The Government Accountability Office (GAO) will release an investigative report, requested by Feingold and other members of Congress, which reveals the Armed Services are not complying with federal legislation aimed at preventing the exposure of troops to harmful emissions resulting from the burning of mass amounts of trash on bases throughout the Middle East.
GAO report is available here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-63.
Full Article at: FEINGOLD-REQUESTED STUDY REVEALS U.S. TROOPS EXPOSED TO TOXINS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
PoliticalNews.me - Oct 18,2010 - "Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Russ Feingold is calling on the Defense Department to protect U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from harmful emissions from burn pits. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) will release an investigative report, requested by Feingold and other members of Congress, which reveals the Armed Services are not complying with federal legislation aimed at preventing the exposure of troops to harmful emissions resulting from the burning of mass amounts of trash on bases throughout the Middle East. The GAO report indicates that the Armed Forces cannot rule out the possibility of long-term health implications for the nearly two million troops that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“I am deeply troubled to learn that the Defense Department has not taken simple steps, such as segregating plastics, to ensure that our troops are not exposed to harmful emissions,” Feingold said. “The Defense Department’s slow reaction has exposed another generation of veterans to the exact same carcinogens found in Agent Orange. I am pleased that the VA has acknowledged the dangers posed by these harmful practices and has taken steps to ensure that veterans who become ill as a result get the care and compensation they need. And while the Defense Department is right to close the pits in Iraq, it must do more to restrict their use in Afghanistan.”
Feingold first heard of this issue in 2008 when he was contacted by a Wisconsinite who served in Iraq and was exposed to potentially hazardous fumes created by the burning of mass amounts of trash on a U.S. base in Iraq. Feingold has led efforts to ensure the Defense Department addresses the issue and worked to pass legislation last year restricting the burning of harmful materials. The military has since issued regulations prohibiting the burning of harmful substances in burn pits and committed to closing major pits in Iraq. In addition, the VA has issued regulations to help ensure that any veterans who become ill as a result of exposure to the fumes receive care and compensation.
The report from the Government Accountability Office found that none of the bases inspected were in compliance with federal legislation, in part due to disputes with contractors. Incinerators that could have prevented the emission of harmful fumes were not installed at bases in Iraq for approximately 5 years due to disputes with contractors."
A copy of the GAO report is available here: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-63.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
New Research May be Beneficial in Erasing PTSD Memories
Researchers discover how to erase memory
November 1, 2010
(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers working with mice have discovered that by removing a protein from the region of the brain responsible for recalling fear, they can permanently delete traumatic memories. Their report on a molecular means of erasing fear memories in rodents appears this week in Science Express.
“When a traumatic event occurs, it creates a fearful memory that can last a lifetime and have a debilitating effect on a person’s life,” says Richard L. Huganir, Ph.D., professor and director of neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. “Our finding describing these molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in that process raises the possibility of manipulating those mechanisms with drugs to enhance behavioral therapy for such conditions as post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Behavioral therapy built around “extinction training” in animal models has proven helpful in easing the depth of the emotional response to traumatic memories, but not in completely removing the memory itself, making relapse common.
Huganir and postdoctoral fellow Roger Clem focused on the nerve circuits in the amygdala, the part of the brain known to underly so-called fear conditioning in people and animals. Using sound to cue fear in mice, they observed that certain cells in the amygdala conducted more current after the mouse was exposed to a loud, sudden tone.
In hopes of understanding the molecular underpinnings of fear memory formation, the team further examined the proteins in the nerve cells of the amygdala before and after exposure to the loud tone. They found temporary increases in the amount of particular proteins — the calcium-permeable AMPARs — within a few hours of fear conditioning that peaked at 24 hours and disappeared 48 hours later.
Because these particular proteins are uniquely unstable and can be removed from nerve cells, the scientists proposed that they might permanently remove fear by combining behavior therapy and protein removal and provide a window of opportunity for treatment. “The idea was to remove these proteins and weaken the connections in the brain created by the trauma, thereby erasing the memory itself,” says Huganir.
In further experiments, they found that removal of these proteins depends on the chemical modification of the GluA1 protein. Mice lacking this chemical modification of GluA1 recovered fear memories induced by loud tones, whereas littermates that still had normal GluA1 protein did not recover the same fear memories. Huganir suggests that drugs designed to control and enhance the removal of calcium-permeable AMPARs may be used to improve memory erasure.
