HadIt.com VA Claims Research

Hypertensive Vascular Disease

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:41:17 -0400

Hello I have a rating for my HBP claim which the VA gave me 0 percent for service connected. it was a long fight to get this far say about 3 years. it has been more than a year now so what is the best approch to file for an increase for this condiction? I have been on medication for this condition since 2004 and received my rating in 2007. I noticed that the VA rating for 7101 Hypertensive Vascular Disease does not have a 0 percent listed this is what I was placed under for service connected. Thank for any help

Gerd

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 11:48:07 -0400

What is the rating code for GERD (gastro esophageal reflux disease)?

Wording For Initial Filing Of 21-526

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 08:23:36 -0400

I am still on active duty, retiring next June, and will be filing my initial D&C claim this coming Dec -- 180 days out to qualify for the special Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD) program here in the DC area. I have attended briefings from the VA on how to fill out the forms and also from the DAV VSO (will also be attending briefings from AMVETS and Am Legion next month).

The DAV guy said to list the indication or symptom on the 21-526 rather than the diagnosis that is in my SMRs... for example, just list "low back pain" rather than "L4-L5 degeneration" and "herniated disk." His rationale is to make the VA look through my SMRs to find it and document it and not to do their work for them... and that they may find other related symptoms/diagnoses in the SMRs to add to the rating level.

Since I have the diagnoses already in my records, I would rather just put them all down as diagnosed... any recommendations on the best approach?

Thanks for any advice...this is agreat forum that I read almost every day!
Cheers,
Ray

Service Connected Increase

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:58:09 -0400

Hello, I have a question on a service connected claim. I get 10 percent for my left knee due to an injury while on active duty. 1 year after I was awarded SC I submitted for an increase due to having pain issue's in my knee. I was turned down at that time but the C&P doctor did say on my denial letter that I will have continue knee problems. so three years later and more pain I'm looking into doing a increase on my SC. I have asked for a consult for an Orthro Pedic because when I see the VA doctor here as an outpatient he always brings up why the military did not issue me a knee brace. The C&P doctor also said the same thing but you know the story with the VA. well anyway My question is should I wait until after I have my consult before I put in for a increase?

Oh by the way as I was reading my patient notes after my C&P I did notice that when you come in to check in to have a C&P exam the VA writes down how you were dressed, how you came to the VA, by car, bus, car pool, how you were walking, did you show any pain, if you were laughing, having a good time how you were sitting it was like they observe you prior to you having your C&P exam and all this gets entered into your patient notes and for some reason play a major role in the rating board.

! Claim At A Time

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:53:00 -0400

Just got 1 claim awarded DAV agreed to 1 for all. VA cannot do this.

Anyone know cite for law requires VA resolve all claims individually.
May change start date think that's why VA did it.
Thanks,
Ausgmblr

C@p Doctors Exam Reports

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:28:28 -0400

In 2006 I had a [email="C@P"]C@P[/email] exam done for a increase on a compensation claim. The Nurse practional noted a laxity on a ACL operation I had in 2000. The rating result was they increased my service connected % from 20 to 30. In June 09 I had another [email="C@P"]C@P[/email] exam for IU and the neurologist stated he did not notice a laxity in same ACL. I know these conditions do not magically heal themselves but wondering If VA will not take into account the latest EXam results. If anyone on this very helpful forum has experienced same sure would like to hear about it. Thanks too all that protect our freedom.

Va Claim For Knee

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:59:46 -0400

I have a few questions...
I have an award (10%) for SC knee pain that also says further evaluation for instability is warranted. When I filed my claim, I listed the fact that my knee gives out frequently. I was diagnosed while on active duty in 96 with a tibo-fibular subluxation of this knee. I retired from the Reserves last May and filed my claim then and received my award this June along with 10% for tinnitus and 0% for hearing loss (free hearing aids that work wonderfully BTW.
My questions are:
1-I went to my civilian orthopedic Dr and he said my ACL was torn and had been for some time (hard to tell how long). I got home today after having ACL replacement. He informed me that it WAS an old injury and the ACL was torn from the bone, not in the middle as are most. Should I file a disagreement and request compensation for the instability and ACL replacement since the records show this was diagnosed in 96?
2-I have also been treated and continue to be treated for kidney stones. I was diagnosed with them in 01 while in the Reserves and the Urologist said that based on the number and size, I had them for a quite a while. I left active duty Oct 98. Can I claim this?

Thanks!!!

Co-worker Letter Regarding Termination

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:13:44 -0400

Just was wondering if a co-worker letter is as good as a supervisors letter? My old supervisor isn't with the company anymore that I was fired from.

I'm just concerned about this since the VA might come back and say I have no verification regarding my mental issues at the time of my termination.

Billy

Ankylosing Spondylitis

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 15:38:11 -0400

My current SC disability rating is 30% (20% for Ankylosing Spondylitis, 10% Plantar Fasciitis) which was obtained in 1994 if my memory serves me correctly. I am in the process of being reevaluated through the VA and had my C & P exam on June 25. I have been dealing with an increased amount of pain in my lower back and feet for the past year with numbness, weakness, and pain in my left leg. I have had numerous MRIs and a CT scan and have been scheduled for a laminectomy with fusion on Aug 28. The Radiologists impression on my latest lumbar spince CT scan reads as follows:

Multilevel degenerative disc disease and facet osteoarthropathy of the lumbar spine which is accelerated for that expected for the patient's age and results in severe acquired central canal stenosis at L4-L5. There also appears to be underlying mild congenital central canal stenosis throughout the lumbar spine. These findings along with the suggestion of asymmetric sacroiliitis is concerning for underlying inflammatory arthropathy which may be seen in the HLA B-27 positive arthropathies including but not limited to ankylosing spondylitis and Reiter's disease. Clinical correlation is requested. Similar findings may also be seen in association with underlying inflammatory bowel disease such as Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. Again clinical correlation is requested.

My private family physician has suggested for the past 3 years that I file for SS disability, as I have difficulty standing or sitting for prolonged periods. He has also agreed to assist me in any way during my claim process. My question is, what does my family physician need to do to boost my case? He also has written letters stating that the following conditions "are secondary" to my Ankylosing Spondylitis: Sleep apnea, severe recurring plantar fasciitis, neck pain due to bulging discs in the c-spine, leg myelopathy, chest pain due to decreased chest expansion. Do I need to open a seperate claim for each of these conditions that my physician has named or are they all covered under the Ankylosing Spondylitis (claimed as low back pain). Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Brian

Va Physician Fired After Investigation

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:22:02 -0400

http://www.billingsgazette.com/news/state-...1cc4c002e0.html

or http://tinyurl.com/madtep

Read VA OIG Report

http://www.va.gov/oig/54/reports/VAOIG-08-02992-162.pdf

The subject [physician] saw 5,879 Veterans during his tenure at the VAMHCS.
We concluded that the VISN and the medical center were initially impeded in this task by an ABI process and product that did not sufficiently address the complainant�s allegations.

Finally, in the course of performing this oversight review, numerous additional concerns regarding the provision of care to veterans were identified.

VA physician fired after investigation
MARTIN J. KIDSTON Of The Independent Record | Posted: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:20 am |

FORT HARRISON - A doctor at the VA Medical Center accused of improperly conducting patient exams and fudging medical records to reflect care that was never provided was fired by the hospital based upon the findings of an investigation that started in 2008.

The VA Medical Center at Fort Harrison declined to confirm the doctor's name, but a spokesperson with the hospital said veterans once under the doctor's care were notified of the findings and assigned to another practitioner.

The doctor was terminated in March.

"If veterans are concerned about their individual care, and they would like to talk to someone, they can speak to our patient representative," said Teresa Bell, the hospital's spokeswoman. "We've been very proactive in this. We pride ourselves in giving the highest care to our veterans."

A report released Wednesday by the VA's Inspector General's Office said the allegations first appeared in a letter dated April 13, 2008. A complainant accused the doctor of providing poor care to veterans and engaging in irregularities when documenting treatment in their medical records.

This falsely documented treatment, the complainant added, led to misdiagnoses, prompting delays in treatment and prolonged suffering by patients.

"At best, I believe that you will find gross incompetence on the part of the" physician, the complainant wrote. "At worst, some cases will lead you to believe that sham examinations are performed and therefore fraud is taking place."

The complainant, who is not identified in the report, provided the VA's Inspector General's Office excerpts from the medical records of 28 hospital patients.

Bell said the physician's patients were notified that their doctor had come under investigation.

On April 17, 2008, two senior physicians from the Office of Healthcare Inspections reviewed the allegations and brought them to the attention of the VA Central Office in Washington, D.C.

A panel known as the Administrative Board of Investigation, or ABI, was created to review the allegations while the physician was placed on administrative leave.

"Through our internal ongoing review process, we discovered the potential that one of our providers may not have met standards of care," Bell said. "The provider was removed from patient care and an action plan was put in place."

The review by the ABI "did raise patient care concerns," the report notes. It adds, however, that the evidence reviewed by the panel "largely did not substantiate the allegations."

Of the 38 cases reviewed, the ABI found evidence supporting the allegations in just three of the cases. In those three cases, the panel wrote, "all appear to be missed diagnoses by" the physician.

But additional allegations surfaced against the doctor. The report said the ABI's own investigation had failed to sufficiently address the complainant's allegations.

The hospital hired an external doctor practicing in the same field to re-examine one of three cases. It was this external doctor and not the ABI who "identified serious quality of care deficiencies by the subject physician."

Bell could not say how many patients the doctor was seeing at the Helena-based hospital. Nor could she release the physician's name, saying instead that the VA's Inspector General's Office did not include the doctor's name in its report and, therefore, the hospital was only following the Inspector General's lead.

The Inspector General reached several conclusions in Wednesday's report, saying the hospital's managers complied with current policies in pursuing its actions.

It also noted that the ABI impeded the task by failing to fully address the complainant's allegations.

The report suggested that the undersecretary of health create a panel of specialists and administrators to review the care in the specialty once filled by the terminated doctor.

Bell would not confirm the doctor's specialty, saying again that such information was not included in the Inspector General's report.

Veterans concerned about their individual care at the Montana VA should call patient representative Susanne Corbette at 447-9770, or toll free at 877-468-8387.

"Keep on, Keepin' on"
Dan Cedusky, Champaign IL "Colonel Dan"
See my web site at:
http://www.angelfire.com/il2/VeteranIssues/

Lumbar Spondylosis And Gait

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:53:32 -0400

Hello again.
I have requested a claim on my lower back/buttock pain due to my service connected left knee and the gait that it causes. I went to a private Dr. ( a spine specialist) and he wrote in his opinion that my buttock pain was due to my limp (gait). In my opinion my gait is due to my left knee which is service connected.

Went to the C & P.
The Va Doctor assessment was:
1- mild lumbar spondylosis 2- Anterior cruciate ligament deficient left knee 3- medial collateral ligament deficient left knee.

The C&P shows that I do have lower back problems, I think that is a good thing.
(note: the lumbar spondylosis(LS) has never been officially diagnosis by the Va before now.)

Here is a possible problem with my claim, I did some research on lumbar spondylosis on google and it said that Lumbar Spondylosis __CAN__ cause Gait. Now to get my buttock pain (lower back) approve it has to tie into my left knee which is service connected (SC), and I feel that I have it tied in by my private Dr. medical opinion. So now the Va C&P has stated my lower back/buttock pain is lumbar spondylosis, and this could be the seen as the opposite of what my private Dr. opinion, and my claim is, by the VA.

Is it possible that the Va recognizes that I have lower back pain but does not have to rate it since it is not connected to my service connected left knee. Because (they can claim) the Lumbar Spondylosis causes the Gait and not my left knee.
Am I reading too much into this?
It would seem that my left knee is obviously the reason for my gait. Anyone experience this issue before?
Any comments would help.
Thanks

Dic Benefits For Mom

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:16:31 -0400

my father died april 08 he was 100% DV my father service related injury was a fractured leg and a total knee replacement.my father couldnt get around at all he couldnt walk or even do the basic exercise he developed diabetes which lead to heart problems and kidney problems.i applied for benefits for my mom they are asking me to prove that his death was service related. His death certificate reads heart failure ,kidney disease and diabetes how can i prove the leg problem lead to these problems

Mom Needs Help

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 13:03:13 -0400

my father died april 08 he was 100% dv my father had leg fracture and total knee replacement he could not get around at all and had diabetes, he developed heart problems and kidney falure i need to prove his service related injury the(leg) CAUSED his death please help

Alert Meeting To Renew The Gulf War Illness Issue

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:52:56 -0400

Special Report: ALERT MEETING TO RENEW THE Gulf War Illness Issue

Posted on July 09, 2009 by DSNurse

The National Gulf War Resource Center is having their membership conference in Louisville Kentucky, July 31 and August 1st at the Galt Hotel and Suites, 140 North 4th Av. Louisville, Ky 40202.

This meeting is open to all veterans, not just members. WE are encouraging all gulf war veterans, their family members, friends,other veterans, and civilians that want to help make a difference NOW to attend this meeting. It has been 19 years since Operation Desert Storm August 1, 1990.

We need to deal with the issue of Gulf War illness, get help to our veterans in the form of adequate and timely compensation and knowledgeable health care in the VA, and the government to finally fully acknowledge the damage done to gulf war veterans. We need you all to attend in person and make a committment to make a difference that counts in getting real action.

NGWRC is the leading international organization providing advocacy for Gulf War veterans. Founded in 1995, the NGWRC is a non-profit organization exempt under Section 501©(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; donations to the NGWRC are tax deductible.

The NGWRC was organized by veterans of the 1991 Gulf War who began to experience an unexplained illness after returning from the war. Troops were exposed to low levels of Sarin Gas from chemical munitions destroyed by allied forces, and to related chemicals in the pesticides and anti-nerve agents they used. They were also exposed to oil well fire pollution, depleted uranium, vaccines, other chemicals, and indigenous parasites and diseases.

Over 150,000 Gulf War veterans are now ill, most as a result of their military duty, and many report effects in their spouses and children. The NGWRC began its work as the central resource for the grassroots groups formed by these veterans and their family and supporters around the country. In an atmosphere of mutual support and teamwork, the member organizations of the NGWRC joined together to provide advocacy for health care and self help to those affected by the Gulf War and those who have served the United States and it allies since then, expanding its focus from Gulf War Illness to also include other toxin-induced illnesses, Traumatic Brain Injury, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Please help to get all notified of this critical meeting by widest distribution to all gulf war veterans, veterans, family members, civilian supporters by means of email, postings on websites, twitter, facebook, faxing, phone calls, distribution to all media sources, flyers posting at local grocery stories, VA hospitals, clinics, and all places you can think of that a gulf war veteran or their family member may see and get notified.
Membership Meeting Agenda
National Gulf War Resource Center

2009 Membership Meeting Agenda

July 31St

1500 � Call Meeting to order, Roll Call of the Board

1515 � Certify voting representatives of member organizations

1520 � Allow the recognized representatives to vote on any other applicant organizations or proposed representatives not certified by the Secretary.

1530 � Elect a moderator and parliamentarian for the meeting

1550 � Review all proposals to amend the by-laws

1555 � Vote for board members.

1600 � Board Meeting:

1605 � Elect the Board of Directors

1630 � Review all resolutions to guide the board and staff priorities for the Resource Center for the next year.

1700 � Recess for Dinner. Joint dinner with VMW Board

1830 � Join Board meeting with VMW on how we can work together.

