Wednesday, April 1, 2015

DEDICATION OF FLAG MURAL

 
 

ARTIST SCOTT LOBAIDO

DEDICATION OF FLAG MURAL

Wednesday April 8th

2:00 PM- Light refreshments immediately

following the dedication

LAS VEGAS POST 8

733 Veterans Memorial Dr, Las Vegas,

NV 89101 702-382-8533

Scott will be painting the mural from Sun 4-5

through Wed 4-8.

This is part of a tour of painting the Stars

and Stripes on American Veterans Post

buildings in all 50 states

As seen on The American Legion website:

http://www.legion.org

www.scottlobaido.com

Post 8 is having an American Flag Mural painted on the side of it's building by an artist who was featured on the Legion website, www.legion.org (see link below)  painting flags Across America. Attached you will find a flyer for the dedication ceremony. Please attend.

Please share this email with any other veteran and veteran groups so we may give a Las Vegas sign of appreciation for what Scott LoBaido is doing across the country.

A full press release is available by contacting Catherine Christman at: cath137@aol.com

http://shar.es/1gv53o Scott LoBaido launches 50-state veteran celebration by painting Old Glory on the side of Post 202 in Fayetteville, N.C. This message was sent using ShareThis (http://www.sharethis.com)

www.scottlobaido.com

FW: MOPH Chapter 711 - April Meeting


 If you understand, Things are just as they are. 
If you do not understand, Things are just as they are.





Subject: Fw: MOPH Chapter 711 - April Meeting

Patriots,
Just to remind you that this coming Saturday, April 4,  is the monthly meeting date for MOPH Chapter 711.  This month's meeting will be held at the following location:                                                                                 
IHOP Restaurant
9651 Trailwood Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89134
This restaurant is located in Summerlin where we have the July 4th Parade.
We will meet at 9:00 a.m. for breakfast and/or coffee.  We will each be responsible for our own check + tip.
If you want to order breakfast we will see you at 9:00 a.m.  -- if you just want to come for our regular meeting we will see you at 10:00 a.m.  However, please know that if you want to come and spend some time talking before the meeting but don't want to have breakfast and/or coffee, please feel free to do so.
Call if you have any questions.
John Waid
Commander
Telephone: 702-869-4186


____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
classmates.com

FW: AGENT ORANGE EXPOSURE APPEARS TO DOUBLE RISK OF INVASIVE SKIN CAN CER (IOM doesn't recognize study)

FYI and dissemination as appropriate.

FRANK VAN HOY
National Service Director
Military Order of the Purple Heart
5413-B Backlick Road, Springfield, VA 22151
O: 703.642.5360


 
 
By Annette M. Boyle
 
HOUSTON â€" Even four decades later, veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War have twice the risk of developing unusually invasive nonmelanotic skin cancers compared with the general population, according to a recent study.
 
“We noticed a lot of veterans coming into our clinic had very aggressive squamous and basal cell carcinomas, and it seemed like there was a connection to Agent Orange exposure, but a literature search failed to find any studies that showed an association in humans,” said Mark Clemens, MD, assistant professor of plastic surgery, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
Previous studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between 2-, 3-, 7-, 8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), the highly toxic contaminant in Agent Orange and nonmelanotic invasive skin in animals.
 
As of 2009, more than 485,000 veterans with Agent Orange exposure had registered with the VA. DoD and the VA recognize and provide benefits for many TCDD exposure-associated diseases, including peripheral neuropathy, amyloidosis, B-cell leukemia, birth defects, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ischemic heart disease, multiple myeloma, Parkinson’s disease, porphyria cutanea tarda, prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, soft-tissue sarcomas and chloracne.-
 
A U.S. Huey helicopter spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam.A U.S. Huey helicopter spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam.
 
Currently, however, skin cancer is not presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure. The latest Institute of Medicine update to the Veterans and Agent Orange report concluded that there is “inadequate and insufficient information to determine whether there is an association between exposure to Agent Orange and basal cell or squamous cell cancer.”1
 
That didn't dissuade the M.D. Anderson researchers from further investigation.
 
“In our clinic, we talked about an association on a daily basis. We wanted to systematically take the first step toward conclusively making that case,” Clemens said. “We did a pilot study with 100 consecutive patients and found a surprisingly high rate of 51% of veterans had nonmelanotic skin cancer, which is about twice what you would see in an age-matched cohort in the general population,” Clemens told U.S. Medicine.
 
