American Gulfwar Veterans Association Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» American Gulfwar Veterans Association » Veterans Issues » Gulf War Illness » Am I Contagious

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Am I Contagious
Member # 749

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for GWI Guy   Email GWI Guy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a question we all fear but need to have answered. I have been with my spouse for 5 years now and other than unexplained high blood pressure she had no medical problems when we met. I warned her of the talk before we became intimate and she accepted the chances and loved me anyway. We now have 2 children 1 boy and 1 girl. I have 2 other children with no known illness other than these 2 with different mothers both were conceived prior to onset of the classic 3 symptoms (CFS, FMS, IBS.) My son,the first born of this new relationship, has had major med problems since birth (premature by 2 months) he started out above average health for a preme being out in record time but since has diagnosed with hydrocephalus (water on the brain) necessitating a shunt to drain it, a revision (due to faulty shunt), a cranial stenosis (the removal of part of his skull in order to reshape it to allow it to grow properly, Adenoid and ear probs, Lazy eye where surgery failed to correct, Severe stomach probs that cause him to vomit at the slightest sign of anxiety, and now night tremors (seizures when he sleeps).

My wife, who has had high blood pressure since 16 even though she is average weight, was healthy when we met in 2005 and even worked at a gym. Now she is sounding like I did at first, always tired legs hurt and various unexplained pains around her body almost constantly. Some would and could be explained away with being the mother of 2 but the similarities are too many for me just to ignore. Does anyone have any solid information as to this.. PLEASE let me know, let us all know, Are we making our loved ones sick..

Posts: 131 | From: Kansas | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 1052

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for endure         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
GWI guy, I am sorry about your son' health that must be very frightening for you. Unfortunately some of his issues will be compounded by his treatment, just like all of us. General Aneseasia(sp) can be very hard on the brain, and if he has had to undergo this several times for procedures may affect him slightly, as in delay him a bit. I would be cautious with childhood vaccines, I worked hard to spread them all out for my son, so he NEVER got more than one in a day - with months in between. Vaccine damage is cumlative, meaning the more you get the more damage you can do. A thrifty VA Neurologist that examined me for my comp and pen, noted that when I got the big bang of shots when I initially joined in 89, they thought for a time I had Epstien Barr Virus or Mono, I recovered and forgot all about it. Unfortunately when I got predeployment multiple jabs in 2003 to include Anthrax, I tanked. Am still tanked.

My husband (who did not deploy) thought he had this junk too, however he was a Marine, and although he knew I had started to have symptoms got ALL 6 anthrax jabs, so who knows. He has calmed down on his complaints. Sometimes I think our spouses have sympathy issues, or other issues - depending on the spouse and I don't mean any disrespect.

Your wife has had 2 babies in 5 years, that will mess a heck with your body - hormones - plus she is changing as she matures. This is not to discount your concerns, but Fibromyalgia seems to strike more women and I wonder if hormones play a part. What we eat can cause great deal of pain too. Nightshades, which include pepper, potatoes, and tomatoes can cause a lot of pain. Diet Soda too. If your wife drinks diet soda, have her stop that. If she takes something with cayenne pepper in it to loose wieght - this could cause her pain due to nightshade family.

I am not kidding when I tell you potatoes and pork products like smoked ham cause me great pain and distress. I avoid them, but it took a while to learn about these factors.

DISRUPTED SLEEP - is a huge factor in Fibromyalgia, and with two young children your wife has probably given up her days of sleeping in.

While there may be a connection, to our illnesses - sometimes these things "just happen" too. Don't beat yourself up, or blame yourself. I know this is probably hard.

Please take care, and remember the best, best medicine for little ones is physical touch. So kangaroo that little man to your body as much as possible.

[ March 22, 2010, 06:22 AM: Message edited by: endure ]

Posts: 484 | From: FLA | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 749

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for GWI Guy   Email GWI Guy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thank you for your words of comfort. We are careful of what we eat and generally eat well rounded meals never indulging in any one food group. We dont eat pork hardly at all other than a piece of bacon every now and then as for all the other items we just eat them not indulge in them. but I will take your words of advice and I appreciate them. I did read an article that said that our problems may possibly be transmitted through biting insects like flies, mosquitoes, bed bugs, fleas and alike this is a big worry of mine. I signed on the dotted line and gave myself to the military not my wife and children and all my other loved ones..