2030 � Board recess until Sunday

AUGUST 1St

Membership Meeting

0700 - 0845 � Breakfast

0900-0945 � Re-convene membership meeting Movie on Gulf War Illness by David Block. This movie used members from our 2004 meeting.

0945-1000 Break

1000 - 1130 � Paul Lyons Chemicals in the gulf, & how to use the FOIA to get information on your units.

1130 � 1300 Lunch

1300-1400 Doing gulf war claims

1415 � Convene Board of Directors meets, with member representatives present

Review resolutions to set the priorities of the membership and to resolve any conflicts among resolutions passed on Friday

1450 �set conference call times, and begin business of implementing resolutions.

1500 � Adjourn Board meeting

http://www.veteranstoday.com/article7864.html

Nightmares

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 03:58:52 -0400

Lord-Lord-Lord It is 0203 hrs and another nightmare awakes me to the memories of my failure to bring back my men . I'm sixty one years old and I'm still reliving battles fought 37 years ago.
I can still hear the screaming of Sheppard in my ears after a 51 cal went through both his legs near the mouth of the An Loa valley by LZ English. I can still remember Franks telling me how he is planning on going to Indiana Univ the night before his LOH burst into flames over a tree line near Phan Thiet. The smell of his burnt flesh and the body bag far to light. Shield's body after two days in a river. Bill's blood all over his LOH. Larry's burnt helmet. others far too many others. Good men lost because of bad decisions I thought were right at the time.
I also dream of the fear-- how my knees shook and my hands trembled before the fight would start. The sick preverted joy of killing.

I think I'll have a drank and stare at the tree line one more night.

Cavtrooper088
cobra platoon leader H troop 10th Cavalry RVN 72-73

Dr's Opinion Letter For Tdiu Is There Any Specifics

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:06:56 -0400

My dr will write a letter saying I am not able to work, but she doesn't know what it needs to say. I would like to send her a sample to use with the exact, or as close as possible, wording the raters will want to see. I'm not really talking about how my condition (ALS) keeps me from working (she can do that part), but all the legal stuff that will be enough evidence. I'll also be including my ssdi award with it.
thanks

Can Va Outsource Ptsd Counseling For Mst

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:22:58 -0400

Is it worth asking the VA to pay for counseling outside the VA. I have tried for about 8 years attend counseling at the VA. Unfortunately I have panic/anxiety attacks every time I enter the VA. I can't handle entering the VA and the threat of seeing any veteran from my past that I feel I could not handle. My PTSD has caused the failure of my marriage and the loss of my job, house and any normal life. I have made many attempts and only made 4 appointments over the past 8 years. When I did make it, I was met outside and walked inside. This was still unbearable. My only partial relief is a large daily dose of zoloft! I would love to get help and possibly even submit a claim. I truly believe getting counseling away from the VA is my only chance. That will still be a challenge as being around males or any crowds is difficult. I just don't know if anyone knows if the VA has ever paid for this (I currently am unemployed) and how one goes about requesting it. Thank You for your time in reading this and any information, suggestions or guidance is greatly appreciated.

Neuropsychological Test For Iu

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 00:13:45 -0400

Good evening, as some of you already know I put in a claim for IU last week. Today I called around trying to find a psych that specializes in psych evals. I think I found a good one. It's gonna cost me 800 smackers which I will put on my CC since my income is very limited. I just think I will need a good IME for my IU claim. I faxed my medical records to him earlier and he said he has more than enough evidence for the eval. Also, he said he wants to do some neurological tests.

Are these tests good evidence for my IU? Also, is $800bucks a reasonable price. I went ahead and told him OK lets do it and I have an initial appt on the 21st.

I'll let all of you know how it goes....Billy

Gulf War Syndrome

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:49:07 -0400

Gulf War Syndrome

http://www.all-natural.com/riley.html

Biological Warfare Conducted on U.S. Military Members, and
Corporate Bio-Genocide Levied on the Planetary Population

A Lecture By Captain Joyce Riley in Houston, Texas on January 15, 1996

Transcript by Leading Edge Research Group, P.O. Box 7530, Yelm, Washington 98597
With Editorial Commentary by Val Valerian World Wide Web Site: <http://www.trufax.org>

Introduction

(Applause) Thank you so very much. I am Joyce Riley, and I am here because I love my God and I love my country, and I love my fellow man. We are going to hear a story tonight that unfortunately is the saddest story, not only of the 20th century, but of America's history. You are going to hear about the destruction of the United States military. I am sorry to have to bring you this story. I wish it wasn't true. I wish that I could protect you from what you are going to hear tonight, because it has taken me a year to investigate this story. During that time, I went through the worst depression you can imagine. I finally came to the conclusion one day that - yes, our country had provided the biologicals to Saddam Hussein that were used on our troops. Our troops are sick and they are dying.

My story started in 1991, when I decided to go back to the Air Force Reserve. I had been stationed in the late 1970's in New York State, and I had been involved as a flight nurse in the Air Force. I got out and was living my life, but then I heard that there was a war and that many of our men were going to die if they didn't have adequate care, and that they needed trained flight nurses. So, I decided to back into the service of my country. I went back to Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio and I volunteered to go to Saudi Arabia. As it was, I didn't go to Saudi Arabia because the cease-fire came, so I served active duty missions on a C-130 aircraft for about six months. After that, I returned back to Houston to my job, where I was a heart, lung, kidney and liver transplant nurse in Houston, Texas. I became very ill and I could get no answers. I didn't know why I was sick. No one would talk with me about it. No one would help me with it, and I had to find out the answers myself, alone.

The Problem

So, I began the investigation myself to answer the question of why I was sick. I didn't even go to the Persian Gulf. They call it the Persian Gulf disease and the Persian Gulf Registry. They do that for a reason, because then they can exclude all of us who are sick who didn't go to the Persian Gulf. Well, I didn't go and I was still sick, and I wanted to know why. The only thing I had in common with those who did go is that I had received the immunizations and that I had a lot of contact with Gulf War veterans who were returning back to the states, and with other members of our unit. Little did we know at the time that the biologicals that were used were impregnated in the equipment they had, such as tents and duffle bags. It was being spread to all of us and we didn't even know it. We were being told a lie. America, I am sorry to tell you that we have been told one of the biggest lies this country has ever perpetrated upon us. They are telling us there is no Gulf War disease. They are telling us biologicals were not used. They are not even telling you that between 10,000 to 12,000 Gulf war vets have already died.

I began my investigation and I went into depression the day I realized we had been lied to. I had been involved with President Bush and with the White House, because I had been involved in organ transplantation. I wrote a letter and called the White House and invited him to come to Houston with Dr. Cooley to sign an organ donor card. He and Barbara did accept the invitation, and I met with them, and they signed an organ donor card. President Bush told me at the time that "I appreciate what you are doing. If this had been available years ago, perhaps my daughter Robin might not have died." He told me that. Well, little did I know that during that same time they were making the poisons that were going to eventually kill us. At the end of the program, I am going to play an open letter I wrote to President Bush. He lives in Houston, as do all of the players in what you are about to hear tonight. They all reside in Houston.

I do believe that the Lord gave me this story to tell, because a nurse from Houston, Texas just doesn't "come across" this information -- that biological warfare has been perpetrated on the American people. I knew when I heard the story that I had to move on it. I had to let Americans know. I would not be quiet, because, you see, I knew that the government was actively covering it up.

What I am going to show you tonight is not opinion. It is not conjecture. It is proof. I am going to show you documentation on the overhead projector -- the evidence to support what I am saying to you.

The basic fact is that biological agents were used on our troops. Chemical agents were used on our troops. Germ warfare was used on our troops -- using biologicals that were made in the United States of America. It was made in Houston, Texas and Boca Raton, Florida. It was passed through the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and through companies such as American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) in Maryland. It was passed to Saddam Hussein -- sold to Saddam Hussein, as late as 1989. Just prior to the war. The American government was involved in the provision of biological warfare (components) to Saddam Hussein. They knew exactly what they were doing. Our troops did not know what to expect, nor were they protected. We later found out that we had no adequate biological/chemical detection capability. The lies are going on and on. I released the story on my radio show on May 4, 1995 with Drs. Garth and Nancy Nicholson. We had security in the studio because I had made the mistake of sending out some news releases in advance. I was afraid that we would be stopped from doing the program. We had someone there to argue a temporary restraining order, if necessary. But, we didn't need it. Drs. Garth and Nancy Nicholson named names, places and times. The sad part is that it is real. When I heard them naming names and places, I thought "oh, my word. I'm going to have ten lawyers on my door tomorrow."

No one showed up. No one has come to me and said, "you shouldn't be saying this". The reason being that they don't want to fight me in court. They know its true. So, what I am going to show you tonight is absolute evidence of the saddest story in American history.

A Letter

I am going to start with a letter written to me from a young man in Wichita, Kansas. It begins, "please forgive me for not writing sooner. I have been out of town on the job. My only hope is to reach other vets and the public to let them know it is true and many of us are dying from this illness. I will not give up until we are recognized and taken care of by our government, who continues to blackball us on this endless journey." That is one Gulf War veteran who understands, and I have received so many phone calls it has been impossible to return them.

At our unit at Kelly Air Force base, we were very spirited, with a mission to fulfill. We were going to take care of that mission. Well, unfortunately, it was not the way it was. Let's go back in time and look at a little history. I am going to show you a lot of information that is incredibly important. You must understand that America has been doing this for a long period of time. It has been experimenting on both civilians and military members.

1970 Vaccine "Safety" Tests at the University of Maryland

(Slide Shown) This is a 1970 article that appeared in a newspaper in Maryland (reads article): "Research volunteers. Volunteers needed for 30 day in-patient vaccine safety tests. Very pleasant environment. Pay $20 per day. Call the University of Maryland." One lady did call that number and was involved in those tests. She is very ill today. They experimented on her. That was not the first time that experimentation was done.

(Slide Shown) This is another article that appeared: "University of Maryland may have tested drugs for the CIA." How many of you are familiar with MKULTRA. It involved the experimental use of LSD on the public without their knowledge. I'll read a little more of this article. "The Central Intelligence Agency has notified the University of Maryland that the school may have been involved in so-called mind-bending tests and drug experiments sponsored by the agency between 1953 and 1964. The University is about one of eighty institutions that conducted experiments under a program code-named MKULTRA." It goes on to identify where the tests were done, and states that they are now going to protect all the researchers involved with the program. They want to provide the researchers with confidentiality. However, those that were experimented upon do not even know they were involved in a test. "Critics disclose that human subjects did not know what they were getting either before or after the tests, and both the Army and the institutions involved said they did not follow up on the personnel." Now, I want you to notice here that the people involved in this were 44 colleges, 15 research foundations or chemical companies, 12 hospitals and three prisons. Now, we are going to go into prisons in just a few minutes as far as how it was tested on the prisoners.

1970 Appropriation of Money to Create Human Immune Deficiency Virus

(Slide Shown) Another document that I want you to remember as long as you live is this. This document appeared on my fax machine. I believe it to be the origin of the appropriation of the money to make the AIDS virus [Editor note: See Matrix III Volume One]. This is the appropriations hearing for 1970 for the Department of Defense. It is House Bill 15090. I want you to see that the Department of Defense appropriated $10 million in 1970 to make a synthetic biological agent. Ask yourself why the Department of Defense needs this kind of agent. There are two things about the field of biological agents I would like to mention. One is the possibility of technological surprise. It says that "we believe that within a period of five to ten years, it would be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent that does not naturally exist and for which no natural immunity could have been acquired." What does that sound like to you? It goes on down here to say, "within the next five to ten years, it would probably be possible to make a new ineffective microorganism which could be different in certain important aspects from any known disease-causing organism. Most importantly, it might be damaging to the immunological and therapeutic processes upon which we depend to maintain our relative freedom from infectious disease." Basically this says it will destroy the immune system. This was appropriated in 1970. In 1975 the first recorded "AIDS" related death occurred. Perfect timing. It goes on to say, "a research program to explore feasibility could be completed in approximately five years at a cost of $10 million." Now, look at this part down here, which says, "it is a highly controversial issue and there are many who believe such research should not be undertaken, lest it lead to yet another method of mass killing of large populations." That is in your government documentation. Now, getting involved with killing of large numbers of people is not what a government is for. I want you to get this document. Get this House Bill.

What the Government and Media Say About Gulf War Syndrome

What is the U.S. Government saying about the Gulf War? This is an 1996 article from Time Magazine that says, "No Gas Used Against the Troops." What is the government propaganda saying? They are saying that "there is no scientific or medical evidence that chemical or biological weapons were deployed at any level against us." That is an absolute lie. I will show you proof that they knew that chemical and biological agents were used. After my radio show, an article came out in the Houston Chronicle which said, "Gulf War Syndrome Doesn't Exist". Now, here we have a documented number of Gulf War veterans that have already died, and they come out and say there is no Gulf War illness. There is something really wrong. Now, you didn't hear much about the Gulf War illness for about four years, until the Nicholsons went forward with this information. Here is another article from the Washington Times , "Pentagon Says There Is No Gulf War Disease." That article also came out shortly after we went on the air. The Los Angeles Times, "Government Study of Veterans Finds No Evidence of Gulf War Disease."

Now, let's look at the documentation from the Persian Gulf Veterans Coordinating Board, which is nothing but cover-up information. They are not telling the veterans the truth. They told us that they contacted every one of us to see if we were sick. No one contacted us. I have not heard of any person being contacted. But, look at this. A million men and women went to the Gulf. That's a large number of people. Why do we need to go over there in the first place? What were we doing over there? I am not sure.

What Was Really Behind the Gulf War: Malthusian Population Reduction

[Editor Note: The reason for the Gulf War, upon analysis, was threefold. It was to infect the U.S. military and subsequently the U.S. and world population, and secondly to reacquire Kuwait oil fields, which are owned by a well-known family in London, and thirdly to test weaponry on Iraq, to whom factions sold weapons to be used against our own troops. Part of the cover-up involved with Gulf War syndrome is also meant to conceal the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration held stock in some of the biotech companies that produced the biological weapons used against U.S. troops and shipped to Iraq. Another part of the cover-up involves conventional arms, specifically a company known as U.S. Arms, who sold Iraq conventional weapons to be used against U.S. troops. Former Secretary of Agriculture Ron Brown, who was in the aircraft that was blown up in Bosnia, was on the board of Directors of U.S. Arms. Four individuals on the plane were to testify in an upcoming hearing. Traces of thermite, denoting explosives, were found on the bodies. Thirty-seven people were murdered. President Clinton recently claimed Executive Privilege as a reason for not disclosing certain documents to Congress relating to arms shipments to Iraq. Do you understand, yet? Other reasons for securing the area involved control of vital earth grid points in Southern Iraq. Interestingly, there are also large underground facilities in the Middle East, some of them of rather ancient, and alien, origin, which still today contain high-tech equipment].

50% of Gulf War Veterans Are No Longer in the Service -
More Than 10,000 Are Dead

A million Gulf War vets went, and a million of them have the potential of being sick. I will tell you a little bit why later. By their own admission, some 697,000 active duty service members and some 180,000 national guard went to the Gulf. What they say now is that 489,000 of them have since separated from the military. Now, ask yourself why in an all-volunteer force, after a war, would 50% of the individuals involved get out of the military? It is not a statistic that even makes sense. One out every two have gotten out of the military since Desert Storm? I wonder why. Possibly because they had to, because they were sick and were forced out.

This is another figure that scares me. To date, the VA reports that more than 489,400 Gulf War veterans have received medical care in VA facilities. One out of every two. Ask yourself why. You don't go to the VA unless you have no where else to go.

