Announcement

Collapse

Terms of Use Agreement

1. You agree, through your use of these public Forums, not to post any material which is unlawful, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, sexually orientated, abusive, hateful, harassing, threatening, harmful, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you. You further agree not to use these public Forums for advertising or other commercial enterprise purposes. Any questions directed to, or concerning the administration of this website, will be sent to admin@popasmoke.com and not posted to the public Forums.

2. All postings express the views of the author, and neither the administrators nor POPASMOKE will be held responsible for the content of any postings submitted by the Members or anyone else. The administrators of these Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any postings for any reason. Members who make postings on the Forums which are not in accordance with the Terms of Use Agreement, risk having their posting privileges withdrawn.
See more
See less

Agent Orange conference calls for U.S. to take responsibility for health problems

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • widow1
    replied
    Conflicts of Interest in Chem and Mold Research

    http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/MoldC...forwwwFNL1.pdf.

    NTP on mold, see above

    February 28, 2007

    David A. Schwartz, M.D.
    Director
    National Toxicology Program
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
    P.O. Box 12233
    Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
    Fax: 919.541.2260

    Dear Dr. Schwartz,

    We are writing to express significant concerns with the
    National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Center for the
    Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR)
    management and review process for evaluating the
    reproductive and developmental effects of chemicals. It has
    recently come to our attention that CERHR is managed by a
    private consulting firm, Sciences International (SI), a
    company with historic ties to the tobacco industry and a
    client base that appears to include manufacturers of
    substances that might be subject to CERHR review, including
    the chemical up for review on March 5, 2007, bisphenol A
    (BPA). We think that the public would be very surprised to
    learn that industry consultants are managing critical
    public health agencies.

    The ties between SI and industry raise important ethical
    issues that we describe in detail below. The fundamental
    question raised by the BPA case is whether or not
    government health assessments should be managed by private
    consulting firms with ties to the industry that
    manufactures the chemicals under review. We are very
    concerned that this relationship may influence the outcome
    of the BPA assessment.

    These concerns are heightened by the Conflict of Interest
    policy document we received from Michael Shelby, the
    director of CERHR. In contrast to the CERHR policy for
    panel members who must disclose all potential conflicts of
    interest, the CERHR policy for consultants, sent to us by
    Mr. Shelby, states plainly that, "No specific restrictions
    are placed on the contractor." [1] This seems to mean that
    contractors with serious conflicts of interest would not
    have to disclose them and, in fact, could oversee analyses
    that could dramatically affect the future health and
    wellbeing of the American public. We would very much
    appreciate your clarification of this policy. Further, we
    request that prior to the March 5, 2007 meeting, SI and its
    employees disclose all potential conflicts of interest
    relative to BPA. Absent such disclosure, the integrity of
    the entire BPA review process will be in question.

    In 1998, NTP established the Center for the Evaluation of
    Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) to "serve as an
    environmental health resource to the public and to
    regulatory and health agencies," and to
    provide "scientifically-based, uniform assessments of the
    potential for adverse effects on reproduction and
    development caused by agents to which humans may be
    exposed" via "rigorous evaluations of the scientific
    literature by independent panels of scientists." [2]

    CERHR's mission is vital because five to ten percent of
    couples experience fertility problems, up to five percent
    of babies have birth defects, and a growing body of
    scientific evidence shows that exposures to industrial
    chemicals can impact reproduction and development. [3]

    Environmental Working Group (EWG) was shocked to learn,
    therefore, that CERHR — a government agency under the
    auspices of the National Institutes of Health — is actually
    being run by a private consulting firm known as Sciences
    International (SI). To quote the SI website:

    "The most significant project at our firm is the management
    of the National Toxicology Program's Center for the
    Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction, one of the
    premiere institutions for evaluation of reproductive and
    developmental health issues." [4]
    This relationship is even more troubling because there are
    serious conflicts of interest and ethical concerns
    surrounding this contractor that involve apparent financial
    ties with the chemical industry and non-disclosure of these
    relationships.

    On March 5, 2007 a CERHR expert panel is scheduled to
    evaluate the reproductive hazards presented by bisphenol A
    (BPA). This expert panel will be basing their decision on a
    300-page document describing the hazards of BPA that was
    prepared by Sciences International. BPA is a heavily used
    industrial chemical that is integral to production of hard
    plastics and is found in the liners of metal food cans and
    in hard plastic containers. More than 200 animal studies
    show that BPA is toxic at very low doses. [5] The Centers
    for Disease Control has found BPA in 95 percent of people
    tested at levels that raise health concerns sufficient to
    warrant this major review by CERHR. [6] And the peer—
    reviewed science suggests that BPA may be contributing to
    increases in many adverse health conditions in the human
    population including breast cancer, prostate cancer and
    insulin resistance. [7-12]

    Several ethical concerns surround SI's role in this
    process, including the company's financial ties to the
    chemical industry and their failure to disclose key
    information in the BPA review that may affect the expert
    panel's assessment of the chemical. These concerns are
    discussed further below.