[ March 23, 2010, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: GWI Guy ]

Posts: 131 | From: Kansas | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 78

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for 13FOXCOLT   Email 13FOXCOLT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't have any facts but I did hear about the Families of Desert Storm Vets getting the same symptoms as the vets themselves. This was even covered on the news. I was tested in 04 on a BIO-energy system and tested positive for Uranium 234,235,238 and Strontium 90 and cessium. I also tested positive for sarin and mustard gas as well as alot of toxins which had the people that tested me baffled until I told them I was in Desert Storm. I was told that some of it could be passed to my wife through sex, mainly the radioactive metals. I was married in 94 and my wife complained that I burned her when we had sex. I have other Desert Storm vet friends that say the same thing. I told the VA doctors this and it went in one ear and out the others SNAFU for the VA when it comes to offering complaints. I don't want to scare you but you ask. I'm single now.
Posts: 176 | From: Virginia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 23

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Keith   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As for what we have being contagious I would say that if that is the case then we had to have been exposed to a biological agent. I was trained in the army and took the NBC/NCO-OC training course. And it would have been very easy for the Iraqis to unleash such weapons. I did have one person at my VA say he believed we was exposed to this danger and all the work done by Dr Nichols and his wife suggest this with the mycoplasms or whatever they found, so I would say it is a possibilty.

Posts: 546 | From: Washington State | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 498

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for sea52501   Email sea52501   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that spouses tend to have sympathy pains for each other, but I think there is a real chance of spreading some of the problems we face. I'm sure that heavy metals can transmit if they are able to get out into the blood stream. Mycoplasms can also be contagious although I'm not sure how many of us have them. Coincidentally, a week ago my wife asked me to look at her scalp. For over 10 years I've had a persistent 'rash' (as the VA calls it) on my scalp. It never shows up anywhere else on my body. Last week there was a bump on my wife's scalp that looks just like the ones on mine. It was filled with the same pus and then drained water just like mine. I think that much in my case at least argues for some degree of contagious transmission.
Posts: 239 | From: Ottumwa, Iowa | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 78

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for 13FOXCOLT   Email 13FOXCOLT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

There alot of stuff on the net about sick Gulf War famlies.

Posts: 176 | From: Virginia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 78

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for 13FOXCOLT   Email 13FOXCOLT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

I found another one, sorry gail I should of put them both together.

Posts: 176 | From: Virginia | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 1052

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for endure         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This goes into the complexity of the situation and differing exposures and ties into the fMRI stuff where they can take a picture of the brain and see 3 different types of GWI.

I found an article that talked about prostate cancer and Chronic fatigue syndrom having a possible viral cause that is similar.

Then mycoplasms, which are real - but which I didn't test positive for and while A LOT do, some don't.

Then Genetics.

For us it is complicated, then extract it to families and the host of differing exposures.

GWI guy, though all that said - start simple. Your wife has had a lot of trauma to her body, 2 babies in 5 years, a child with medical complications and disrupted sleep. These factors alone effect her immunity levels.
Disrupted sleep alone is HUGE. HUGE!!! Can make you psychotic - and is a tool for brain washing . . . think about that, it is for real.

How ever you slice it, dice it, mix it, or mash it this whole kettle of fish just stinks doesn't it folks? A real Pisser as my granny would say.
At least we have each other here.

Posts: 484 | From: FLA | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Admin IGWC
Member # 4

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Gale   Email Gale   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leishmaniasis is VERY contagious and was one of the problems our former member, Jan Brown, contracted from her husband before she died.

Read this link about Jan and Arvid's bout with Leishmaniasis:

Here's the legal battle they fought:


Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 06a0206p.06





GRAYDON BROWN, a minor child; HELEN

ELIZABETH BROWN, a minor child,




of Veterans Affairs,




No. 05-1673

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.

