All the years of The Daily Show, I never did this, like went somewhere and interviewed somebody. Thanks for having me. I'll just start in sort of, simply, which is, in your mind, what are the biggest hurdles to counteract toxic exposures for veterans, and more specifically, burn pit exposure? I would like to see a stop using some of the technologies and the processes that we've used to get rid of stuff when we're deployed. You're saying digging a hole and burning everything in it with jet fuel might not be the answer-- I'm just saying-- -- in modern society. I'm just saying that's one thing going forward I think we should get our hands around. The second thing is, I want to make sure that-- and I am determined to, as Secretary-- ensure that we are not passively waiting for information to help us address this problem so that we can be in a position to get the care and the benefits that our vets have earned. So why do you think that hasn't occurred? Certainly burn pit exposure not a surprise. It's been 11 years. Actually longer, John. Probably longer. Right, because it goes back really to the first Gulf War. What information are they waiting for? The researchers are trying to establish to a level that's demanded by the statutes, by laws, the certainty of the causation of these illnesses. Soldiers are dying of these illnesses and they can't get their health coverage and their benefits. So can you see that it would be difficult for them to hear, we're still chasing down information, when the information seems to already exist. These were outlawed in America in the '70s. I don't pretend that my frustration reaches anywhere near the veterans' frustration. But I am frustrated. Which is why I made this the first thing we did out of the box. We have now established a presumption that if you have rhinitis, if you have sinusitis, if you have asthma, we presume that came from your time in the military. And therefore you qualify for care and benefits. I think veterans would all say sinusitis, rhinitis, and asthma, is fine but that's not what's killing them. Do I think that's done? No, I don't. And I won't stop until the presumptive lists include well beyond that very meager list that we've established. What gave you the-- I guess the confidence that the science or the information had reached the level where you felt comfortable giving presumption, whereas with these other constrictive bronchiolitis, lymphomas, colon cancers, why do you feel like the information hasn't reached that level? We are able to look and make the decision on these first three conditions based on-- What were the metrics? I wish I could-- I want to be able to answer the question. I just don't-- I haven't-- But you were satisfied that that met the statute? I was satisfied. Our team of clinicians, researchers, told me we can establish that these three conditions are presumed to be caused by being, for their military service in these geographies during this time. So if your science team gives you a recommendation for these other conditions, then you will sign them-- you will pass those through. Not only that, I'm asking them to so go get as much science as there is on this. Is the hold up, in your mind, money-- No. -- or information? So it's not money. John, we've just submitted a budget for about $270 billion. It's the second biggest budget in the federal government. A little less than half of that is for the provision of health care. We're not asking what the cost is. So I'm not sure then, if it's not money, and it's not science-- The biggest hurdle is establishing that link, that scientific link. And I will be damned if I don't establish it. I don't think you could say that we haven't established a link between exposure to jet fuel and certain cancers and autoimmune disorders. We have. I want to make sure that I also recognize that we do operate within the context of a series of requirements. We have not been yet able to meet the requirements. Let's at least help people understand what this bar that we have to reach entails. The process and the statute requires us to meet a certain degree of threshold. What is that threshold? Getting to one-- taking one path to that threshold is too slow. Congress, going back to the Vietnam vets and Agent Orange, required us to work with the National Academies of Science. From what I've seen, is they've done a ton of National Academy Science studies. And people waive those all the time and say, no link's been established. But unfortunately, those studies all say insufficient data. And that data is not going to be getting any better because it's provided by DOD. And if it's insufficient in 2008, it's going to be insufficient in 2020. Mm-hmm. I believe that there are rules of this-- But why can't you define those rules? I'm sorry. I wish I could. And maybe that's why-- How do you know when you've achieved them? Because we have a series of requirements that we have to meet that we've been running against for years. And what we've been-- What are the requirements? --running against them. We've been running against them with one strain of information that comes from the National Academies of Science. Right, which is paid for by the VA-- and the information comes from DOD. And what I'm saying is that's a mistake. We should get the information and we now are getting information from a much wider range of science. Doesn't that information already exist? It does exist. Yeah, it does exist. And I'm saying go get it and let's put it into our decision making. And so I'm really trying to understand, what's the bar you're looking for? Because to not be able to