The researchers evaluated the medical records of patients who enrolled in the Agent Orange registry at the Washington, DC, VAMC from August 2009 to January 2010. The patients ranged in age from 56 to 80 years old, with a mean age of 65.7 years. Only patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV (fair to medium complexions) were included in the study. The results of the study appeared in the February issue of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.2
 
“We compared whether they sprayed fields every day, lived and worked in the area or traversed a field once as part of work and then looked at the incidence by group,” Clemens said. Among the 30% of patients who actively sprayed Agent Orange, the risk of skin cancer was even higher â€" 73%. Of those who lived or worked in areas sprayed with the chemical, 46% had nonmelanotic invasive skin cancer (NMISC). For veterans who reported only traveling through areas exposed to Agent Orange, the rate dropped to 21%.
 
About 43% of patients had chloracne, known to be caused by dioxin exposure. The presence of chloracne increased the rate of NMISC substantially, to 80%. Cutaneous melanoma occurred in 9% of the patients, similar to the 8.8% rate seen in individuals over the age of 65 in the general population. More than one-fourth of the patients (26%) had other malignancies.
 
Men with lighter skin and light eye color also had increased risk. Of the 14 men with Fitzpatrick skin type I, the lightest, 10 (71%) had NMISC. Just under 60% of those with Fitzpatrick skin type II and 45% of those with type III had NMISC, while none of those with skin type IV did. Of the 38 veterans with blue eyes, 66% (25) had NMISC, as did 60% (9) of those with green or hazel eyes. The incidence rate was much lower in veterans with brown eyes, at 36%.
 
“The takeaway from the study is that there may be an association between Agent Orange and development of nonmelanotic skin cancer, but it needs to be studied on a larger scale with thousands of patients. What we’ve observed is very, very suspicious and supports what’s been reported anecdotally,” Clemens noted.
 
Clemens said he and his colleagues are hoping to enroll patients in a larger, prospective study. The researchers pointed out that their study had some significant limitations, such as reliance on recalled TCDD exposure and the absence of a control group of nonexposed Vietnam-era veterans.
 
While research continues, Clemens encouraged physicians to closely monitor veterans with Agent Orange exposure for skin cancers.
 
“Most patients in this group don’t fall under the screening regimen. They may not have a family history of skin cancer; they’re over 65. Even if there isn’t a formal screening recommendation, veterans exposed to Agent Orange should have a physician look them over from head to toe and check any areas where they might have skin cancer,” he suggested.
 
“It’s difficult with just 100 patients to stratify subcohorts to determine who is most or least at risk, but the incidence was clearly higher among individuals with fair skin and light eyes,” Clemens added. “We can say that we really need additional study to determine the relative risk within this group and how we might best help these veterans.”
 
1 National Research Council. Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2012. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014.
2 Clemens MW, Kochuba AL, Carter ME, Han K, Liu J, Evans K. Association between Agent Orange Exposure and Nonmelanotic Invasive Skin Cancer: A Pilot Study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014 Feb;133(2):432-7.
 


 If you understand, Things are just as they are. 
If you do not understand, Things are just as they are.





FRANK VAN HOY
National Service Director
Military Order of the Purple Heart
5413-B Backlick Road, Springfield, VA 22151
O: 703.642.5360




By Annette M. Boyle

HOUSTON — Even four decades later, veterans exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War have twice the risk of developing unusually invasive nonmelanotic skin cancers compared with the general population, according to a recent study.

"We noticed a lot of veterans coming into our clinic had very aggressive squamous and basal cell carcinomas, and it seemed like there was a connection to Agent Orange exposure, but a literature search failed to find any studies that showed an association in humans," said Mark Clemens, MD, assistant professor of plastic surgery, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
Previous studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between 2-, 3-, 7-, 8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD), the highly toxic contaminant in Agent Orange and nonmelanotic invasive skin in animals.

As of 2009, more than 485,000 veterans with Agent Orange exposure had registered with the VA. DoD and the VA recognize and provide benefits for many TCDD exposure-associated diseases, including peripheral neuropathy, amyloidosis, B-cell leukemia, birth defects, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, ischemic heart disease, multiple myeloma, Parkinson's disease, porphyria cutanea tarda, prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, soft-tissue sarcomas and chloracne.-

A U.S. Huey helicopter spraying Agent Orange over Vietnam.

Currently, however, skin cancer is not presumptively associated with Agent Orange exposure. The latest Institute of Medicine update to the Veterans and Agent Orange report concluded that there is "inadequate and insufficient information to determine whether there is an association between exposure to Agent Orange and basal cell or squamous cell cancer."1

That didn't dissuade the M.D. Anderson researchers from further investigation.