Here is another item that was faxed to me from the VA. You see here that by their own admission they say that 5,729 Gulf War veterans have died since the war. We know the figure is now between 10,000 to 12,000.

Clinton-appointed Chairman of Joint Chiefs and Secretary of Defense
Lie in 1994 About Presence of Chemical and Biological Weapons in the Gulf

This is an item that came out from Chief of Staff Shalikashvilli and Secretary William Perry. This letter came out May 24, 1994. It says, "There have been reports in the press of the possibility that some of you were exposed to biological weapons agents. There is no information, classified or unclassified, that indicates that chemical or biological weapons were used in the Persian Gulf. There have also been reports that some veterans believe there are restrictions on what they can say about potential exposures. Anybody attached to CBW units needs to know that they are free to speak now. You should not feel constrained to discuss these issues." The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense say there were no chemical or biological weapons used. In fact, there is plenty of evidence. It has already been presented on the floor of the Senate, and I am going to show it to you. [ Editor Note: Here she is referring to the Reigle Report. We might also remind you that the father of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was in the Nazi SS ].

Active Duty Military Intimidated Into Silence

I was approached at one point in time by someone who lead me to Drs. Garth and Nancy Nicholson, who are heroes in my mind. They are both Ph.D. scientists at the M.D.Anderson Cancer Center. Their daughter was in the 101st Airborne that did deep insertions into Iraq. Many of the 101st Airborne have called me and many of them are sick. The 82nd Airborne is sick. Men and women at Fort Hood, Texas are sick. Camp Pendleton. Camp LeJeune. Fort Riley is really sick right now. These people are not allowed to talk about this in the military. They are not allowed to tell people about the Gulf War Illness. They are not allowed to admit to it. I have even visited Gulf War vets at Brook Army Medical Hospital, and they are not even allowed to talk about it. I took some Gulf War information over there and the patients had to hide it so the doctors would not see it. So, the Nicholson's daughter came back from Iraq sick. She gave the disease to the family - to Garth and Nancy, who live in Houston, and also to the family cat. The cat died. Before the cat died, they tested all of their blood. They found that they were positive for something called Mycoplasma Incognitas, which is the chief biological agent we find to be responsible for a lot of the illness of the veterans.

Mycoplasma Incognitas

I will explain this to you by saying that Mycoplasma Incognitas is between the size of a bacteria and a virus. It travels through a population, and as long as your immune system is all right it will not affect you. But, according to the Nicholson's, who are both Ph.D. cellular biologists, they found that the scientists who were involved in this horrible plot inserted 40% of the HIV envelope gene into the Mycoplasma. What this means is that it doesn't give you HIV, but it gives you the symptoms. So, they found this and realized that they had a germ warfare agent on their hands. It is the first biological agent identified. There have been others.

U.S. Government Refuses to Dispense Known Treatment to Affected People

The Nicholson's went to the laboratory to discover how to treat this. They found that an antibiotic called Doxycycline was the most effective. The United States military will not allow military members under their control to have Doxycycline or VA hospitals to dispense Doxycycline. They are simply not allowed to have it. I got a call from a Special Forces commander who had been retired for one year. He said:

"I have had it. I came home. I served my country. I got my blood sent to Dr. Nicholson for free testing and got my prescription for Doxycycline. I went to have it filled and not only did that take away my military ID card, but they would not allow me to have the Doxycycline to save my life."

You see, the disease is contagious, and now the wives and children are getting it. It is going to affect you in the general population. That is why it is so important to understand how serious this is. It is not just the United States. It is a worldwide program. There were 28 countries that served with the United States in Iraq. All 28 countries now report that their men and women are also sick. But Drs. Garth and Nancy Nicholson revealed that a Houston company was involved in the manufacture of a biological weapon that was sold to Iraq and was used on American soldiers in the Gulf War. Since we came out with the names of these companies, there have been lawsuits filed against those corporations.

Symptoms of the Syndrome

These are the symptoms of the syndrome. You may look at this and it may not seem very significant to you, so if you look at aching joints and go to your doctor and say "I have aching joints" or you say "I have chronic fatigue ", or you say "I don't have the memory I used to", they will not say anything. When I am talking about memory loss, I am talking about the kind where you have to wear a beeper so your family can find you. One young man told me, "I can only remember today. I can't remember what happened yesterday." He was 27 years old. We are talking about a problem known as night sweats. Any Gulf War veteran who has the Mycoplasma knows about night sweats. You have to change your linens twice a night. The muscle spasms get so bad that you can't stand it and people scream in pain. There is also loss of eyesight, breathing problems, and chest pains because the Mycoplasma settles in the atrium of the heart. All of these are problems that become worse.

The problem is that the government is telling the people of the United States "there is no Gulf War Illness". The doctors in this country think there is no Gulf War Illness. So, when people come in and complain about the symptoms , they are turned aside and told that the problem is psychological in nature.

Deformed Children Caused by U.S. Corporate Genocide

Now, you are not being told about the babies that are being born deformed. There is a Gulf War Baby Foundation formed to register babies who have contracted the syndrome. There are so many that are being born deformed. You are not being told about this. Dan Rather doesn't tell you about it, does he? No. And so, you think that if it isn't on the nightly news it must not be true, right? If a tree falls in the forest and Dan Rather doesn't cover it, does it still make a noise? Think about it.

Gulf War babies are severely deformed. In fact, according to Nation Magazine, "studies have shown that 67% of babies born to Gulf War veterans are deformed. What have they done to our future generations? What have they done to their DNA?

There was an article that appeared in Life Magazine in November 1995 featuring a man in the 82nd Airborne at Fort Brag, North Carolina. This young man has a child with no arms and no legs. I know of a nurse in San Antonio who knows of 50 children like this.

When our soldiers risked their lives in the Gulf, they never imagined that their children would face these consequences or that their country would turn its back on them. You are hearing what perhaps 1% of the country knows today. It will take your help to get this story out. There is no way these parents can afford to take care of these children. (Shows pictures of children).

The Reigle Reports and Congressional Knowledge About the Problem Covered Up

This is something that the government is trying to keep you from knowing about. The Reigle report is evidence that biological and chemical weapons were used on our troops. It was presented to the United States Senate, but it has been withheld from you. They don't want you to see it. A news release went out that Senator Reigle from Michigan was a brave man for doing this. He is no longer in the Senate. He had to pay for the report to be done. The Feb 1994 news release said, "Reigle Uncovers U.S. Shipment of Biological Warfare Materials to Iraq Prior to Gulf War". The release went on to say, "there is evidence of transmission to family members. I am deeply troubled that the United States permitted the sale of deadly biological agents to a country with a known biological warfare program." There is no blood ban stopping Gulf War veterans from donating blood to the general blood supply that the general population uses. Reigle also sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Perry on Feb 9, 1994 and talked about the exposure of Gulf War veterans and the transmission of the disease to spouses and children. He found out that we had been exporting these biological substances through ATCC. This information is known to every Senator that was in office in 1994. Why aren't they doing something about it. Why weren't you told about it? Reigle also said to Secretary Perry, "without proper treatment and testing, their condition will worsen. They cannot wait. Many are now destitute, with their savings spent on medical care not provided by the government.

According to Senator Reigle, "the Department of Defense refuses to acknowledge any part of the problem. Their blanket denials are not credible. To my mind, there is no more serious crime than an official military cover-up of facts that could prevent more effective diagnosis and treatment of sick U.S. veterans. It is an astonishing example that the Defense Department is going to deny reality."

The Veterans Administration is not treating Gulf War veterans, but only monitoring their blood to see how well the biological warfare agents worked. They are not treating the Gulf War veterans.

(Here she details the bacteriological substance shipped. See attachment from the Reigle Report at the end of this transcript).

Proof of Chemical Weapon Use from the Schwartzkoff NBC Log

(Slide Shown) Here is how we know the biologicals were used. What I am showing you was once a classified document. It is part of the Chemical-Biological log that belonged to General Norman Schwartzkoff in CENTCOM. He was responsible for central command. The NBC log is sort of a roadmap of the war and what transpired. You can see here that it says, "Colonel Dunn has confirmed that the soldiers of the 3rd AD have blisters, characteristic of mustard chemical agent, on upper and lower arms." Remember the official statement? "No Biological or Chemical Weapons Used". The log continues, "ARCENT advised that casualty happened on afternoon of 28 Feb, a reddening of the skin and small blisters." I want you to know that I talked to several of the MEDIVAC flight nurses who accompanied the troops out of the theater of operations, and they told me that many of the men had no skin on them, that their skin was falling off. Evidence of a chemical burn. So, this is known information. Some of the autopsies done at Dover, Delaware found that some of the deaths were due to chemical poisoning.

Schwartzkoff's NBC log continues, "Msgt Blue called. Subject: Commanders Guidance for Disposition of captured chemical and biological munitions." They had captured them and they knew they existed. Continuing, "field destruction is OK, but bulk destruction may have international implications." I have a number of these pages that were released under a FOIA request, and there are about 100 pages that were released to the Gulf War Veterans of Georgia. My hat is off to all the Gulf War Veterans that have been trying to take this message to the public for the last four years.

(Slide Shown) Anybody who was in Desert Storm knows what these are. The little "PB" pills which are a pre-treatment pill for a nerve agent. In other words, if you were going to be affected by a nerve agent such as Soman, you would take this pill in advance and it was supposed to help you. However, you should never take this unless you actually are affected, because it builds up in the body and it creates many problems.

International Media Comes to the U.S. to Investigate

(Slide Shown) This is an article that came out of the Sunday Times in London. The BBC has been over here investigating this quite heavily because they have so many people in England that are sick from all of this. The Italian equivalent to "60 Minutes" has been over here filming on the subject, because the Italian soldiers are sick also. It's country after country.

U.S. Companies Sold Iraq New Genocidal Anthrax Toxin

This is why I am scared about what is going on with the biological warfare. It hasn't stopped, because Saddam Hussein still has these things. Reading the Sunday Times article, we see that "Russia has developed a powerful new poison with no antidote that could be used in biological weapons. It is a variation of the anthrax toxin that causes death within days. It has been genetically engineered to make it resistant to antibiotics. The toxin is so powerful that a tiny amount that would fit on a pinhead would theoretically kill 500,000 people." Can you imagine what that would do to the WATER SUPPLY? Saddam Hussein had thousands of pounds of this substance that was given to him by United States companies.

Veteran Medical Files Destroyed or Missing

Guess what happened to our veterans medical files? They are destroyed. There was actually an attorney who was sent to prison for destroying veterans medical files. Many of the medical files of Gulf War veterans are missing. No only are they missing, but now the proof that they received the vaccinations is now missing.

Gulf War Participants Force-Injected With Experimental Vaccines

Let's talk about how we were affected on the biological side. The first way was with the immunizations. We were given 10 or 11 immunizations prior to going to the gulf. We don't know everything we got. Some of us got sick afterwards. The Anthrax vaccinations were given over in the Gulf, in the theater of operations, and you were forced to submit to it. If you didn't take it, you were court-martialed. People were put into a room like this, the doors were locked, and they had security guards with side arm who stood by while people were forced to take this injection. Why? Why would they do this to people? The Anthrax "vaccine" had not been approved and was experimental. The injection for Botulism was also dangerous. All of these things in combination created a problem.

The Soviet Doctrine: The Biological Cocktail

But, the real problem that we believe to be the main transmission agent was via the SCUD-B and FROG missiles. You see, the SCUD missiles that Hussein used on us had biological and chemical agents in them. When the Patriots shot them down, it rained biological and chemical agents down on the troops. In terms of biological warfare, they used what is called the SOVIET DOCTRINE, in which 18-20 biological agents were mixed together in the tanks of the SCUD missiles. Because the batch contained so many biological agents, it effectively confuses the diagnosis and the treatment process. Now, ask yourself this.

Media Projects Responsibility on Iraq for U.S. Crimes

What is the press coming out and saying? If you read the media, which I hope you don't, you will see an article in the Kansas City Star on October 14th that said, "Iraq Sanctioned", in which they claimed "Iraq lied to us about having and using biological weapons." You know as well as I do that they have satellites in the sky that enable them to see what you are having for dinner. You know they knew what Hussein had, because they sold it to them. Absolutely.

This is what I want you to be watching for, because this is going to be the cover story. They are going to have to deal with the Gulf War illness because so many people have it now. In fact, I will tell you now that because we know that over 10,000 have already died, and we believe 500,000 of our Gulf War veterans to be sick, Dr. Nicholson told me that 20% of the people around the theater of operations (United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, etc.) are now sick. It is coming to a place near you , believe me. The chronic fatigue syndrome. I got a call from a doctor the other day who told me that he has 15 patients with CFS, and they don't know anyone who went to the Gulf War. It's transmissible through sex and through kissing, because it is now found in the dental floss test, where you can see evidence of the mycoplasma. It is communicable and it is going to be growing.

A doctor called me the other day, and he said, "I don't know what's going on. I volunteered to take care of these Gulf War veterans because the VA wouldn't take care of them, and now I'm sick with the same problem. Can you help me understand why I'm sick?" I said, "don't you know its a communicable disease?" He had no idea, because the official position of the U.S. Government is that "there is no Gulf War illness."

Peter Kawaja has been talking about the fact that "GF" was used during the war. Nobody ever mentioned "GF" or even heard of it, except Peter Kawaja, and he kept saying "GF was used." Well, the substance called "GF" is made by the U.S. Department of the Army. The government made it. I have evidence in the government logs of "GF" having been used during the war, but no one ever addressed "GF" until a U.S. News and World Report article came out on September 11, 1995. In this, they have the UN inspector going over to Iraq and inspecting the SCUDS and voicing the "sudden realization" that "Oh, they had all this nasty stuff over there after all that the Iraqis didn't tell us about". Well, I have evidence in a Pentagon report that shows that we knew about it more than 30 days before the war started. The U.S. government knew it was in the SCUDS, because the U.S. companies sold it to Iraq in the first place. It's interesting that in this story the UN inspector is trying to cover himself by saying what he did. The fact that "GF" is mentioned in Schwartzkoff's NBC log also proves the military knew it was there.

part one.............................................................................
...................

The U.s. Biological Warfare And Biological Defense Programs

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:44:00 -0400

Textbook of Military Medicine: Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare: Chapter 19
The U.S. Biological Warfare And Biological Defense Programs

David R. Franz, D.V.M., PH.D.^*; Cheryl D. Parrott^�; and Ernest T. Takafuji, M.D., M.P.H.^�
Peer Review Status: Internally Peer Reviewed
Introduction

A Secret Biological Warfare Program
The Secret Program Is Acknowledged
Field Testing in the United States

An Expanded Defense Program

A Comprehensive Medical Biological Defense Program
Safety in Research and Patient Care
A National Resource

Summary

^*Colonel, Veterinary Corps, U.S. Army; Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland 21702-5011
^�Formerly, Technical Writer, Public Affairs Office, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland 21702; currently, Biomedical Writer, Office of Communications, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
^�Colonel, Medical Corps, U.S. Army; Commander, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D. C. 20307-5100

Introduction

Biological agents have been used in war for centuries. After World War I, Major Leon Fox, Medical Corps, U.S. Army, prepared a lengthy report¹ that concluded that biological warfare was no longer a concern because of the development of modern sanitary procedures. However, as he wrote, the Japanese were already developing an offensive biological warfare program involving an extensive list of biological agents, capable of causing diseases such as anthrax, tularemia, plague, botulinum, smallpox, glanders, and typhoid.
The United States conducted a second review of the potential of biological warfare during 1941 and 1942 and implemented its program to develop biological weapons in 1943. The biological warfare program of the United States was conducted under military auspices and was characterized during its early years by a high degree of secrecy and controversial testing programs. By the 1960s, U.S. scientists had clearly established that the development of biological weapons was feasible and that their use on the battlefield could be effective.
The purpose of the U.S. program in the early years was to deter the use of biological agents against the United States and its military forces, and to retaliate only if deterrence was unsuccessful. The program was characterized by an aggressive offensive and defensive research and development effort that would be modified to one based on maintaining a strong defense against biological agents.
When the biological warfare program was established, the United States was fighting World War II on two fronts. After the war ended, the Cold War developed and our security was still threatened. The United States maintained an active offensive biological warfare program until it unilaterally renounced the use of biological weapons in two National Security Memoranda in 1969 and 1970. The United States ratified the Biological Weapons Convention in 1975. Although capabilities of the world�s military forces have changed significantly in the years following the disestablishment of the U.S. biological warfare program�and despite the Biological Weapons Convention�a biological warfare threat still exists; therefore, the United States maintains a program for medical defense against biological warfare agents.

