WSU to Study Iraq Toxins' Effect
Spokesman-Review
by Bert Caldwell
Research to examine how exposure might damage offspring of soldiers
Washington State University scientists will use a $1.7 million grant to study what multi-generation genetic damage might be done by toxins U.S. troops could encounter in Iraq.
The research using laboratory rats, not humans, will be the first for the military to examine the epigenetic effects of pesticides, herbicides and other compounds, said lead scientist Michael Skinner, director of the university's Center for Reproductive Biology.
Previous studies have looked at the health effects of other substances, notably the Agent Orange used to defoliate jungles in Vietnam, on the soldiers directly exposed, he said, not on their children or grandchildren.
"The science really had not caught up with the trans-generational stuff," said Skinner, one of several WSU pioneers in the field of epigenetic, or multi-generational, inheritance.
Besides herbicides and pesticides – which and in what combinations has not been determined – the study also will look at the effects of explosives residues, he said.
The four-year study will allow researchers to see how any changes in genetic chemistry that develop are passed along through two subsequent generations of rats, he said, noting that only the first two years of research have been funded.
Among the problems that might develop are kidney disease, or changes in the male and female reproductive organs, he said.
If any genetic markers are identified in rats, Skinner said, follow-up research could look at whether they might show up among members of the military as well.
That would be of particular interest to Dave Holmes, interim chief operating officer of the Institute for Systems Medicine, which was awarded the U.S. Department of Defense grant passed through to Skinner.
Holmes' son, Tim Hammond, did two tours in Iraq with the U.S. Marine Corps.
"They sprayed all kinds of stuff on them," Holmes said.
Although the grant money, the first awarded ISM, will fund work in Pullman, he said the organization's supporters hope any subsequent clinical studies will be done in Spokane.
"There's a lot of excitement about making it happen," he said.
"Fighting for Our Veterans-Supporting Our Troops"
Proudly Serving All Branches & All Eras Since 1999
Search Our Site Below
Entire web
SHINSEKI'S PROPOSED LEGISLATION BLINDSIDES VA, DOJ ATTORNEYS
U.S. Supreme Court brief cites VA Watchdog dot Org as the only source for the legislation. One observer blasts Secretary Shinseki's secrecy.
Late last month we brought you this story:
SHINSEKI'S PROPOSED LEGISLATION COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT MANY VETERANS -- "Getting rid of the primary basis of appeals and running off the lawyers will surely allow VA to get rid of all those pesky claims on remand."
Included in the above story is the entire 42-page document outlining the legislation Shinseki wants passed.
And, it appears, that's the only place it's posted.
In a brief recently filed with the U.S. Supreme Court (available here for viewing or download) we find the following footnote on Page 6:
The complete version of the VA's legislative proposal is neither included in the government's brief nor posted on the VA's website, but it has been posted by a VA "watchdog" website. See Larry Scott, VA News Flash, Shinseki's Proposed Legislation Could Negatively Impact Many Veterans (May 28, 2010), www.vawatchdog.org/
So, why all the secrecy?
Below is commentary from "someone who pays attention" to veterans' issues.
-------------------------
The issue of VA Watchdog dot Org scooping the Department of Justice/VA in making the Secretary's recent legislative proposals public goes far beyond the usual sunshine you bring to the such outings. Here, the secrecy of the Secretary's move is an important part of a United States Supreme Court appeal of Henderson v. Shinseki. In this case, the veteran is challenging VA's position that there is no excuse for missing the 120-day time limit for filing an appeal with the Veterans Court, no matter the reason. VA has rejected hundreds of appeals (reportedly at least 60 since the Supreme Court appeal was filed) for being "late" even when the reason was because VA told the vet wrong information, the service-connected condition itself (PTSD, other mental or physical health issues) prevented a filing or (and most ridiculous of all) even when VA receives a Notice of Appeal wrongly sent to a regional office (instead of the Court) AND HOLDS IT UNTIL THE TIME LIMIT PASSES.
So this is an important case. So important that many strange things are happening, as described in this excerpt from the Reply Brief to the Supreme Court: "The timing of the letter [of legislative proposals] is also puzzling. The VA waited to propose legislation until six months after the Federal Circuit's decision below and almost two years after the Veterans Courts' decision first dismissing" the case. Further, the "complete version of the VA's legislative proposal is neither included in the government's brief nor posted on the VA's website."
That is why this so important. VA apparently didn't even bother to tell its own lawyers or the Supreme Court about its legislative proposals! The public had no chance of finding out --. That the proposed legislation contains at least five anti-veteran reductions in appeal rights and the right to an attorney in a single section alone may be why the Secretary is saving his precious website space for other, more important things such as "Secretary Attends Ceremony in Europe" (what, not enough ceremonies in the States???) (As an aside, I am willing to place a good sized wager that the cost of the Secretary's and his attendants attending that ceremony exceeded the lifetime cost of the benefits Mr. Henderson is seeking. Any takers?? Mr. IG??)
Perhaps now Secretary Shinseki might be allowed by his handlers to read "his" proposals. Oh, is that insulting the Secretary??? The only alternative is that he did read the proposals and intentionally attempted to backdoor veterans. Not the way most people try to "restore trust" in their organizations, sir.
