Author Topic: Agent Orange and AN  (Read 1983 times)

clm714

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Agent Orange and AN
« on: July 10, 2011, 05:47:29 pm »
Is there any one who has had an AN that was exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam?  We are talking with VA about a possible connection for my husband.  I would appreciate any response if you were.  Thanks, clm714

Jim Scott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7337
  • To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2011, 10:47:11 pm »
To the best of my knowledge, the actual cause of acoustic neuroma development is unknown at this time.  I'm also unaware of any scientifically proven link between exposure to Agent Orange and acoustic neuroma development.  However, I'm not a doctor or scientist and I could be mistaken.  I wish your husband success in pursuing his claim. 

Jim
4.5 cm AN diagnosed 5/06.  Retrosigmoid surgery 6/06.  Follow-up FSR completed 10/06.  Tumor shrinkage & necrosis noted on last MRI.  Life is good. 

Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is.  The way we cope with it is what makes the difference.

ppearl214

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7500
  • ANA Forum Policewoman - PBW Cursed Cruise Director
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #2 on: July 11, 2011, 04:02:11 am »
Jim is absolutely correct as there are no known causes of AN's at this time.  There will be research going on, announced at this summer's ANA symposium, trying to understand the genetics of AN's, which was shared with us by Dr. Elizabeth Claus from Yale University/Brigham and Woman's Hospital (Boston).  This will be a 5-yr study and has yet to begin.  Many of us anxiously await its outcome as many of us have questioned over the years as to "how the heck did I develop this thing in our head?".

Best wishes to you both.
Phyl
1cm x 7mm x 4mm, left IAC AN, w/Chiari I Malform., Cyberknife - Beth Israel/Boston, April, 2006
May 10: Per Dr's, "it's a "Done Deal", Hearing same as pre-treatment

"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness", Capt Jack Sparrow - Davy Jones Locker, "Pirates of the Carribbean - At World's End"

nomadin

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2013, 09:10:27 am »
 I am a Vietnam vet and registered with the VA for Agent Orange. I was diagnosed within 2 years of my discharge. It is interesting to me to find other vets with the same problem. I was told there was no connection to AN and agent Orange. It would be good to find out if there are other vets with AR so we could petition for a  reconsideration.  I wish you the besyt and please let me know if I can help

arizonajack

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 761
  • DON'T BLINK!
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2013, 11:36:53 am »
Aren't you Viet Nam vets eligible for VA health care benefits?

I signed up in 2011. I have no service connected health issues so I pay small co-pays but the VA covered my Gamma Knife procedure last month.

12/2011 SSD right ear, imbalance, tinnitus, dry eyes.

4/2012 DX AN 3mm x 4mm x 9mm.

10/2012 4mm x 4mm x 12 mm.

1/2013 GK.

GK story at:

http://www.anausa.org/smf/index.php?topic=18287.0

mikechinnock

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 38
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2013, 09:09:24 pm »
The only recognized cause of an AN is ionizing radiation. I was contaminated in service with a hot acidic solution of radioisotopes that resulted in 'Limited direct absorption' in my body of a full spectrum of alpha, beta and gamma emitters. The VA denied AN caused by ionizing radiation exposure. I seriously doubt VA will recognize AO as cause. Good luck if you choose to proceed, but be prepared to spend lots of time and money.
In the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

TJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 279
  • 1.2 cm AN right side, CK November 2010
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2013, 09:11:20 pm »
I just went the the process of signing up and yes if you are a Viet Nam vet, you automatically are accepted for health benefits.  I was told to apply for disability because of agent orange.  When I talked with the VA, they only except 14 very defined illnesses for agent orange.  If you don't have one of the 14 you can not claim agent orange caused it.

You can find the list of the 14 on the web by doing a search on VA and agent orange.

TJ

nftwoed

  • Guest
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #7 on: March 08, 2013, 11:03:23 am »
Hi;  For an AN to develop, brain protein "Merlin" ( schwannomin ) must be temporarily interrupted. The protein is a schwannoma cell overproduction inhibitor. I don't know what causes Merlin to temporarily be absent or insufficient. Neither do researchers. The VA? "Pph" ... One might think $ help is coming straight from politicians pockets!

annamaria

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 89
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2013, 07:29:42 pm »
Something from the 2010s versus the 1960s... (cell phones and cordless phones -- not info from Apple or AT&T!!)

