HADCORP NEWS: October 9, 2008

[Guest guest]

in this edition:

Cosmetic surgery industry sags with economy (USA)

Lawyer slams Department of Public Health’s doc report (USA)

's Surgeon Banned From Selling Footage (UK)

Appeal court tosses class actions over jaw, breast implants (CANADA)

Supreme Court To Hear Case on Whether FDA Approval of Rx Protects Manufacturers From Liability Lawsuits Filed in State Courts (USA)

Same Image Polisher Has Worked for FDA and Big Pharma (USA)

Ghostwriting Common Throughout Drug Industry (USA)

Europe bans mercury exports (UK)

Toxic exposure (USA)

G.I. Movement Against the War (USA)

Exposure to Agent Orange has been listed on a death certificate as a contributing cause of death for what is believed to be the first time (NEW ZEALAND)

Six Environmental Research Studies Reveal Critical Health Risks From Plastic (USA)

ID card says "I am autistic" (UK)

ACTION ALERT: TELL THE FDA HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT GENETICALLY MODIFIED ANIMALS

Hello Rogene S,

You are receiving this email because you have subscribed to our e-news.

HADCORP NEWS: October 9, 2008

Cosmetic surgery industry sags with economy

CNN

USA

STORY HIGHLIGHTS Anecdotal reports tell of a drop-off in costly cosmetic procedures

Informal poll: 53 percent of plastic surgeon trade group say business is down

Would-be patients say they "can't justify" the expense right now

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- The economy isn't the only thing that's sagging -- so are faces, breasts and bellies as would-be cosmetic surgery patients increasingly opt against costly nips and tucks because of tough financial times.

Anecdotal reports and a recent unscientific survey from an industry trade group suggest many cosmetic surgeons have been seeing a drop-off in costly operations, some by as much as 30 percent or more.

Diane Lawyer, a software company manager in Atlanta, Georgia, said belt-tightening has made her put off getting her eyes done, a procedure that would cost a few thousand dollars.

"I just can't justify that right now," she said.

Lawyer, 55, has started shopping at a discount grocery, rarely drives to save on gas, and loaned money to help keep her sister out of foreclosure.

"I lost $15,000 in the last two weeks on the stock exchange," she said, referring to her dwindling 401K plan.

Dr. Alan Gold, president of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, said that for the past year, sagging business has been the talk of cosmetic surgeons.

"Everybody talks about it, nobody really has any numbers, so we polled our membership," said Gold, whose suburban New York office is on Long Island.

Of about 700 doctors who responded to the April-May questionnaire, 53 percent said business is down, some by as much as 30 percent.

Dr. McMenamin, president-elect of the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery, said he's in regular contact with cosmetic surgeons who complain that business continued to slide through the summer -- even before Wall Street's recent nosedive.

"With this latest fiasco, many are probably down closer to 40 percent," said McMenamin, a Sacramento, California, cosmetic surgeon who specializes in faces, breasts and liposuction.

For him, August "was terrible. I just did a lot less surgery."

September's always a slow month for cosmetic surgery, he said, so the economy's impact was less palpable. "I have no idea where October is going."

To attract patients, "We've reworked our mailing list and Web site, all facets of the business," McMenamin said. He hasn't lowered prices for procedures but says some doctors have.

While surgeries are down, McMenamin said he's noticed an uptick in cheaper, less invasive options, including Botox injections and wrinkle fillers. So instead of shelling out $7,000 for a facelift, patients spend $1,000 for less dramatic results.

However, many Botox and filler patients are waiting longer than the usual three to four months between treatments, said Dr. Singer of La Jolla, California.

Singer was reluctant to quantify the drop in his business, but said any cosmetic surgeon claiming business is great "is spinning and marketing."

"There's no question about it" that cosmetic surgeons around the country are feeling the pinch, said Dr. Lack, who works in Chicago, Illinois' tony northern suburbs.

"We're doing less invasive things and things that are less expensive," Lack said.

And some who invested in office upgrades are worried. Cosmetic specialist Dr. Jim Matas of Orlando, Florida, said he took out a $100,000 mortgage last year to plushly renovate his condo-office. He's been able to make the payments, but notes, "I still have that as an overhead cost that I didn't have" before the economy's big slide.

