Our Survivor's Story Chapter 5: An Act of Scientific Fraud
- BioSymphony Editorial Team
- Apr 30
- 3 min read
The Lie in the Math
The Department of Defense, through the AFPMB and TG36, based its exposure guidance for permethrin-treated uniforms on laboratory logic that unraveled the moment it faced the real world.
Their mistake? A deliberate one: using the World Health Organization’s oral ADI for permethrin as the benchmark for a dermal exposure route. This is not just a scientific oversight. It is a category error—one that ignores the very essence of toxicokinetics and human physiology.
Let’s be clear: the oral ADI is a value derived from ingested doses, where exposure moves through the gastrointestinal tract and liver first (first-pass metabolism). But dermal exposure bypasses the liver, entering systemic circulation via the skin and adipose tissues. It is absorbed more slowly but retained longer, especially in lipophilic compounds like permethrin. Add heat, sweat, DEET, friction, and open wounds to the mix, and the assumptions break apart.
And yet, the AFPMB used that oral threshold—an apples-to-arsenic comparison—to make it all “fit.”
🔢 The Math of Assumption? No The Math of Deception
The AFPMB’s published claim in TG36 was that the dermal absorption rate from permethrin-treated uniforms was just 2.29% of the applied dose per day. This figure was never based on field data from deployed soldiers in heat, rain, or while wounded. It came from lab conditions: dry, static, and controlled.
“PERMETHRIN WILL NOT WASH OUT OF TREATED UNIFORMS WHEN WORN IN THE RAIN OR WHEN FORDING STREAMS...” – TG36
What this means is the residual permethrin load continues to bioaccumulate over time, contradicting the single-day, single-point-in-time logic used in DoD modeling.
Further compounding the error, the EPA in its RED (Reregistration Eligibility Decision) documents rejected industry-submitted absorption estimates of 2–5% in 2009 as scientifically invalid, citing flaws in experimental design and inconsistency with human biomonitoring data.
Yet the military approved even lower estimates.
⚠️ Ignoring Synergy and Real-World Dynamics
The TG36 guidance casually acknowledges the “concurrent use of DEET and permethrin” for maximum protection. However, it fails to include any adjustment to absorption rates for this combination. Multiple peer-reviewed studies confirm that DEET increases skin permeability, leading to enhanced permethrin absorption—a synergistic toxicity that alters neurological, hepatic, and reproductive toxicity profiles dramatically.
Worse still, the very same guide warns not to treat uniform caps due to risk of excessive absorption through the scalp, acknowledging that certain body areas absorb more permethrin—but then pretends this risk doesn't exist when calculating total body dose.
The guide even cautions against treating underwear—because of increased absorption risk—but that warning didn't make it into the math either.
🧬 BioSymphony’s Correction: Lived Reality Over Legal Liability
The BioSymphony models (30.0% to 39.0%+ absorption) correct this by factoring in:
Skin degradation due to repeated DEET use
Friction, humidity, and microabrasions
Unlaundered or insufficiently laundered uniforms
Real weather conditions
The reservoir effect of adipose-rich tissues
Documented urinary biomarkers (excreted without consent)
These realities are completely ignored by the DoD’s one-size-fits-policy estimate.
The DoD’s use of the WHO’s oral ADI for dermal exposure wasn’t just scientifically inappropriate—it was institutionally self-serving. It allowed them to pass regulatory review and justify the mass deployment of permethrin-treated uniforms. But the cost wasn’t measured in spreadsheets. It was measured in mitochondria. In endocrine disruptions. In sperm counts. In suicide rates.
The lie isn’t just in the number.It’s in the structure of the calculation itself.
Works Cited
1. Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB). Technical Guide No. 36: Personal Protective Measures Against Insects and Other Arthropods of Military Significance. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, updated July 2015.
TG 36
TG 18
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Permethrin. Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 738-R-06-017. Washington, D.C.: EPA, May 2006.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Permethrin. Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 738-R-06-017. Washington, D.C.: EPA, May 2006.
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for Permethrin. Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA 738-R-09-306. Washington, D.C.: EPA May 2009
5. U.S. Department of Defense. Appendix B4 – FY 2022–2026 Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPMP) and Appendices. Defense Health Agency, Armed Forces Pest Management Board. Accessed April 2025.
Comments