“This may sound like science fiction, the ability to selectively erase memories,” says Huganir. “But this may one day be applicable for the treatment of debilitating fearful memories in people, such as post-traumatic stress syndrome associated with war, rape or other traumatic events.”
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
More information: Publication: Science, "Calcium-Permeable AMPA Receptor Dynamics Mediate Fear Memory Erasure," by R.L. Clem; R.L. Huganir at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Baltimore, MD; R.L. Clem; R.L. Huganir at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, MD. http://www.science … s/recent.dtl
Provided by Johns Hopkins University
November 1, 2010
(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers working with mice have discovered that by removing a protein from the region of the brain responsible for recalling fear, they can permanently delete traumatic memories. Their report on a molecular means of erasing fear memories in rodents appears this week in Science Express.
“When a traumatic event occurs, it creates a fearful memory that can last a lifetime and have a debilitating effect on a person’s life,” says Richard L. Huganir, Ph.D., professor and director of neuroscience at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator. “Our finding describing these molecular and cellular mechanisms involved in that process raises the possibility of manipulating those mechanisms with drugs to enhance behavioral therapy for such conditions as post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Behavioral therapy built around “extinction training” in animal models has proven helpful in easing the depth of the emotional response to traumatic memories, but not in completely removing the memory itself, making relapse common.
Huganir and postdoctoral fellow Roger Clem focused on the nerve circuits in the amygdala, the part of the brain known to underly so-called fear conditioning in people and animals. Using sound to cue fear in mice, they observed that certain cells in the amygdala conducted more current after the mouse was exposed to a loud, sudden tone.
In hopes of understanding the molecular underpinnings of fear memory formation, the team further examined the proteins in the nerve cells of the amygdala before and after exposure to the loud tone. They found temporary increases in the amount of particular proteins — the calcium-permeable AMPARs — within a few hours of fear conditioning that peaked at 24 hours and disappeared 48 hours later.
Because these particular proteins are uniquely unstable and can be removed from nerve cells, the scientists proposed that they might permanently remove fear by combining behavior therapy and protein removal and provide a window of opportunity for treatment. “The idea was to remove these proteins and weaken the connections in the brain created by the trauma, thereby erasing the memory itself,” says Huganir.
In further experiments, they found that removal of these proteins depends on the chemical modification of the GluA1 protein. Mice lacking this chemical modification of GluA1 recovered fear memories induced by loud tones, whereas littermates that still had normal GluA1 protein did not recover the same fear memories. Huganir suggests that drugs designed to control and enhance the removal of calcium-permeable AMPARs may be used to improve memory erasure.
“This may sound like science fiction, the ability to selectively erase memories,” says Huganir. “But this may one day be applicable for the treatment of debilitating fearful memories in people, such as post-traumatic stress syndrome associated with war, rape or other traumatic events.”
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
More information: Publication: Science, "Calcium-Permeable AMPA Receptor Dynamics Mediate Fear Memory Erasure," by R.L. Clem; R.L. Huganir at Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Baltimore, MD; R.L. Clem; R.L. Huganir at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, MD. http://www.science … s/recent.dtl
Provided by Johns Hopkins University
New Hepatitis C Treatment, Telaprevir, Confirmed by Cornell Study
Hepatitis C study shows superior viral cure rate
November 2, 2010
For patients with the most common form of hepatitis C being treated for the first time, the addition of an investigational hepatitis C–specific protease inhibitor called telaprevir to the current standard therapy markedly improved their sustained viral response (SVR or viral cure) rate.
The lead investigator reporting the results of the ADVANCE trial is Dr. Ira M. Jacobson, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, and the Vincent Astor Distinguished Professor of Medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College. Dr. Jacobson presented these pivotal Phase III results today at the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases in Boston.
Dr. Jacobson noted that 75 percent of patients treated with a telaprevir-based combination regimen for 12 weeks, followed by 12 or 36 weeks of the standard therapy of pegylated-interferon alfa-2a and ribavirin alone, achieved a viral cure. This compared to 44 percent of people treated with 48 weeks of pegylated-interferon and ribavirin alone. In addition, new data from the study showed that 62 percent of African-Americans achieved a viral cure with the telaprevir-based regimen compared to 25 percent of African-Americans who were treated with pegylated-interferon and ribavirin alone. Additionally, 62 percent of patients with advanced liver fibrosis (cirrhosis or scarring of the liver) achieved a viral cure with the telaprevir regimen compared to 33 percent who were treated with pegylated-interferon and ribavirin alone.
