Jet Infectors – Chapter 1 – part 3

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

January 6, 2016

The Board of Veterans Appeals has granted a significant number of jet injector cases. A review of case law from 1992 to 2014 found the Board of Veterans’ Appeals had ruled upon 1,296 cases that cited the jet injector. From these cases 99 were granted, 672 were denied, 468 were remanded back to the VA Regional Office to seek another medical opinion, and 56 cases were granted but needed to be excluded from the rest of the data because either the judicial rendering did not mention the jet injector, the judicial rendering specifically excluded the jet injector, or the veteran’s symptoms of hepatitis C were documented inservice and therefore service-connection was automatically granted and an etiological cause was unneeded. Out of the 99 cases that were granted: 53 cases explicitly rendered that the jet injector was the etiological cause of veterans’ hepatitis C infection; one case explicitly rendered that the jet injector was the etiological cause of the veteran’s hepatitis B infection; 43 cases rendered that veterans’ military exposures, which included jet injector inoculations, were the etiological cause of the veterans’ hepatitis C infection; one case rendered that the veteran’s military exposure which included jet injector inoculations was the etiological cause of the veteran’s hepatitis B infection; and one case found the jet injector caused an adverse condition in a veteran’s upper arm.
Unfortunately, in spite of these wins VA cases do not set any precedents and therefore do not have any probative value in other veteran-claimants’ cases. The VA only has to abide by precedents established in higher courts, such as the United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States. Within the VA each veteran must argue his or her case upon his or her own merits according to his or her own situation. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals explained it like this:

“The facts and findings in prior Board decisions pertain to those veterans’ cases and not to the case at hand. While it appears that excerpts from prior Board decisions may indicate that other Veterans Law Judges accepted medical evidence showing a link between the other veterans’ hepatitis C and their in- service exposure to unsanitary air-jet inoculation guns, any finding in those prior Board decisions is based on evidence associated with the record of those veterans in the other appeals. The Board is not bound by findings found in previous Board decisions. Further, any finding made in a prior Board decision pertains only to the veteran who submitted that appeal. Such a finding is based on the evidence related to that veteran’s medical records and the evidence in that veteran’s claims file. Those decisions do not provide any specific findings or evidence to establish a link between this Veteran’s hepatitis C and any aspect of his period of service” (BVA Case # 1040550).

Although, I do not agree with the non-precedential rule established within VA Law and cite it as a hindrance, I also find that it does not stop veteran-claimants from obtaining justice.
Rather the major concern lays with the VA’s claims process for jet injector cases. Whereupon in numerous instances the medical opinions rendered by VA examiners, VA nurses and VA physicians and the renderings concocted by adjudicators within VA Regional Offices has been nefarious, unscrupulous, unjustifiable, deceitful, illogical, and anything but pro-veteran. More often than not the VA has accused our mighty men and women of valor of egregious conduct as a means to discredit their claims for service-connection. In which the Board of Veterans’ Appeals has at times colluded in these malfeasant actions and at other times was bound by judicial procedure and forced to rule unfavorably.
Here is one of numerous examples whereupon the VA has erroneously discredited a veteran’s claim. In a 2008 Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) case, a VA physician unjustifiably opined that a veteran-claimants hepatitis C could not be related to any of his military risk factors but was related to some unidentified and unrecognized risk factor. This fallacious evaluation was rendered probative and authoritative by the BVA and the veteran’s service-connection claim was denied. Herein the BVA remarked of the physician’s findings:

“The veteran was afforded a third VA examination in May 2006. The examiner stated that while the virus can be transmitted by needle sticks, those incidents are very low. He also asserted that the risk of obtaining HVC [sic.] from injections from an air gun was less than 20 percent. After reviewing the claims file, the examiner noted that the evidence did not show that the veteran injected street drugs, had blood transfusions, received clotting factor, was on kidney dialysis, had liver disease, or had sex or lived with an infected person. Yet, the examiner reported that medical literature shows that up to 20 percent of people with HVC [sic.] do not have identifiable risk factors. Accordingly, he opined that the veteran’s HVC [sic.] was not the result of air gun injections but mostly attributable to an unidentifiable risk factor.” (BVA case # 0817607)

