Re: Agent Orange studies summarized on Greenwire PLUS Original

[Bill Patterson <bphata@sedona.net>]

For those of you that didn't see the article yet.
Sincerely,
Bill In Sedona
<><

Saturday October 31 9:31 PM EDT 

Agent Orange Info Possibly Withheld

SAN DIEGO, Calif. (AP) - The U.S. military withheld information about
possible links between Agent Orange and birth defects for years, and
downplayed the defoliant's link to cancer among Vietnam War veterans, the
San Diego Union-Tribune reported Sunday.

The newspaper conducted a six-month investigation into a $200 million Air
Force study, which began in 1979 and has been a key factor in denying
compensation to some veterans.

It is unclear how many people suffer from the effects of Agent Orange,
which was sprayed over wide swaths of jungle by U.S. planes during a
10-year period to strip away cover from North Vietnamese troops and their
resupply convoys.

The study tracks the health of about 1,000 veterans who participated in
Operation Ranch Hand, a series of Air Force missions that sprayed
defoliants over 3.6 million acres of South Vietnam. The study is scheduled
to conclude in 2006.

As part of the Ranch Hand study, Air Force scientists in 1984 drafted two
reports. According to the newspaper, information from the first report was
withheld for years; the other was published but its findings altered, the
newspaper said.

"This is a medical crime, basically," said Richard Albanese, a scientist
who designed the original study but was later taken off the project.
"Certainly, this is against all medical ethics."

The withheld report focused on birth defects and infant deaths, showing
high rates of both among children of Vietnam veterans, the newspaper said.

Language in the second report, which focused on veterans' general health,
was altered to show little difference between the studied veterans and a
comparison group, according to the newspaper.

A table in the second report showed Ranch Hand veterans by a ratio of
5-to-1 were "less well" than other veterans. But after a White House
advisory panel reviewed the report, the table was omitted in the published
report, and the lead scientist, Col. George Lathrop, deleted a sentence
saying some of the findings were "of concern" and instead wrote the
findings were "reassuring."

Lathrop told the Union-Tribune that the changes were minor. "Fundamentally,
the advisory group felt that we were too liberal on the interpretation,"
Lathrop said.

Albanese contends the changes distorted the report, and that data on cancer
rates were misleading because of the way cancer victims were grouped.

Scientists found that Ranch Hand veterans had twice as many cancers as the
comparison group, Albanese said. But in the published report, skin and
internal cancers were separated, showing Ranch Hand veterans with 135
percent more skin cancers and only 20 percent more internal cancers than
the comparison group.

The report suggested the skin cancers were caused by overexposure to the
sun and found "no significant group differences" in internal cancers.

"It happened that most cancers were in the skin, and the report said they
were just in the skin," said Albanese, who was taken off the project after
publicly disagreeing. "That's not a correct inference."

The Air Force in 1987 conceded in a letter to Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D.,
that the 1984 report on cancer and birth defects might be incorrect. In
1988, under Daschle's urging, a report was released containing some details
left out of the published 1984 report.

But it wasn't until 1992 that the Air Force released data on birth defects,
information that was in the withheld report from 1984.

Joel Michalek, the Ranch Hand study's lead scientist, told the newspaper
that the Air Force regrets using the term "reassuring."

"That's a forbidden interpretation," Michalek said. "You can't reassure any
one of anything in (statistical studies). You can only establish hazard,
not safety." 
---------------------------------------------------------