An OR=1.81 (see below) is high!

Annamaria

= = = = =

Pathophysiology. 2012 Dec 20. pii: S0928-4680(12)00110-1. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.11.001. [Epub ahead of print]

Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K.


Source

Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Örebro, Sweden. Electronic address: lennart.hardell@orebroll.se.


Abstract


The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at WHO evaluation of the carcinogenic effect of RF-EMF on humans took place during a 24-31 May 2011 meeting at Lyon in France. The Working Group consisted of 30 scientists and categorised the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phones, and from other devices that emit similar non-ionising electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), as Group 2B, i.e., a 'possible', human carcinogen. The decision on mobile phones was based mainly on the Hardell group of studies from Sweden and the IARC Interphone study.

We give an overview of current epidemiological evidence for an increased risk for brain tumours including a meta-analysis of the Hardell group and Interphone results for mobile phone use.

Results for cordless phones are lacking in Interphone. The meta-analysis gave for glioma in the most exposed part of the brain, the temporal lobe, odds ratio (OR)=1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-2.81 in the ≥10 years (>10 years in the Hardell group) latency group. Ipsilateral mobile phone use ≥1640h in total gave OR=2.29, 95% CI=1.56-3.37.

The results for meningioma were OR=1.25, 95% CI=0.31-4.98 and OR=1.35, 95% CI=0.81-2.23, respectively.

Regarding acoustic neuroma ipsilateral mobile phone use in the latency group ≥10 years gave OR=1.81, 95% CI=0.73-4.45. For ipsilateral cumulative use ≥1640h OR=2.55, 95% CI=1.50-4.40 was obtained.

Also use of cordless phones increased the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma in the Hardell group studies. Survival of patients with glioma was analysed in the Hardell group studies yielding in the >10 years latency period hazard ratio (HR)=1.2, 95% CI=1.002-1.5 for use of wireless phones. This increased HR was based on results for astrocytoma WHO grade IV (glioblastoma multiforme). Decreased HR was found for low-grade astrocytoma, WHO grades I-II, which might be caused by RF-EMF exposure leading to tumour-associated symptoms and earlier detection and surgery with better prognosis. Some studies show increasing incidence of brain tumours whereas other studies do not.

It is concluded that one should be careful using incidence data to dismiss results in analytical epidemiology!!

The IARC carcinogenic classification does not seem to have had any significant impact on governments' perceptions of their responsibilities to protect public health from this widespread source of radiation!!

Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Jim Scott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7337
  • To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2013, 05:07:57 pm »
Something from the 2010s versus the 1960s... (cell phones and cordless phones -- not info from Apple or AT&T!!)

An OR=1.81 (see below) is high!

Annamaria

= = = = =

Pathophysiology. 2012 Dec 20. pii: S0928-4680(12)00110-1. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2012.11.001. [Epub ahead of print]

Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K.


Source

Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Örebro, Sweden. Electronic address: lennart.hardell@orebroll.se.


Abstract


The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at WHO evaluation of the carcinogenic effect of RF-EMF on humans took place during a 24-31 May 2011 meeting at Lyon in France. The Working Group consisted of 30 scientists and categorised the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phones, and from other devices that emit similar non-ionising electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), as Group 2B, i.e., a 'possible', human carcinogen. The decision on mobile phones was based mainly on the Hardell group of studies from Sweden and the IARC Interphone study.

We give an overview of current epidemiological evidence for an increased risk for brain tumours including a meta-analysis of the Hardell group and Interphone results for mobile phone use.

Results for cordless phones are lacking in Interphone. The meta-analysis gave for glioma in the most exposed part of the brain, the temporal lobe, odds ratio (OR)=1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-2.81 in the ≥10 years (>10 years in the Hardell group) latency group. Ipsilateral mobile phone use ≥1640h in total gave OR=2.29, 95% CI=1.56-3.37.

The results for meningioma were OR=1.25, 95% CI=0.31-4.98 and OR=1.35, 95% CI=0.81-2.23, respectively.

Regarding acoustic neuroma ipsilateral mobile phone use in the latency group ≥10 years gave OR=1.81, 95% CI=0.73-4.45. For ipsilateral cumulative use ≥1640h OR=2.55, 95% CI=1.50-4.40 was obtained.