    SI conflicts of interest. SI appears to have a close
    working relationship with, and financial ties to, companies
    that manufacture the chemicals SI is charged with reviewing
    for CERHR. To our knowledge, SI has not disclosed these
    ties. As one example, in 2004, Anthony Scialli, the SI
    employee named as the lead SI manager of CERHR, co-authored
    a scientific paper with an employee of Dow Chemical Company
    on the critical issue of how animal test results can be
    applied to human health risk. [13]. Dow is a major producer
    of BPA. [14] The study was funded by the European Chemical
    Industry Council. There appears to be no way for the public
    to determine whether or not any SI clients are
    manufacturers or major users of BPA or any other chemical
    that may be reviewed by CERHR. SI notes on its website that
    its clientele comprise "approximately 50% public sector and
    50% private sector clients." [15] Yet while SI lists the
    names of many of its public sector clients, SI's private
    sector clients are identified only as "various companies,
    trade organizations, and law firms." [16]

    Scientists must sign conflict of interest forms before they
    may serve on a CERHR panel. [17] But CERHR's Director
    Michael Shelby indicates that "no specific restrictions are
    placed on the contractor."[1] This policy is in stark
    contrast to the disclosure procedures applied to CERHR
    panel members, and is completely unacceptable. To earn the
    public trust, SI must disclose all financial and research
    ties that it has with any company or other entity that
    might have even a potential conflict of interest with the
    work carries out in its managing duty at the CERHR.

    SI failure to investigate study funding sources. In its
    review document on BPA, SI fails to disclose industry
    funding sources and author affiliations for major studies
    cited in the document. For example, on page 177 in the
    document, SI states "[financial] support not indicated" for
    several important studies finding no adverse effects from
    BPA at low levels of exposure. [18] But, in fact, both
    studies are authored by scientists who routinely perform
    work for the chemical industry trade organizations: CEFIC-
    the European Chemical Industry Council and SPI-the Society
    of the Plastics Industry, both of which have member
    companies who manufacture or use BPA. [19] A simple request
    to these scientists would likely have revealed the source
    of funding.

    SI's failure to identify the source of funding for these
    studies is more than just an oversight. A distinct pattern
    in BPA test results, relative to funding source, has been
    documented in the peer-reviewed literature, most notably in
    a 2005 review published in the National Institutes of
    Health journal Environmental Health Perspectives. This
    analysis examined more than 100 peer-reviewed studies on
    BPA and found a stunning relationship between funding
    source and study outcome: 100% of industry-sponsored
    studies found no adverse effects of BPA at low doses,
    compared to just 4% of independent studies. [20] Given the
    severe bias for industry-funded studies to find BPA "safe,"
    funding sources for studies are a key piece of information
    the CERHR expert panel should review in making
    determinations on study utility. Without this information,
    CERHR assessments are incomplete.

    The CERHR expert panel must have thorough information on
    study funding sources for the panel in order to make
    informed decisions on study utility. SI has failed to
    provide this.

    SI failure to disclose key study limitations. In its review
    of BPA studies, SI scientists fail to document known,
    glaring design deficiencies that make it nearly impossible
    for certain studies to detect BPA toxicity. Without this
    information, in some cases the expert panel has issued
    glowing endorsements of seriously flawed studies, including
    a study [21] deemed by the expert panel to be "exceptional"
    and "very useful," when in fact the researchers in this
    study used resistant animals and animal feed that is known
    to mask the toxicity of chemicals like BPA. To quote the SI
    document: "This exceptional study is very useful for the
    evaluation process, and will carry significant weight in
    the evaluation of structural, histogenic, and fertility
    endpoints." [22]

    In another example, the expert panel found a study "very
    useful in the evaluation" when, in fact, the National
    Toxicology Program (NTP) had noted issues with the study
    design that cast the findings into doubt, including the
    quality of the feed, concerns with animal weight, and data
    strongly suggesting that the particular experimental
    animals used would be insensitive to BPA's effects. [20,
    23, 24] SI did not note these concerns in its review.

    The CERHR expert panel is asked to review the usefulness
    and quality of literally hundreds of studies summarized in
    the SI review. The panel members cannot feasibly review
    each study individually, and therefore must rely heavily on
    SI interpretations. Therefore, it is critical for SI to
    thoroughly and accurate document study findings and
    deficiencies. Their failure to do so in the case of these
    key studies can inject critical bias into the review
    process and severely inhibit the expert panel's ability to
    make sound decisions.

