Again, there was no suggestion that a chemical warfare agent caused the injury. The doctor based his opinion on the statements of the corporal and the members of the medical community who had originally seen and treated him. However, the Marine's health record does not reflect a definite cause of his injury. He added that the pattern of the lesions and the appearance of new ones much later made it unlikely that a one-time exposure to a chemical warfare agent would be the cause of the injury, but he was unable to give a definitive cause. We have little hard evidence for this case and conclusions are complicated by difficulties remembering details with the passage of time.
Some data support a possible exposure.
The Fox MM-1 apparently alarmed. The corporal definitely developed blisters. One nurse who saw the injuries documented in the corporal's medical records the possibility of a blister agent as the cause of the injury. One of the dermatologists opined that exposure to a blister agent likely caused the injury. However, most of what we have learned supports a different conclusion.