Also use of cordless phones increased the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma in the Hardell group studies. Survival of patients with glioma was analysed in the Hardell group studies yielding in the >10 years latency period hazard ratio (HR)=1.2, 95% CI=1.002-1.5 for use of wireless phones. This increased HR was based on results for astrocytoma WHO grade IV (glioblastoma multiforme). Decreased HR was found for low-grade astrocytoma, WHO grades I-II, which might be caused by RF-EMF exposure leading to tumour-associated symptoms and earlier detection and surgery with better prognosis. Some studies show increasing incidence of brain tumours whereas other studies do not.

It is concluded that one should be careful using incidence data to dismiss results in analytical epidemiology!!

The IARC carcinogenic classification does not seem to have had any significant impact on governments' perceptions of their responsibilities to protect public health from this widespread source of radiation!!

Annamaria ~

Over the years, the 'cell phones cause AN' premise has been discussed numerous times on these forums.  Because acoustic neuromas were first discovered over a century ago and many AN patients in modern times never used a cell phone. the supposed link between cell phones and acoustic neuromas appears tenuous, at best.  Added to that basis for skepticism is the fact that despite scientific studies, statistics can and often are manipulated by those who desire a specific outcome.  The phrase 'garbage in, garbage out' applies to all studies that reach a conclusion not easily verified. The CDC, FDA, FCC and the American Cancer Society have, in effect, stated that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.

However, for those who are convinced, for whatever reason, that their cell phone 'caused' their AN to develop, they are certainly entitled to believe that, discard their cell phone and make their opinion know to all who care to listen.  Those who accept that point of view are, of course, free to do so.  Others are equally free to reject it.  Until more long range empirical evidence is presented by a wide variety of scientists and doctors proving that the regular use of a cell phone is a causal link to developing an acoustic neuroma, some of us will withhold making a judgement on this issue and continue to use a cell phone.

As for the government 'protecting' citizens from allegedly harmful cell phone radiation that is not substantially proven to exist and is subject to a host of variables e.g. type of phone, extent of usage, etc., I am not at all concerned.  Our U.S. government already intrudes far too much on the decisions and choices of its citizens.  We don't need more government interference that is always presented as, 'for our own good', of course.  This condescending attitude by politicians and government bureaucrats assumes that ordinary citizens like us are somehow mentally incapable of making sound choices, as in whether to cease using a cell phone - or not - based on often skewed and/or ambiguous evidence.  While this debate churns on and people who are interested take sides, most of us will quietly make our own choices whether to use or not use a cell phone, without the heavy hand of government imposing a decision on us. 

In time, should more conclusive scientific evidence come to light that proves a distinct connection between cell phone use and the development of an acoustic neuroma or any other brain tumor, most people will rapidly abandon using a cell phone while cell phone companies will scramble to find a way to protect users of their product and government will, quite likely, ban the use of cell phones unless they can be proven not to emit the weak radio waves that are currently accused of 'causing' cancer, ANs and other unpleasant things.     

Jim
4.5 cm AN diagnosed 5/06.  Retrosigmoid surgery 6/06.  Follow-up FSR completed 10/06.  Tumor shrinkage & necrosis noted on last MRI.  Life is good. 

Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is.  The way we cope with it is what makes the difference.

ARCW2RVN70

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #10 on: March 16, 2013, 06:15:18 am »
I was Army pilot in Southern I-Corp, Chu Lai, Duc Pho, in 1970-71. Flew 5-10 Agent Orange spray missions.

Had AN surgery 5 1/2 years ago for good sized AN. Went well, lost rt sided hearing and balance nerve. And facial trigeminal weakness now on right side.

Thought I would approach VA for help with hearing aid, specifically my $4K BAHA, and maybe left regular, and was blown off as being "Category 8".  To much income.

Purple Heart, two Air Medals (one with V), Bronze Star be damned. I never asked for anything from VA before.

The VA is means testing since 2009, and assistance is no longer all that easy it appears. Looks like they will fight tooth and nail to avoid liability.

Further, found official AN claim for AO to VA in 2003 which they blew off. Said no connection.

suprahome

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Agent Orange and AN
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2013, 10:01:13 am »
I was pilot viet nam and developed AN 13 years later surgical removal filed with VA turned down, since then have skin melanoma still VA says no guess we wait until we see what kills me then VA will not have any liability anyway, but feel there might be some connection with agent orange

 


anything