articulate that clearly really troubles me. And by the way, I don't doubt your empathy and I don't doubt your care. I really don't. And that's why I'm here talking to you. The beauty is, I don't really give a shit. As you shouldn't. I don't really care what you think if I'm doing a good job or not. I care about the vets think. We've got-- I should show you this. Give me Isaiah's fourth thing. This is from the panel we did with some veterans. I just want you to listen to Isaiah James who is an infantryman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. [VIDEO PLAYBACK] I was a healthy kid. When I went in the army, I could run five miles like it was nothing. Now I can barely breathe at night. And have to use a breathing machine and go through breathing treatments and all these things. And the United States military and the government doesn't give a damn about us once we're out. Once you're out, they do not care. If another country was doing to our veterans what we allow to be done to our veterans, we'd be at war already. [END PLAYBACK] That's hard to hear. Clearly you would agree with the sentiments I think to some extent. I agree with all of his sentiment-- each and every bit of it. And so you're asking a very logical question, which is, OK so do you need like three papers from five researchers or what is it. And I don't know the answer to that. But if you don't know the answer, how do you know when you found it? I guess I'm trying to figure out, as the executive, you could do this in the stroke of a pen. I wish I could. But I can't. I've asked for that. I've asked-- My point is, I still can't understand what this bar is that you talk about, that's a statute. Because if there was a statute-- I wish it were like a puzzle. I keep asking the same series of questions. OK, so like we got all these pieces and just tell me where to put them. And then let's figure out which piece we're missing and then we'll build that. You know, I'm looking at all the options available to me, especially on, the as I've said to you earlier, the most difficult cases. Not even guys just like Isaiah who's clearly paid a huge price. And I'm trying to figure out how do we get him into our care in a timely way. And then we can figure out the benefits later. This delay is killing people. I mean I think-- that's not hyperbole. This is about taking care of a problem that we caused through our negligence to our own service people. I think you're trying to get me to rebut that notion, and I'm-- No I'm not. And I'm telling you I'm not rebutting that notion. I understand that. I'm trying to get you to-- honestly I think I'm trying to get you to say the system can't tolerate it right now. We need to expand that system and make changes to that system. And that takes money. And this is what I need from Congress. I don't believe that to be the case. Would we be better served by beginning a process of implementation with auditing on the back end of it? Because I look at the 911 program, right. It puts people in a preventative screening program. It gives them treatment for these toxic exposures from experts. It's a program that very clearly can be scaled up. Why not announce a five year implementation program, as opposed to a individual disease to disease-- I mean, why take the tact you're taking and not that one? What I'm doing right now, I believe, that that helped us in the first instance-- establish the presumption that these three conditions are service connected. And I am hopeful, and I will push the system, to establish that presumption for other conditions. And I think I can only get more by this process that I've put in place and by putting pressure on our experts, who I think are the best in the world. In that process is there anything that you need to help expedite that? I really want vets to file their claims. We can actually draw some conclusions about the experience of people there as a cohort. Last question, then I'll let you go. Last question. If you're satisfied that the process will never provide you that cohort study, that perfect double blind, is there an expedited process of presumption that you would be satisfied to move forward with? I guess what I'd say is, I'm trying this process now. If it's impossible and we still end up in this position where we can't get the vets in a timely way, what they need in terms of care, then I would definitely look at anything. Thank you. Much appreciated. Thanks man. Thanks.
Kinda weird that this guy couldn't/wouldn't even answer as to the process for how they decide what conditions as caused by the military involvement are covered by the VA.
This interview and the appearance on Colbert's show are all I've seen of the new Jon Stewart. I loved the Daily Show but honestly, I'm getting some major red flags.
Obviously, the baseless Covid lab leak theory stuff was glaringly stupid and irresponsible. This interview is definitely less bad, but is honestly still making me uneasy.
Firstly, it seems he cherry picks individual cases where a veteran got sick as if that's proof of a direct causal link between burn pits and their sickness. If the link between burn pits and cancer is so indisputable, then bring on an expert or a panel of experts to explain the data. Why is it a discussion between you and this guy? Maybe he's done that elsewhere? I didn't watch the whole episode.
It seems to me like theres a team of scientists at the VA who believe the link has not been sufficiently substantiated on one side, and then there's Jon Stewart on the other end going "but it's obvious!" The two things I've seen of him so far = all style, no substance.