Orlando real estate appraiser Ritter has been considering getting a $6,400 forehead lift from Matas. But Ritter was recently laid off and said he can only afford the surgery if he gets a sizable severance package.

"It's a double-edged sword," he said. "I need to do this because I'm 45 and competing with younger people" in a tough market.

Reliant in the past on Botox and wrinkle fillers, he feels pressure to look more youthful. "I always say it's better to look good than to feel good, sometimes," Ritter said.

Lawyer slams Department of Public Health’s doc report

Boston Herald

United States

Findings clear hospital, but deemed ‘incomplete’

By Fargen Sunday, October 5, 2008

The state Department of Public Health is defending its decision to clear Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center of giving poor care to a plastic surgery patient despite the fact that the department did not interview several key witnesses to the surgical episode, which led to the firing of a prominent doctor.

Loren J. Borud, 44, was fired after he allegedly nodded off during a June 27 liposuction operation, then abruptly departed midway through the procedure, leaving the patient in the hands of a less-experienced surgeon and falsifying post-operative documents.

A DPH investigation report provided to the Herald found the hospital staff did not fail to “ensure quality care,†as alleged by patient K. Hicks of Quincy.

“The DPH investigation found that there were no issues with the surgery that was performed or any harm to the patient,†Dreyer, director of the Bureau of Health Care Safety and Quality at the DPH, told the Herald in an e-mail.

But Max Borten, who represents Hicks, blasted DPH for failing to interview Borud, Hicks himself or the fill-in surgeon, identified as Dr. Eran Bar-Meir. DPH investigators said they could not locate Bar-Meir during their probe.

Borten told the Herald he spent two days late last month deposing Bar-Meir, a surgical fellow who conducted two-thirds of the operation and is a defendant in a lawsuit Hicks has filed against the hospital,and other doctors and nurses involved.

“We are dismayed and appalled that DPH would reach a conclusion they reached without the benefit of information that the client has, the information the surgical fellow has and the information the surgeon himself had,†Borten said. “I have to believe the conclusion is incomplete and unsubstantiated.â€

Dreyer said in the e-mail that investigators made several attempts to reach Bar-Meir, but that he was out of the country at the time.

When asked if DPH would consider Borten’s request that the investigation be reopened because Bar-Meir was not interviewed, Dreyer responded: “Our investigation is complete. The hospital agreed with our findings and the physician in question had his hospital privileges revoked.â€

Borud was fired effective July 18, after a suspension of privileges. Hicks’ operation was not the first time Borud fell into trouble at the hospital over possible impairment.

Borud, a 1990 Harvard Medical School graduate, received help from Physican Health Service, a nonprofit drug and alcohol treatment referral service for doctors, in 2002, 2006 and on July 1, according to a July Board of Registration in Medicine investigation.

Dr. Sands, senior vice president of health-care quality at Beth Israel, said the hospital will use the DPH probe as “guidance.â€

“We are always appreciative of any input (DPH) has in helping us work toward reaching our patient safety and quality goals. We will use this guidance as we continue working to improve our institution,†he said in a statement.

ANNA NICOLE SMITH - ANNA NICOLE’S SURGEON BANNED FROM SELLING FOOTAGE

Contactmusic.com

Ilkley,England,UK

A Los Angeles judge has barred ANNA NICOLE SMITH’s plastic surgeon from attempting to sell a videotape showing the late Playboy model undergoing a breast operation.

Dr. Gerald Wayne reportedly filmed a breast augmentation procedure he carried out on in 1994 without the star’s permission.

After her death from an accidental drug overdose in February 2007, tried to sell the footage to a Los Angeles-based memorabilia dealer.

’s longtime partner and lawyer K. Stern - the executor of the model’s estate - filed suit against the doctor last year to prevent and his wife Alana from further distributing the tapes.

claimed that he obtains all of his patients’ permissions to film their operations prior to their surgery, on the condition that the footage is kept private “during a patients’ lifetimeâ€.