A Secret Biological Warfare Program

In 1941, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson asked the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the feasibility of biological warfare. The academy concluded that biological warfare was feasible and recommended that steps be taken to reduce U.S. vulnerability and also to conduct research to explore the offensive potential of bacteriological weapons. In April 1942, Stimson recommended to President Franklin D. Roosevelt the creation of a civilian advisory group that would coordinate governmental and privately owned institutions in a biological warfare effort.^2,3 (What he did not tell Roosevelt was that the Army Chemical Warfare Service had begun its own biological warfare research in 1941.)
The idea of biological weaponry was controversial, since little was known about the predictability or effectiveness of biological weapons in wartime. President Roosevelt approved the plan in 1942, and the War Reserve Service, headed by George W. Merck, was established and attached to the Federal Security Agency, a New Deal agency of the Department of Agriculture. The War Reserve Service started out in mid 1942 with a budget of $200,000. Secret work began under Merck�s direction at 28 American universities, including Harvard, Stanford, and other top schools. This agency received consultative advice from national scientific committees and organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council.
The War Reserve Service also empowered the U.S. Army�s Chemical Warfare Service to greatly expand its efforts in regard to biological weapons. The army�s efforts were better funded than those of the War Reserve Service: in 1942 and 1943, the Chemical Warfare Service received millions of dollars to build research facilities. Several locations were selected for the army�s biological research, with the main headquarters at Camp Detrick, Frederick, Maryland, a small National Guard airfield (designated Fort Detrick in 1956). The army also made plans to build a manufacturing plant near Terre Haute, Indiana, and built a 2,000-acre field test site on Horn Island in Pascagoula, Mississippi. It is ironic that much of the United States�s biological warfare effort during World War II was in response to a perceived threat from Germany, when in fact the Japanese were much more actively building their biological warfare capability.²
In the spring of 1942, President Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced policies limiting the use of biological weapons to retaliation only, closely paralleling previous decisions, such as the Geneva Protocol of 1925, on the limited use of chemical weapons. But these new policies did not prevent the United States and Great Britain from beginning to amass arsenals of biological weapons.⁴ By 1943, the research center and pilot plant at Camp Detrick employed approximately 3,800 military and 100 civilian personnel. In 1944, Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, was established to replace the Mississippi site, and the production plant was constructed near Terre Haute, Indiana.²
The United States exchanged information with Great Britain and Canada, two other nations concerned about the biological warfare threat, but the general public was unaware of a biological warfare program in the United States until 4 months after the war was over. During World War II, the United States worked primarily on anthrax and botulism; however, brucellosis, psittacosis, tularemia, and glanders were also studied. There was also considerable work on agents for use against plants, and records show that there were plans drawn up to decimate Japan�s rice crops.²
At the end of World War II, construction and testing slowed to a stop, and the effort on biological warfare development was largely limited to research. The production plant in Indiana was sold to the Charles A. Pfizer Company for commercial use. Although the highly classified program was initially defensive, and closely tied with the chemical weapons program, research continued on developing an independent retaliatory capability using various disease agents.

The Secret Program Is Acknowledged

Since 1937, Japan had conducted a large biological warfare program, including human testing, at its Unit 731 in Manchuria.⁵ After the war, the United States granted amnesty to Japanese scientists who had participated in the research; however, a condition of the amnesty was full disclosure of research information. Two scientists from Camp Detrick, Dr. Edwin Hill and Dr. Joseph Victor, went to Japan in 1945 and interviewed 22 scientists. They learned that many of the classical biological warfare agents had been studied, and that approximately 1,000 autopsies had been performed in Unit 731, most of these on humans who had been exposed to anthrax. They also learned that the Japanese had stockpiled 400 kg of anthrax spores, which were to be used in a specially designed fragmentation bomb.
In January 1946, the War Department made public for the first time the fact that the United States had been conducting biological warfare research and testing. The press release emphasized the high priority placed on safety:

In all work on biological warfare carried on in the United States, extreme care was taken to protect the participating personnel from infection. Many new techniques were devised to prevent infection and proved highly successful. Hospitals and dispensaries were maintained at all installations, staffed with both Army and Navy personnel and were equipped to treat accidental infections. As the result of the extraordinary precautions taken, there occurred only sixty cases of proven infection caused by accidental exposure to virulent biological warfare agents which required treatment. Fifty-two of these recovered completely; of the eight cases remaining, all were recovering satisfactorily. There were, in addition to the sixty proven cases, 159 accidental exposures to agents of unknown concentrations. All but one of these received prompt treatment and did not develop any infection. In one instance, the individual did not report exposure, developed the disease, but recovered after treatment.^{3(vol 1, p1-4)}

Mr. Merck, the head of the War Reserve Service, in his final report⁶ to the secretary of war noted that although remarkable achievements had been made, the potential of biological warfare had by no means been completely measured. He recommended that the program be continued on a sufficient scale to provide an adequate defense.
In 1948, the Research and Development Board (then under the secretary of defense), which had been given the responsibility to supervise the governmental research program, requested an evaluation of biological agents as weapons of sabotage. The Committee on Biological Warfare was formed, and the Baldwin Report⁷ prepared by the committee stated that the United States was particularly vulnerable to covert attack with biological agents. It also stated that the current research and development program was �not now authorized to meet the requirements necessary to prepare the defensive measures against special [biological warfare] operations.�^7(p1)
The Baldwin Report recommended⁷ that

means be developed to detect and identify biological warfare agents;
methods be developed for decontamination, protection, prophylaxis, and treatment; and
methods be assessed for dissemination of biological agents, with emphasis on application to special operations.

Specifically recommended were research programs, such as the testing of �innocuous organisms�^7(p7) in ventilation systems, subway systems, and public water supplies. This guidance influenced several subsequent administrations over the next 20 years, and the United States conducted a sequence of highly classified scientific tests on unknowing populations throughout the country, with agents and materials believed to be nonpathogenic. In fact, not until early 1977 was the extent of the military biological weapons testing program publicly disclosed before Congress.^3,4
[img]file:///D:/VETERANS/SHAD/P428_Fig19-1.JPG[/img]Fig. 19-1. These workers are standing outside the �8-Ball,� a 1-million-liter sphere used for testing static aerosols of biological agent preparations during the United States�s offensive biological warfare program. The building enclosing the 8-Ball and its supporting infrastructure were destroyed by fire in 1974. The sphere remains today as a historical monument at Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland. Photograph: Public Affairs Office, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md. circa 1968. The biological warfare research program in the early 1940s and 1950s involved antipersonnel, anticrop, and, for a brief period, antianimal studies.⁸ Field trials included open-air vulnerability testing, and contamination of public water systems with live organisms such as Serratia marcescens. Covert programs were conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency. Pathogenic organisms were also tested in Florida and the Bahamas in the 1940s. Chemical anticrop studies evaluated defoliation and crop destruction. Explosive munitions tests with pathogens were begun in 1949.
In 1950, the first open-air tests with biological simulants were conducted in various locales, one of which was off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia. This was followed by limited zinc cadmium sulfide dispersal tests in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and St. Louis, Missouri, in 1953; and Bacillus subtilis var niger dispersal in the New York City subway system in 1966.^3,4 The Special Operations Division at Camp Detrick conducted much of the research on possible methods of covert attack and sabotage, and many environmental studies�often without informing local or state governmental agencies or the general population.
Between 1948 and 1950, several reviews were conducted by the Research Review Board of the biological, chemical, and radiological warfare programs. Recommendations included the creation of a specific biological warfare production facility, continued field tests with biological warfare agents and munitions, and expansion of the overall program. In 1949, an enclosed, 1-million-liter steel test sphere was built at Camp Detrick, and biological warfare explosive munitions tests with agents were begun (Figure 19-1).
During the early 1950s, Major General George E. Armstrong, The U.S. Army Surgeon General (1951�1955) became concerned about medical defense issues. Lieutenant Colonel Abram S. Benenson, a medical officer from the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, was appointed medical liaison with the biological warfare laboratories at Fort Detrick. A joint agreement was signed, and beginning in 1953, studies on medical defense against biological weapons were conducted cooperatively by the Chemical Corps and the U.S. Army Medical Department. In 1954, a congressionally approved medical volunteer program, designated �Project Whitecoat,� was established after a series of meetings with representatives of the General Conference of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and The Surgeon General, U.S. Army.

Field Testing in the United States

The Korean War, which began in June 1950, added justification for continuing the biological warfare program, when the possible entry of the Soviet Union into the war was feared. Concerns over the Soviet Union were justified, for the Soviet Union would pronounce in 1956 that chemical and biological weapons would, indeed, be used for mass destruction in future wars.⁹ In October 1950, the secretary of defense approved continuation of the program, based largely on the Soviet threat and a belief that the North Korean and Chinese communists would use biological weapons.¹⁰
The first large-scale aerosol vulnerability test was conducted in the San Francisco Bay area in September 1950, using two species of bacteria (Bacillus globigii and Serratia marcescens) and fluorescent particles. Various Bacillus species were used in many experiments because of their spore-forming capabilities and their similarities to Bacillus anthracis. S marcescens was used because its red pigment made it readily identifiable. What was unexpected was the increased number of cases of Serratia infections over the next few years in communities that had been sprayed earlier with the organisms.⁴ The military considered the situations coincidental, but many civilian physicians believed them to be directly related. Other limited-scale field tests with pathogenic organisms were conducted at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. Antianimal studies were conducted at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
The biological warfare research facilities at Camp Detrick were expanded, and a biological warfare production facility was created at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, in 1951. The first limited, biological warfare retaliatory capability was achieved when an anticrop bomb was developed, tested, and placed in production for the U.S. Air Force. Anticrop�agent production sites were carefully selected for safety with the coordination and approval of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This marked the first peacetime biological weapons production by the United States.¹¹
By 1954, the Pine Bluff laboratory produced Brucella suis (the causative agent of brucellosis, also called undulant fever) and Francisella tularensis (tularemia, or rabbit fever). Hardware for antipersonnel biological cluster bombs was delivered to Pine Bluff for filling with Brucella suis to support air force requirements. By 1955, the accelerated program was producing stocks of B suis and F tularensis as biological warfare agents. While many of the efforts involved military researchers, others from the Public Health Service, other Federal departmental agencies, and civilian scientific institutions were also involved in the research.
The general public was uninformed of these on-going studies, especially the environmental and open-air experiments that were being conducted. A controversial environmental test occurred in 1951, when army researchers deliberately exposed a disproportionate number of black citizens to the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus, to see if African Americans were more susceptible to such infection, like they were already known to be to coccidioidomycosis (Coccidioides immitis). Some in the scientific community believed that such knowledge would assist in preparing defenses against a more virulent form of this fungus. Similarly, in 1951, unsuspecting workers at the Norfolk Supply Center, Norfolk, Virginia, were exposed to crates contaminated with A fumigatus spores.
Needless to say, there was a public outcry several years later when much of this information was released, and the biological warfare research program would be forever tainted as operating within �clouds of secrecy.�⁴ The first lawsuit against the U.S. government was filed by family members of an individual who had died, allegedly as a result of the San Francisco experiments in 1950. The court decided that the U.S. government could not be sued (under the Federal Tort Claims Act), since the decision to spray S marcescens was a part of national defense planning. Several of the organisms (such as S marcescens and A fumigatus), which were considered at one time to be innocuous, are now recognized to cause infections in humans, on occasion. Immunocompromised or debilitated persons appear to be at greatest risk. Early experiments conducted with such organisms involving subjects or populations who were unaware of the ongoing experiments may have posed a health risk to highly susceptible persons.
During the two decades following the second World War, laboratories for biological and chemical warfare research continued to increase in size, and programs were expanded with a multimillion dollar budget. The Fort Detrick research program was complemented by contractual civilian institutions; for example, Ohio State University was tasked with making vaccines. Human volunteers were used in many of the studies. Vaccines against diseases, such as Q fever and tularemia, were developed.

An Expanded Defense Program

With expansion of the biological warfare retaliatory program, the scope of the defensive program was nearly doubled. Data were obtained on personnel protection, decontamination, and immunization. Early detection research produced prototype alarms for use on the battlefield, but progress was slow, apparently limited by technology.
The U.S. Army Medical Unit, under the direction of The U.S. Army Surgeon General, began formal operations in 1956. One of the Unit�s first missions was to manage all aspects of Project CD-22, the exposure of volunteers to aerosols containing a pathogenic strain of Coxiella burnetii, the etiologic agent of Q fever. The volunteers were closely monitored and antibiotic therapy was administered when appropriate. All volunteers recovered from Q fever with no adverse aftereffects. One year later, the Unit submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration an Investigational New Drug application for a Q fever vaccine.
The United States was now accumulating invaluable data on personnel protection, decontamination, and immunization; and, in the offensive program, on the potential for mosquitoes to be used as biological vectors. A new Department of Defense Biological and Chemical Defense Planning Board was created in 1960 to establish program priorities and objectives. Preventive approaches toward infections of all kinds were funded under the auspices of biological warfare. As concern increased over the biological warfare threat during the Cold War, so did the budget for the program: to $38 million by fiscal year 1966.
The U.S. Army Chemical Corps was given the responsibility to conduct biological warfare research for all of the services.³ In 1962, the responsibility for the testing of promising biological warfare agents was given to a separate Testing and Evaluation Command. Depending on the particular program, different test centers were used, such as the Deseret Test Center at Fort Douglas, Utah, the headquarters for the new biological and chemical warfare testing organization. In response to increasing concerns over public safety and the environment, the Testing and Development Command implemented a complex system of approval of its research programs that included the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and the President of the United States.
During the last 10 years of the offensive research and development program, many scientific advances were made that proved that biological warfare was clearly feasible, although dependent on careful planning, especially with regard to meteorological conditions. Large-scale fermentation, purification, concentration, stabilization, drying, and weaponization of pathogenic microorganisms could be done safely. Furthermore, modern principles of biosafety and containment were established at Fort Detrick that have greatly facilitated biomedical research; still today, these are copied throughout the world. Arnold G. Wedum, M.D., Ph.D., a civilian scientist who was Director of Industrial Health and Safety at Fort Detrick, was the leader in the development of containment facilities (Figure 19-2).
[img]file:///D:/VETERANS/SHAD/P430_Fig19-2.JPG[/img]Fig. 19-2. Technicians in Class III hood lines are seen working with preparations of biological agents at Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland, circa 1968, when the United States had an offensive biological warfare program. The completely enclosed hood lines provide total containment of hazardous organisms. Hoods were maintained at a pressure negative to ambient by constantly drawing air out through high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. Workers wore heavy rubber gloves to access material inside the hoods. Photograph: Public Affairs Office, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md. During the 1960s, the country experienced a philosophical change, and attention was now directed toward biological agents that could incapacitate but not kill. In 1964, research programs involved staphylococcal enterotoxins capable of causing food poisoning. Research initiatives also included new therapy and prophylaxis. Pathogens studied included the agents causing anthrax, glanders, brucellosis, melioidosis, plague, psittacosis, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, Q fever, coccidioidomycosis, and a variety of plant and animal pathogens.^10,12
Particular attention was directed at chemical and biological detectors during the 1960s. The first devices were primitive field alarms to detect chemicals. Although the development of sensitive biological warfare agent detectors was at a standstill, two systems were, nonetheless, investigated. The first was a monitor that detected increases in the number of particles sized 1 to 5 �m in diameter, based on the assumption that a biological agent attack would include airborne particles of this size. The second system involved the selective staining of particles collected from the air. Both systems lacked enough specificity and sensitivity to be of any practical use.⁸
But in 1966, a research effort directed at detecting the presence of adenosine triphosphate (a chemical found only in living organisms) was begun. By using a fluorescent material found in fireflies, preliminary studies indicated that it was possible to detect the presence of a biological agent in the atmosphere. The important effort to find a satisfactory detection system continues today, for timely detection of a biological attack would allow the attacked force to use its protective masks effectively, and identification of the agent would allow any pretreatment regimens to be instituted.
The army also experimented with and developed highly effective barrier protective measures against both chemical and biological agents. Special impervious tents and personal protective equipment were developed, including individual gas masks even for military dogs.
During the late 1960s, funding for the biological warfare program decreased temporarily, to make up for the accelerating costs of the Vietnam War. The budget for fiscal year 1969 was $31 million, decreasing to $11.8 million by fiscal year 1973. Although the offensive program had been stopped in 1969, both offensive and defensive programs continued to be defended. John S. Foster, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, responded to a query by Congressman Richard D. McCarthy:

It is the policy of the U.S. to develop and maintain a defensive chemical-biological (CB) capability so that our military forces could operate for some period of time in a toxic environment, if necessary; to develop and maintain a limited offensive capability in order to deter all use of CB weapons by the threat of retaliation in kind; and to continue a program of research and development in this area to minimize the possibility of technological surprise.^{13(pp153�154)}

On 25 November 1969, President Nixon visited Fort Detrick to announce a new policy on biological warfare. In two National Security Memoranda,^14,15 the U.S. government renounced all development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons and declared its intent to maintain only small research quantities of biological agents, such as are necessary for the development of vaccines, drugs, and diagnostics.
Ground was broken in 1967 for construction of a new, modern laboratory building at Fort Detrick. The building would open in phases during 1971 and 1972. With the disestablishment of the biological warfare laboratories, the name of the U.S. Army Medical Unit, which was to have been housed in the new laboratories, was formally changed to U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in 1969. The institute�s new mission was stated in General Order 137, 10 November 1971 (since superseded):

Conducts studies related to medical defensive aspects of biological agents of military importance and develops appropriate biological protective measures, diagnostic procedures and therapeutic methods.¹⁶

The emphasis shifted away from offensive weapons to development of vaccines, diagnostic systems, personal protection, chemoprophylaxis, and rapid detection systems.

A Comprehensive Medical Biological Defense Program

In response to President Nixon�s decision in 1969, all antipersonnel biological warfare stocks were destroyed between 10 May 1971 and 1 May 1972. The laboratory at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, was converted to a toxicological research laboratory, and was no longer under the direction or control of the Department of Defense. Biological anticrop agents were destroyed by February 1973. Biological warfare demilitarization continued through the 1970s, with input provided by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Department of the Interior; Department of Agriculture; and the Environmental Protection Agency. Fort Detrick and other installations involved in the biological warfare program took on new identities, and their missions were changed to biological defense and the development of medical countermeasures. The necessary containment capability, Biosafety Levels 3 and 4 (BL-3 and BL-4, which are discussed below) continued to be maintained at USAMRIID.
In 1984, the Department of Defense requested funds for the construction of another biological aerosol test facility in Utah. The proposal submitted by the army called for BL-4 containment, although maintaining that the BL-4 inclusion was based on a possible need in the future and not on a current research effort. The proposal was not well received in Utah, where many citizens and government officials still recalled the secretive projects of the military: the areas on Dugway Proving Ground still contaminated with anthrax spores, and the well-publicized accidental chemical poisoning of a flock of sheep in Skull Valley, Utah, in March 1968.¹⁰ Questions arose over the safety of the employees and the surrounding communities, and a suggestion was even made to shift all biological defense research to a civilian agency, such as the National Institutes of Health. The plan for a new facility was revised to utilize a Biosafety Level 3 (BL-3) facility, but not before congress had instituted more surveillance, reporting, and control measures on the army to ensure compliance with the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972.

Safety in Research and Patient Care

Currently, the medical biological defense research effort (part of the U.S. Army�s Biological Defense Research Program [BDRP]) is concentrated at USAMRIID at Fort Detrick. The army maintains state-of-the-art containment laboratory facilities at USAMRIID, with more than 10,000 ft² of BL-4 and 50,000 ft² of BL-3 laboratory space. BL-4, the highest containment level, includes laboratory suites that are isolated by internal walls and protected by rigorous entry restrictions, air-locks, negative-pressure air-handling systems, and filtration of all out-flow air through high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters. Workers in BL-4 laboratories also wear filtered positive-pressure total body suits, which isolate the worker from the internal air of the laboratory. BL-3 laboratories have a similar design, but do not require that personnel wear positive-pressure suits. Workers in BL-3 suites are protected immunologically by vaccines. U.S. governmental standards provide guidance as to which organisms may be handled under various containment levels in laboratories such as USAMRIID.¹⁷
The unique facilities available at USAMRIID also include a 16-bed clinical research ward capable of BL-3 containment, and a 2-bed patient care isolation suite where ICU-level care can be provided under BL-4 containment. Here, healthcare personnel wear the same positive-pressure suits as are worn in BL-4 research laboratories. The level of patient isolation required depends on the infecting organism and the risk to healthcare providers. Patient care can be provided at BL-4. There is no patient-care category analogous to BL-3; humans who are ill as a result of exposure to BL-3 agents are cared for in an ordinary hospital room with barrier nursing procedures.
USAMRIID guidelines have been prepared to determine which level of containment should be employed for individual patients who require BL-4 isolation or barrier nursing care (Exhibit 19-1). Staff augmentation for BL-4 critical care expertise comes from Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C., under an existing Memorandum of Agreement. Patients can be brought directly into the BL-4 suite from the outside through specialized ports with unique patient-isolation equipment.

Exhibit 19-1
ISOLATION PROCEDURES FOR PATIENT CARE AT USAMRIID, BY DISEASE AGENT OR TYPE OF EXPOSURE Biosafety Level 4 (BL-4) isolation suite admission; care providers in positive-pressure protective suits
Ebola virus
Marburg virus
Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus
Variola (smallpox) and monkeypox viruses
The patient is presumed to be a victim of biological agent attack until definitive Diagnosis is made

Biosafety Level 4 (BL-4) isolation suite admission; barrier nursing procedures^*
Yersinia pestis (pneumonic form)^�
Lassa fever virus
Argentine hemorrhagic fever (Junin) virus
Bolivian hemorrhagic fever (Machupo) virus
Venezuelan hemorrhagic fever (Guanarito) virus

Normal hospital room; barrier nursing procedures^* or secretion precautions,^� depending on the agent
Tick-borne encephalitis complex
Yellow fever virus^�
Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus^�
Rift Valley fever virus^�
Chikungunya virus^�
Dengue virus^�
Brucella species
Vibrio cholerae
Bacillus anthracis (pulmonary or cutaneous forms)
Francisella tularensis (pulmonary form)
Yersinia pestis (bubonic or septicemic form)

Normal hospital room; no special precautions
Eastern equine encephalitis virus
Western equine encephalitis virus
Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (Hantaan, Seoul, Puumala viruses)
Japanese encephalitis virus
Sandfly fever viruses
Coxiella burnetii (Q fever)
Chlamydia psittaci
Botulinum toxin
Staphylococcal enterotoxin B
Ricin toxin
Saxitoxin
Trichothecene mycotoxins

*Barrier nursing procedures: wearing gown, gloves, and surgical mask, but caring for patients in isolation suites.
^�Pneumonic plague initially requires respiratory protection: full-face respirator or Racal hood (manufactured by Racal Health and Safety, Inc, Frederick, Md).
^�Secretion precautions: wearing gown and gloves; special handling of potentially infectious dressings, drainage, and/or excreta.
^�The patient must be protected from potential arthropod vectors: windows should be screened and/or closed.
USAMRIID: U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md.
Finally, USAMRIID maintains a unique evacuation capability called the Aeromedical Isolation Team (AIT). Led by a physician and a registered nurse, each of the two teams consists of eight volunteers who train intensively to provide an evacuation capability for casualties suspected of being infected with highly transmissible, life-threatening BL-4 infectious diseases (eg, hemorrhagic fever viruses). The unit uses special adult-sized Vickers isolation units (Vickers Medical Containment Stretcher Transit Isolator, manufactured by Isolators Ltd., Shropshire, U.K.) (Figure 19-3). These units are aircraft transportable and isolate a patient placed inside from the external environment. The AIT can transport two patients simultaneously; obviously, it is not designed for a mass casualty situation. During the 1995 outbreak of Ebola fever in Zaire, the AIT remained on alert to evacuate any Americans who might have become ill while working to control the disease in that country.
[img]file:///D:/VETERANS/images/P434_Fig19-3.JPG[/img]Fig. 19-3. Members of the Aeromedical Isolation Team (AIT) prepare to transfer a patient from a stretcher isolator into the Biosafety Level 4 (BL-4) isolation suite at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Maryland. The interior of the isolator is maintained at a pressure negative to the external environment by a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtered blower. The isolator can be attached directly to a transfer port, visible on the external wall of the building, to allow movement of the patient into the suite without exposing the environment to the patient. Team members are seen wearing protective suits and positive-pressure, HEPA-filtered Racal hoods (manufactured by Racal Health & Safety, Inc, Frederick, Md). Photograph: Public Affairs Office, Fort Detrick, Frederick, Md. Some biological defense research also continues at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, D.C. USAMRIID and these laboratories conduct basic research in support of the medical component of the Biological Defense Research Program, which develops strategies, products, information, procedures, and training for medical defense against biological warfare agents. The products include diagnostic reagents and procedures, drugs, vaccines, toxoids, and antitoxins. Emphasis is placed on protecting personnel before any potential exposure to the biological agent occurs.¹⁸

A National Resource

Since biological warfare agents are often etiologic agents for naturally occurring diseases, the military research effort provides substantive benefits for civilian populations also. Products produced or being developed through military research include

vaccines to prevent tularemia, Q fever, Rift Valley fever, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, Eastern and Western equine encephalitis, chikungunya fever, Argentine hemorrhagic fever, the botulinum toxicoses, and anthrax;^18,19
antitoxins for diseases such as botulism;
human immune globulin preparations (passive antibody protection) against various bacteria and viruses; and
antiviral drugs against multiple viral agents.

Some vaccines also have applicability for diseases of domestic animals (eg, Rift Valley fever and Venezuelan equine encephalitis). In addition, vaccines are provided to persons who may be occupationally exposed to such agents (eg, laboratory workers, entomologists, and veterinary personnel) throughout government, industry, and academe.
USAMRIID also provides diagnostic and epidemiological support to federal, state, and local agencies and foreign governments. Examples of assistance rendered to civilian health efforts by the former U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command (renamed the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command in October 1994) include

the massive immunization program instituted during the Venezuelan equine encephalitis outbreak in the Americas in 1971;
the laboratory support provided to the U.S. Public Health Service during the outbreak of Legionnaire�s disease in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1976;
the management of patients suspected of having African viral hemorrhagic fever in Sweden during the 1980s;
international support during the outbreak of Rift Valley fever in Mauritania in 1989;
assistance with the outbreak of Ebola infections among monkeys imported to Reston, Virginia, in 1990; and
epidemiological and diagnostic support to the World Health Organization�Centers for Disease Control and Prevention field team that studied the Ebola outbreak in Zaire in 1995.

The current research effort combines new technological advances, such as genetic engineering and molecular modeling, applying them toward development of prevention and treatment of diseases of military significance. The program is conducted in full compliance with requirements set forth by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Public Health Service, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and Biological Weapons Convention.¹⁸
Even though the United States stopped all offensive biological warfare research in 1969, the Biological Defense Research Program must remain strong in view of

evidence that some countries are not complying with the Biological Weapons Convention;
the difficulty of verifying compliance with the Convention;
the potential use of biological warfare by terrorists;
the increased possibility of new threat agents based on advances in biotechnology; and
the belief that a strong defense serves as a deterrent.

While some of the military�s biological defense programs remain classified, based on worldwide threats and uncertainties, the medical Biological Defense Research Program is unclassified and continues to be an invaluable resource for the nation.

Summary

Although biological agents have been used in warfare for centuries to produce death or disease in humans, animals, or plants, the United States did not begin a biological warfare offensive program until 1941. It was concern about the Japanese biological warfare threat that motivated the United States to begin to develop biological weapons. During the next 28 years, the United States initiative evolved into an effective, military-driven research and acquisition program, shrouded in controversy and secrecy. Most research and development was done at Fort Detrick, Maryland, while production and testing occurred at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. Field testing was done secretly and successfully with simulants and actual agents disseminated over wide areas. A small defensive effort paralleled the weapons development and production program.
With the presidential decision in 1969 to halt offensive biological weapons production, and the agreement in 1972 at the international Biological Weapons Convention never to develop, produce, stockpile, or retain biological agents or toxins, the program became entirely defensive, with medical and nonmedical components. The U.S. Biological Defense Research Program exists today, conducting research to develop physical and medical countermeasures to protect service members and civilians from the threat of modern biological warfare.

References

Fox LA. Bacterial warfare: The use of biologic agents in warfare. Milit Surg. 1933;72(3):189�207.
Bernstein BJ. The birth of the US biological-warfare program. Sci Am. 1987;256:116�121.
Department of the Army. Special Report to Congress. US Army Activity in the US Biological Warfare Programs, 1942�1977. Vols 1 and 2. Washington, DC: DA. 24 Feb 1977. Unclassified.
Cole LA. Clouds of Secrecy: The Army�s Germ Warfare Tests Over Populated Areas. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield; 1988.
Williams P, Wallace D. Unit 731: Japan�s Secret Biological Warfare in World War II. New York, NY: Free Press; 1989.
Report to the Secretary of War by Mr. George W. Merck, Special Consultant for Biological Warfare, 3 Jan 1946. Cited in: Department of the Army. Special Report to Congress. US Army Activity in the US Biological Warfare Programs, 1942�1977. Vol 2, annex 1. Washington, DC: DA. 24 Feb 1977. Unclassified.
Baldwin IL. Special BW Operations. Washington, DC: The National Military Establishment Research and Development Board; 5 Oct 1948. Memorandum for Executive Secretary, Research and Development Board. Unclassified.
Hersh SM. Chemical and Biological Warfare: America�s Hidden Arsenal. Indianapolis, Ind: Bobbs-Merrill; 1968.
Geissler E, ed. Biological and Toxin Weapons Today (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1986.
Harris R, Paxman J. A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret of Chemical and Biological Warfare. New York, NY: Hill and Wang; 1982.
Cowdrey AE. The Medics� War. Washington DC: Center of Military History, US Army; 1987.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The Rise of CB Weapons. Vol 1. In: The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare. New York, NY: Humanities Press; 1971.
Foster JS, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, US Department of Defense. Letter dated 15 April 1965 to Honorable Richard D. McCarthy, US House of Representatives. Cited in: McCarthy RD. The Ultimate Folly: War by Pestilence, Asphyxiation, and Defoliation. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf; 1969: 153�154.
Kissinger HA. N.S. Decision Memorandum 35. 25 November 1969.
Kissinger HA. N.S. Decision Memorandum 44. 20 February 1970.
Department of the Army. General Order 137. Washington, DC: Headquarters, DA; 10 November 1971.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. May 1993. HHS Publication (CDC) 93-8395.
Huxsoll DL, Parrott CD, Patrick WC III. Medicine in defense against biological warfare. JAMA. 1989;265:677�679.
Takafuji ET, Russell PK. Military immunizations: Past, present and future prospects. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 1990;4:143�157.

