Documents attached to bibliography entries

List of questions which, if asked, will reveal where provinces and territories are violating or not enforcing laws related to persons with environmental sensitivities. These questions were first developed for the people in the federal government who claim to encourage conformity, within Canada, to international commitments Canada has made.

Leznof was well known for subjecting persons with sensitivities to a reverse onus in clinical settings, i.e. placing the presumption on the wrong side with respect to their experience of repeatable, controllable circumstances.

Joe Krop's supporters helped turn the media against us. They told the media that CPSO did not believe sensitivities were real, which was false. They were parroting the lie that was often told by doctors of environmental medicine, who told their patients that any criticism of their methods was done only because the CPSO did not believe the health complaint was real.

The damage that was done by the berserk mob that was supporting doctor Krop is incalculable. Journalists believed what they were told by Toronto area consumers, despite the fact that the CPSO had written to every Ontario MPP to tell them that their concerns about Dr. Krop did not reflect a lack of concern about persons with sensitivities, but merely concern about the methods used by doctors of environmental medicine.

It would be hard to calculate the damage that has been done to persons with sensitivities by the cult of environmental medicine.

Arthur Leznoff had made a significant contribution to the exclusion, injury and unnecessary killing of persons with sensitivities. His arbitrary dismissal of environmental sensitivities had no place in publicly funded research. On the other hand, Health Canada had contributed to the unnecessary killing of thousands of Canadians with sensitivities. For bigots who had reasserted control of the issue in the federal health department, Leznoff's involvement was welcome.

HRDC has several responsibilities concerning human rights and disabled persons, but it is easier to pass the buck.

AFN has lots of issues to deal with. Meanwhile, there can be no doubt that, with housing and nutrition conditions, sensitivities are affecting the health of First Nations people across Canada, including a contribution to suicides.

It is extremely important to note that Dr. Mahoney became an advocate for children with learning and behavioural disabilities resulting from sensitivities, and spoke at the 1996 National Conference of Children with Sensitivities in 1996. He is an example of a physician, medical leader, who was able to learn and help protect children.

In a 1990 OHRC settlement, the Ottawa Carleton District Health Council promised to keep sensitivities in mind in health planning. They did not do so. Hundreds of local persons with sensitivities have been unnecessarily killed in local health care since. This note was written in 1995, with the hope that the DHC would start keeping its commitment. Even in its subsequent manifestation as the Champlain District Health Council, it never did.

After a half decade of acting to protect persons with sensitivities from being killed in the health care system, and excluded or injured there and elsewhere, Diane Marleau fumbled the ball. Abusive attitudes returned to the federal health department.

Gowanlock stymied efforts made by Bruce Halliday, MP, and John Davies, a chronic disease epidemiologist in Health and Welfare.

Bob Rae turned his back on concerns about how his officials were contributing to the exclusion, injury and unnecessary killing of persons with sensitivities in Ontario.

Jamieson was an apologist for, or at least an invisibilizer of, lethally abusive attitudes at the Ontario Ministry of Health.

Krauser was helpful, but others at the OMA advocated astonishingly irresponsible and abusive positions, with the exception of Carole Guzman and, in 1996, William Mahoney, the OMA's representative on the Ministry of Education's advisory panel on special needs.

Under Rosemary Brown, the OHRC was preoccupied with racism, ignored the exclusion, injury and killing of persons disabled by environmental sensitivities. OHRC staff were encouraging physicians to subject persons with sensitivities to a reverse onus concerning their experience of repeatable, controllable circumstances.

Grier did not address abuse issues, focused instead on legitimate but separate debate about doctors of environmental medicine.

The CPSO has not protected the public or guided the profession, as the history, rights, needs and well being of persons with sensitivities have been eclipsed behind consideration of the flaky ideas of so-called "doctors of environmental medicine."

The CPA has actively encouraged psychiatrists to think of sensitivities as being caused by mental illness, obscuring centuries of literature, consumer experience, recommendations by various authorities. Mapping prevalence against suicide rates suggests that there are more than 400 unnecessary Canadian suicides annually, of persons with central nervous system dysfunction that is caused or exacerbated by sensitivities who have been ploughed under by abusive attitudes encouraged by the CPA.

