diabetes "veterans Challenge" From All Of Us Veterans To The Senate Vac, As Well As

[Guest allanopie]

fwd from: Kelly

"Veterans Challenge" from all of us Veterans to the Senate VAC, as well as

the House VAC.

Dear Mr. Schrade,

I am under the impression that you have little regard for me and appear to be

convinced that I am “just another Vietnam veteran nutcase”; but, let me

issue a "Veterans Challenge" from all of us Veterans to the Senate VAC, as well as

the House VAC.

I am presently preparing a ‘boilerplate’ appeal that all Veterans can use to

appeal the all too frequent denials of well-grounded cases to the BVA when in

fact this disorder should have been approved at the "VA clerk level."

In case you did not know, after my presentations, reinforced by irrefutable

evidence presented in DC, Mr. Akaka and Mr. Evans, both signed a letter from

the 109th Congress to the Secretary requesting that the VA to reevaluate chronic

peripheral neuropathy as associated to our toxic chemical exposures on our

magical mystery Vietnam tour.

Mr. Sistek indicated that elected members of the Congress were not experts in

the field and would have the VA look at the issue. I can assure you and the

entire congress that we will all be taking our well-deserved dirt nap before

the VA does anything.

To say they are experts at anything except the White House philosophy of

stalling and denial would give them too much credit.

I also find it interesting that elected members of the Congress who are not

well versed in "other issues" can find time to learn and get involved for their

constituents but for this issue it is, "well lets leave it to the experts.”

Dr. Birnbaum is an EXPERT, Dr. Cate Jenkins is an EXPERT, Dr. Albanese is an

EXPERT, and Dr. Stellman is an (EXPERT), etc.

The NAS/IOM is contracted by the Congress to examine complex issues and, in

some quarters as perceived as “anti-veteran”; but on the whole it is generally

fair and “sticks to the science”; but is not expert in toxicology. In

addition, they do not seemed to want to divest how it is that whatever it is they

do and to what level of association they must find to recommend service

connection. Nor their approved protocols of evidentiary findings and their approval

process. One would hope it is not purely subjective to what one scientist

thinks and those thoughts are biased.

The program director in 2000, a Mr. Butler, refused to answer direct

questions regarding these issues asked by Congressman Shays on this very subject. Not

the kind of folks I want addressing my issues when we as the victims cannot

even get an answer from those that are in scientific judgment of our very

mortality.

In several contacts with the members of the IOM I found them more interested

in proving why something was not associated as opposed to why it "could be"

associated. Thus, the two positions - one on each side of the fence.

When I did suggest something, the second I suggested it the answer was there

is no proof of that without any hesitation or consideration. Then when I

contact the real toxicology experts their answer is yes you are correct and there

has been a concerted effort to not look at what you are suggesting.

Therefore, I am one of the ones who would rather the IOM go away and do

something else for another segment of society and leave the Veterans of the nation

alone. Especially since the IOM used some of the same protocols as the

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and yet the findings are 180

degrees out of phase.

The IOM’s response seems to be yes we know it can cause that, we just do not

know how to apply it to the Vietnam Veteran. The VA, on the other hand, is

pro-government and over the past 35 years has become more and more entrenched in

its “anti-veteran” stance.

"VETERANS CHALLENGE"

I will create this BVA appeal in such language that it does not take a

medical expert to realize the appeal should never have had to go to the BVA.

I will create this BVA appeal to show how the data meets all significant

policies and standards of C.F.R 1.17 "Evaluations of studies relating to health

effects of dioxin and radiation exposure."

I will prove medically, scientifically, and statistically that I am correct

and that the VA in their purposeful constraining of the service connected

requirements in "time to causation" and "time to resolution" is nothing but VA

hypocrisy more than likely directed by the White House mandated budget control.

I will also prove medically that while chronic peripheral polyneuropathy can

be associated to the diabetes mellitus as the VA already indicates but also

this disorder occurs even in the Impaired Glucose Tolerance Phase (IGT) of the

disorder along with microvascular issues and kidney damages being done. In

fact, in medicine, this IGT and the medical issues developing with it seemed to

be a more serious form of diabetic insulin resistance and treatment for this

disorder should start in the IGT phase and be service connected. That IGT was

found in the Ranch Hand studies as well as Diabetes.

I will furnish all referenced data and studies that show chronic peripheral

polyneuropathy is the most prevalent of all disorders found associated with

exposures to the dioxin, TCDD in many studies and even second studies by the same

doctors.

The challenge to you is - to have the members of the committee review my

sample case with all attached data and references and tell the Nations Veterans

why it is, that our congress still believes a federal agency that is run amok

for mandated budget control not to pay for government mistakes; and has very

little integrity.

Then report back to the Nations Veterans, how the elected politicians of our

nation can still say the Veterans of this Nation have not proven to "a

reasonable doubt" or it is "as least as likely as not" that chronic persistent

polyneuropathy is a secondary result of the damages done by the dioxin, TCDD and/or

the other toxic chemicals noted for such causations.

If I win, I will go to the next prominent disorder found with the same

rationale and so on.

If I lose based on real data not just because the VA and its omnipotence says

because, they say so; then I will be out of here.

One thing in my engineering career I found that most men would not do. I

will fight for my position but if proven wrong, I will admit I am wrong. I count

that as a "learning experience" and it remains with me for life.

It is too bad our politicians do not have that same simple honest philosophy.

However, I will tell you what the boys at the DoD use to say and even my own

program managers. If you are going up against Kelley, bring plenty of ammo.

A simple challenge to the VAC’s that bypasses all the VA NAS/IOM government

biases.

Kelley