Collective copyright � 1997-2005 The Virtual Naval Hospital Project. All rights reserved.

URL: http://www.vnh.org/

http://www.vnh.org/MedAspChemBioWar/chapters/chapter_19.htm
Modified: Tue Dec 28 08:26:04 2004
Displayed: Sat Apr 2 22:45:45 2005

Project 112 And Project Shad (deseret Test Center) Pocket Guide

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:35:13 -0400

http://www1.va.gov/shad/docs/RevisedProject112-SHADPocketCardJan04.pdf

Project 112 and Project SHAD

(DESERET TEST CENTER)

Pocket Guide

BACKGROUND

� The Department of Defense (DoD) conducted a series of operational tests from 1962 to 1973 in support of Project 112. Project 112 was DoD�s comprehensive program of chemical and biological warfare vulnerability tests, which were conducted to determine how to protect U.S. troops against these health threats.

� Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense) tests were the shipboard tests. SHAD tests were conducted to evaluate effectiveness of shipboard detection of chemical and biological agents, the effectiveness of protective measures, and risks to U.S. forces. For the land-based tests, the purpose was generally to learn more about how chemical or biological warfare agents behave under a variety of environmental conditions.

� Deseret Test Center testing used biological and chemical warfare agents, simulants, tracers, and decontaminates.

� DoD reports that about 6,000 veterans participated in Deseret Test Center testing. Most veterans participated only in the shipboard tests (SHAD).

� DoD has collected, reviewed, and declassified documentation. As medically relevant information was declassified, DoD provided VA with the test name, date, and location (for SHAD, the name of the ship); identity of involved veterans; and materials to which participants may have been exposed.

� The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is contacting identified Deseret Test Center veterans, urging them to have a clinical evaluation at the nearest VA medical center if they have any health concerns.

� DoD reports that no veteran is known to have become acutely ill from exposures during these tests. Also, in a recent VA health care utilization review, no diagnosis stands out among Project 112/SHAD veterans. Consequently, there is no SHAD test or examination as such at this time.

� Due to new legislation enacted in late 2003, veterans are exempt from co-payments for care or medications required for treatment of any health problem possibly related to participation in Project 112.

� VA contracted with the Institute of Medicine in September 2002 to conduct a three-year, $3 million study of possible health effects associated with Project SHAD in order to ensure appropriate health care and assistance for veterans.

Continued on Back

Revised January 2004

Produced by the VA Employee Education System

POTENTIAL EXPOSURES

Project 112 involved biological and chemical warfare agents, simulants, tracers, and decontamination chemicals. Protective measures were used when biological or chemical warfare agents were tested; prior research suggests that the other agents are unlikely to cause long-term health effects without signs of acute toxicity soon after exposure. Most veterans were exposed to only one or a few of these agents, but some veterans may have been involved in multiple tests and repeated exposures. The agents included:

Biological Agents

Coxiella burnetii (OU), Francisella tularensis Staphylococcal enterotoxin, Type B (PG²)

Biological Simulants

Bacillus globigii (BG), Escherichia coli (EM)

Serratia marcscens (SM)

Chemical Agents

Sarin (GB), Soman (GD), Tabun (GA),

VX (P³²radiolabeled VX), Ester of benzilic acid (BZ)

Tracers

Tiara, Calcofluor, Zinc cadmium sulfide (ZnCdS), Uranine dye (sodium fluorescein), Phosphorous 32 (P32)

Chemical Simulants

Methylacetoacetate (MAA), Sulfur dioxide (SO₂), Di 2-ethylhexyl phosphite (DEHP), Tri (2 ethyhexyl) phosphate (TOF), Bis (2 ethyl-hexyl) hydrogen phosphite

Decontaminates

b-propiolactone

Riot Control Agent

CS (Tear Gas)

ACTIONS

�� All enrolled Deseret Test Center (Project 112/SHAD) veterans will be offered a complete �Primary Care New Patient History and Physical Examination� even if the veteran has previously received health care from VA. (See http://vaww.va.gov/health/him/VHACC/vaphyspage.htm)

�� The name of the specific Project 112/SHAD test that the veteran was involved in and possible exposures should be recorded in the patient�s medical record. This information will be obtained from the notification letter from VBA and from reports of the veteran.

�� Each VA medical facility will have a designated representative to provide information about Deseret Test Center (Project 112/SHAD) and possible adverse health effects.

INFORMATION

VA: www.va.gov/shad/ for information on Project 112 and potential exposure risks.

DoD: http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/current_issues/shad/shad_intro.shtml

(Web sites should be checked periodically for updates as new information becomes available.)

VA Help Line toll-free telephone: 1-800-749-8387

DoD Direct telephone Hotline: 1-800-497-6261

Hazardous Duty: The Pentagon�s Secret Chemical Spraying Program

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:31:03 -0400

<H5 style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; MARGIN: auto 0in" align=center>

A publication of Vietnam Veterans of America, Inc. �
An organization chartered by the U.S. Congress</H5>

<H5 style="MARGIN: auto 0in">December 2001/January 2002</H5><H2 style="MARGIN: auto 0in">Hazardous Duty: The Pentagon�s Secret Chemical Spraying Program</H2>By William Triplett

DoD promised to investigate the program that used servicemen as human guinea pigs without their knowledge - In direct violation of U.S. law.

Shad exposed men in the Navy and Marine Corps to biological agents, two of which simulate the infectious profile of Anthrax.

To Homer Tack and R.J. Goin and about three hundred other sailors aboard the USS "Power", the January 1965 cruise from Florida to Newfoundland was supposed to be just another routine port-of-call mission. "All the 22 years I was in the Navy, we�d go to different ports and say here we are, this is the Navy, that kind of thing," Goin said. "We did it all the time."

No one had said to expect anything different; and indeed, when the destroyer put in to New York harbor along the way, visitors came aboard and sailors went ashore as they normally did.

However, when the ship sailed into Argentsia, Newfoundland, the only things waiting on the pier were several truckloads of sealed boxes. The crew loaded them aboard. "But we were never told what was in them," Goin said.

The "Power" then put out to sea, well into the miserable cold of the North Atlantic winter. During the next few weeks--on four and possibly more occasions--an American military jet flew over the ship. Minutes later a mist descended. "Some of us were inside the ship," Tack recalled, "but most of us were outside when the stuff came down."

All Goin knew was that some sort of test was being conducted. He�d been ordered to go on deck into the mist with a pump-like device that collected air samples. He believes that the device and other similar equipment had been inside those boxes on the Agentsia pier, but Goin can�t say for sure. This much, however, he knows: As instructed, he recorded the readings registered on the device�s gauges and turned over the data to the officer in charge. Goin remembers collecting air samples two or three times.

Crewmen talked to each other about the mists, wondering what exactly was happening. But no one had any information. Tack said he asked the divisional officer what was going on and remembers being told, "Nothing. Nobody�s doing anything."

Before the cruise ended in late February, Tack told several of his shipmates that someday something would come out about what had just happened to them. He didn�t know when or what it would be, but he was certain it would not be welcome news.

In May of 2000, 35 years after the cruise, CBS News proved Tack right when the network aired a two-part investigative report on a highly classified biological and chemical warfare program conducted by the U.S. military in the 1960s. The program was known as Shipboard Hazard and Defense, or SHAD. According to the news report, SHAD exposed men in the Navy and Marine Corps to substances including the allegedly benign and live chemical and biological agents, two of which simulate the infectious profile of anthrax.

The methods and means of exposure almost were always the same. Aircraft would release a cloud or mist of agents that would descend onto ships at sea or into their immediate, oncoming path. Sometimes men were on deck; other times they were kept inside. The ostensible purpose was to determine the vulnerability of ships to biological warfare (BW) or chemical warfare (CW) agents.

At the time, Pentagon experts considered the live agents essentially harmless to people. However, the news report noted that several substances used in SHAD later were deemed dangerous, particularly to the human respiratory system. Tack, who watched the report in his home in Pennsylvania--and who had a cancerous lung removed since his time in the Navy--called to his wife and daughter to come see what was on television.

Goin happened to catch the report in Illinois, where he now lives, and he remembered Tack�s prediction. In the past three years, Goin has suffered severe bouts of pneumonia, having once been forced to go to a hospital in an ambulance. He admits his smoking "probably has something to do with" the pneumonia. But he wonders if cigarettes are the only contributing factor.

Unfortunately, he may have to keep wondering for a long time, given the Department of Defense�s response--or lack of one, some would argue--to the disclosure of Project SHAD. Despite a DoD promise to investigate the full extent and implications of a program that used servicemen as human guinea pigs without their knowledge--in direct violation of U.S. law--veterans say that the Pentagon has all but ignored their requests for help. Caught somewhere in the middle is the Department of Veterans Affairs, which must rely on a Pentagon reluctant to supply classified records that would help confirm the validity of any claims.

Vietnam veterans will recognize a pattern of governmental indifference and resistance reminiscent of treatment they received on the issue of Agent Orange. Some may find it ironic that while the government has been denouncing whoever is responsible for threatening the lives of innocent people by putting anthrax spores in the U.S. mail, veterans who had no idea their government was exposing them to dangerous BW and CW substances are left in the cold.

"Don�t get me wrong," said Tack. "If they needed me for Afghanistan, I�d be the first to volunteer. But if Afghanistan sprayed our ships like this, we�d be bombing them back into the Stone Age."

THE SHAD STORY

The story of SHAD--or at least the portion on which the Pentagon has released information--is both simple and complicated. Facts not in dispute are essentially these:

* The project ran from 1962 to about 1970 and involved about 113 separate tests, only three of which the Pentagon has publicly identified.

* Though Marine Corps and Navy personnel were used along with Navy ships and Air Force jets and pilots, the U.S. Army�s Deseret Test Center (now Dugway Proving Ground) in Utah was in charge.

* Results of most tests remain classified.

The parties involved with the SHAD issue agree on very little else, leaving a sea of concerns and contentions open to debate. First and foremost has been the DoD�s handling of SHAD since the CBS News report in 2000.

The story of SHAD in general initially broke in an October 1995 newspaper article in the Salt Lake City "Deseret News". That report, based on declassified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, outlined a massive BW-CW testing program carried out on U.S. military ships at sea. But the article did not mention the involvement of any unwitting personnel.

It focused instead on the secrecy of the program and on how certain participants of the tests had been specially trained, equipped, and briefed ahead of time about what would happen. The veterans quoted had been sworn to secrecy about SHAD, but they were now disclosing their participation because many had since developed illnesses they suspect were related to the tests.

The CBS News report, however, zeroed in on veterans who claimed they had not been told anything about being used in any BW-CW tests. Pentagon officials immediately denied that anyone had been exposed to any dangerous substances. In a written statement the Pentagon also claimed that the men involved in the experiments "were not test subjects, but test conductors." In other words, all participants fully knew and understood what was happening.

To Eric Longabardi, who produced the report for CBS News, this has been the cornerstone of DoD�s response strategy--focus attention on a comparatively small number of participants who were told in advance about the experiments, while refusing to acknowledge the possible thousands of men like Homer Tack and R.J. Goin who had no idea of what was being done to them.

Still, DoD promised a full investigation. The task fell to the Office of the Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) for Gulf War Illnesses, OSAGWI. Until then, OSAGWI was exclusively investigating the many illnesses Persian Gulf war veterans have been suffering, commonly known as Gulf War Syndrome.

Steve Robinson, a 20-year Army veteran who spent three years as a research analyst with OSAGWI until retiring last October, said the effort to gather information on SHAD began in earnest. The OSAGWI investigators, he said, "weren�t your typical analysts. They were young and new to the organization, new to this task, and they did a really good job of pulling together information."

They focused on three specific SHAD tests, code-named Shady Grove, Autumn Gold, and Copper Head. "Initially we were told that the thing we should be most concerned about was the decontaminants," said Robinson, referring to substances that sailors were given to clean themselves with after the tests. "Some of them have since been identified as carcinogenic. But as we got into it we found there were many other things these guys were exposed to." That included sarin and tularemia, potentially lethal chemicals and biological agents.

According to Robinson, the priority was to identify exposed servicemen so that they could be alerted to seek VA medical attention, if necessary, for possible service-connected illnesses. From deck logs and other records, the team of investigators compiled a list of about 1,200 men who�d been aboard the ships during the tests.

At this point, Robinson said, something happened. "Either the VA or DoD didn�t want to be responsible for releasing the list of names because it would be a black eye for either agency." He said superiors in OSAGWI then took over the investigation, but did nothing with it.

OSAGWI publicly released the results of its investigation September 13, two days after the terrorist attacks. Given the media�s almost exclusive focus on the attacks, very few articles appeared on those results. Not that there was much to report: OSAGWI had released three "Fact Sheets," essentially a bare-bones outline of each test it had researched--Autumn Gold, Shady Grove, and Copper Head.

The Fact Sheets gave the dates and locations of the three tests. Shady Grove and Autumn Gold had occurred in the Pacific, the first on the open seas and the second approximately 60 miles from Hawaii. Copper Head, which Goin and Tack unwittingly participated in, occurred in the North Atlantic winter because the Army had wanted to determine the effects of cold weather on BW-CW agents.

The sheets also listed some of the agents and decontaminants that had been used in each test, but not all of them. Named in the sheets were bacillus globigii (BG), coxiella burnetii, pasteurella tularensis, zinc cadmium sulfide, and betapropriolactone. However, a VA letter to agency doctors and clinicians dated almost one year earlier stated that CW agents sarin and VX also were used. An OSAGWI e-mail to VVA last October further revealed that escherichia coli (EC), serratia marcescens (SM), and sodium hydroxide were used.

As information on SHAD came out, DoD and OSAGWI officials have maintained that the tests posed no health threats to those who might have been exposed to any of the substances. For example, BG was the most commonly used substance because it simulates the dispersion characteristics of anthrax while possessing none of the toxicity. But by the late 1980s, an Army biologist had warned against continued spraying of BG because to say it was harmless was "patently erroneous." OSAGWI, however, continues to describe BG as "generally harmless."

The VA doesn�t agree. In a letter to agency doctors and clinicians, VA Under Secretary for Health Thomas Garthwaite noted that while BG "is not normally considered to be pathogenic," it is nonetheless "associated with a number of opportunistic infections." Along with sarin, VX, and zinc cadmium sulfide, BG exposure is considered by the VA to "represent the greatest health concern."