"In our clinic, we talked about an association on a daily basis. We wanted to systematically take the first step toward conclusively making that case," Clemens said. "We did a pilot study with 100 consecutive patients and found a surprisingly high rate of 51% of veterans had nonmelanotic skin cancer, which is about twice what you would see in an age-matched cohort in the general population," Clemens told U.S. Medicine.

The researchers evaluated the medical records of patients who enrolled in the Agent Orange registry at the Washington, DC, VAMC from August 2009 to January 2010. The patients ranged in age from 56 to 80 years old, with a mean age of 65.7 years. Only patients with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV (fair to medium complexions) were included in the study. The results of the study appeared in the February issue of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.2

"We compared whether they sprayed fields every day, lived and worked in the area or traversed a field once as part of work and then looked at the incidence by group," Clemens said. Among the 30% of patients who actively sprayed Agent Orange, the risk of skin cancer was even higher — 73%. Of those who lived or worked in areas sprayed with the chemical, 46% had nonmelanotic invasive skin cancer (NMISC). For veterans who reported only traveling through areas exposed to Agent Orange, the rate dropped to 21%.

About 43% of patients had chloracne, known to be caused by dioxin exposure. The presence of chloracne increased the rate of NMISC substantially, to 80%. Cutaneous melanoma occurred in 9% of the patients, similar to the 8.8% rate seen in individuals over the age of 65 in the general population. More than one-fourth of the patients (26%) had other malignancies.

Men with lighter skin and light eye color also had increased risk. Of the 14 men with Fitzpatrick skin type I, the lightest, 10 (71%) had NMISC. Just under 60% of those with Fitzpatrick skin type II and 45% of those with type III had NMISC, while none of those with skin type IV did. Of the 38 veterans with blue eyes, 66% (25) had NMISC, as did 60% (9) of those with green or hazel eyes. The incidence rate was much lower in veterans with brown eyes, at 36%.

"The takeaway from the study is that there may be an association between Agent Orange and development of nonmelanotic skin cancer, but it needs to be studied on a larger scale with thousands of patients. What we've observed is very, very suspicious and supports what's been reported anecdotally," Clemens noted.

Clemens said he and his colleagues are hoping to enroll patients in a larger, prospective study. The researchers pointed out that their study had some significant limitations, such as reliance on recalled TCDD exposure and the absence of a control group of nonexposed Vietnam-era veterans.

While research continues, Clemens encouraged physicians to closely monitor veterans with Agent Orange exposure for skin cancers.

"Most patients in this group don't fall under the screening regimen. They may not have a family history of skin cancer; they're over 65. Even if there isn't a formal screening recommendation, veterans exposed to Agent Orange should have a physician look them over from head to toe and check any areas where they might have skin cancer," he suggested.

"It's difficult with just 100 patients to stratify subcohorts to determine who is most or least at risk, but the incidence was clearly higher among individuals with fair skin and light eyes," Clemens added. "We can say that we really need additional study to determine the relative risk within this group and how we might best help these veterans."



FW: Lawsuit Challenging Parts of the Final VA "Standard Claims and Appeals Form" Rules


 If you understand, Things are just as they are. 
If you do not understand, Things are just as they are.





Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 19:22:03 +0000
To: rserge1@outlook.com
Subject: Fw: Re: Lawsuit Challenging Parts of the Final VA "Standard Claims and Appeals Form" Rules