He alleged that this confidentiality agreement was deemed void when lost her life in Florida, aged 39.

But Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Beckloff subsequently ruled in Stern’s favour and issued a number of preliminary injunctions in the months after was initially sued.

And on Friday (03Oct08), Beckloff issued a permanent injunction against the Texan doctor, preventing him from attempting to sell, distribute or disseminate the videotape at any point in the foreseeable future.

Further details of the settlement were unavailable as WENN went to press.

Appeal court tosses class actions over jaw, breast implants

Globe and Mail

Canada

KIRK MAKIN Globe and Mail Update

September 30, 2008 at 7:36 PM EDT

TORONTO — The Ontario Court of Appeal has tossed out a class action against the federal government by thousands of women whose silicone breast implants ruptured and leaked, as well as a separate class action by individuals whose jaw implants disintegrated.

Manufacturers – not government officials – were the ones responsible for the safety and reliability of both products, the court said in both instances. It said that shifting that responsibility to government would only serve to make future manufacturers show “decreased vigilance†about the safety of their products.

In the jaw implant case, thousands of people suffered a lifetime of intense, chronic pain. The plaintiffs argued that despite being told the implants could break down and “cannibalize†bone and soft tissue at the base of each victim's skull, Health Canada failed to issue warnings or take action to get the devices off the market.

The vast majority of the plaintiffs in the class action were women who chose to have the implants inserted because they had been clenching their jaws in a way that caused them muscle pain.

The lawsuit alleged that the Health Canada employees negligently approved the Vitek TMJ implants under the Food and Drugs Act, and that they failed to warn doctors and patients of potential risks.

However, the Court of Appeal turned the plaintiffs aside in its ruling, saying: “In the absence of a specific representation or reliance on Health Canada regarding the safety of the implant, in my view, it is plain and obvious that the appellant cannot establish a direct and close relationship of proximity that makes it just and fair to impose a private law duty of care on Health Canada.â€

In the breast implant judgment, the court similarly reasoned that, were governments found liable in this sort of situation, they might become reluctant to run the risk of approving new products which could bring relief to many of those suffering from particular illnesses.

Government would find itself “becoming the virtual insurer of medical devices,†it said. “Such a result could frustrate access to medical treatment for those who choose to assume the risk of a particular medical treatment.â€

The breast implant lawsuit – which claimed to represent approximately 29,500 women living in most regions of Canada – faulted Health Canada for allowing Dow Corning Corp. and other manufacturers to market the devices without properly assessing their reliability.

The plaintiffs alleged that senior officials and ministers were negligent in that they knew as early as 1962 that the devices could potentially fail.

However, in its ruling Tuesday, the Court of Appeal expressed reluctance to point a finger at government regulators.

“The job of government is to govern and, in the course of doing so, to make broad-based policy decisions for the benefit of the public collectively, even if those decisions may not have positive implications for all individuals,†Madam Justice Lang wrote, on behalf of Mr. Justice Juriansz and Madam Justice MacFarland.

“It would severely curtail the government's ability to govern if it were found to have the necessary direct and close relationship to an individual member of the public to support a claim in tort for bad government policy decisions.â€

The ruling upheld an earlier decision by Mr. Justice Warren Winkler, now Chief Justice of Ontario and a member of the Court of Appeal. Chief Justice Winkler had denied certification for the class action largely because he said that allowing breast implants to remain on the market was a policy decision the government was entitled to make.

Judge Lang noted that the regulatory scheme in place at the time did not support a claim that the government owed the plaintiffs “a private duty of care.â€

“Apart from a bald pleading that the appellants relied on Health Canada for the safety of breast implants, no facts are pled to support that reliance,†she said. “Health Canada provided no direct service to the appellants and had no contact with them. This lack of a relationship is evident from the fact that Health Canada did not keep – and was not mandated to keep – any record of individuals who received implants.

“It had no mechanism to notify such individuals about product defects or recalls,†she said. “Those responsibilities were placed on the manufacturer.â€

The Court also upheld a relatively high costs award of $125,000 against the plaintiffs in the breast implant case. The plaintiffs had opposed the award, saying that its imposition could deter other worthy class action lawsuits from ever being launched.