Here the examiner, who was a VA physician, weighed the veterans hepatitis C risk factors—which were accidental needle stick as a healthcare worker in the military and military jet injector inoculations—against statistical findings in medical studies. The VA physician assessed the likelihood that the veteran’s claim matched those studies. In so doing, the VA physician read that the risk of acquiring hepatitis C from a jet injector was less than 20 percent and in 20 percent of hepatitis C cases the risk is unidentifiable. He then attributed, based upon conjecture and not reality, that the cause must be from an unidentifiable risk. The VA physician gave no credence to the risk factors the veteran did experience and failed to recognize that the veteran may have been a part of the less than 20 percent who acquired hepatitis C from jet injector inoculations.
Secondly, the VA has erred by repeatedly ignoring evidence which demonstrated the jet injector posed a risk of disease transmission. Here is an example of a BVA case that denounces the risk of jet injectors:
“The reviewing medical expert stated that there is no published data regarding HCV transmission via air gun inoculation, and that the Center for Disease Control found that air jet inoculation is a safe and effective method for the administration of vaccines. The report reflects that in a cited medical study of chimpanzees infected with hepatitis B, even when air jet injections were done on these animals, the air jet injector did not become contaminated. VHA opinion, received June 2010.” (BVA Case # 1045074)

It is true, the CDC study on chimpanzees did not demonstrate any cross-contamination of HBV. Although this is the only truth in this medical expert’s statement. The CDC does not think the multi-use nozzle jet injectors once widely used within the Armed Forces are safe. In 1994, the CDC reported

“an outbreak of hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmission following use of one type of multiple-use nozzle jet injector in a weight loss clinic and laboratory studies in which blood contamination of jet injectors has been simulated have caused concern that the use of multiple-use nozzle jet injectors may pose a potential hazard of bloodborne-disease transmission to vaccine recipients. This potential risk for disease transmission would exist if the jet injector nozzle became contaminated with blood during an injection and was not properly cleaned and disinfected before subsequent injections” (CDC, 1994).

Currently, jet injector technology has discarded multi-use nozzle jet injectors due to the risks associated with the reusable nozzle and fluid pathways. Second generation jet injectors, referred to as protector cap needle-free injectors (PCNFI) which use a disposable protector cap to cover the reusable nozzle and fluid pathway, have failed to prevent the transference of blood and hepatitis B to the next recipient in clinical testing (Kelly et al., 2008). Third generation jet injectors, known as disposable cartridge jet injectors (DCJI) or dick-jees, have a single-use disposable cartridge assembly that houses the nozzle and fluid pathways to prevent any cross-contamination. DCJI’s are the latest jet injector devices undergoing clinical and field testing. Therefore, the VA medical expert picked one snippet of a study to uphold his claim while failing to disclose a full review of the scientific literature.
Another major concern is that the VA has defended its stance based on the axiom that research shows the majority of veterans acquired hepatitis C from injection drug use and blood transfusions, as is the case in VA Cooperative Study 488. In so doing, the VA has attributed the etiological causes for over 287,000 veterans positive with hepatitis C antibodies based on a study that only assessed 52 veterans with hepatitis C antibodies. Herein the sample size of the study is only two-thousandths of a percent (0.02%) of the population.

Additionally, VA Cooperative Study 488 is grossly outdated. The study sampled veterans in 2001 at which time the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) had roughly 100,000 veterans with hepatitis C in their system. Yet from 2001 to 2014 the number of hepatitis C veterans within VHA’s system rose by over 74,000 people, or rather by 74 percent. There is no guarantee that the risk factors for these additional veterans, who were new patients within the VHA system, are reliably represented in that study.
VA Cooperative Study 488 is a unique study that properly assessed the prevalence of hepatitis C antibodies amongst a random sample of veterans. In this study, veterans were randomly selected and then assessed on whether or not they had hepatitis C antibodies. However, this is the limits to this study. Assessing the etiological causes of only 52 veterans with hepatitis C antibodies, as VA Cooperative Study 488 did, is a weak claim in identifying the risk factors for a larger population. This is evidenced based upon the data, which reported spending more than 48 hours in jail posed a greater risk for hepatitis C than military service (which included combat duty and jet injections). Moreover, the researchers themselves stated it would be difficult to detect a nexus between hepatitis C and jet injectors within their data because the study was population-based.
Briggs and colleagues (2001) also conducted a study to assess the prevalence of and risk factors for hepatitis C within a VA Medical Center. The study found 185 veterans, or rather 17.9 percent of the sample, had hepatitis C.  Their study purported,
“History of vaccine in combat or vaccination with an air gun [another name for a jet injector] did not correlate with HCV status (data not shown).  However, these questions were added to the questionnaire during the conduct of the study and information was available from only 211 respondents.”