    SI's history as industry consultant. SI's history of
    compromised ethics leads to deep concerns about its role in
    managing CERHR chemical assessments. In September, 2006 the
    journal Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T) detailed
    SI's dealings with the tobacco giant RJ Reynolds and its
    efforts to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) from tightening its regulation of a toxic pesticide.
    [25] ES&T wrote that:

    In December 1998, the U.S. EPA proposed several risk-
    mitigation measures to protect workers handling phosphine —
    a chemical for fumigating grain and other commodities. The
    proposals included creating a buffer zone around fumigation
    sites and notifying residents living within 750 feet. EPA
    also proposed lowering the exposure threshold of phosphine
    from 0.3 parts per million (ppm) to 0.03 ppm. Court
    documents show that, to fend off regulations, RJ Reynolds
    Tobacco Co. (RJRT) funded the Phosphine Coalition, which
    successfully fought against the proposed changes. A
    centerpiece of its strategy was hiring the consulting firm
    Sciences International to lobby EPA and to write a study on
    phosphine's toxicity.

    The study was finally published in Risk Analysis in 2004.
    Five people appear as authors on the paper: Betty Anderson
    and two of her employees at Sciences International, and
    Joel Seckar and Paul R. Harp, who are listed as members of
    the Phosphine Coalition of Washington, D.C. The Phospine
    Coalition does not have a street address, and the paper
    does not note that Harp and Seckar are employed by RJRT.

    In April 1999, officials with Sciences International met
    with EPA staff to try to persuade the agency to halt the
    proposed changes to phosphine regulations. A month later,
    Anderson, Sciences International's executive director, sent
    a memo to Seckar stating, "I believe that the approach with
    the greatest likelihood of affecting EPA's position is to
    prepare and publish in a peer-reviewed journal a scientific
    paper or article that describes the current science on the
    toxicity of phosphine." She continues, "Since I am
    currently Editor-in-Chief of the international journal Risk
    Analysis, perhaps the peer-review process could be
    expedited, if we decide that it is the journal of choice."

    At the end of 1999, RJ Reynolds released a report
    highlighting the company's accomplishments. "R&D led the
    Phosphine Coalition in addressing the scientific issues
    involved when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    proposed a new phosphine exposure standard," reads a
    passage. Further along, the document states, "The efforts
    of the Coalition saved RJRT many millions of dollars."
    Clearly, serious questions are raised when a company with
    this history is charged with running a government program
    vital to the protecting public health.

    SI involved in all aspects of running CERHR

    It is clear that SI is deeply involved in all aspects of
    CERHR, from selecting expert panel members, setting the
    agenda for panel meetings, preparing the literature
    reviews, and helping to draft the panel's reports. The
    intimate and unusual relationship between the firm and
    CERHR is extensively documented. For example:

    CERHR's website describes the agency's structure as
    follows: "Under the direction of Michael Shelby, Ph.D.,
    Director, CERHR at NIEHS, scientific and support staff at
    NIEHS and Sciences International, Inc. operate the Center
    for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR).
    The Principal Investigator, Anthony Scialli, M.D., leads
    the scientific and support staff at Sciences International,
    Inc." [26]
    The website of Sciences International states that: "The
    most significant project at our firm is the management of
    the National Toxicology Program's Center for the Evaluation
    of Risks to Human Reproduction, one of the premiere
    institutions for evaluation of reproductive and
    developmental health issues." [27]
    Although Dr. Scialli is the Vice President of SI, on
    CERHR's on-line "contact" page his affiliation is listed
    simply as "NTP Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
    Reproduction." [28]
    The Federal Register notice describing the creation of
    CERHR explains that: "Scientists representing NTP agencies
    and Sciences International, Inc., the contractor who will
    support the Center, will constitute a core committee which
    will provide the initial review for [panel member]
    nominations, select the expert panel membership and
    establish the meeting agenda." [29]
    Expert panel and chemical nominations are sent directly to
    the SI offices. Some CERHR workshop sessions take place
    there as well. [30, 31]
    For its work — and influence — SI gets paid heftily. The
    firm's current contract, which runs from June 2003 through
    June 2008, is worth $5,241,109. [32]

    It is not uncommon for federal agencies to contract out
    certain pieces of work to consulting firms or other
    contractors. However, we are unaware of any other instance
    in which nearly all of the functions of a pubic health
    agency have been outsourced to a private entity. Please
    provide us with details on when this has been done
    previously and what the bidding parameters were.

    It is also unclear whether the SI contract was put out to
    bid. If it was put out for competitive bid, please provide
    us with the bid notice and parameters. If it was a no bid
    contract, please explain the rationale for this decision.