The CBS News segment stated: "In large doses, and in rare cases, BG and related bacteria can cause pneumonia, allergic reactions, nausea and vomiting." The report quoted a former medical corpsman from the USS "Power"--the ship involved in Copper Head--saying that shortly after the spraying, the crew experienced "an upsurge of upper respiratory tract infections, colds, sore throats." The corpsman also said that since the tests, he and other ex-crewmen have suffered a range of health problems, such as chronic pneumonia, sterility, skin rashes, allergies, and kidney problems.

Similarly, SM is anything but harmless, according to Dr. Donald Fox, who worked for the U.S. Army biological warfare program in the mid-1950s. By then, the program knew that for mass annihilation via biological warfare, anthrax was an unparalleled weapon. Finding the best delivery system, though, was still in question. The Army decided to try aerosol spraying from airplanes. Like BG, SM was chosen because it, too, mimicked anthrax dissemination but was not lethal. Or so the Army thought.

In the very early hours of one morning, military aircraft blanketed a large portion of Washington, D.C., with a mist of SM. The following day, investigators from Fort Detrick, home of the Army BW program, scoured the city looking for trace evidence of the bacterium. Fox said they found it everywhere. The Army thought it had chalked up a successful secret experiment, until six months later when SM-induced respiratory infections began springing up all across Washington. Fox said "several deaths" were direct results of the experiment, which remained secret for about twenty years.

The harmlessness of coxiella burnetii is also open to dispute. Fox said Army strategists considered this agent to represent "a more humane" form of biological warfare because Q Fever, which it causes, does not usually kill people. By inducing blinding headaches, fevers, and chills and effectively prostrating people for three days, Q Fever incapacitates an enemy long enough for an attacking force to gain control of targeted territory without much resistance.

"It�s much less likely to cause death than anthrax," said Fox, but it can cause violent, if temporary, illness.

Tularemia, caused by the bacteria pasteurella tularensis, which was used in Shady Grove, "is not as potent as anthrax or smallpox, but it�s not as benign as Q Fever," said Fox. For example, it is directly related to plague. "If treated early, most often people exposed to tularemia have a favorable outcome," said Fox. But, he pointed out, the Army BW program eventually discarded both tularemia and another of its cousins, brucellosis, "because it�s very easy for people handling them to come down with the disease. There�s no real vaccine or ability to protect your own people."

As for sarin, an extremely potent chemical nerve agent that is fatal in high doses, very little is needed to compromise the human nervous system. The National Academy of Science�s Institute of Medicine concluded that there is suggestive evidence of long-term health damage from sarin exposure, including fatigue, headache, visual disturbances, asthenia, shoulder stiffness, and symptoms of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder.

Fox said that not everyone exposed to a particular agent will always develop the associated disease. "There are certain rules of infection that determine whether someone comes down with a disease, and it varies from person to person." The variables include the virulence of the agent, the amount of the agent you�re using, and whether you�re introducing it into the body through the blood, lungs or skin. Perhaps most important is the resistance of the victim. "A vigorous, healthy 22-year-old can obviously resist lot more than can a 94-year-old woman," he noted.

A normally healthy person, however, can be more susceptible to certain infections if, at the time of exposure, he or she is on resistance-lowering drugs, or if the immune system has been compromised in any way. The only way to be sure that no one in SHAD experienced any ill effects from exposure would have been to do follow-up studies. However, both groups of SHAD veterans--those who knew in advance what was going to happen and those who had no idea--say they never received any follow-up.

They still haven�t. Neither OSAGWI nor the VA has made any move toward notifying the 1,200 veterans they know participated in SHAD--most of them unwittingly--that they should have a complete evaluation of their health done.

***

Next: Why haven�t SHAD veterans been notified? Has the government been as forthcoming as it claims? OSAGWI and the VA respond.

***

Veterans who served on the following ships or in the following capacities during the specified periods should contact the VA Health Benefits Service Center, toll free, at 877-222-VETS for a medical evaluation or health risk assessment.

Operation Shady Grove--January 22 through April 9, 1965

USS "Granville S. Hall"; Army light tugs 2080, 2081, 2085, 2086 and 2087; Marine Air Group 13 and First Marine Brigade.

***

Operation Autumn Gold--May 3-31, 1963

USS "Navarro", USS "Tioga County", USS "Carpenter", USS "Hoel", USS "Granville S. Hall"; Marine Air Group 13 and First Marine Brigade.

***

Operation Copper Head--January 24 through February 25, 1965 USS "Power".

E-mail us at TheVeteran@vva.org

[email="theveteran@vva.org"]
[/email]

1.2 Million Veterans Waiting

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:06:28 -0400

The VA claims backlog has now grown, not to a million Veterans, but much worse, 1.2 million Veterans are now waiting on the VA to process their benefits. Its the longest line in history..and growing daily. At this rate, there will be even more Veteran homelessness and Veteran suicide: Veterans are expected to be patient while our bill collectors are not.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?n...r=0&thold=0

Even worse, older claims, that is, Veterans already waiting sometimes for years, go directly to the "back burner".

Ptsd P/t And Tdiu

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:48:23 -0400

hi, i would first off like to thank everyone on this site for helping veterans such as myself get the answers they are looking for. Here's my background history with the va: I'm 27 (veteran of whatever war the news is calling it these days). may 2007 i was granted 70% for ptsd for a claim i put in october of 2006. I put in for IU in may 2008 and was awarded that so i'm 100% total. I've also been awarded SS. I had stated to SS that i was unable to work due to 'ptsd, depression, anxiety, panic attacks, and suicidal idealation.' and they cleared it. My first question is what is it when people say TDUI. I know the IU but is the TD just saying 'total disability. As in, can i say I have TDUI? I don't know. Also i'm interested in applying for Permanent and total if that's even possible. I'm paranoid as it is and i hate to think of some bastard hopping on my back for some reason and throwing me into a world of pure hell. We all know how precious awarded money is so we can live on our own terms without having to go 'postal' or just having a breakdown. Am i too young for p/t. My history since discharge (sept 2006) has been riddled with psychward visits and life altering characteristics of PTSD. Even if p/t is not workable, what exactly does that entail. Does it mean the va cant review me anymore (technically). Let's face it no one likes to be put up against the wall and have to explain the same old crap over and over again, it's just frustrating and i worry about it a lot. I was released from the psychward not too long ago and i'm just tired of this crap. I just wish i didn't have to worry about stupid stuff and try to work on myself. For all of those suffering vets from whatever symptoms or problems, thanks for your service.

Dave

Shad-toxic Biowarfare Testing On Us Navy Servicemen

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:18:45 -0400

"Although the THOMAS had been completely re-built, like-new, in 1964, it was striken from the list of US navy ships (not decommissioned) February 1, 1974, and given to the Taiwan Navy, in May of 1974, and re-named HAN YANG. "

Rense.com

Toxic BioWarfare Testing
On US Navy Servicemen
From Jim Cast
JimCast@infowars.net
11-19-1

"These tests, such as, 'Autumn Gold', 'Copperhead', and 'Project Shad', and the un-named tests aboard the Herbert J.Thomas (DD833), and unknown other tests, may have, in effect, 'Murdered' hundreds - perhaps thousands - of US Military personnel while they were fighting and serving their Country in the American military...and then lied to them and refused them treatment for over 40 years." The USS HERBERT J. THOMAS (DD 833) was launched at Bath, Maine, in March 1945, and commissioned at Boston, in May 1945. She was named for Sergeant Herbert J. Thomas, USMCR, of the Third Marine Division, who was killed at Bougainville in 1942 when he threw himself on a live grenade to save the lives of his comrades. He was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for this act of heroism. The Destroyer THOMAS served as part of the task forces supporting the occupation of Japan and Korea at the end of World War II. The Thomas served in Korea (three times), and served in the Taiwan Patrol. The THOMAS went into the Mare Island Naval Shipyard for conversion in June, 1964. The ship had been scheduled for coventional Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernization (FRAM) changes, but while in the yard, a decision was made to incorporate the STOPS system for its first test on an operational ship. The THOMAS is the only ship in the cruiser-destroyer class to be outfitted with STOPS. The ship was Classified as Secret, and all personnel told, not to talk about it. STOPS stands for "Shipboard Toxicological Operational Protective System." The System is designed to protect sailors against radioactive fallout or the poisonous clouds of chemical or germ warfare. STOPS involves maintaining air pressure inside the sealed interior of the ship that is slightly higher than the atmospheric pressure outside. This means that when there is any break in the system, air leaks from the inside out, forcing any radioactive or poisonous particles away from the opening. Four air conditioning units, each of 135 ton capacity, provide fresh, filtered air to all spaces within the THOMAS. If part of the ship were damaged in battle, the pressurization and filtering system would still function in sealed-off zones that remained intact. Members of the crew carry gas masks, and one piece nuclear submarine suits, when moving from one part of the ship to another. The most unusual features about the appearance of the ship is a pair of glass "Bubbles" on either side of the bridge,and stainless steel revolving doors at forward and aft entries. These bubbles permit a man on look-out watch or the officer of the deck to get a wide-angle view on either side without stepping out on to the main deck. The THOMAS accompanied the carrier USS FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT (CVA42) to the South China Sea as part of the strike force in the Gulf of Tonkin. She was visited by CNO, Admiral MAC Donald, vice Admiral Hyland, and Rear-Admiral Baumberger. The THOMAS proceeded directly to Naval Gunfire Support in the Mekong Delta area of South Vietnam, shooting nearly every day, searching Junks, training South Vietnam Naval Officers, ect. The THOMAS returned to the Gulf of Tonkin with the USS CORAL SEA (CVA43), and USS Mullaney (DD528) for further Air Operations and shore bombardment against North Vietnam. Between gunfire engagements, the THOMAS followed the above carriers, and were sprayed with, supposedly non-toxic, sprays and clouds, by the carriers and low flying aircraft. General Quarters (battle stations) was called, and all hatches battened down. Each conpartment had test tubes near the hatches, to collect air samples,to be collected later. Gas masks were dawned and the attacks enacted. Gunnners, signalmen and all main deck personnel dawned gas masks during the operations, as they were exposed to the contaminants After the attacks, all main deck, topside personnel underwent decontamination procedures, which included removing clothing, taking decon showers at either end of the central passage way, and entering through a stainless steel revolving door, and dawning a fresh nuke suit. After each test, the entire maindeck, topside of the ship, held a total salt-water washdown with firehoses. These tests were conducted while off the coast of San Diego, Long Beach, Valejo, Hawaii, and during during all non-combative deployments overseas for several years. No known medical tests were ever conducted on the crew, and it was never known, what chemicals or gases the ship and the crew had been sprayed with. The crew members were not considered "Test Subjects", but rather, "Test Conductors." Only one crewman died during this time, a John D. Herlich, RD3. John died in his bunk. The rest of the crew was never told, what caused John's death. Although the THOMAS had been completely re-built, like-new, in 1964, it was striken from the list of US navy ships (not decommissioned) February 1, 1974, and given to the Taiwan Navy, in May of 1974, and re-named HAN YANG. I served about two years aboard the THOMAS and was released in 1967. Shortly therafter I had problems breathing, and my lungs hurt. I visited several VA hospitals, ran tests and told, it was all in my head, that I was perfectly healthy. I later went to several private hospitals and was told I had Progressive Pulmanary Fibrosis, a scaring of the lungs. I was told it was probably due to having had Pneumonia,earlier in my life, although I don't recall having that. I was told that it would get progressively worse, was not curable, and that I had about three and a half years, left to live. Until I recently read the news stories, about the "Secret Chemical and Biological Warfare tests",on the crews of Naval ships,from 1960 to 1970. I couldn't figure out how I got sick. These tests, such as, "Autumn Gold", "Copperhead", and "Project Shad", and the un-named tests aboard the "Herbert J.Thomas (DD833), and unknown others, may have in effect, "Murdered" hundreds, perhaps thousands of US Military personnel, while they were fighting and serving their Country in the American military, then lied to them, and refused them treatment, for over 40 years. How Sad. MainPage <http://www.rense.com/> <http://www.rense.com/> This Site Served by TheHostPros <http://www.thehostpros.com/>

Shad-dtc Test 69-32 Apr 30-jun 28, 1969

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:15:59 -0400

DTC Test 69-32 Apr 30-Jun 28, 1969

Serratia

* USS Granville S. Hall (yag-40),

Marcensen, Escherichia coli, Five Army light tugs, (manned

Bacillus subtilis var. by naval personnel). niger (BG),

DTC Test 68-50 Sep-Oct 1968

Bacillus globiggi (BG)

* USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

Staphylococcal enterotoxin,

Type B (PG2),

Uranine dye (sodium fluorescein).

used on:

* 4533rd Tactical Test Squadron

* 33rd Tactical Fighter Wing (F-4E aircraft)

* Marine Air Group 13, First Marine Brigade

We are looking for more information on the following operations:

'Half Note'

'Red Beva'

'Night Train'

'Big Tom'

If you have any information please email us at info@projectshad.org <mailto:info@projectshad.org>

More to be listed as information becomes available.

Toxic Tugs - Public Poisons

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:14:06 -0400

AS PRINTED IN THE DAILY INTER LAKE, KALISPELL, MONTANA

TOXIC TUGS - PUBLIC POISONS
J.B. STONE - 04/17/02

What do Maryland, Utah, Alaska, Hawaii, Johnston Atoll, and the Marshall Islands have in common?

BioChemical warfare tests were conducted in all of them behind a blinding haze of Cold War secrecy. And hardly a word of warning was ever issued, before during, or afterward the test conductors, subjects, or citizens living in surrounding areas.

Marine jets and Army artillery sprayed "harmless simulants" and live biological and chemical agents on unsuspecting citizens for 15 years on land and sea during Operation Deseret. The randomly selected human test rats onboard ships sailing with the USS Granville Hall, YAG-40, were largely unaware.

Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard & Defense) tested the Navy's ability to defend itself from gas or particle attacks by the enemy. But there weren't any posters hanging in recruiter's offices inviting Sailors to be used as dehumanized ciphers in scientific "research" projects. There were bigger fish to fry.

Navy ships sailing under Army orders and accompanied by 5 specially equipped Army tugboats waged their secret war from the balmy South Pacific to the chilly waters off Newfoundland. Night and day they'd pass through poisonous clouds up to a hundred miles long spread by Marine jets. The Deseret Test Center at Fort Douglas, Utah (Dugway Proving Ground) simply tested whatever the top-secret labs at Fort Detrick, Maryland could produce. Dugway dispatched the deadly materials to be
tested in areas ranging from the remote Marshall Islands to as little as 50 miles West of San Francisco.

It's not over.

Just last week they struck again. The Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reported a contractor had unearthed leaking drums of suspected warfare agents while preparing structures for the National Missile Defense System. Most likely leftovers from the Gerstle River Project carried out at Fort Greely, linked to Project SHAD. Crewmen from Granville Hall's sister ship the USS George Eastman, YAG-39, were there in the 60's, conducting cold-weather atmospheric tests to discover how best to distribute Anthrax spores, deadly VX & Sarin gas, and a vile assortment of highly contagious diseases.

Lax storage practices and non-existent environmental concern followed creating huge ecological disaster areas. Rockets and artillery shells filled with terminal cocktails were fired into Utah's clear desert air and left to rust in Alaska's wilderness. No disclosure was forthcoming regarding long-range health effects of the test "conductors" or later inhabitants. Instead, those flatly ordered into these clandestine activities were coerced to sign documents stating they would never reveal their involvement in these toxic tests.