The researchers explicitly disclosed that not all of the sampled veterans received the same questionnaire consisting of the question to evaluate for jet injectors.  In fact, the researchers stated only 211 veterans or rather 20.4 percent or rather one-fifth of the sampled population received an updated questionnaire.  Yet regardless of this inconsistency the researchers ultimately denounced an association between hepatitis C and jet injector vaccinations within their study. Here, within these two studies, the VA has invalidated the research to obfuscate the jet injector / hepatitis C nexus.
The examples presented herein add to what we already know, the VA is a large bureaucratic administration in desperate need of changes. Please do not misconstrue my stance. I love this country and the principles it was founded upon. Indeed the VA has helped many veterans and has many devoted and talented staff members that make great contributions in the lives of veterans and their families.
However, I find the majority reaction within the VA concerning the hepatitis C epidemic has been inconsistent to the intentions of the administration. The administration needs to be nothing less than 100 percent pro veteran. The administration needs to take the time to unbiasedly learn the etiological causes of hepatitis C veterans.

Veterans and veteran organizations have been relentlessly pushing for these changes within the VA.

Copyright Notice
© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2017. Veterans are encouraged to use these documents as evidence within their VA claims. Any other use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.


  • (Briggs et al., 2001) Briggs ME, Baker C, Hall R, Gaziano JM, Gagnon D, Bzowej N, and TL Wright. Prevalence and risk factor for hepatitis C virus infection in an urban Veterans Administration medical center. Hepatology 2001, 34:1200-1205.
  • (CDC, 1994) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. General Recommendations on Immunization: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 43:(RR-1):7–8, 1994.
  • (Dominitz et al., 2005) Dominitz JA, Boyko EJ, Koepsell TD, Heagerty PJ, Maynard C, Sporleder JL, Stenhouse A, Kling MA, Hrushesky W, Zeilman C, Sontag S, Shah N, Ona F, Anand B, Subik M, Imperiale TF, Nakhle S, Ho SB, Bini EJ, Lockhart B, Ahmad J, Sasaki A, van der Linden B, Toro D, Martinez-Souss J, Huilgol V, Eisen S, Young KA. Elevated prevalence of hepatitis C infection in users of United States veterans medical centers. Hepatology. 2005 Jan;41(1):88-96.
  • (Kelly et al., 2008) Kelly K, Loskutov A, Zehrung D, Puaa K, LaBarre P, Muller N, Guiqiang W, Ding H, Hu D, Blackwelder WC. Preventing contamination between injections with multi-use nozzle needle-free injectors: a safety trial. Vaccine (2008) 26, 1344-1352.

Jet Infectors – Chapter 1 – part 2

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

January 6, 2016

In spite of the testimonies and evidence presented herein, the VA adamantly refuses to accept that jet injectors are a risk for hepatitis C transmission. On the VA’s website, under Frequently Asked Questions is our most important question: Did I get hepatitis C from air gun vaccinations? “Although it is possible in theory,” the VA proclaims, “there is not enough evidence to confirm this as a risk factor. Attempts to obtain service connection by claiming air gun infection during military service have been controversial” (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2005).
Reflexively, the VA denies veterans’ service-connection claims that cite the jet injector as a risk factor or an etiological cause. The typical service-connection denial letter, like this one from my father’s case, reads as:

“You have indicated that the veteran’s risk factor in service was vaccination with an air gun, however such vaccination is not a medically recognized risk factor for hepatitis C, however there is no current scientific evidence which confirms that hepatitis C can be transmitted by air gun injectors.”