    The arrangement between CERHR and SI raises serious ethical
    questions that demand immediate disclosure of financial and
    research ties to chemical manufacturers and other
    industries that make or use substances under review by the
    CERHR. These disclosures must apply both to individual SI
    staff as well as the greater institution. Questions about
    the objectivity and adequacy of this review process and the
    reviewers must be resolved before a final decision on BPA
    is reached.

    It is also critical that CERHR incorporate into its final
    decision on BPA critical input from an NIEHS-sponsored
    expert workshop convened in November 2006. Forty-two
    leading scientists on the effects of BPA at low doses
    reviewed existing literature on the issue (see attached
    list). The experts are producing a series of papers
    addressing the very issues being reviewed by CERHR, but
    expect to have only two of them completed by the March 5th
    meeting. It is our understanding that these experts are
    seeing a pattern of adverse effects at low levels of
    exposure similar to those measured in humans by the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention [33]. We are concerned
    that CERHR is poised to make a decision on BPA prior to the
    review of this important information.

    Regulators, policy makers, and the general public
    desperately need the "readily accessible, scientifically
    authoritative" evaluations of potential reproductive and
    developmental toxins that CERHR is supposed to be
    providing. [34] But these evaluations will only serve to
    help protect human and environmental health if they are
    truly objective and trustworthy. Given that bisphenol A is
    found in consumer products as diverse as baby bottles, food-
    can linings and dental sealants, this is a question that
    the public has a right — and a need — to know.

    Sincerely,

    Richard Wiles
    Executive Director
    Environmental Working Group

    Cc: Mike Leavitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and
    Human Services
    John Howard, M.D., M.P.H., J.D., LL.M., Director, National
    Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for
    Disease Control, U.S. Department of Health and Human
    Services
    Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D., Commissioner, U.S. Food and
    Drug Administration
    William Slikker, Jr., Ph.D., Director, National Center for
    Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
    Michael Shelby, Ph.D., Center for the Evaluation of Risks
    to Human Reproduction, National Toxicology Program
    Representative Henry Waxman, Chair, Committee on Oversight
    and Government Reform
    Representative Tom Davis, Ranking, Committee on Oversight
    and Government Reform
    Representative John Dingell, Chair, Committee on Energy and
    Commerce
    Representative Joe Barton, Ranking, Committee on Energy and
    Commerce
    Senator Barbara Boxer, Chair, Committee on Environment and
    Public Works
    Senator James Inhofe, Ranking, Committee on Environment and
    Public Works
    Robert E. Chapin, Ph.D., Chair, CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
    Pfizer, Inc.
    Jane Adams, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA, University of
    Massachusetts
    Kim Boekelheide, M.D., Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
    Brown University
    Michael A. Gallo, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA, UMDNJ —
    Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
    L. Earl Gray, Jr., Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA, U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency
    Simon W. Hayward, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
    Vanderbilt University Medical Center
    Peter S.J. Lees, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA, Johns
    Hopkins University
    Barry S. McIntyre, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
    Schering Plough Research Institute
    Michael J. McPhaul, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
    University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
    Kenneth M. Portier, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
    American Cancer Society
    Teresa M. Schnorr, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
    Sherry G. Selevan, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA, U.S.
    Public Health Service (Ret.)
    John G. Vandenbergh, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
    North Carolina State University
    Kendall B. Wallace, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
    University of Minnesota
    Susan R. Woskie, Ph.D., CERHR Expert Panel on BPA,
    University of Massachusetts


    References

    [1] Personal communication with Michael Shelby. Received
    summary of CERHR's conflict of interest policy on February
    23, 2007 prepared by Shelby in response to EWG's request
    for official copies of this policy on February 16, 2007.

    [2] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
    Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. "About CERHR."
    http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/aboutCERHR/index.html. Accessed
    on February 13, 2007.

    [3] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
    Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. "About CERHR."
    http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/aboutCERHR/index.html. Accessed
    on February 13, 2007.

    [4] Sciences International. 2007. "Reproductive and
    Environmental Health Practice Area."
    http://www.sciences.com/practice-are...roductive.html.
    Accessed on February 13, 2007.

    [5] The Endocrine Disruptor Exchange. Accessed on February
    23, 2007.
    http://www.endocrinedisruption.org/products/bisphenol_a

    [6] Calafat AM, Kuklenyik Z, Reidy JA, Caudill SP, Ekong J,
    Needham L. 2005. Urinary concentrations of Bisphenol A and
    4-Nonylphenol in a human reference population.
    Environmental Health Perspectives 113:391-395.

    [7] Munoz-de-Toro M, Markey CM, Wadia PR, Luque EH, Rubin
    BS, Sonnenschein C, Soto AM. 2005. Perinatal exposure to
    bisphenol-A alters peripubertal mammary gland development
    in mice. Endocrinology 146(9):4138-47.