No. 04-73411—John Corbett O’Meara, District Judge.

Argued: April 27, 2006

Decided and Filed: June 23, 2006

Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GILMAN, and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.



ARGUED: Robert P. Walsh, LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. WALSH, Battle Creek, Michigan,

for Appellant. Elizabeth Larin, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Detroit, Michigan,

for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert P. Walsh, LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT P. WALSH, Battle

Creek, Michigan, for Appellant. Elizabeth Larin, ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee.




ROGERS, Circuit Judge. This Federal Tort Claims Act suit was brought by the family of

a former U.S. Army serviceman, who himself is not a plaintiff. The former serviceman, Arvid

Brown, caught a parasitic infection called Leishmaniasis while serving in the Persian Gulf War in

1991. Arvid transmitted the disease to his family after his discharge. A civilian doctor diagnosed

Arvid with the disease after the family members had already been infected. According to the

plaintiffs, the federal government negligently failed to warn Arvid that he had been exposed to the

disease while stationed in Saudi Arabia. The plaintiffs also claim that the federal government failed


No. 05-1673 Brown, et al. v. United States Page 2

1The complaint says that the following agencies held such conferences: the Department of Health and Human

Services, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Center for Disease Control.

to diagnose or treat the illness, neglected to follow proper procedure, committed medical

malpractice, and thereby caused them $125 million in damages.

The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, citing

United States v. Feres, 340 U.S. 135 (1950). The Feres doctrine, however, does not preclude the

plaintiffs’ claims to the extent that they seek damages caused by acts or omissions in connection

with the government’s allegedly negligent 1994 medical examination of Arvid, which occurred

while he was a civilian. We therefore reverse in part.

The U.S. Army activated Arvid for service in the Persian Gulf in January of 1991. Arvid

arrived in Saudi Arabia a few weeks later near the end of January. While stationed in Saudi Arabia,

he was exposed to Leishmaniasis. Leishmaniasis is borne by sand flies. Arvid received militaryprovided

medical care for the bites of sand flies while in Saudi Arabia. The Army released Arvid

from active military service on June 4, 1991, a little less than six months after he arrived in Saudi

Arabia. At the time he left active service, Arvid had not been diagnosed with Leishmaniasis.

On September 3, 1994, more than three years after his release from active service, Arvid

married Janyce Elaine Surface, who has since passed away. Ten days after the wedding, on

September 13, 1994, Arvid received a medical examination from the U.S. Department of Veterans

Affairs at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Michigan. This medical examination was part of

the “Persian Gulf War Registry” project. According to the plaintiffs, this examination did not detect

Arvid’s Leishmaniasis.

Janyce bore Arvid two children: Asa, born August 30, 1995, and Helen, born June 18, 1997.

Arvid unknowingly transmitted his Leishmaniasis to Janyce through personal and sexual contact,

and Janyce, in turn, transmitted it to their children in utero. Arvid was diagnosed with the disease

by a civilian doctor on October 1, 1998. His wife and children were diagnosed with the disease

about two years later on October 4, 2000.

The complaint alleges that the federal government “knew of the health care risk posed by

Leishmaniasis to members of the Armed Services . . . deployed to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”

The government allegedly knew of these health risks “on or before” August 1990 from a number

of sources: published, peer reviewed scientific and medical research in academic journals and

conferences conducted by various federal agencies.1

In addition, the complaint further states that the government had knowledge of the disease

risk to Arvid after his release from active duty. According to the complaint, on November 13, 1991,

more than five months after Arvid’s release from active duty, the government “ordered that

individuals that had served in Saudi Arabia [and other Middle Eastern locations] . . . at any time

since August 1, 1990, not donate blood.”

