RE: A Reporter Questions Rokke

[Stanford, Dosimetry]

My comment was not tongue-in-cheek, not made in jest. Perhaps I was not

clear. Of course I am not requesting or suggesting that some VA or DOD

employee illegally gain access to personal and confidential records and

post them. I stated that I would like to see his allegations challenged.

Perhaps I should have said "someone familiar with his case".  He is

causing a massive amount of fear in the veteran community as well as the

general public. Bob Cherry is doing a great job at challenging his

credentials where he can and I would like to see more done at an agency

level.  Maybe you can help.

 

It might be of interest to the list to see some of the statements that I

am referring to.  Here are some direct quotes from his emails to me (his

typing is not very accurate):

 

------------------

I told him that I understood about 90 "maximally exposed individuals"

were being monitored and after 12 years no effects found (from HPS

meeting 2002) He replied:

 

Neither DOD nor Va medical folks are doing anything with max exposed

individuals. This 90 number is not true and never has been. Until I and

others from the actual DU team interveened only 33 were under care and

that care was erratic at best.

 

During 1993-4 Dr. Colonel Asif Durakovic ran tests on soem emmvers of

144th maintenace who worked for me and found them hot, cancers,

respiratory, neuro, kidney, rashes etc. He reported problems and was

fired then medical records were destroyed and reports altered. 

 

Lots of those in program are sick and hot and abandoned. birt defects

abound in kids born after they we hit. Jane said they otrehr day that

DOd knows were are all sick and do not czfe and wil not change their

reports.

 

As top max exposed theire are 424 who had verfied max expsoure as

reported by DOD and who have never got care at all. too many have died.

The autopsy verify uranium cause. ..Call Jane and ask her at VA DU med

program.

 

Why not ask DOD and /Va officials why medicl care is still denied. As t

verfied health effects- they are their in our medical records but

records from Gulf War I treatment disapperared - stoelen from conex.

Reactive airway disease that consists of calcified granulomas and

severely reduced respirator function measured by PFT and live blood

gases undr stress are veroified. Rad cataracts, neuro etc. kidney

problems etc. . if you realy want to wonder ask DOD, NIH, CDC, ATSDR why

none of the reports that contradict their mantra or available on line. 

...when you go to DOE, DOD, CDC, NIH web sites or literature you will

not find du reports because they have been quashed. adverse medical

effects are verified but hidden to prevent liability. 



-----------------------

The first impulse on reading this stuff is to laugh.  "Where do I

begin?"   I have tried to reason with him (and his significant audience

on his cc list) but he will not respond, no references.  So the more you

question him, the more opportunity he has to spout off.  Rediculous as

his charges appear to us, he has a very wide and growing audience of

scared believers.  I have challenged him time and again when he makes

misleading remarks within my area of expertise, but I cannot challenge

him on the medical records.  They have become a stronger and stronger

part of his ranting.

 

Sincerely,

Neill Stanford, CHP 

--------------------------------------------------

Stanford Dosimetry LLC

 <http://www.stanforddosimetry.com/> www.stanforddosimetry.com

 <mailto:stanford@stanforddosimetry.com> stanford@stanforddosimetry.com

360 293 9334                             

------------------------------------------------- 



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

From: Tuttle, William K. (Portland) [mailto:William.Tuttle@med.va.gov] 

Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 8:21 AM

To: 'BobCherry@AOL.COM'; stanford@stanforddosimetry.com

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: RE: A Reporter Questions Rokke





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