    [8] Markey CM, Luque EH, Munoz-de-Toro M, Sonnenschein C,
    Soto AM. 2001. In utero exposure to Bisphenol A alters the
    development and tissue organization of the mouse mammary
    gland. Biology of Reproduction 65(4):1215-23.

    [9] Timms BG, Howdeshell KL, Barton L, Bradley S, Richter
    CA, vom Saal FS. 2005. Estrogenic chemicals in plastic and
    oral contraceptives disrupt development of the fetal mouse
    prostate and urethra. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(19):7014-9.

    [10] Ho SM, Tang WY, Belmonte de Frausto J, Prins GS. 2006.
    Developmental exposure to esradiol and bisphenol A
    increases susceptibility to prostate carcinogenesis and
    epigenetically regulates phsophodiesterase type 4 variant
    4. Cancer Research 66(11):5624-32.

    [11] Alonso-Magdalena P, Morimoto S, Ripoll C, Fuentes E,
    Nadal A. 2006. The estrogenic effect of Bisphenol A
    disrupts pancreatic §-cell function in vivo and induces
    insulin resistance. Environmental Health Perspectives 114
    (1):106-112.

    [12] Vandenberg LN, Maffini MV, Wadia PR, Sonnenschein C,
    Rubin BS, Soto AM. 2007. Exposure to environmentally
    relevant doses of the xenoestrogen bisphenol-A alters
    development of the fetal mouse mammary gland. Endocrinology
    148(1):116-27.

    [13] Carney EW, Scialli AR, Watson RE, DeSesso JM. 2004.
    Mechanisms regulating toxicant disposition to the embryo
    during early pregnancy: An interspecies comparison. Birth
    Defects Res C Embryo Today. 72(4):345-60. Abstract
    available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-
    bin/abstract/109867213/ABSTRACT

    [14] US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002.
    Inventory Update Reporting. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/iur/

    [15] Sciences International. 2007. "Clients."
    http://www.sciences.com/clients/index.html. Accessed on
    February 13, 2007.

    [16] Sciences International. 2007. "Clients."
    http://www.sciences.com/clients/index.html. Accessed on
    February 13, 2007.

    [17] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
    Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. CERHR Expert Panel Guidelines.
    http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/aboutCERHR/guidelines.pdf.

    [18] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
    Reproduction (CERHR). 2006. Draft NTP-CERHR report on the
    reproductive and developmental toxicity of bisphenol A.
    December 2006.
    http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/pubcomm-
    bisphenol.html

    [19] Frederick S. vom Saal. 2007. Comments on the report of
    the expert panel on bisphenol A.
    http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/pubcomm/
    vomsaal_response_BPA_Report.pdf

    [20] vom Saal FS, Hughes C. 2005. An extensive new
    literature concerning low-dose effects of bisphenol A shows
    the need for a new risk assessment. Environ Health
    Perspect. 113(8):926-33.

    [21] Tyl RW, Myers CB, Marr MC, Thomas BF, Keimowitz AR,
    Brine DR, Veselica MM, Fail PA, Chang TY, Seely JC, Joiner
    RL, Butala JH, Dimond SS, Cagen SZ, Shiotsuka RN, Stropp
    GD, and Waechter JM. 2002. Three-Generation Reproductive
    Toxicity Study of Dietary Bisphenol A in CD Sprague-Dawley
    Rats. Toxicol. Sci. 68: 121-146.

    [22] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
    Reproduction (CERHR). 2006. Draft NTP-CERHR report on the
    reproductive and developmental toxicity of bisphenol A.
    December 2006.
    http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/chemicals/bisphenol/pubcomm-
    bisphenol.html

    [23] National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2001. National
    Toxicology Program's Report of the Endocrine Disruptors Low
    Dose Peer Review. Research Triangle Park, NC:National
    Toxicology Program.
    http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/...DosePeerFinalR
    pt.pdf

    [24] Ashby J, Tinwell H, Haseman J. 1999. Lack of effects
    for low dose levels of bisphenol A (BPA) and
    diethylstilbestrol (DES) on the prostate gland of CF1 mice
    exposed in utero. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 30:156—166.

    [25] Environmental Science & Technology Policy News. 2006.
    Journals feel pressure to adopt disclosure rules. After an
    inquiry by ES&T, three leading science societies say they
    will now examine conflict-of-interest policies. September
    20, 2006. http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-
    w/2006/sep/policy/pt_disclosure.html

    [26] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
    Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. "About CERHR."
    http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/aboutCERHR/index.html. Accessed
    on February 13, 2007.

    [27] Sciences International. 2007. "Reproductive and
    Environmental Health Practice Area."
    http://www.sciences.com/practice-are...roductive.html.
    Accessed on February 13, 2007.

    [28] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
    Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. "Contact CERHR."
    http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/contactus/index.html. Accessed
    on February 13, 2007.

