You are here
Documents attached to bibliography entries
“Molot initial diagnoses Brown”. 1981.,
Dr. Molot's initial diagnosis of Brown, based on (unmentioned) serial dilution titration tests and subjective reporting of symptoms.
“Molot names tests for OHIP”. 1984.,
Molot identifies tests so that I can lobby OHIP for him to get paid. What patients didn't know, at the time, was that the patient interview was an insured method of diagnosis, and that the tests used by clinical ecologists were not reliable.
Brown test result sheet. Ottawa: , 1986.,
Test results for serial dilution titration testing. Only slightly helpful, not assured diagnostic method when compared to removal reintroduction testing. Gave me some things to check.
“Molot diagnosis after Thomson Report”. 1986.,
Molot better spells out the disability hook for human rights uses.
“Molot forwards unhelpful concept of a single syndrome.”. 1990.,
It may seem a minor point in this letter, but here a clinical ecologist forwards the crazed notion that people with sensitivities suffer from a single syndrome rather than a compendium of disorders.
“CSEM John Molot imposes revisionist history on discussion at CPSO, confuses criticism of "environmental medicine" with failure to recognize health complaint”. 1991.,
Over and over, the Canadian Society for Environmental Medicine imposed their flaky ideas into public discussion concerning the exclusion, injury and killing of persons with environmental sensitivities in health care. Over and over, they provided fodder for extraneous debate. Over and over, they enable abuse by misrepresenting the nature of sensitivities, the history of mainstream concern for persons with this health complaint, the accommodation over centuries of persons with sensitivities. Over and over, CSEM appropriated the voice of persons with sensitivities, putting forward a self-aggrandizing revisionist history and ignoring human rights concerns, such as persons right not to be subjected to a reverse onus concerning their experience of repeatable, controllable circumstances. John Molot has repeatedly put forward the questionable expertise of his group as being necessary to prove that persons with sensitivities have a legitimate complaint, sabotaging patients' rights by institutionalizing a reverse onus as a legitimate starting point. CSEM has refused to talk publicly about suicides of patients in their care. CSEM members have refused to stop selling treatments they prescribe. Their members have interefered in the politics of consumer groups, manipulating ignorant consumers into believing that CSEM members are their only supporters in medicine. The damages caused by the flaky ideas, unethical practices, inappropriate interventions, meddling, and outright stupidity of CSEM and "doctors of environmental medicine" has created a mob of consumers who have bizarre ideas about sensitivities. Doctors of environmental medicine may be the worst thing that has happened to people with sensitivities in the past several centuries. The attached document is just one more iteration of their goofiness.
“CSEM imposes whacko revisionist vision in Canada Pension Plan considerations”. 1992.,
Molot and his colleagues continue to sabotage the interests of persons with sensitivities by injecting goofy ideas into the discussion.