George Thomson is a good example of someone who is so committed to "taking the high road" that he is willing, even when he has mandated responsibilities, to overlook ongoing serious, even criminal, abuse.

Marleau abandoned the protection of persons with sensitivities from preventable harm in health care. More than 90,000 Canadians with sensitivities have been unnecessarily killed in health care since.

Outlines some of the myths, provides corrections.

Mottershead did not address the contribution being made by Ontario public servants to the ongoing exclusion, injury and unnecessary killing of persons with sensitivities.

Grier focused on a legitimate but separate debate about environmental medicine instead of protecting persons with sensitivities from being unnecessarily injured or killed in health care.

Bob Rae's government refused to see the rights of people with sensitivities, denied them protections that are normally available to the public, instead immersed themselves in debate about the approaches of so-called "doctors of environmental medicine."

Thomson was good on soft issues, but avoided taking positions or making statements about serious abuse. Parents with children who were being abused (assaulted) in the former Carleton Board of Education were discouraged from making complaints by attitudes at the Ottawa Police Service and the local Crown Attorney's office.

Health Ministers of the Bob Rae government, including Mary Lewis's boss, Ruth Grier, got lost in a consideration of the "new" ideas of so-called "doctors of environmental medicine" while ignoring their own officials' unethical and at times dishonest contribution to the exclusion, injury and unnecessary killing of persons with environmental sensitivities.

CBC journalists, like others, were (and are, as of 2010) eclipsing the actual history and legitimacy of sensitivities behind a legitimate but separate debate about the ideas of so-called "doctors of environmental medicine." They were ignoring positive activities in officialdom, while focusing on what the 1985 Ontario Ministry of Health Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Environmental Hypersensitivity Disorders (note plural) called a "polarized debate" that was based on "clearly untenable" premises.

As of 2010, CBC journalists have still not learned to differentiate between the ideas of doctors of environmental medicine, and the history, rights and needs of persons with sensitivities.

The first attachment (missing page 26) is a comprehensive outline of concerns. The second is a one page summary. The third relates to the new CBC broadcasting centre in Toronto, in which many staff became sick because CBC ignored various representations that it be built in such a way as to accommodate persons disabled by sensitivities.

Queen's Park reporters still, today, eclipse the actual history, rights and needs of persons with sensitivities behind debate about the ideas of so-called "doctors of environmental medicine." The OMA and the Ontario Ministry of Health have done little to address abuse by physicians or others. Making venues scent free hardly touches the issues, becomes a form of trivialization.

Mr. Thomson's bosses, Deputy Attornies General of Ontario Howard Hampton and Marion Boyd, turned a blind eye as children with sensitivities were assaulted and otherwise abused in schools, while persons with sensitivities were unnecessarily killed in health care.

While John Krauser, the OMA's ethics staff person, tried several times to address lethally abusive attitudes amongst physicians, others in the OMA stonewalled, trivialized or invisibilized the concern, and so the unnecessary killing of patients continued.

Three appeals were made to the OMA President in March of 1993. Although they are short, much material had been sent previously. [Search for OMA in this bibliography for some of the relevant documents.]

While physicians were unnecessarily killing patients with sensitivities, the body governing the profession in Ontario did nothing on their mandate to "protect the public and guide the profession" despite hundreds of approaches by consumers.

The Health Disciplines Appeals Board also ignored expressions of concern about the failure of the CPSO to stop Ontario physicians from unnecessarily killing patients and causing them other preventable harm.

Ashford and Miller's work was enough to convince the federal health department to act to protect persons whose central nervous system dysfunction is caused or exacerbated by sensitivities, but it was not enough for the people responsible for delivering health care in Ontario to protect them. Based on mapping prevalence of sensitivities against suicide stats, there have been a couple of thousand consequent suicides since, just in Ontario.