    [29] Federal Register. December 14, 1998. Volume 63 (239):
    68782. DOCID:fr14de98-73

    [30] Federal Register. August 5, 1999. Volume 64 (150):
    42707-42708. DOCID:fr05au99-108

    [31] National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
    1999. Center set up to evaluate evidence of chemical
    threats to human reproduction. Press Jan. 6, 1999.
    http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/news/press/pr1_6_99.html

    [32] Office of Acquisitions, National Institute of
    Environmental Health Sciences. Active Research and
    Development Contracts as of Oct 12, 2006.
    http://www.niehs.nih.gov/omamb/rcb/randdext.htm

    [33] Calafat AM, Kuklenyik Z, Reidy JA, Caudill SP, Ekong
    J, Needham L. 2005. Urinary concentrations of Bisphenol A
    and 4-Nonylphenol in a human reference population.
    Environmental Health Perspectives 113:391-395.

    [34] Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human
    Reproduction (CERHR). 2007. "About CERHR."
    http://cerhr.niehs.nih.gov/aboutCERHR/index.html. Accessed
    on February 13, 2007.

    Leave a comment:


  • widow1
    replied
    I must point out that Kelley's premise that civilians have more rights to sue over toxic tort is true in theory, but in reality, it is very, very hard. Now if someone goes permanently horizontal, vegetable or worm fodder, and it can be proven causality was poison, that is a horse of a different color.

    I live in the Chemical Corridor, and it is virtually impossible to find an attorney to take a case like that unless exposure was due to a train derailment or massive spill, can you spell C L A S S A C T I O N? I know because I tried to find an attorney, including the ones featured prominently in the news for handling toxic tort cases.

    Must face it, regular citizens aren't treated any better than you guys, the dilemma is that y'all are promised care that you never receive.

    Kelley's book is excellent and you can be sure any toxic tort attorney worth their weight will have a copy. Excellent book, excellent. Needs to be read w/ highlighter in hand or notepad.

    Leave a comment:


  • widow1
    replied
    Kelley's Book

    Finally got it! Had library order it, came in and I know I must have my own.
    Very good. Am amazed he had the stamina to finish it. My own health problems due to poisonings crop up from time to time and make it difficult to do anything requiring higher cognitve functioning.

    Think it was this thread that I read about it. "Vietnam's Rain Agents Orange, White, and Blue and Agents of Mass Destruction" by Charles Kelley.

    Thanks, Kelley, for having the fortitude, stamina, and courage to write it down. I know all about the fear of retaliation, thank you for your bravery long after your term to serve had passed. Our politicians must feel uncomfortable around you, with good reason.

    "IT'S DIFFICULT TO GET A MAN TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, IF
    HIS SALARY DEPENDS UPON HIM NOT UNDERSTANDING."
    UPTON SINCLAIR

    Leave a comment:


  • widow1
    replied
    AO spraying; areas and quantities

    Must find K-paige's identity, many kudos for the links she has accumulated;
    http://vietnamresearch.com/agento/spray.htmlAO spraying; areas and quantities

    Leave a comment:


  • widow1
    replied
    Gordon,

    Good idea about book. I am checking w/ local libraries to see if they have copies, if not I will ask them to "requisition" copies.

    Maybe that Silver Rose organization can assist in this?

    Leave a comment:


  • widow1
    replied
    Interesting

    Thanks. I hadn't seen the site, only the list I posted from the spouses' chat board.

    Never heard of it before, but must admire the Lady who started it. Her Dad would be proud.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bull79Dog
    replied
    Silver Rose Award

    Found this on the web site: SILVER ROSE AWARD~! Hope this helps~! MACK

    Honoring the Victims of Agent Orange

    The Silver Rose Award consists of a Certificate, Award Card, Poster and Medal (shown immediately below) with an Orange and White neck-drape Ribbon.

    Contact Us: fuzzyfrog@intouchmi.com Put "AO Flag" in subject line.

    Direct all information and questions regarding The Order of The Silver Rose to ....

    GARY CHENETT
    National Director
    PH: 810-714-2748
    Email: fuzzyfrog@2fords.net

    Or To

    NANCY REKOWSKI
    National Commander
    PH: 814-965-5760
    Email: nancyrekowski@hotmail.com

    Over 3,000 Silver Rose Awards have been awarded to date.
    Last edited by Bull79Dog; 02-24-2007, 16:23. Reason: AWARD spelt wront

    Leave a comment:


  • widow1
    replied
    Beats me. Something I found on veterans' spouses chat board.

    Was going to crop out the title, but decided against it as they deserve credit for for assembling the info. Haven't had time to check it thoroughly, but that updated list seemed worthy of reposting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray Norton
    replied
    OK I'll bite

    Just what is "The Silver Rose Award?"