There's more.

Long before the crew autopsied the caged monkeys that died on deck from nerve gas attacks in the South Pacific, these nondescript Liberty hulls had had huge "crow's nests" installed on their masts. YAG-39 & 40 were contaminated in nuclear blasts from Bikini Atoll to the open ocean 450 miles Southwest of San Diego. They sailed through the radioactive fallout for a decade, collecting particles. Carcinogenic materials were used to wash down the outer surfaces of the vessels after every test.

Crewmen who died from blood, bone and skin cancers came to the realization too late to take any protective measures. They had their orders and that was that.

Was anyone safe?

Surely you've heard of the Smithsonian Institution. But, I'd lay odds you're unaware of the Smithsonian's Pacific Bird Project. Smithsonian contractors aboard the USNS Shearwater, accompanied by YAG-39 & 40 and the Army tugs, ?collected" thousands upon thousands of migratory bird carcasses with 12 gauge shotguns fired by Navy crewmen. Over 2 million birds were banded and dusted down to see how far these "avian vectors" would transport deadly substances. Their instinctive navigational skills led to a greater than 90% accuracy for the proposed activities. Crewmen shot the boobies and gulls and gutted them on the helo deck for verification. They were safe from observation in idyllic spots like Christmas Island. Had anyone stumbled onto this chilling armada, those involved could offer little explanation. All communication between the various parties was discouraged and test results were closely guarded under the highest security measures. Now many of those present have permanently debilitating nerve, skin and respiratory conditions.

Not even Conscientious Objectors escaped. The "White Coats" of the Seventh-day Adventist Church participated in 153 Army Germ warfare tests from 1954 to 1973. And, because they did not smoke, or drink alcohol or coffee, "They were a cleaner piece of paper on which to work an experiment," according to Richard O. Stenbakken, Adventist clergy armed forces supervisor.

Trained as medics at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, they were transferred to Fort Detrick, Maryland where they were expected to volunteer for at least one experiment. Open-air tests were carried out in the Utah desert using Q-Fever and other "simulants" to study Anthrax attacks. Otherwise they spent quality time in the "Eight Ball," a spherical chamber more than two stories tall at Fort Detrick. Scientists charged the chamber with bacteria and viruses where Operation White Coat test subjects wore breathing apparatus directly connected to the infected air.

It's been over 40 years since Project SHAD and the related tests began. The lid of secrecy has barely been lifted enough to allow a slender crack of light to shine on the truth. The DOD has only de-classified a handful of the 113 test series performed in Project SHAD. The VA knows there were 10,000 people to life-threatening substances, but they have declined to perform any active outreach program to notify them. This sad injustice is uncalled-for.

Why would the United States carry out such a hugely hideous plan, leaving behind hundreds of square miles of highly contaminated landscape spread across the Western Hemisphere and then just walk away from the physical and sociological devastation, leaving unsuspecting citizens to solve the problems on their own?

I don't know. I've been wondering for 30 years when and how the story will end. I was only 19 years old when I was assigned to the USS Granville S Hall in 1968. And it wasn't my idea.

The VA has just posted some information regarding treatment on the Internet. If you know anyone who may have been
involved, please tell them: http://www.va.gov/SHAD/

J.B. STONE - ETN-2, Vietnam Era
USS GRANVILLE S HALL
Project SHAD, Operation Deseret
1968 & 1969
Pearl Harbor, HI, Treasure Island, CA
900 Wisconsin Avenue #16
Whitefish, Montana 59937

Ships Associated With Shad Tests

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:12:07 -0400

Ships Associated with SHAD Tests

http://deploymentlink.osd.mil/current_issues/shad/shad_ships/shad_ships_2004-12-29_print.shtml

Project SHAD, an acronym for Shipboard Hazard and Defense, was part of a larger effort called Project 112, which was conducted during the 1960s. Project SHAD encompassed tests designed to identify US warships' vulnerabilities to attacks with chemical or biological warfare agents and to develop procedures to respond to such attacks while maintaining a war-fighting capability.

Updated December 29, 2004.

Ship

SHAD Tests

USS George Eastman (YAG-39)

63-1 Eager Belle I
63-1 Eager Belle II
64-1 Errand Boy
64-2 Flower Drum I
65-17 Fearless Johnny
66-13 Half Note
65-4 Magic Sword

USS Granville S. Hall (YAG-40)

63-1 Eager Belle II
63-2 Autumn Gold
64-2 Flower Drum I
64-4 [Red Beva] Shady Grove
65-6 Big Tom
65-17 Fearless Johnny
66-13 Half Note
68-50 Speckled Start [68-11]
68-71 Folded Arrow
69-32

USS Hoel (DDG-13)

63-2 Autumn Gold

USS Berkeley (DDG-15)

65-13 High Low

USS Navarro (APA-215)

63-1 Eager Belle II
63-2 Autumn Gold

USS Okanogan (APA-220)

65-13 High Low

USS Fort Snelling (LSD-30)

69-10

USS Tioga County (LST-1158)

63-1 Eager Belle II
63-2 Autumn Gold

USS Wexford County (LST-1168)

65-13 High Low

USS Carpenter (DD-825)

63-1 Eager Belle II
63-2 Autumn Gold

USS Herbert J. Thomas (DD-833)

66-5 Purple Sage
66-6 Scarlet Sage
69-31

USS Power (DD-839)

65-1 Copper Head

USS Fechteler (DD-870)

65-13 High Low

USS Carbonero (SS-337)

65-6 Big Tom
66-13 Half Note
68-71 Folded Arrow

USNS Samuel Phillips Lee (T-AGS 31)

70-C

USNS Silas Bent (T-AGS 26)

70-C

US Navy Tug, ATF 105

64-2 Flower Drum II

Army Light, Tugs 2080, 2081, 2085, 2086, 2087

64-4 [Red Beva] Shady Grove
66-13 Half Note
68-50 Speckled Start [68-11]
68-71 Folded Arrow
69-32
65-17 Fearless Johnny (Only two of the five tugs participated but which two have not been identified.)

Va's Patient Record Flags: The Rest Of The

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:30:53 -0400

repost..........

Printer Friendly Page

VA'S PATIENT RECORD FLAGS: THE REST OF THE

STORY -- More about who can flag a veteran's

medical records and what can be done about it.

On Sep. 11, 2007, I posted a story about the Patient Record Flag (PRF) in the VA's VistA electronic medical records system. That story here... http://www.vawatchdog.org/

07/nf07/nfSEP07/nf091107-1.htm

The general tone of the above story was that veterans could be "blacklisted" by having their records flagged.

This raised a number of questions that need answering.

I would like to thank many current and former VA employees for helping me piece together the following information about PRFs. And a special thanks to Jo Schuda who is in Public Affairs at the VA's Central Office (VACO).

-------------------------

WHY DOES A VETERAN'S FILE GET FLAGGED?

Patient record flags are used to alert VHA medical staff and employees of patients whose behavior and characteristics may pose a threat either to their safety, the safety of other patients, or compromise the delivery of quality health care. These flag assignments are displayed during the patient look-up process.

The use of patient record flags must be strictly controlled and implemented following the instruction provided in VA Directive 2003-048.

The above VistA instruction can be found here...

http://www.va.gov/vdl/documents/

Clinical/Patient_Record_Flags/

dg_53_650_ug.doc

The purpose of the PRF is to protect the veteran, other patients and VA staff.

Here is an example of a PRF:

1. Flag Name: <BEHAVIORAL>

Category: I (NATIONAL)

Type: BEHAVIORAL

Assignment Narrative: On 4/8/03, this veteran was disruptive and threatening toward numerous

staff. RECOMMEND: VA Police should be immediately called to standby until they and the clinician decide that standby is no longer necessary.

Assignment Details:

Initial Assignment: May 20, 2003

Approved By: ADTAPPROVER,ONE

Next Review Date: May 20, 2005

Owner Site: ALBANY VAMC (UPSTATE NEW YORK HCS)

Originating Site: EL PASO VA HCS (EL PASO VA HCS)

Progress Note Linked: No

What are some of the reasons for a flag? The VA lists the following:

Criteria for Category I PRFs may include, but are not limited to:

1. A history of physical violence against patients or staff at a medical center or clinic.

2. Documented acts of repeated violence against others.

3. Credible verbal threats of harm against specific individuals, patients, staff, or VA property.

4. Possession of weapons or objects used as weapons in a health care facility.

5. A history of suicidal or parasuicidal behavior within health care facilities.

6. A history of repeated nuisance and disruptive or larcenous behavior that disrupts the environment of care.

7. A history of sexual harassment toward patients or staff.

WHO CAN FLAG A VETERANS' RECORDS?

Although many VA staff members have "write" access to VistA to enter clinical notes and information, the number of people who can flag a veteran's records is strictly limited.

Just because a caregiver can enter clinical notes does NOT mean they can flag a record.

Entry of flags is controlled by the local VA's Disruptive Behavior Committee (DBC) which is led by the hospital's Chief of Staff.

If a VA employee feels a veteran should be flagged, they must present evidence to the DBC. The DBC then decides if a flag should be entered.

Only a few persons in each VA facility can actually enter a flag. They are assigned by the Chief of Staff and usually are heads of departments are senior medical personnel.

Once a flag is entered, it must be reviewed every two years to see if it is still valid and should stay in the system.

WHO CAN SEE A PATIENT FLAG?

Basically, this is any VA employee with a need to know. The VA lists the following:

(1) Emergency room clerks and receptionists,

(2) Administrative Officer of the Day,

(3) Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians,

(4) VA police officers,

(5) Enrollment clerks,

(6) Social Work staff,

(7) Triage and/or telephone care staff,

(8) Ward and clinic clerks,

(9) Insurance and billing staff

(10) Receptionists,

(11) Travel clerks,

(12) Laboratory clerks and technicians,

(13) All medical staff,

(14) Patient advocates,

(15) Nursing and unit supervisors,

(16) Decedent Affairs Clerk,

(17) Scheduling staff, and

(18) Fee clerks.

CAN A VETERAN FIND OUT IF THEY HAVE A PRF?

Yes.

The easy way is to just look over the doctor's shoulder when they access the records. If the flag box (see graphic above) is grey...no flag. If it's red...that's a flag.

Chances are a VA doctor will not explain the flag to a veteran.

But, a veteran can get this information.

Here is how you do that. This information is from the VA:

A PRF is part of the medical record and can be accessed by the veteran in the same way he or she accesses the medical record.

The veteran must make a written request for a copy of the record.

The PRF may or may not be subject to sensitive-record review prior to disclosure as required by 38 U.S.C. 5701.

The above mention of "sensitive-record" means that some vets will not be able to get the information about the flag. These would be the same vets who find their records cannot be given to them "for the good of the patient." This happens, generally speaking, in cases where the vet has severe mental health issues and would, most likely, not be able to understand the content of the records or flags. This only applies to a VERY small number of vets.

CAN A VETERAN GET A FLAG CHANGED OR DELETED?

Yes.

Again, this information is from the VA.

A veteran has the right to request an amendment to any information or records retrieved by the individual�s name or other individually-identifiable information contained in a VA system of records. This is specified in 38 CFR 1.579 and 45 CFR 164.526.

The request must be in writing and mailed or delivered to the facility, addressed to the privacy officer.

If the amendment request to remove language is approved, whatever was specified for removal is no longer in the active view.

If a request to amend a record is denied, the system manager or designee for the system of records involved, and/or the facility privacy officer or designee, will promptly notify the veteran. The written notification will state the reasons for the denial, notify the individual that the denial may be appealed to VA�s Office of the General Counsel and include the procedures for such an appeal.

It should be noted that although a vet can get a flag amended or deleted from active-view (no red flag box), the information does stay in the record. The reason is that medical records cannot have deletions. They can have information corrected, but information cannot be permanently removed. This is standard practice in the healthcare industry.

IS THE VA'S PRF SYSTEM SUBJECT TO ABUSE?

This could be done, but it would be a difficult process.

Recent interviews with a Chief of Staff at a VA hospital and a former Information Technology (IT) chief at another VA hospital leave me with the impression that the controls implemented by the DBC work in the veteran's favor and make it virtually impossible for an individual VA employee to forward some kind of vendetta through the PRF system.

I have heard many veterans complain about bogus PRFs (see below), but I have never seen any evidence to substantiate their claims.

This is another reason why veterans' advocates tell all veterans to get a copy of their VA records at least once a year. The veteran should be sure to ask for PRF information when requesting records.

MY PERSONAL VIEWS ON PRFs

I went to see my VA doctor yesterday. The flag box was grey...now I know I am not flagged.

I have communicated with many vets who have complained about being flagged. After many email or phone exchanges, ALL of them finally admitted that they had either been loud, unruly, abusive, threatening, lost their temper or gone in for an appointment under the influence of alcohol. These are all good reasons for a flag.

These vets all have the right to get these flags modified or removed from view. I hope they keep their act(s) together and get the flags taken care of as their behavior improves.

But, can the system be abused? Yes. But, it would take a lot of work...and, the question would be: Why?

So, the previous article's mention of "blacklists" is accurate in that flags can be viewed in that perspective. But, another way to view the "blacklist" is that it serves as a warning about possible dangerous behavior.

Even though the PRF system may be "open to" widespread abuse by VA employees, we have no evidence that this has happened or that veterans have been harmed by the PRF system in any way.

For a complete look at the VA's guidelines and regulations for Patient Record Flags, click here...

http://www.va.gov/vdl/app

lication.asp?appid=156

For more about VistA software, use the VA Watchdog search engine...click here...

http://www.yourvabenefits.org/ses

search.php?q=vista&op=and

-------------------------

Larry Scott --

Considering Lawyer For Eed

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:39:56 -0400

I checked one of Alex Humphries posts, the now deceased Veteran advocate lawyer who used to help Veterans by posting on this board. He recommended a law firm, so I called them.
Essentially, I have been awarded 100% P and T, but at an effective date 5 years later than when I applied.
I dont want to mess up my 100% P and T, but on the other hand, strongly feel that my effective date should be in 2002 because I applied for a benefit increase by an informal claim at the Docs office. Alex Humphrey pointed out, in his post, that if a Veteran goes to his doc complaining of unemployment issues, that constitutes an informal claim for TDIU.
Roberson vs Principi states it this way:
when the VA conducts a medical examination . . . if the results indicate an increase in severity in the disability, VA must then evaluate the circumstances as a claim for an increased rating. Further, the Court holds that when an RO is considering a rating increase claim from a claimant who�s schedular rating meets the minimum criteria of section 4.16(a) and there is evidence of current service-connected unemployability . . . evaluation of that rating increase must also include an evaluation of a reasonably raised claim for a TDIU rating. In that situation, where those two criteria are satisfied, a well-grounded TDIU claim is included in every rating-increase claim, and VA would be required to adjudicate that well-grounded TDIU claim.

Source: http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judic...ns/00-7009.html
I have already filed a NOD to the March, 09 RO decision which awarded 100% P and T, disputing the effective date.
If the VA gets away with delaying the Veterans claim for 5 years, then finally awarding benefits with an effective date 5 years later, they have succeeded in swindling the Veteran out of 5 years of benefits.
I really do not think it is fair to other Veterans for me to just sit by and watch the VA do this. My guess is that they have done this to other Veterans.
Veterans need to know that informal claims are a perfectly legitimate way of applying for benefits. Altho I dont recommend not following this up with a formal claim for benefits, informal claims should trigger the VA to assist the Veteran applying for benefits, under this important court case.