has happened to our gold standard study yet no one is even held accountable nor is our government or contracted entities interested in getting at the full disclosure of facts.

  Yet, this is very similar in the tremendous outcomes of dioxin in the damaged biological process similar to which section of the microcircuit is contaminated affected and which set/sets of the millions of transistors (cells) are affected will determine the outcome of the failure or testing anomaly. The outcomes in anomalies other than an eventual catastrophic failure event in some cases as an end result are almost incalculable.

  Then add in the unknowns:

  How much of what contaminate is required?

  Does it cause intermittent failures or systemic issues?

  Does it require outside source influence for manifestation?

  Where and how was it deposited or ingested?

  Does it only affect the weak sisters on the dice or health at time at contaminates ingestion?

  Is one single contaminant causing all failures?

  Is there any one combination of the contaminants causing the failures? Two combinations?

  Do we have different contaminants causing different failures?

  Is this split 80/20 for example to where the one contaminant may have impacts but the separate contaminent only creates 20% of the failures which gets lost in the analysis and may be very limited specific failures? The dioxin, TCDD being only one of the toxic isomers with many others involved. While it is true that the dioxin, TCDD seems to the worst of all the isomers the 20% created by other combinations gets totally lost in the analysis if you are only specifically testing for the dioxin, TCDD. It makes no sense with the known increased levels of toxicity on behalf of our own government and the known levels outside of manufacturing recommendations at to dose rate per acre. Especially when one reads the EPA warnings on the other known toxic chemicals we know were part of the rainbow of herbicides and what they can cause years later after exposures.

  If a Veteran is wounded by a bullet or shrapnel in Vietnam, while the bullet or shrapnel is removed the damage is obvious; the cause is known. The chemical bullet may not even be there at the time of manifestation since different chemicals have different rates of expulsion and different forms of affinity to cells. Yet, the chemical bullet set off the persistent damages long before it was expelled with no measurable residue of even being exposed decades later other than a known military combat service in a DoD created toxic chemicals (plural) environment.

  You see, if you corrupt the study enough, none of these issues are answered and the study becomes nothing but a denial tool that the contaminants did nothing to create the failures. (Much less the synergy (amplification) effect of multiple contaminants.)

  Failure of Ranch Hand to select the correct comparison group as well as the Army Chemical Corps Study (even though it was specifically recommended to do so) is just a tip of the iceberg of what has gone on with the interference of the government itself in many other areas.

  Congress's inaction regarding these studies and it’s doing little, to prevent Constitutional injustice regarding service connection claims is clearly unjust and irrational.

  Again, such unchallenged power and what we now know are completely false significance outcomes used by the VACEH, IOM, and VA to deny that service connection leads to federal agency collusion and corruption. Allowing such power to these White House federal agency pawns can and does result in Veteran/Widow abuse. Where are the checks and balances on our White House and its federal agencies that clearly misrepresent to the American Veteran and family their health status, their service connection, and deny their medical doctors the information needed to diagnosis and treat a toxic chemical exposure survivor.

  More than that, what segment of our society is next in line for the government’s systemic abuse by grabbing the constitutional rights of redress away from that segment?

  I can give you one recent example where the senate tried to do this very same thing to the asbestos victims and take away their constitutional right to redress and have the executive branch become legislative, executive, and judiciary all rolled into one neat unconstitutional power.

  Amazing what manufactures lobby money can buy in what is supposed to be a Republic with a democratic society of the people, by the people, and for the people; not the manufactures (and our own government) who think they have more right to produce and make billions off of toxic chemicals than the entire population has the right to have a healthy life and more than that… healthy children with their god given genes; not what the chemical companies have created in clastogenicity (chromosome damages) gene disruption.

  Kelley

  Additional From Kurt that adds to my point.

  I would like to add something here. Despite the fact that none in government will actually allow that malathion is very toxic, Kelley asks some very pertinent questions given that most of us in SEA were exposed multiple times daily to this insecticide. What we do know is this: Malathion does cause damage to the nervous system. It inhibits an enzyme, acetylcholinesterase (AChE), that breaks down acetylcholine, a chemical essential in transmitting nerve impulses across junctions between nerves. Effects of AChE inhibition on nerve cells in the brain appear to be particularly important.(12) Malathion can also inhibit liver enzymes that affect biological membrane function.(13) The toxicity of malathion is compounded by its metabolites and contaminants. Malaoxon, a metabolite produced by the oxidation of malathion in mammals, insects, plants, and in sunlight, is the primary source of malathion's toxicity and is 40 times more acutely toxic than malathion.(14,15)

  Over 11 chemical contaminants and analogues created in the production process have been found in technical malathion.(16,17) These chemicals can act synergistically with malathion to potentiate (increase) its toxicity. Some of these compounds inhibit not only AChE,(18) but other enzymatic systems in the liver that would typically detoxify the contaminants.(15)