In 2004 the VA backed its rigid position on jet injectors with research. VA Cooperative Study 488, not published until 2005, assessed the prevalence of and risk factors for hepatitis C antibodies amongst veterans enrolled within Veterans Health Administration healthcare. The study found 52 veterans had hepatitis C antibodies. This equated to a 5.4 percent prevalence, which was three times greater than within the general population (1.8 percent). In assessing risk factors, the highest rates of hepatitis C antibodies were found amongst veterans who injected drugs, who served during the Vietnam war era, who served more than 48-hours incarcerated, and who had tattoos. An association between military exposures (such as, combat duty, exposure to blood in combat, and jet injector inoculations) and hepatitis C antibodies were found to be statistically insignificant amongst the veterans studied (Dominitz et al., 2005). VA Cooperative Study 488 did not implicate jet injectors as a risk of hepatitis C but did bring about an internal memo within the VA that has become the gold standard for evaluating jet injector claims.
Carolyn Hunt, the VA’s former Acting Director of Compensation and Pension Service, wrote about the relationship between immunizations with jet injectors and hepatitis C infection as it relates to service-connection. The June 29th, 2004 Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) memo purported, “The large majority of HCV infections can be accounted for by known modes of transmission, primarily transfusion of blood products before 1992, and injection drug use” (VBA Fast Letter 211 (04-13)). Herein Hunt alluded to VA Cooperative Study 488, where 78% of the hepatitis C veterans studied were found to have either the risk of blood transfusions or injection drug use (Dominitz et al., 2005). Hunt goes on to say,

“Despite the lack of any scientific evidence to document transmission of HCV with airgun injectors, it is biologically plausible. It is essential that the report upon which the determination of service connection is made includes a full discussion of all modes of transmission, and a rationale as to why the examiner believes the airgun was the source of the veteran’s hepatitis C” (VBA Fast Letter 211 (04-13)).
That is to say, although the transmission of hepatitis C through blood contamination on the nozzle of the jet injector to subsequent vaccinees is “biologically plausible,” or in other words possible in theory, does not mean that it was probable. Herein the VA does not deny the possibility of the nexus but refuses the likelihood that it happened because no scientific evidence exists. The “biologically plausible” claim has been the VA’s standard response on this issue.

Here is an example of a Veterans Law Judge citing VBA Fast Letter 211 (04-13) in a veteran-claimants appeal.

“Even if the Board accepts that the Veteran received immunizations with an air gun in service, injections by air gun are not a recognized risk factor for hepatitis C based on the available scientific data. See VBA Fast Letter 211 (04-13). While VBA acknowledges that it is biologically plausible that the disease could be transmitted via air gun, the fact that such transmission is within the realm of possibility does not make transmission by this method probable or help establish that the Veteran in fact contracted hepatitis C in this manner particularly in the absence of a medical opinion that includes a full discussion of all modes of transmission, and a rationale as to why the examiner believes the air gun was the source of the Veteran’s hepatitis C” (BVA Case # 1342110).

The Department of Veterans Affairs purports most often veterans come to acquire hepatitis C due to their own willful misconduct such as alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, tattooing, or risky sexual behavior. Consequently, by these actions the VA is ostracizing veterans. Yet veterans argue they have not all engaged in such devious behavior and do not conform to the stereotypes that have plagued Vietnam era veterans for the past four decades.
Veterans have been relentless in their pursuit for justice, and rightfully so. Under the Basic Entitlement Law, Title 38 of the U.S.C.S. subsection 1110, veterans are entitled to benefits for any personal injury or disease sustained while in the line of his or her military duty. The Basic Entitlement Law was reiterated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Shinseki v. Sanders, where the High Court perspicuously stated, “the law entitles veterans who have served on active duty in the United States military to receive benefits for disabilities caused or aggravated by their military service” (Shinseki, 487 F. 3d 881). Moreover, the mission statement of the VA, before being recently changed, upheld this point by declaring, “Our department’s employees continue to offer their dedication and commitment to help veterans get the services they have earned. Our nation’s veterans deserve no less.”
The VA benefits would not only include additional medical treatments, afforded only to those veterans with established service-connection claims, but a monthly benefit to help alleviate the financial burdens imposed by the disability. The current staggering costs of new and promising hepatitis C medicines, at $1,000 a pill, leaves most veterans deprived of treatment.
The monetary compensation from the VA benefits would be nice for when hepatitis C further disables, and in some cases decimates, the veteran’s body and he or she can no longer work. Although for veterans, and the families of those veterans now deceased, it really is not about about the money. It is about the government taking accountability for it’s negligence. It is about giving dignity and respect to the men and women who risked their lives in defending our nation and our way of life.
After my father lost his battle with hepatitis C, my family respectfully moved the battle to the VA and subsequently to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals courtroom and appealed the VA’s decision. For my family, the case was never about money. My father was an incredible man and no amount of money could ever replace him. Rather my family’s claim was about finding solace in knowing that our beloved family member did not die rejected and neglected by the country he served and so dearly loved.