"These groundbreaking data, showing sustained viral response in 75 percent of patients who received 12 weeks of telaprevir combination therapy, highlight telaprevir as a potential new therapy that, if approved by the FDA, could dramatically improve the future treatment of hepatitis C," says Dr. Jacobson, who is also a hepatologist and Medical Director the Center for the Study of Hepatitis C at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. "In contrast to the standard treatment time of 48 weeks, the majority of patients who achieved sustained viral response in the ADVANCE study received only 24 weeks of total therapy."
The results confirm the findings of the U.S. phase 2 PROVE1 study, which was co-authored by Dr. Jacobson, and the European PROVE2 study; both studies were published in the April 30, 2009 New England Journal of Medicine. Overall rates of discontinuation for side effects were lower in ADVANCE than in the earlier studies.
Provided by New York- Presbyterian Hospital
November 2, 2010
For patients with the most common form of hepatitis C being treated for the first time, the addition of an investigational hepatitis C–specific protease inhibitor called telaprevir to the current standard therapy markedly improved their sustained viral response (SVR or viral cure) rate.
The lead investigator reporting the results of the ADVANCE trial is Dr. Ira M. Jacobson, chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, and the Vincent Astor Distinguished Professor of Medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College. Dr. Jacobson presented these pivotal Phase III results today at the 61st Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases in Boston.
Dr. Jacobson noted that 75 percent of patients treated with a telaprevir-based combination regimen for 12 weeks, followed by 12 or 36 weeks of the standard therapy of pegylated-interferon alfa-2a and ribavirin alone, achieved a viral cure. This compared to 44 percent of people treated with 48 weeks of pegylated-interferon and ribavirin alone. In addition, new data from the study showed that 62 percent of African-Americans achieved a viral cure with the telaprevir-based regimen compared to 25 percent of African-Americans who were treated with pegylated-interferon and ribavirin alone. Additionally, 62 percent of patients with advanced liver fibrosis (cirrhosis or scarring of the liver) achieved a viral cure with the telaprevir regimen compared to 33 percent who were treated with pegylated-interferon and ribavirin alone.
"These groundbreaking data, showing sustained viral response in 75 percent of patients who received 12 weeks of telaprevir combination therapy, highlight telaprevir as a potential new therapy that, if approved by the FDA, could dramatically improve the future treatment of hepatitis C," says Dr. Jacobson, who is also a hepatologist and Medical Director the Center for the Study of Hepatitis C at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center. "In contrast to the standard treatment time of 48 weeks, the majority of patients who achieved sustained viral response in the ADVANCE study received only 24 weeks of total therapy."
The results confirm the findings of the U.S. phase 2 PROVE1 study, which was co-authored by Dr. Jacobson, and the European PROVE2 study; both studies were published in the April 30, 2009 New England Journal of Medicine. Overall rates of discontinuation for side effects were lower in ADVANCE than in the earlier studies.
Provided by New York- Presbyterian Hospital
VA's Duty to Obtain Records, Application of Golz v. Shinseki by Veterans Court
We recently linked to the PVA SOAR publication which included an article on the top reasons for remand at the Veterans Court and listed 13 general items, here we are looking at two recent opinions regarding relevant VA's duty to obtain records from SSA and private medical records.
Reasons for Remand
Top reasons the Veterans Court remands cases to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals are for
1. VA medical examinations;
2. VA social/industrial surveys;
3. resolution or clarification of
diagnoses;
4. VA field examinations;
5. VA records;
6. military records;
7. private medical records;
8. Social Security records;
9. consideration and application of
additional laws and regulations;
10. consideration of a claim under a
new law or regulation;
11. consideration of the claim under
new court precedent;
12. BVA to provide better statements
of reasons or bases; and
13. VA to adequately address the
credibility of the evidence.
Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Dudley v. Shinseki, NO. 09-3407, October 2010
Before LANCE, Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
"In Golz v. Shinseki, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that VA is not required to obtain disability records from the Social Security Administration (SSA), a federal agency, if VA determines, without review of
the actual records, that there is no reasonable possibility that such records
are relevant to the veteran's claim for VA disability compensation. 590 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The Federal Circuit held that VA is only obligated to obtain SSA records when they "relate to the injury for which the claimant is seeking benefits and have a reasonable possibility of helping to substantiate the veteran's claim." Id. at 1321. Here, the appellant seeks records from the Railroad Retirement Board. Appellant's Br. at 8. The appellant's husband worked for the Norfolk & Western Railroad. R. at 86. While the appellant points to an examination report the veteran received in 1993, five years after retirement (R. at 47, 237), where the veteran stated he retired from working for the railroad due to "a back condition, arthritis, nervous problems, a 'nervous stomach,' and varicose veins" (R. at 212), multiple other medical reports (R. at 47, 48, 237) and the appellant's own testimony (R. at 87) state that the veteran received disability retirement as a result only of an injury to his back.