  Use of malathion by farmers in Iowa and Minnesota has recently been linked to an increased risk of one type of cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.(32) Hint, Hint The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has studied the carcinogenicity of malathion and malaoxon in rats and mice. An independent review of this study found benign and malignant tumors of the endocrine glands, brain, liver, lung, and blood.(28) Sound familiar anyone? Malathion is mutagenic (causing genetic damage) in human, animal, and bacteria cells. Frequencies of chromosomal aberrations were significantly higher in cotton field workers exposed to malathion and other pesticides.(38,39) (The design of the study did not permit conclusions about a specific chemical.) Increased chromosome breaks and aberrations occurred following acute malathion human poisonings(40) and in human blood cells exposed to malathion.(41,42) Malathion caused sister-chromatid exchanges (exchanges of genetic material within a pair of chromosomes) in human blood cells(41-44) and fetal cells.(45) Malathion has also caused mutations in laboratory animals, including mice and hamsters,(46-49) and induced DNA breakage in the bacteria Escherichia coli.(50) In some cases malathion induced genetic damage at doses far below acutely toxic levels (45,51) and effects can be cumulative.(45) In laboratory animals, oral doses of purified malathion disrupted immune system function in mice at levels far below the dose required to cause cholinesterase inhibition.(75) This work suggests that malathion can cause sensitization and allergic reactions in humans and animals.

  Impurities present in technical malathion can further disrupt immune system function.(76-78) These immune system effects may have serious human health implications. Stimulation of immune responses may increase allergic reactions and also cause tissue damage.(77,78) Immunosuppression may enhance susceptibility of mammalian systems to bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection or possible increased tumor formation.(77) Changes in immune system functions in animals exposed to impurities in malathion may also trigger lung damage.(79) Both malathion and the impurities in malathion can directly affect one immune system function that creates risks for individuals with liver damage.(80) Storage of malathion at high temperatures increased its toxicity by increasing the percentage of isomalathion and other contaminants in the product.(15,16,17,83-87) Exposure of malathion to sunlight,(88) high relative humidity during storage,(84) and formulation with certain clays and surfactants, can increase contaminant formation in malathion.(85,88) i.e. Southeast Asia Based on U.S. Food and Drug Administration residue analyses, malathion is the most commonly detected pesticide in food products.(98) Malathion residues were in 18 percent of the 936 food items tested, indicative of its widespread use in many crops. It is also commonly found in animal feeds. In 1988, EPA estimated that children could be consuming

  malathion residues 1133 percent in excess, and adults 507 percent in excess, of the amount currently determined not to cause adverse health affects.1 In produce, malathion tends to concentrate in the peel,(99) and may not be readily removed by washing in water alone.(100)

  Formulated products of malathion, like all pesticides, contain many compounds that are

  classified as 'inert' ingredients and do not have to be identified on the label. There is little

  publicly available information about 'inerts' in malathion. At least two formulations contain

  xylenes(105,106) and xylene was present in a formulation of malathion that resulted in a human fatality.(106) Xylenes cause skin, eye, nose and throat irritation; impaired memory; liver and kidney damage; incoordination; dizziness; hearing loss; and fetal death and decreased fetal weight gain.(107) Symptoms of acute malathion poisoning in humans include dizziness, muscle twitching, excessive salivation, and urination. Malaoxon, a metabolite, has much greater acute toxicity than malathion itself. Other contaminants and secret 'inert' ingredients can increase its toxicity. At least one 'inert,' xylene, is both acutely and chronically toxic. Exposure of farmers and flour mill workers to malathion is associated with increased risks of one type of cancer, and both malathion and malaoxon have caused benign and malignant tumors in laboratory animals. Birth defects, reproductive problems, and genetic damage have been associated with malathion exposure in humans and animals. Visual disorders, behavioral changes, learning impairment, and skin sensitization may also be triggered by malathion exposure. Low protein diets increased malathion's toxicity in laboratory animals, and may be a concern where malnourished human populations are subjected to malathion exposure. Immune system disruptions due to exposure to malathion or contaminants may increase susceptibility of mammalian systems to bacterial, viral, or parasitic infection,and increased tumor formation. Combinations of malathion with other pesticides can increase toxic effects.

  Malathion is the most commonly detected pesticide in food products in the U.S. Over seven million malathion products are used in homes, gardens, and yards in the U.S. annually. Drift and aerial spray eradication programs can expose children to levels of malathion that can cause illness. Malathion has been detected in ground and surface water, air, and fog. Malathion is lethal to beneficial insects, snails, microcrustaceans, fish, birds, amphibians,

  and soil microorganisms. Sublethal exposure of these species can cause a variety of behavioral and physiological abnormalities.

  *REFERENCES*

  1. U.S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1988. Guidance for the reregistration of pesticide products containing malathion as the active ingredient. Washington, D.C.

  2. U. S. EPA. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. 1992. Pesticide industry sales and usage: 1990 and 1991 market estimates. Washington, D.C.

  With this in mind, tie the fact that Ranch Hand routinely sprayed both malathion and agent orange switching back and forth dependent on the mission. Knowing this, why didn't the government conduct a study concerning the effects of the combination of malathion with dioxin? Now wouldn't that be interesting?

  To regress...what we know and what Kelley asks?

  How much of what contaminate is required?What we do know is that we were exposed daily to malathion, sometimes multiple times. Is one single containment (sic) causing all failures?What if that contaminant was malathion with contaminants such as xylene, or had be contaminated so as to form malaoxon, 40 times more toxic than malathion. Is there any one combination of the containments (sic) causing the failures? Two combinations? See above... Do we have different containments (sic) causing different failures?

  It appears, from the variety of symptoms, diseases, and epidemiologies of those exposed to dioxin, much more likely than not that the rampant use of malathion (contaminated by shipping, storage, heat, humidity, and mixture with other chemicals) makes malathion a prime suspect.

Edited June 22, 2008 by allan