The lead plaintiffs in the case – Joyce Attis and andra Tesluk – received their implants almost 30 years ago. They were removed in the early 1990s, after alleging causing them “catastrophic medical consequences and permanent disabilities.â€

They alleged that Health Canada's own scientists warned in 1978 that the implants should be pulled from the market, but this was not done until 1992.

Breast implant plaintiffs were considerably more successful several years ago, when they targeted the manufacturers themselves, wresting from them a settlement worth approximately $5,000 to each woman who was affected.

MEDICAL DEVICE NEWS

Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report

Kaiser network.org

Washington, DC, USA

Prescription Drugs | Supreme Court To Hear Case on Whether FDA Approval of Rx Protects Manufacturers From Liability Lawsuits Filed in State Courts

[Oct 06, 2008]

The U.S. Supreme Court during the 2008-2009 term, which begins on Monday, will hear cases that question "whether a federal regulation can trump state law," such as a case that could determine whether FDA approval of medications protects manufacturing companies from product liability lawsuits filed in state courts, the Chicago Tribune reports (Oliphant, Chicago Tribune, 10/6).

The case, Wyeth v. Levine, involves Levine, a Vermont woman who lost her hand and forearm to gangrene after she received an injection of the nausea medication Phenergan into an artery during a push IV injection, which is more potent and takes less time to act than a traditional injection. The Phenergan label, which FDA approved, includes a push IV injection as an option for administration but warns about risks associated with the practice, such as gangrene. Levine filed a lawsuit against Wyeth in state court in Vermont over alleged problems with the Phenergan label, and a jury ruled in her favor. The Vermont Supreme Court upheld the decision. In an appeal to the Supreme Court, Wyeth argued that FDA approval of medication labels precludes lawsuits in state courts filed over alleged problems with the labels (Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, 10/3).

The Bush administration has expressed support for Wyeth in the case, and 47 states have expressed support for Levine (Sherman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/5). Almost 30 groups and federal lawmakers have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case (Doyle, McClatchy/Raleigh News & Observer, 10/4).

According to the New York Times, the case "is perhaps the most significant case of the term" (Liptak, New York Times, 10/5). "The court has been very receptive in recent years to arguments that federal law trumps ... state regulation in a number of areas," such as a case earlier this year in which the court ruled that FDA approval of certain medical devices protects manufacturers from product liability lawsuits filed in state courts (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/5). Erwin Chemerinsky, a dean at the University of California-Irvine School of Law, said that a decision in favor of Wyeth in the case would "make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for people injured by pharmaceutical drugs to be able to sue" (Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, 10/6).

Editorials

Summaries of two editorials related to the Wyeth and Altria cases appear below.

 Los Angeles Times: The Wyeth case and other cases that the Supreme Court will hear are "important," but they "pale in significance" to those heard last year, a Los Angeles Times editorial states. According to the editorial, the "importance of some of this term's cases is lessened" because they involve "not the meaning of the constitution, on which the court has the final say, but the interpretation of federal statutes -- which Congress can rewrite if it disagrees with the court's understanding of its handiwork" (Los Angeles Times, 10/6).

 New York Times: The Supreme Court should agree that the "smokers' suit can go forward," a Times editorial states. However, the "court's conservatives have been on a campaign to close the courthouse door to people with legitimate legal claims" and "have expanded a variety of doctrines to send wronged parties away empty-handed, including ... 'pre-emption'" (New York Times, 10/6).

Letter to the Editor

The decision by the Supreme Court earlier this year that FDA approval of certain medical devices protects manufacturers from product liability lawsuits filed in state courts "does not grant immunity for medical device makers" but "instead reaffirms well-established federal law," Ubl, president and CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, writes in a Boston Globe letter to the editor. He writes, "For decades, patients have been able to sure and recover damages if they are harmed by a device that was defectively made or approved based on knowingly falsified or incomplete data submitted" to FDA, adding, "Nothing about the court's decision changes that." According to Ubl, "FDA has pre-emptive authority with only about 2% of medical devices."