Jarvalt was powerless unless Michael Decter acted on his responsibilities, which he did not do, instead eclipsing the actual history, needs and rights of persons with sensitivities behind debate about doctors of environmental medicine. More than 30,000 people have been unnecessarily killed in Ontario health care since.

Health Ministers of the Bob Rae government, including Marie Lorenzo's boss, Ruth Grier, got lost in a consideration of the "new" ideas of so-called "doctors of environmental medicine" while ignoring their own officials' unethical and at times dishonest contribution to the exclusion, injury and unnecessary killing of persons with environmental sensitivities.

Lawand was helpful. ODI staff, with exception of Lawand and Darryl Rock, did not understand.

Previous Chief Coroner Ross Bennett had approached three Deputy Ministers after a suicide of someone who was ploughed under by abusive attitudes. James Young had asked Health DM Decter what was being done. So it only seemed sensible to suggest that the Chief Coroner approach the organization that represents the sector that was (is) causing the most preventable harm in the province, the Ontario Medical Association.

The Ontario Medical Review published several articles that trivialize the issues facing persons with sensitivities. Susan Abbey's 1993 article in the Ontario Medical Review was one of the worst, but not the only article she published that overtly encouraged the abuse of persons with sensitivities, that confused psychiatric sequelea with cause without providing data.

It is amazing that such irresponsible and hateful persons have maintained credibility amongst their peers for so long, and in the face of hundreds of years of literature not to mention concerns expressed by human rights officials and generations of consumers! The OMA's irresponsibility in continuing to publish what amounts to hate literature must also be mentioned.

By 1993, I had given up on approaching the bigots at the Ontario Medical Review and instead wrote the attached letter to the provincial coroner. It is ironic that, at the same time the OMR was invisibilizing the daily killing of persons with sensitivities by physicians, and trivializing associated needs, the OMA's ethics staff member, John Krauser, was helping us address attitudes in the Ontario government! Krauser mysteriously left the OMA in the late 1990's, shortly after he convinced the OMA's representative to the Ministry of Education to include sensitivities in assessments of learning and behavioural disabilities (as was already being done by several school boards).

The Ontario Medical Association had already published two articles and letters that invisibilized the serious consequences of hateful attitudes towards persons with environmental sensitivities. In 1993, they published the unsubstantiated hostile opinion of psychiatrist Susan Abbey, again invisibilizing the consequences of mistreatment by physicians. The antics of the Ontario Medical Review have mimicked the reaction of physicians when they were initially told that hand washing was important, even as John Krauser and others with the OMA were trying to bring an end to misconceptions and abuse by Ontario physicians.

Ironically, within a couple of years, the OMA was writing to OHRC Commissioner Rosemary Brown on our behalf, asking where the OHRC was getting its information. The OHRC, for three decades, with the exception of the time when Catherine Frazee was Chief Commissioner, and to a lesser extent when Keith Norton was Chief Commissioner, has subjected persons with sensitivities to a reverse onus on the basis of a legitimate but separate debate about "environmental medicine."

NDP health ministers Evelyn Gigantes and Frances Lankin turned a blind eye on concerns about deceit on the part of Ministry of Health officials concerning the history, rights, needs and available medicine for persons with environmental sensitivities.

Lankin and Gigantes's staff misled the public about the availability of a publicly insured method of diagnosis.

Gigantes, Lankin and Grier all turned a blind eye as officials in the Ministry of Health, deliberately or through stupidity, eclipsed the actual history, needs and rights of persons with sensitivities behind a legitimate but separate debate about the flaky methods of so-called "doctors of environmental medicine," despite warnings from provincial committee reports, medical educators, human rights commissioners, and organized medicine.

More than 30,000 people with sensitivities have been killed in Ontario health care since.

Mary Lewis, who was EA to Health Minister Ruth Grier, now heads the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. Ironically, thousands of heart patients are sick because of auto immune problems that were irresponsibly ignored by the Ministry of Health while she worked there. A list of cardivascular symptoms in the 1985 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Environmental Hypersensitivity Disorders (note plural) had no meaning in the Minister's office then, or in her organization now.