Ultimately, my father’s case against the inoculating devices with point-less ends proved non-pointless. After a tumultuous five year battle, after hurdling through the rigamarole and iniquity, we won and received justice for my father. Today the VA acknowledges that my father’s death is etiologically related to his hepatitis C and that he, at least as likely as not, acquired hepatitis C from jet injector vaccinations in his military service as he had no other risk factors. Although, my father’s case has not been the only victory.

Copyright Notice
© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2017. Veterans are encouraged to use these documents as evidence within their VA claims. Any other use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

  • (Department of Veterans Affairs, 2005) Department of Veterans Affairs. Hepatitis C Resource Centers: Frequently Asked Questions. September 22, 2005. Accessed May 21st, 2015
  • (Dominitz et al., 2005) Dominitz JA, Boyko EJ, Koepsell TD, Heagerty PJ, Maynard C, Sporleder JL, Stenhouse A, Kling MA, Hrushesky W, Zeilman C, Sontag S, Shah N, Ona F, Anand B, Subik M, Imperiale TF, Nakhle S, Ho SB, Bini EJ, Lockhart B, Ahmad J, Sasaki A, van der Linden B, Toro D, Martinez-Souss J, Huilgol V, Eisen S, Young KA. Elevated prevalence of hepatitis C infection in users of United States veterans medical centers. Hepatology. 2005 Jan;41(1):88-96.
  • (Shinseki, 487 F. 3d 881) Shinseki v. Sanders. Supreme Court of the United States. 2009.
  • (VBA Fast Letter 211 (04-13)) VBA Fast Letter 211 (04-13). Relationship Between Immunization with Jet Injectors and Hepatitis C Infection as it Relates to Service Connection, Veterans Benefit Admin. (VBA) Fast Letter No. 04-13, 211 (April 29, 2004).

Jet Infectors – Chapter 1 – part 1

Jet Injectors = Jet Infectors

January 3, 2016

Jet infectors?! In reading a transcript to a FDA Panel Discussion on jet injectors, I was surprised by an error. Being late at night, I readjusted my eyes to see if I was mistaken by what I saw. On the contents page, the stenographer titled the discussion— “Guidance Development for Jet Infectors” (FDA, 1999). The stenographer, intending to write Jet Injector, had mistakenly, yet simply and accurately captured the reality of these devices. Jet Infectors have the potential to infect subsequent vaccinees. The symbolism is perfect.

Many veterans can easily recall that remarkable impression of the jet infector from their memory and many have questioned the sterility of the procedure. The Internet is filled with message boards, chat rooms, and blogs of veterans calling-out en masse the jet injector as the etiological cause of his or her hepatitis C (HCV). Here are several of these veterans’ statements.

“Are there any Hep C positive veterans out there who received vaccinations with the air injector gun while on active duty in the early 1970’s or late 1960’s?  The veteran population from that time period has a high prevalence of Hepatitis C and some believe that the air injector method of giving vaccinations used at that time might be the cause.  I was in the Marine Corps from ’70 to ’74 and remember being vaccinated with this method where we were simply lined up and injected one by one by stepping forward to the injection station.  The air injector gun shot gave a high pressure pre-measured dose through the skin on the upper arm.  The end of the air gun that touched the arm could not have been sterile as I remember seeing bleeding arms on some after the shot was given” (Brandej, 2001).

“I was in the US Army in 1975, given vaccinations many times with air jet guns– both single and combo dose–stood in the same line, injected one by one by stepping forward to the injection station just as you were.  I saw the same trickles of blood dripping down the arms of the people in front of me as well.  Nothing was used to clean the injector between people.  That would have been untimely and not expedient.  I was also given oral surgery with instruments that were not heat sterilized.  That was my second risk factor, and yes, I had hep C and had to undergo treatment.  Have been done for 1 year and 1 month.  Virus is gone…If you haven’t been checked specifically for it, get checked, as symptoms often don’t show up until it’s too late.  Good luck to you” (Skydog007, 2008).