There are also 15 different private medical progress reports from the 1980's, prior to the veteran's retirement, that concern whether the veteran's back injury prevented him from working. R. at 584-98.
None of these 15 contemporaneous medical progress reports mention a psychiatric condition. Id. The appellant has made no specific allegation that any records from the Railroad Retirement Board addressed the veteran's mental health. R. at 8-9. Rather, the appellant has stated generally that information in records could bolster her claim. Id. Accordingly, the available evidence illustrates that it is very unlikely that there are railroad retirement records that relate to a psychiatric disability, which is the injury for which the appellant is seeking benefits. Thus, the available information shows that these
records do not have a reasonable possibility of substantiating the appellant's claim and, therefore, VA's duty to assist does not require it to make efforts to obtain the railroad retirement records. Golz, 590 F.3d at 1323.
Even if the Board erred in finding that the Secretary was not required to obtain records from the Railroad Retirement Board, given that the records concern retirement due to a back injury and are, thus, not relevant to the legal issue at hand, a psychiatric condition, the appellant has failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that any such error has likely prejudiced her claim. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S. Ct. 1696, 1706 (2009) (noting that"the burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency's determination."); see also Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 526 (1995) (noting that VA need not "'search for evidence which, even if obtained, would make no difference in the result.'" (quoting Gobber v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 470, 472 (1992))); Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 174 (1991). Accordingly, the Court holds that the Board did not commit prejudicial error in finding that the Secretary had fulfilled his duty to assist."
Hicks v. Shinseki, NO. 08-2872, Oct 2010
Before MOORMAN, Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
"The appellant argues that VA failed in its duty to assist by not acquiring service personnel records associated with his claim. App. Br. at 6-10. Specifically, the appellant asserts that these records are relevant because they "would have conclusively shown whether [he] filed a claim for compensation at separation or shortly thereafter, or whether he specifically declined to do so." Appellant's Br. at 7. The Secretary responds that VA did not need to obtain those records to satisfy its duty to assist because the records are not relevant as shown by the appellant's own assertion that he did not file a claim for compensation until 2002. Secretary's Br. at 5-8.
VA's duty to assist includes making "reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1). VA is not required to assist a claimant in obtaining identified records "if no reasonable possibility exists
that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(2); see Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010). "The duty to assist is not boundless in its scope" and "not all medical records or all SSA [(Social Security Administration)] disability records must be sought–only those that are relevant to the veteran's claim." Id. at 1320 (emphasis added).
"Relevant records for the purpose of [section] 5103A are those records that relate to the injury for which the claimant is seeking benefits and have a reasonable possibility of helping to substantiate the veteran's claim." Id. At 1321; see, e.g., Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that "VA is statutorily required to obtain all of the veteran's relevant service medical records, not simply those which it can most conveniently locate"); McGee v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that the veteran's service personnel records at issue "would likely contain documentary evidence that may show whether McGee filed a claim for benefits prior to discharge" after the Board denied entitlement to an earlier effective date because the record did not contain any evidence of a previously filed claim).
The appellant argues that his service medical records are relevant because they would have shown whether or not the Air Force complied with 10 U.S.C. § 1218 prior to his discharge. Appellant's Br. at 5-7 (citing McGee, 511 F.3d 1352)."
Reasons for Remand
Top reasons the Veterans Court remands cases to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals are for
1. VA medical examinations;
2. VA social/industrial surveys;
3. resolution or clarification of
diagnoses;
4. VA field examinations;
5. VA records;
6. military records;
7. private medical records;
8. Social Security records;
9. consideration and application of
additional laws and regulations;
10. consideration of a claim under a
new law or regulation;
11. consideration of the claim under
new court precedent;
12. BVA to provide better statements
of reasons or bases; and
13. VA to adequately address the
credibility of the evidence.
Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d (Fed. Cir. 2010)
Dudley v. Shinseki, NO. 09-3407, October 2010
Before LANCE, Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
"In Golz v. Shinseki, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that VA is not required to obtain disability records from the Social Security Administration (SSA), a federal agency, if VA determines, without review of
the actual records, that there is no reasonable possibility that such records
are relevant to the veteran's claim for VA disability compensation. 590 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The Federal Circuit held that VA is only obligated to obtain SSA records when they "relate to the injury for which the claimant is seeking benefits and have a reasonable possibility of helping to substantiate the veteran's claim." Id. at 1321. Here, the appellant seeks records from the Railroad Retirement Board. Appellant's Br. at 8. The appellant's husband worked for the Norfolk & Western Railroad. R. at 86. While the appellant points to an examination report the veteran received in 1993, five years after retirement (R. at 47, 237), where the veteran stated he retired from working for the railroad due to "a back condition, arthritis, nervous problems, a 'nervous stomach,' and varicose veins" (R. at 212), multiple other medical reports (R. at 47, 48, 237) and the appellant's own testimony (R. at 87) state that the veteran received disability retirement as a result only of an injury to his back.
There are also 15 different private medical progress reports from the 1980's, prior to the veteran's retirement, that concern whether the veteran's back injury prevented him from working. R. at 584-98.
None of these 15 contemporaneous medical progress reports mention a psychiatric condition. Id. The appellant has made no specific allegation that any records from the Railroad Retirement Board addressed the veteran's mental health. R. at 8-9. Rather, the appellant has stated generally that information in records could bolster her claim. Id. Accordingly, the available evidence illustrates that it is very unlikely that there are railroad retirement records that relate to a psychiatric disability, which is the injury for which the appellant is seeking benefits. Thus, the available information shows that these
records do not have a reasonable possibility of substantiating the appellant's claim and, therefore, VA's duty to assist does not require it to make efforts to obtain the railroad retirement records. Golz, 590 F.3d at 1323.
Even if the Board erred in finding that the Secretary was not required to obtain records from the Railroad Retirement Board, given that the records concern retirement due to a back injury and are, thus, not relevant to the legal issue at hand, a psychiatric condition, the appellant has failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that any such error has likely prejudiced her claim. See Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S. Ct. 1696, 1706 (2009) (noting that"the burden of showing that an error is harmful normally falls upon the party attacking the agency's determination."); see also Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 526 (1995) (noting that VA need not "'search for evidence which, even if obtained, would make no difference in the result.'" (quoting Gobber v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 470, 472 (1992))); Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171, 174 (1991). Accordingly, the Court holds that the Board did not commit prejudicial error in finding that the Secretary had fulfilled his duty to assist."
Hicks v. Shinseki, NO. 08-2872, Oct 2010
Before MOORMAN, Judge.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
"The appellant argues that VA failed in its duty to assist by not acquiring service personnel records associated with his claim. App. Br. at 6-10. Specifically, the appellant asserts that these records are relevant because they "would have conclusively shown whether [he] filed a claim for compensation at separation or shortly thereafter, or whether he specifically declined to do so." Appellant's Br. at 7. The Secretary responds that VA did not need to obtain those records to satisfy its duty to assist because the records are not relevant as shown by the appellant's own assertion that he did not file a claim for compensation until 2002. Secretary's Br. at 5-8.
VA's duty to assist includes making "reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(1). VA is not required to assist a claimant in obtaining identified records "if no reasonable possibility exists
that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(2); see Golz v. Shinseki, 590 F.3d 1317, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2010). "The duty to assist is not boundless in its scope" and "not all medical records or all SSA [(Social Security Administration)] disability records must be sought–only those that are relevant to the veteran's claim." Id. at 1320 (emphasis added).
"Relevant records for the purpose of [section] 5103A are those records that relate to the injury for which the claimant is seeking benefits and have a reasonable possibility of helping to substantiate the veteran's claim." Id. At 1321; see, e.g., Moore v. Shinseki, 555 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (stating that "VA is statutorily required to obtain all of the veteran's relevant service medical records, not simply those which it can most conveniently locate"); McGee v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that the veteran's service personnel records at issue "would likely contain documentary evidence that may show whether McGee filed a claim for benefits prior to discharge" after the Board denied entitlement to an earlier effective date because the record did not contain any evidence of a previously filed claim).
The appellant argues that his service medical records are relevant because they would have shown whether or not the Air Force complied with 10 U.S.C. § 1218 prior to his discharge. Appellant's Br. at 5-7 (citing McGee, 511 F.3d 1352)."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)