Arvid’s wife and children brought this action seeking relief under the following theories of

liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Michigan law: failure to warn, failure to

diagnose, failure to treat, failure to follow Defense Department policies and directives, loss of

companionship, and medical malpractice. The plaintiffs allege in their complaint that the

government acted negligently and caused them harm when it failed to warn Arvid “that he had been

exposed to Leishmaniasis while in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” In addition, the government

negligently failed to warn Arvid “that his service medical records indicated that he may have

contracted Leishmaniasis . . . .” Similarly, the government failed to diagnose and treat Arvid’s

disease in a timely manner. The plaintiffs further allege that the government’s failure to implement

No. 05-1673 Brown, et al. v. United States Page 3

its Comprehensive Clinic Evaluation Protocol for Leishmaniasis, issued in June of 1994 (about three

months prior to the Browns’ wedding), caused the plaintiffs’ infections. Finally, the plaintiffs claim

that government physicians committed medical malpractice by failing to diagnose and treat Arvid’s

Leishmaniasis, and by failing to warn him of the risks of the illness.

The district court entered an order dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. At a

hearing, the district court explained that the plaintiffs’ lawsuit is barred by Feres because it derives

from events that took place in the course of Arvid’s active duty military service. This appeal


The Feres doctrine precludes FTCA liability for injuries to service members when the

injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service. Feres, 340 U.S. at 146; see

also United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681 (1987). The doctrine has been extended to bar a claim

of a military dependent where the claim had its genesis in an injury to an active duty service

member. But as explained below, the doctrine does not apply to claims based on post-discharge

medical malpractice. The family members’ claims in this case were therefore not barred to the

extent that they attribute their injuries to medical examinations that took place after Arvid’s

discharge, and any duty to warn that arose from such examinations.

The independent claims of dependents of service members have been barred under Feres

only where such claims have their “genesis” in an injury to a serviceperson incident to military

service. This court for instance applied the Feres bar in a suit on behalf of a deceased baby alleging

medical malpractice in the prenatal care of the servicewoman mother. See Irvin v. United States,

845 F.2d 126, 130-31 (6th Cir. 1988); see also Monaco v. United States, 661 F.2d 129, 134 (9th Cir.

1981) (quoted with approval in Irvin) (holding that Feres bars the claims of the daughter of a

serviceman exposed to radiation).

But the bar on a dependent’s claims under Feres extends no farther than it would to a

serviceperson’s claim based on the same injury. Therefore, if a claim by Arvid himself would not

have been barred by Feres, a suit by his dependents is at least to the same extent not barred. In this

case, a claim by Arvid for post-discharge medical malpractice would not be barred, and claims by

his dependents that have their genesis in such post-discharge malpractice are not barred.

In United States v. Brown, 348 U.S. 110 (1954), the Supreme Court held that Feres did not

bar a tort claim brought by a veteran who alleged that he had received, after his discharge, negligent

treatment by government doctors that aggravated an in-service knee injury. Id. at 110-12. The

Brown veteran sought medical care in a Veterans Administration Hospital for an injury to his left

knee that had “occurred while [he] was on active duty in the Armed Services.” Id. at 110. The

veteran had been honorably discharged in 1944. See id. Seven years later in 1951, Veterans

Administration doctors operated on the knee and used a defective tourniquet that caused serious

nerve damage. See id. at 110-11. The Court explained that Feres did not bar an action seeking

recovery for the nerve damage caused by the tourniquet:

The injury for which suit was brought was not incurred while respondent was on

active duty or subject to military discipline. The injury occurred after his discharge,

while he enjoyed a civilian status. The damages resulted from a defective tourniquet

applied in a veterans’ hospital. Respondent was there, of course, because he had

been in the service and because he had received an injury in the service. And the

causal relation of the injury of the service was sufficient to bring the claim under the

Veterans Act. But, unlike the claims in the Feres case, this one is not foreign to the

broad pattern of liability which the United States undertook by the Tort Claims Act.