All,
Hopefully this email will answer many of your questions and alleviate any concerns you may have regarding this lawsuit.
The law firm representing the legal action is Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP ("WilmerHale") through its Washington, DC office. Parties to this legal action include the National Veterans Legal Services Program, The American Legion, AMVETS, The Military Order of the Purple Heart, and Vietnam Veterans of America. WilmerHale is representing this matter on a pro bono basis. 
The proposed challenge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is to two aspects of the rules promulgated by the Office of Veterans Affairs ("VA") on September 24, 2014, which became effective on March 24, 2015: (a) the elimination of the VA's existing "informal claim" process; and (b) the elimination of the VA's duty to infer benefit claims for disabilities when entitlement to service connection for the disabilities is reasonably raised by the evidence of record even though these disabilities are not "related" to the expressly claimed disabilities.
WilmerHale's brief statement of the case is as follows:
               "Background:  On September 25, 2014, the VA published final rules that amend Parts 3, 19, and 20 of 38 C.F.R.  See 79 Fed. Reg. 57660-57698.  These final rules on what VA calls "Standard Claims and Appeals Forms" will become effective on March 24, 2015.   Congress has provided that a lawsuit challenging a VA rule may be filed directly in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  NVLSP and several other veterans service organizations (VSOs) wish to challenge certain parts of these rules (hereinafter the "new rules").
               "Challenge #1:  For decades prior to these new rules, a veteran could begin a claim for benefits in one of two ways: by filing with the VA (a) a written document (like a letter sent by USPS) expressing an intent to file a claim for benefits (called an informal claim) or (b) the application form that VA has for the particular benefit sought (called a formal claim).  The VA would typically send a formal claim form to the veteran who filed an informal claim and give the veteran a year within which to file the formal claim form.  If the claim initially initiated by an informal claim was ultimately granted, the effective date for the award of benefits would usually be the date VA received the informal claim, not the later date of receipt of the formal claim form.
                The new rules eliminate the informal claim.  Under the new rules, an award of benefits can be no earlier than the date the VA receives (a) an electronically submitted formal claim form; (b) a paper formal claim form; (c) a new form called a form indicating an intent to file a claim for benefits; or (d) an oral statement of intent to file a claim, but only if (i) the oral communication is "directed to a VA employee designated to receive such a communication" and (ii) the VA employee documents the date the employee received the oral communication.  This means that if VA receives from a veteran a letter expressing a desire for a particular benefit, receipt of that letter can no longer serve to establish the earliest effective date if the VA ultimately awards the benefit.  The VA will send a formal claim form to a veteran who submits a letter requesting benefits, but the earliest possible effective date will be the date the formal claim form is received by VA.
                The new rules eliminating the informal claim harms low-income and disabled veterans who (a) do not have access to and know how to use a computer (b) are not located near a VA facility that has copies of VA claims forms, and (c) do not have access to a telephone.  For example, a homeless, impoverished, disabled veteran who lives in a rural area is at a significant disadvantage compared to those who can navigate the internet, own a telephone, or live near a VA facility that has VA claims forms.  If that vet sends the VA a letter asking for a particular type of benefit, VA receipt of that letter will have no impact on the effective date.  Even if the homeless vet provides an address of a friend to which the VA could send a claims form, it may take months for the VA to respond by sending a claims form and for the homeless vet to file the form that will serve to establish the earliest possible effective date.
     NVLSP and the other VSOs wish to challenge the elimination of an informal claim that serves to set the earliest effective date as inconsistent with VA's statutory authority and a violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.
      "Challenge #2: Congress, the courts, and the VA have all long agreed that the VA claims adjudication process is intended to be non-adversarial and pro-claimant and that the VA has a duty to assist a veteran-claimant obtain the evidence necessary to substantiate the claim.  The VA has long taken the position when it considers a veteran's claim for a particular service connected disability (disability X), and the record reveals that the veteran is entitled to service-connected disability benefits for a different disability (disability Y), the VA has a duty to adjudicate the veteran's entitlement to service connection for disability Y, even though the veteran never requested benefits for disability Y.  Thus, if a Vietnam veteran files a claim for service connection for PTSD and the record reveals that the veteran suffers from type 2 diabetes, the VA would have an obligation when adjudicating the PTSD claim to also adjudicate entitlement to service connection for type 2 diabetes since VA regulations provide that a Vietnam veterans who manifests type 2 diabetes is entitled to service connected disability benefits for type 2 diabetes.
     In VA's commentary to the final rules, VA stated regarding the scope of a claim filed pursuant to the new rules that VA will continue to "infer or identify and award certain benefits that a claimant has not expressly requested but that are related to a claimed condition and there is evidence of record indicating entitlement."  79 Fed. Reg. 57692.  However, VA stated that "entirely separate conditions never identified on a standard claim form generally will not be the subject of claims that are reasonable raised by the evidence of record."  Id.  Thus, VA in effect takes the position that in the above example, it is not obligated to adjudicate whether the veteran is entitled to service connected disability benefits for type 2 diabetes because the veteran never filed a claim for benefit for type 2 diabetes and type 2 diabetes is unrelated to PTSD.
     NVLSP and the other VSOs wish to challenge VA's elimination in the new rules of VA's duty to infer benefit claims for disabilities when entitlement to service connection for the disabilities is  reasonably raised by the evidence of record even though these disabilities are not "related" to the expressly claimed disabilities."
This action in no way affects the VA's Fully Developed Claim (FDC) process - "Quick Claim Procedure". The FDC is separate and distinct. MOPH is NOT advocating modification/elimination of the FDC process. MOPH is, in fact, a strong advocate of the FDC process.
If there are further questions/comments, please contact me.
Yours in Patriotism,
FRANK VAN HOY
National Service Director
Military Order of the Purple Heart
5413-B Backlick Road, Springfield, VA 22151
O: 703.642.5360


____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
classmates.com