RE: A Reporter Questions Rokke

[Tuttle, "William K." <"William K.">]

I trust the remark "I would like to see someone from the VA or DOD or

somewhere that has access to his personal records challenge him" was tongue

in cheek.  Merely looking at personal medical records for unofficial reasons

can get you fired at the VA (I know of a case where this is true).  I

suspect making this (personal medical information) public would subject you

to a big lawsuit.

 

In my opinion, comments like this, even if in jest, are not appropriate.

 

My opinion only, not the government, not the VA.



-----Original Message-----

From: BobCherry@AOL.COM [mailto:BobCherry@AOL.COM]

Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:10 PM

To: stanford@stanforddosimetry.com

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: A Reporter Questions Rokke





In a message dated 7/14/2003 3:09:19 PM Central Daylight Time,

stanford@stanforddosimetry.com writes:







I don't know, Bob.  He starts spouting his diatribe and if you don't know,

it sounds scary.  She asked the good questions, but he is a master at the

bob and weave and she didn't have the follow-ups.  I would like to see

someone from the VA or DOD or somewhere that has access to his personal

records challenge him. "Absolute fact" that the has rashes, radiation

cataracts, neurological disorders, all due to DU?







Neill,



I guess what pleased me was that she asked him some of the questions that I

had suggested. Someone must have passed them to her. As you point out, she

had no followup questions, though. It appeared that she did not have the

background to pursue his obviously foggy replies.



Government and military folks have a few disadvantages when dealing with

folks like Rokke. For example, I have direct and personal knowledge about

how and why he lost his job with the Army Chemical School but I cannot

reveal it. I do point out that he did not begin his public rants until after

his dismissal, so that is not the reason he was fired as he often alleges.



Second, we are viewed as biased, even deceitful, by many. That is why I try

to get reporters to ask the questions that I suggest and then check the

answers at an independent source. Unfortunately, they usually do not do so.



Third, we are often viewed as the "establishment" punishing the

"whistleblower." Again, that is why I try to point out Rokke's factual

errors, especially his misrepresentation of his own credentials, that a

reporter can easily verify. And again, this usually doesn't happen.



It would seem to me that an exposé of Rokke and some his ilk would make a

great story, but the media doesn't seem to be interested.



Bob