No. 05-1673 Brown, et al. v. United States Page 4

2It could be argued that Janyce caught Leishmaniasis before Arvid had his 1994 examination, as she and Arvid

wed ten days prior to that examination. Janyce and Arvid wed on September 3, 1994, and Arvid underwent his medical

examination on September 13, 1994. It is possible that Janyce contracted Leishmaniasis from personal contact with

Arvid prior to his medical examination. But the complaint does not provide an estimated infection date for Janyce, and

this court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Fleming v. U.S. Postal Serv., 186 F.3d

697, 698 (6th Cir. 1999). Reading the complaint favorably to the plaintiffs, we conclude for purposes of the motion to

dismiss only that Janyce did not contract Leishmaniasis until after Arvid’s 1994 examination.

3Of course, we express no opinion with respect to other possible hurdles to recovery by plaintiffs, such as

whether or not there was a duty or proximate causation.

4 Maas v. United States, 94 F.3d 291, 296 (7th Cir. 1996); M.M.H. v. United States, 966 F.2d 285, 288-89 (7th

Cir. 1992).

Id. at 112. The Court concluded that “[s]ince the negligent act giving rise to the injury in the present

case was not incident to the military service,” Feres did not preclude the claim from going forward.

Id. at 113.

Brown supports a finding that Arvid could bring a lawsuit against the government, for

instance, for whatever injury the 1994 examination might have caused him. Consequently, Arvid’s

dependents’ claims that are based on the same acts or omissions can proceed. Here, as in Brown,

Arvid received a medical examination after his discharge. The tort duties owed by the treating or

examining physicians thus arose after discharge in both the cases of the Brown veteran and Arvid.

Arvid’s medical examination, like the Brown veteran’s knee operation, related to the health effects

of his military service. Just as the military-relatedness of the underlying illness did not bar the

Brown veterans’ lawsuit, neither could the military-relatedness of Arvid’s underlying case of

Leishmaniasis bar a claim hypothetically brought by Arvid. The Brown veteran’s nerve damage

occurred post-discharge. Likewise, according to the complaint, Arvid’s condition worsened due to

the lack of diagnosis or treatment after his 1994 examination. Therefore, just as the Brown veteran’s

claim was not incident to service, neither would a claim by Arvid for any injuries stemming from

the 1994 examination be incident to service.

Because a hypothetical claim by Arvid for injuries caused by a post-discharge examination

would not be barred by Feres, plaintiffs’ claims having the same basis face no Feres bar. See Irvin,

845 F.2d at 130-31. In fact, the complaint can be read as attributing much, and perhaps all, of the

responsibility for the plaintiffs’ infections to the 1994 examination’s failure to diagnose Arvid. Asa

was born in 1995 and Helen was born in 1997. The plaintiffs could argue that Asa’s and Helen’s

Leishmaniasis could have been mitigated had the government physicians discovered and treated

their father’s illness in 1994. Further, Janyce’s illness might have been avoided entirely, the

plaintiffs may argue, since she contracted Leishmaniasis from personal and sexual contact with

Arvid.2 Each of the plaintiffs’ tort claims—i.e., failure to warn, failure to diagnose or treat, medical

malpractice, loss of companionship, and failure to follow Defense Department policies—may

proceed on the basis that the plaintiffs’ recoverable injuries had their genesis in Arvid’s 1994

medical examination.3

The government relies on cases in which the Feres doctrine barred claims that the

government failed to warn or inform former servicepersons of the dangers of exposure to radiation

that occurred during a period of duty. See, e.g., Heilman v. United States, 731 F.2d 1104, 1108-09

(3d Cir. 1984); Lombard v. United States, 690 F.2d 215, 223-27 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Laswell v. Brown,

683 F.2d 261, 266 (8th Cir. 1982). We do not reject the holdings of these cases, although we note

that they are arguably in some tension with later holdings from the Seventh Circuit.4 Instead, we

read these cases to be distinguishable. In Heilman the Third Circuit followed Lombard, and

explained that both cases involved the continuing nature of one single tort—failure to warn that

continued from before discharge until after: “Since the failure to warn arose at the same time as the

No. 05-1673 Brown, et al. v. United States Page 5

original injury, and both occurred while Heilman was enlisted in the military, the Feres doctrine

leaves the courts without jurisdiction to entertain the suit.” 731 F.2d at 1109. The Heilman court

explicitly distinguished a district court case in which it was “not clear whether the complaint

properly alleged that the United States first learned of the dangers of radiation subsequent to

discharge.” Id. at 1109 n.5. The Eighth Circuit in Laswell explicitly distinguished Brown as


In Brown, there was an affirmative negligent action after-discharge—the misuse of

the tourniquet. In the case at bar . . . , the wrongful act occurred while the plaintiff

was a member of the armed forces. It is only the government’s failure to remedy or,

with medical treatment, to limit the damage inflicted while the plaintiff was in the

service that leads to a claim for relief.