He writes, "The alternative to pre-emption is a move from a deliberate multiyear, science-based review and national approach to determining device safety to a patchwork of determinations based on jury deliberations in individual cases made without regard to patient access to critical medical technologies." Ubl concludes, "An environment fostering different safety standards in different states at different times would only impede development and access to new lifesaving technologies" (Boston Globe, 10/6).

Broadcast Coverage

NBC's "Nightly News" on Sunday included a preview of the Supreme Court term, including the Wyeth case. The segment includes comments from Levine and attorney Bert Rein, who represents Wyeth (, "Nightly News," NBC, 10/5).

NPR's "Morning Edition" on Monday also included a preview of the Supreme Court term, including the Wyeth case. The segment includes comments from former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, an attorney for Wyeth, and Vladeck, a professor at town University Law Center (Totenberg, "Morning Edition," NPR, 10/6).

BIG PHARMA

Same Image Polisher Has Worked for FDA and Big Pharma

Wall Street Journal Blogs

New York,NY,USA

October 3, 2008, 11:56 am

Posted by Hensley

Turns out that the FDA and Big Pharma have more in common than we thought. They both tapped the same PR firm to improve their reputations.

Earlier this year the FDA hired Qorvis Communications, an influential PR group in Washington, to help mend the agency’s ailing image with a public awareness campaign. But since 2006 Qorvis has been working for PhRMA, Big Pharma’s principal trade group. Ooops.

PhRMA was surprised to find that out. Ken , a honcho there, told the WSJ’s Mundy that he wasn’t “aware that Qorvis had been doing work for the FDA. I would have expressed serious concerns.†As for the firm’s PhRMA work, said it was “only PR-101 outside Washington.â€

Qorvis’s lead PR man on the FDA project, former House investigator Don Goldberg, told Mundy that there wasn’t a conflict because nobody from Qorvis working on the PhRMA account and a tobacco-company project with FDA implications had been involved in the campaing for the agency.

Qorvis has worked on the FDA Web site, done media training for FDA Commissioner von Eschenbach and other officials and developed videos for online use, Goldberg said.

The plot is even thicker when you start looking at the FDA’s method for awarding the PR contract. The Washington Post reported that Alaska Newspapers Inc., an Alaska Native corporation, was used to pass a no-bid contract through to Qorvis.

Chairman Dingell of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is investigating. An FDA spokeswoman said the agency has suspended the contract. But, she said, there is no reason to believe that Alaska Newspapers acted improperly.

Ghostwriting Common Throughout Drug Industry

Newsinferno.com

New York, NY, USA

Date Published: Monday, October 6th, 2008

We have long been reporting about the mounting evidence that points to drug companies routinely hiding their influence over research on their products by paying respected academics for their names to be included as authors of such studies and research. Now, due to a lawsuit over the injuries caused by Merck’s painkiller Vioxx, Merck has been forced to unseal documents over its initial research on Vioxx that prove Merck conducted studies on Vioxx, paid researchers to allow their names to be put down as authors of those studies, and did not disclose these practices to the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) or to medical journals that published the studies.

According to Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) editor D. DeAngelis, drug companies have often come to her, requesting that she allow her name to be listed as study author for research for which she has not been involved. In some cases she was directly told that minimal work would be required and a professional writing firm would produce the first draft. In an editorial in JAMA, DeAngelis and deputy editor Phil. B. Fontanarosa criticize such ghostwriting as a sign that the health profession has been “inundated with profound influence from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.â€

DeAngelis is not alone. High blood pressure expert Sealey said that a consulting firm asked her to be the author on a study to be presented at a conference of the American Society for Hypertension.

The conference, Sealey noted, was only a week away and she had never heard to the drug that had been tested. According to Jerome Kassirer, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, ghostwriting can be especially dangerous in cases in which researchers are persuaded to put their names on reviews conducted of prior research and there is no indication if the firms that authored the paper excluded certain prior studies from consideration. “We’ve got to stop this,†DeAngelis said. “People are being hurt. We’ve given away our profession.â€

Meanwhile last month, the Associated Press pointed out that many in the medical community are accusing big pharmaceutical of deception, manipulating doctors, and focusing on profits over patients. Much in the news has been reported to confirm this and medical schools, teaching hospitals, and physician groups are limiting pharmaceutical sales rep influence. Also, three top editors of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine publicly sided against industry in a U.S. Supreme Court case in August over whether patients harmed by government-approved medicines may still sue in state courts.