“I was in the military from ’63-’67.  If I remember correctly the air-pressure injections had just come in to service. I too remember the lines and the medics merely rubbing off the droplets of blood as they ran down your arm.  I never saw a medic sterilize the gun itself.  You simply were herded through like cattle. Also, if you made a fast turn for some reason you were apt to receive a small tear” (Hawkbill, 2008).

“At Fort Bliss the guys giving shots were private first class men with no real medical education. You walked up they blasted your arm and the next guy walked up and got his dose. They did not even wipe your arm with a sterile pad. The whole idea was to inoculate as many as quickly as they could” (Pete53, 2010).

“Stories about immunizations by jet injector take me back to basic training. I remember being part of a long line of recruits. As we were being looped around the room to each injection station, I remember seeing a number of people in front of me with blood running down their arm after receiving injections. After I was injected, blood ran down my arm. No attempts were made to wipe down any of the jet injectors” (Vync, 2010).

“I truly believe I contacted HCV from the military by way of the mass immunizations using the unsanitary air jet injector in 1974 at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, TX. Statistics…show that 63 percent of Vietnam-Era veterans were infected with HCV.  These statistics are very strong evidence to support my belief! I actually have a scar on my arm from a shot using the air jet injector.  My history is that I do not have any tattoos or injected drugs. In 1982, I had an abnormal liver enzyme reading from a medical exam. Nothing was found after many different tests to try to determine the cause of the readings.  During this timeframe, the medical establishment did not know about HCV.  Finally in 2005, my doctor was doing some blood work on me which showed abnormal liver enzymes.  He immediately had my blood tested for HCV.  I started Pegasys/ Ribavirin treatment in 2005 and finished 48 weeks of treatment.  In January 2007, I tested negative for the virus” (Willowhorse, 2007).

“Since my HCV diagnosis this past fall, several times my thoughts have gone back to that gauntlet of air gun inoculations in Navy boot camp in 1979. Lots of bloody arms and bloodstained white t-shirts in that crowd as we passed through the lines. It was just an assembly line with the corpsmen going through the motions. Who knows? Maybe not a conventional risk factor but I’m sure there was some blood to blood contact going on even with that process” (LN55, 2013).

“I was in the Army in ’73, did my basic training in Fort Ord, CA, and had the same injection. I remember going from one end of the building to the other end of building, sleeves rolled up and doc in hand as we went through. Blood was just pouring down most of our arms. And had to repeat this ordeal again after graduation at Fort Poke. I have HCV and never used [drug] needles in my entire life. Now I have liver cancer and they gave me one year left to live. I am very pissed that I got ripped off from my life because of this. Everyone needs to be tested… I have wonderful grandchildren that I will not get to see grow up because of this. Our government is responsible for this mass exposure and needs to take responsibility for what they have done” (Monkscountry, 2012).

Throughout the years our veterans have reached out over the Internet and supported each other. They have shared not only their memories but their angst, anger, and confusion. They provided compassion and empathy amidst negative health reports and encouragement and elation with health improvements. Their stories have been honest. Their emotions raw. Each had no reason to lie to the other. On the face of these Internet forums, it is clear that these brothers and sisters of the Armed Forces are bonded, and thus, why I wanted to represent a sampling of them here. For this is their story.

Veterans testimonies have been corroborated by the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board (AFEB), an expert advisory board of civilian physicians and scientists that assists the Department of Defense with medically related issues. The AFEB witnessed military jet injectors contaminated with blood and the lack of sterilization practices by corpsmen. Their 1999 report stated,

“Of note is that the AFEB made a site visit to the MTF [medical treatment facility] at Parris Island and directly observed high volume recruit immunization using jet injectors. It was noted that jet injector nozzle’s were frequently contaminated with blood, yet sterilization practices were frequently inadequate or not followed” (Department of Defense, 1999).

The observations of the AFEB substantiate the numerous claims by veterans. Recruits were herded through a single-line, whereupon a lack of sterilizing the jet injector allowed for the exposure of blood from other recruits. This proves recruits were exposed to blood-to-blood contact and thus these recruits experienced a risk factor for the transmission of blood-borne pathogens, such as hepatitis C.

Copyright Notice
© Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors, 2017. Veterans are encouraged to use these documents as evidence within their VA claims. Any other use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Shaun Brown and Jet Infectors with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.