683 F.2d at 267. Here, plaintiffs’ complaint can be read at least in part to challenge post-discharge

negligence that is distinct from the mere failure to cure injury or exposure that occurred during a

period of duty, particularly in light of the 1994 physical examination. This case is accordingly more

like Brown than like the radiation exposure cases cited by the government. The key distinction is

the post-discharge 1994 examination that arguably created a new duty to warn.

Although the district court has jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims on this basis, it has no

jurisdiction to award damages for the military’s conduct related to Arvid while he was on active

duty. For instance, the military’s decision to deploy Arvid to Saudi Arabia cannot be used at trial

to prove liability, nor can the government’s decision not to warn, diagnose, or treat him while he was

a soldier. The plaintiffs may not recover any portion of their damages deriving solely from military

decisions incident to Arvid’s service.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is reversed in part. The case is

remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[ March 24, 2010, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Gale ]


Posts: 3482 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Member # 749

Member Rated:
Icon 1 posted      Profile for GWI Guy   Email GWI Guy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyone care to sum this up for those of us with ADD... I couldnt keep a proper train of thought through the arguement only that they acknowledeged she caught leishamianiasis from him after his sept 30 exam.
Posts: 131 | From: Kansas | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator

Quick Reply

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | American Gulfwar Veterans Association

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

(c) 1999-2005. INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS RESERVE ALL RIGHTS TO THEIR POSTINGS ON THIS BULLETIN BOARD WHERE COPYRIGHT IS NOT EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMED. (KANSAS CITY, MO.) *** Junior members, members, moderators, and administrators reserve common-law copyright privileges and rights to their own individual postings, unless expressly disclaimed. By using this bulletin board and in consideration for the privileges of such use, all guests, junior members, members, moderators, and administrators irrevocably agree to grant AGWVA permission and consent to use, store, retrieve, copy, distribute, and edit such message postings without limitation or exception, and irrevocably appoints AGWVA as agent for the purpose of execting any document or instrument necessary to effectuate this agreement. Furthermore, by using this bulletin board and in consideration therefor, all authorized or unauthorized guests, junior members, members, moderators, and administrators agree that the controlling jurisdiction over any dispute or controversy arising from the use or access of this bulletin board shall be governed under the laws of the State of Missouri and jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri. *** While we encourage private messages to be posted in private forums requiring special authorization to enter, some messages on this bulletin board are protected by attorney-client privilege, doctor-patient privilege, and/or priest-penitent privilege, and such messages are intended solely for the use of those posting those messages, the intended recipient of that message, and AGWVA Bulletin Board's management - any disclosure beyond these parties is unintentional. The voluntary provision of medical, regulatory services/VA-representation, or religious services to members of the AGWVA Bulletin Board shall be limited by the case-by-case circumstances of each situation and shall be provided or not provided at the sole discretion of the person providing such services with the understanding that such services may stop or be limited at any time. Voluntary provision of any such service does not guarantee or assure any person a future or further right to such services. *** For posting messages to or from this bulletin board, AGWVA's management (moderators and administrators) are not compensated, directly or indirectly. *** Unauthorized use, copying, or distribution of material posted to this bulletin board is prohibited. Unauthorized access to this bulletin board is illegal and AGWVA reserves the right to prosecute anyone attempting to illegally access this bulletin board. AGWVA has stated explicit rules of conduct for its members posting on this bulletin board and all such rules are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set out hereinbelow. ***