    Leave a comment:


  • widow1
    replied
    Agent Orange site

    This looked interesting. Haven't taken time to go through it carefully.
    Order of the Silver Rose
    QUALIFYING DISEASES
    ******************************



    Please get a full yearly physical with CAT Scan!


    THE FOLLOWING DISEASES
    QUALIFY A VETERAN
    FOR THE SILVER ROSE AWARD




    All of the diseases on the VA's list of conditions linked to the herbicide exposure appear in the left-hand column. If there is a requirement that the disease appear within a certain period of time, the period of time appears in the right-hand column.



    DISEASES RECOGNIZED BY THE VA AS CONNECTED TO AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE LENGTH OF TIME REQUIREMENTS: WHEN SYMPTOMS OF THE DISEASE HAVE TO APPEAR AND RESULT IN A DISABILITY (AT LEAST 10 PERCENT DISABLING) IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR BENEFITS.
    TYPES OF CANCER / TIME REQUIREMENT
    Cancer of the Bronchus No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
    Cancer of the Larnyx No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
    Lung Cancer No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
    Cancer of the Trachea No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
    Prostate Cancer No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
    Hodgkin's Disease No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
    Chronic Lymphatic Leukemia No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
    Multiple Myeloma No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
    Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma No time requirement (veteran qualifies no matter when the disease first appears.)
    TYPES OF SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA TIME REQUIREMENT
    Adult Fibrosarcoma
    Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma
    Angiosarcoma
    Clear Cell Sarcoma of Aponeuroses
    Clear Cell Sarcoma of Tendons
    Congenital Fibrosarcoma
    Dermatofibrosarcoma Protuberans
    Ectomesenchymoma
    Epithelioid Malignant Leiomyosarcoma
    Epithelioid Malignant Schwannoma
    Epithelioid Sarcoma
    Extraskeltal Ewing's Sarcoma
    Hemangiosarcoma
    Infantile Fibrosarcoma
    Leiomyosarcoma
    Liposarcoma
    Lymphangiosarcoma
    Malignant Fibrous Histiocytoma
    Malignant ganglioneuroma
    Malignant Giant Cell Tumor of the Tendon
    Sheath
    Malignant Glandular Schwannoma
    Malignant Glomus Tumor
    Malignant granular cell tumor
    Malignant Hemangiopericytoma
    Malignant Mesenchymoma
    Malignant Schwannoma with Rhabdomyoblastic differentiation
    Prolifertationg (systemic)Angiendotheliomatosis
    Rhabdomyosarcoma
    Synovial Sarcoma No Time Requirement
    (veteran qualifies no matter when sarcoma first appears)


    DISEASES OTHER THAN CANCER TIME REQUIREMENT
    Peripheral Neuropathy (acute or subacute)

    Within months of exposure to agent orange in Vietnam and cured within 2 years after symptoms first appear
    (Note: this time requirement is written so narrowly it appears to be impossible for any Vietnam veteran to qualify)
    Chloracne Within one year of the last day the veteran served in Vietnam.
    Porphyria Cutanea Tarda Within one year of the last day the veteran served in Vietnam.
    Diabetes

    Complications:


    Skin Conditions:
    diabetic dermopathy
    necrobiosis lipoidica
    diabeticorum
    diabetic blisters
    eruptive xanthomatosis

    Gum Disease:
    Oral Infection
    Fungal Infection
    Poor Healing
    Dry Mouth

    Eye Disease:
    Blindness
    Retinopathy
    Glaucoma
    Cataracts

    Kidney Disease

    Transplantation:
    Kidney
    Pancreas

    Neuropathy:
    Charcot’s joint
    Cranial neuropathy
    Autonomic neuropathy
    Compression mononeuropathy
    Femoral neuropathy
    Thoracic or lumbar radiculopathy
    Unilateral foot drop

    Cardiovascular Health:
    Heart Attack
    Stroke
    No Time Requirement
    (veteran qualifies no matter when Diabetes first appears)
    DISABILITIES IN CHILDREN OF VIETNAM VETERANS TIME REQUIREMENT
    Spina Bifida Child must have been conceived after veteran first arrived in Vietnam.
    BIRTH DEFECTS IN CHILDREN OF FEMALE VIETNAM VETERANS TIME REQUIREMENT
    Once final rules are issued, the birth defects that qualify for benefits will be listed on NVLSP's website and here. http://www.nvlsp.org
    Child must have been conceived after veteran first arrived in Vietnam.

    Leave a comment:


  • moe1942
    replied
    Originally posted by GMello
    Moe...consider yourself lucky. No one is saying there are those who have not been affected. Time in theater, amount of exposure, a persons genetic makeup and immune response are all factors to consider.

    If you look at the stats from independent studies though, there is no denying something is terribly wrong with hundreds of thousands of Nam vets that cannot be explained or defined by the medical community.