Last month, DeAngelis spoke about two studies stating ghostwriters wrote past reports about Vioxx and some reports minimized risk of death. “Manipulation of studies and publications by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries is either increasing or there has been more exposure of these practices,†she wrote.

DeAngelis added that industry pressure includes influencing doctors and medical students with gifts and funding research at top teaching hospitals. But, funding includes tight controls on studies and results, can hide study authors’ conflicts of interest, and can even control doctors’ continuing medical education by running courses on new treatments.

MERCURY

Europe bans mercury exports

Environmental Data Interactive

UK

The European Union has banned the export of mercury in an effort to reduce the global supply of the highly toxic heavy metal.

The ban covers all mercury, finally closing the door to previous exemptions which allowed the export of the metal when used in certain industrial applications.

The legislation also requires mercury which remains in the hands of certain industrial facilities, such as the factories involved in chlorine and caustic soda production, must be put into safe storage once the export ban takes effect in March 2011.

The EU's Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said: "Mercury poses a threat to human health and the environment in the European Union and globally.

"This important piece of legislation will protect citizens by significantly reducing exposure to this highly toxic metal. Let us hope that other countries will follow our example and support our goal of cutting the global supply of this dangerous substance."

Mercury and its compounds are highly toxic to humans, animals and ecosystems.

High doses can be fatal to humans, but even relatively low doses can seriously affect the nervous system and have been linked with possible harmful effects on the cardiovascular, immune and reproductive systems.

Once released, mercury remains in the environment for long periods, where it can change into methylmercury, its most toxic form.

Methylmercury readily passes through both the placenta and the blood-brain barrier, so exposure of women of child-bearing age and of children is of greatest concern.

Use of mercury is declining at both global and EU levels, yet some significant uses remain.

Globally, the main uses of mercury are in small-scale gold mining, the chlor-alkali industry and production of the basis of PVC plastic.

In the EU only the chlor-alkali industry remains a significant user, and it is progressively phasing out the use of mercury-containing cells in its production of chlorine.

The next most significant use in the EU is in dental amalgam for fillings.

Gibbs

GULF WAR VETERANS

Toxic exposure

OUR OPINION

South Bend Tribune

South Bend,IN,USA

It is important to Iraq war veterans, their families and the American people that the lingering health consequences of exposure to toxins during military service are, understood and dealt with effectively.

Decades after the Vietnam War, the effects of exposure to dioxin still were being discovered. And data still were being compiled. Early on, no registry of potentially affected soldiers was kept.

Some 3 million U.S. troops were exposed to the chemical, a component of Agent Orange. More than 30 types of cancer have been associated with dioxin, as have been diabetes, a nerve disorder and spina bifida in the children of Vietnam veterans. Many of those veterans spent the rest of their often-shortened lives fighting for the medical care they needed and deserved.

The impact of exposure to sodium dichromate in Iraq certainly won't be as extensive as the impact of Agent Orange. But to those affected, it could be every bit as life-changing.

Sodium dichromate is a highly carcinogenic chemical that, quite literally, filled the air near a water treatment plant in Basra, Iraq. It was touched and inhaled by hundreds of soldiers. Some of them have developed the diseases that sodium dichromate causes. All are at risk.

Though soldiers were tested for the carcinogen, the tests may have been inadequate and administered too late to be reliable. That is why it is extremely important that the federal government make sure those at risk understand their status.

A bill being introduced this week by Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., aims to help. It will create a registry of soldiers who were exposed to sodium dichromate. The absence of addresses for some discharged soldiers has proven to be a problem in informing them of their risks and their rights to medical care. The registry will establish a way they can place themselves in touch with officials. Efforts are under way to contact all 660 Indiana soldiers who may have been exposed to the toxin, and other service personnel who were stationed in that part of Basra.