Cardiovascular Symotoms Reported by Patients

COO. CARDIOVASCULAR
C01 MIGRAINE
C02 HYPERTENSION
C03 CARDIA RHYTHM DISTURBANCES
C04 SPASM
C05 CIRCULATION IRREGULARITIES
C06 TACHYCARDIA
C07 VASCULITIS
COB PALLOR
C09 HYPOGLYCEMIA
Cl0 MONONUCLEOSIS
C11 HEPATITIS

Lampoons tendency of officialdom to defer to physicians on health care matters, even when the complaint is that physicians are unnecessarily injuring and killing patients and causing other damages.

Christopherson ignored concerns about the contribution of his cabinet colleagues to the exclusion, injury and unnecessary killing of persons with environmental sensitivities.

Now a federal MP. Christopherson and his NDP colleagues are silent about the daily unnecessary killing of a dozen Canadians with sensitivities in health care.

Donna Stewart (like Susan Abbey to follow) had arbitrary opinions that contributed to broken families, ruined careers, denial of services, millions of dollars damages and thousands of deaths. However, as Kin-Yip Chun was to learn on an unrelated matter, appealing to Robert Prichard on an ethical issue was a waste of time.

Bob Rae turned his back on atrocities committed by Ministry of Health officials against persons whose central nervous system dysfunction is caused or exacerbated by environmental sensitivities, even as Health and Welfare was encouraging their protection.

Consumers, like most people, want to take a gentle approach so as not to offend the people they are approaching. Unfortunately, in the meantime, serious ongoing abuse and negligence is invisibilized.

While Grier's staff babbled on about finding (miracle) treatments, she and they ignored the daily killing of persons with sensitivities in health care, and their injury and exclusion in several venues. Ministry officials clung to the debate about "environmental medicine" while denying persons with sensitivities basic rights and protections that are normally afforded to members of the public.

Staff in Premier Rae's office were equally confused, discriminatory and irresponsible.

Federal officials had been moved to act by this suicide. Ontario officials basically ignored it, even after the Chief Coroner wrote to three deputy ministers (Housing, Social Services, and Health). After the Globe and Mail published two stories, Social Services addressed their policies, but the Ontario Ministry of Health continued to ignore the unnecessary killing of persons with sensitivities in health care.

The Canadian Association of Journalists agreed to consider the contribution of journalists to the abuse of persons disabled by environmental sensitivities. One of their board members, Lynne Van Luven, summarized the concern for the CAJ Board. Instead of summarizing the actual situation and history of persons with environmental sensitivities as requested, she summarized the controversy around the approaches of doctors of environmental medicine, betraying the request and the people affected, even as consumer reps, people in organized medicine and government reports warned about the problems involved by confusing these two separate issues.

The CAJ, like most Canadian journalists, ignored a long list of positive steps various authorities had taken to stop the exclusion, injury and killing of Canadians with sensitivities, including the need to separate issues related to the approaches of one group of physicians from the legitimacy of the needs of people affected. More than 70,000 Canadians with sensitivities have been unnecessarily killed in health care since the CAJ was asked to improve professionalism amongst journalists on this topic. The CAJ continues to somewhat disdainfully avoid acknowledging or addressing the contribution journalists have made to invisibilizing the actual history, rights and needs of persons with sensitivities, mostly by continuing to eclipse the actual history, rights and needs of the group behind debate about the assertions of "doctors of environmental medicine."

A list of the CAJ Board Members who eclipsed the story of persons with sensitivities behind a legitimate but separate debate about the ideas of doctors of environmental medicine, instead of addressing the lack of professionalism in Canadian journalists, is also attached.

A 1986 Census boycott brought more attention and action than an eight year tax boycott!

This is just one week of faxes, provides evidence of who had been contacted concerning the exclusion, injury and unnecessary killing of Canadians with sensitivities.

Journalists have still not, in 2010, separated debate about doctors of environmental medicine from the actual history, needs and rights of persons with environmental sensitivities. Expecting journalists to respond to the concern would have been foolish. It was done merely to place the fact that they were approached on the record.