    Lets hope you remain healthy and live to a ripe old age.

    S/F Gordon


    Thanks, I was there a year and they loaded up everyday. I'm on the agent orange register and get checked regularly by a non VA doc.

    I have given it a lot of thought over the years...

    Leave a comment:


  • GMello
    replied
    Moe1942:

    Moe...consider yourself lucky. No one is saying there are those who have not been affected. Time in theater, amount of exposure, a persons genetic makeup and immune response are all factors to consider.

    If you look at the stats from independent studies though, there is no denying something is terribly wrong with hundreds of thousands of Nam vets that cannot be explained or defined by the medical community.

    Lets hope you remain healthy and live to a ripe old age.

    S/F Gordon

    Leave a comment:


  • moe1942
    replied
    I worked 100 yards from the ramp area where they loaded the Ranch Hand aircraft with that crap. If they got a bit sloppy the wind would bring it to us. It would make my skin itch.

    So far no problems. That was thirty six years ago...

    Leave a comment:


  • GMello
    replied
    Agent Orange (and other defoliants)

    Bull79Dog:

    I have been involved in the defoliant controversy since September, 1971 and my first hospitalization at 23 for some bizzare afflictions. Maybe, just maybe this issue will be addressed if veterans can unite and demand action.

    I suggest every Nam vet read the book 'Vietnam Rain Agents' by Charles Kelley (available at Amazon.com/I have no connection with the book and do not know Mr. Kelley). Kelley does an excellent job of laying out the defoliant scenario. He does get a little emotional in some areas of the book but one can understand why when you finish reading the book.

    The problem that exists is the concentration on only Dioxin & Agent Orange by the VA, our government and the chemical companies. They have never addressed Agent White, Agent Blue or Agent Yellow, how these defoliants were used in mixtures and combinations of one or more of them and studies have never been conducted using Nam vets againsta general population with no exposure (whether civilian, veterans or military). The Ranch Hand study is a farce of epic proportion and of no scientific value at all.

    South Korea has completed a study comparing their vets against a general population group of civilians and military (an outside research team was used and all were blind studies - no one in the research group knew who were Nam vets or a control group member...this has never been done by our government). The results, absolutly startling. All US studies have been beholding to the VA or US government.

    I suggest every Nam vet read the book. I have forwarded copies to my elected representatives in Congress, attached a letter, sent an email telling them to expect the book and have also called their offices in Washington to inform them I expect them to read the book. I plan to follow up and verify if they have done so. Senator Shays (R, CT) and Dodd (D, CT) have already told me they will read the book as I spoke directly with them (they called me).

    We should attempt to get at least a few Nam vets in every state to do the same and to keep shaking the tree until they get a reply of some kind from their Congressional members. I'm willing to pitch in and buy some additional book but cannot afford to purchase the more than 600 we would need to make sure every member receives a copy.

    I would think that through Popasmoke, we could get at least two or three members from each state to help out. I'm willing to compile the list state by state of members who will help and will take care of any communications, paperwork, Congressional lists, addresses, phone numbers. I'm sure I can contact the publisher and get a discount on a large purchase of the books.

    Please let me know what you think of the idea (or anyone here) and suggestions are most welcome. I am in dead earnest and will do whatever is necessary to get the ball rolling but I would appreciate any help offered. The books are $23.00 each but I'm sure purchasing 600 to 700 books we can get the price down.

    S/F Gordon

    Leave a comment:


  • Agent Orange conference calls for U.S. to take responsibility for health problems

    Activists and Vietnam War veterans wrapped up a global conference on Agent Orange Wednesday with a plea to the U.S. government and chemical companies to take responsibility for health problems linked to the wartime defoliant.

    "We ... demand that U.S. chemical companies pay compensation equal to their liability. We demand the U.S. government be held responsible for making contributions to overcome the consequences of toxic chemicals," a statement adopted at the end of the meeting read.

    More than 100 activists and from at least six countries including the United States, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and Canada attended the two-day conference.

    U.S. aircraft sprayed about 21 million gallons of defoliant, mostly Agent Orange, over Vietnam from 1961-71 to destroy forest cover for communist troops.

    Agent Orange contains dioxin, a chemical blamed for health problems ranging from cancer to spina bifida and diabetes. The U.S. government claims there is no scientific evidence directly linking dioxin to the ailments.

    "For the future of mankind, we must prevent the use of Agent Orange from being repeated in any other country in the world," he said.

    Joan Newberry of Santa Fe, N.M., who served as a nurse in the U.S. Air Force during the war, said the conference was a good start to help Agent Orange victims around the world.

    "We hope we can develop international alliances that will strengthen our efforts to seek justice for victims of Agent Orange all over the world," she said.
Working...
X