Much has been said over the last 30 years about the lessons of Vietnam. One of those lessons upon which surely all can agree is that this nation must act to ensure that those whose health is endangered by their service are, first, informed. Then, should it become necessary, they must be given the best medical care possible.

G.I. Movement Against the War

Infoshop News

USA

Friday, October 03 2008 @ 01:53 PM CDT

Contributed by: Anonymous

Sixty veterans stood in formation, backs straight, feet slightly apart, hands held tensely to their brows in salute. In the gray Minneapolis morning, the sea of faces looked shockingly young, some firm and expressionless, others blotched and wet with tears. Those on the outside wore military uniforms, those in the middle wore black shirts that read "Iraq Veterans Against the War."

Kris Goldsmith, 23 year-old former combat soldier in the U.S. army, made his way to the front to address the motionless crowd. "My method of attempted suicide was with a liter of vodka and a dozen pills of percoset," Kris barked out in a dry, military voice. "What my unit punished me for was not putting a gun in my mouth and making my mother bury me in a closed casket." As cameras rolled, Kris went on to tell of his deployment in Iraq, how the carnage and suffering he witnessed not only turned him against the war, but also to attempted suicide. He explained how, years later, he still suffers from nightmares and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the military denies a connection between his deployment and his psychological condition. "This is not acceptable," he yelled, his gaze steadily forward.

Kris's speech addressed the McCain camp sitting safely out of earshot in the Xcel Energy Center on the first day of the Republican National Convention (McCain's staff declined to actually meet with the veterans, refusing to even accept a briefing on veterans' issues that they attempted to deliver). But in that moment, his words seemed directed far past the fray of electoral politics, beyond the reach of flashing cameras, towards an inward place of deep pain and irrevocable history, a place he shared with the sixty young veterans standing behind him.

Since its inception in 2004, members of Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) have worked feverishly to bring their narratives into the public limelight. From political conventions to anti-war rallies to the winter soldier hearings, U.S. veterans who have served since September 11, 2001 have related tales of the horror they have witnessed and the suffering they have endured to bring the reality of war home. The organization has grown to include over 1,200 members, spanning 48 states and numerous international bases, and with four active duty chapters, IVAW has taken a position of open support for G.I. resisters.

Kris, like many Iraq Veterans, did not become a political activist overnight. He spent his childhood growing up in a working-class suburb in Long Island dreaming of one day becoming a soldier. After the events of September 11th, 2001, he was consumed with anger. He remembers declaring that he "wanted to kill everyone in the Middle East, that the Middle East should be turned into a glass plate by nuclear weapons." When he graduated from high school in 2003, Kris decided to enlist as a combat soldier. His purpose was simple, "to kill people."

Once in the military, Kris was made front-line witness to the horrors of the war he had so eagerly embraced. Deployed to Sadr City in 2005, he was ordered to document everything his platoon did. This included photographing countless mutilated Iraqi bodies, found in homes, streets, and shallow graves. Over his 12-month deployment, Kris gathered intelligence for the army, wading through piles of the dead, lifting up their faces to capture them on camera, arriving at scenes of violence to document the carnage. "The single ugliest act of violence" Kris witnessed was a car bomb that exploded between a hospital and an Iraqi police station in Baghdad, where Kris was stationed. "Bodies, appendages, blood, and cars were skewed for hundreds of feet around a 15 foot crater," he wrote in his IVAW profile.

The numerous photographs he took were never used for intelligence, but served another purpose: as trophies, sometimes referred to as war porn, for soldiers in his unit, "to send home to their friends and family to brag," Kris testified at Winter Soldier. "The images are burned into my head forever," he says. "The very pictures on the digital camera, are what haunt me to this day."

Kris was not just a passive observer of violence. He tells of abusing and terrorizing Iraqis, imprisoning people in their homes by making the streets unsafe for them and waking families in the middle of the night to raid their houses at gunpoint. Even the dead bodies of Iraqis were used as the butts of jokes told by soldiers. At one point, when Kris came across a six year-old Iraqi boy in an alley, it took all of the self-control he had remaining not to shoot the kid dead in the street to satisfy his anger