Documents attached to bibliography entries

Formally notes advances in wide variety of issue areas and specific federal and Ontario provincial government departments. Suggests direction. Cost: $1000.00

List of human rights concerns, supportive acts by government so far.

First draft of issues brief done without funding. (Bricks without straw!)

Public education was recommended in government reports, by public health groups and by Health and Welfare prior to the 1993 election. By the time this proposal was submitted, Health Canada had abandoned promoting the protection of persons with environmental sensitivities. The project was not approved. The people who were supposed to be protected by measures encouraged prior to 1993 are being injured or killed, instead.

This was distributed to the ten psych hospitals that were owned and operated by the Ontario Ministry of Health, by the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office.

I actually followed this for three weeks.

If you pour your heart out, be prepared to have it stomped on.

The Ottawa Citizen was supportive for a time, after Health and Welfare had started to help. Once Health Canada dumped the issue (after the 1993 election) the Citizen went back to trivializing and invisibilization. The response of journalists to this issue demonstrates a complete deficit amongst journalists about what human rights are, and an inability to think for themselves. There is a pretense that journalists do their own thinking, but in fact they defer to authority, whether the authorities make sense or not.

Mickleburgh ignores the actual history of person with sensitivities, replacing it with the self-aggrandizing revisionist version provided by so-called "doctors of environmental medicine." He unethically subjects his subject to a reverse onus concerning her experience of repeatable, controllable circumstances, encouraging and helping others to do the same. He ignores the fact that a 1985 Ontario report identified an existing, legally obligating, publicly insured method of diagnosis. He ignores the work being done at the time by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Health and Welfare Canada, CMHC and several other departments to address precisely the unethical positions he puts forward as credible. Since this article was written, more than 80,000 Canadians with sensitivities have been unnecessarily killed in health care because of attitudes encouraged by the confusions Mickleburgh and others put forward.

The second letter to the editor (attached) was written in response to a typical story, this one by Graeme Hamilton about an environmental health clinic in Nova Scotia. Hamilton made no mention of the injuries and deaths being caused by attitudes in health care which, by this time, Health and Welfare Canada and other federal agencies were addressing. He manages to cover a story that involves the problems faced by persons with sensitivities, without so much as a peep about those same patients being injured and killed! He eclipses the actual history of persons with sensitivities behind debate about a revisionist history provided by so-called "doctors of environmental medicine." He ignores, in the story and in subsequent work, efforts that were being made by the Chief Commissioners of the CHRC and OHRC to end human rights abuses that contribute to ongoing preventable harm caused by inappropriate acts of commission in health care. Canadian journalists continued to invisibilize the most serious consequences for people affected, and still do today, even as children and other vulnerable persons are abused and killed. Leadership in every major media outlet in Canada have turned a blind eye as their reporters wreak havoc.

Brown makes mistake of emphasizing newness when it was only the debate about doctors of environmental medicine that was new.

OpEd about failure of federal government to act in any meaningful way, written on the occasion of a conference organized by local district health council.

Decter agreed to reconsider the Ontario Ministry of Health's position on sensitivities. In the end he did nothing to stop deceit about the existence of a publicly insured method of diagnosis or about mistakes and misconceptions that have and are contributing to the ongoing injury and killing of persons with sensitivities in Ontario.

CBC fought pay equity. They help get persons with sensitivities killed in health care, then invisibilize the killing.

Conference organized by team assembled by Lynda Brooks, National Pres of HEF. First time consumer group received federal funding (from SecState/disability and Environment) News Release emphasizes sources of federal funding, to add legitimacy and to pressure Health and Welfare.

Rally those who would take on the OMA. Turned out to be very few, of course! Also, I was not properly distinguishing between criticism of the theories and approaches of doctors of environmental medicine vs recognition of the sickness involved. I was still under the influence of doctors of environmental medicine, to the extent of being blind to my own history!

While astonishing bigots at Health and Welfare were ensuring that persons with sensitivities were killed in health care, other departments were helping persons with sensitivities organize and assert their rights.

Canada Newswire news release concerning OMA's refusal to address lethal abusiveness amongst Ontario physicians.

Same and other newser materials for HEF Conference.

When I appeared before the health committee, I had expressed concern about equivocation by health department officials. At that time, the committee decided to hear from related HWC officials. A few consumers attended their testimony.

Health and Welfare moved on several issues related to the protection of persons with sensitivities in health care and other venues. Consumers across Canada celebrated in a way they had not been able to during decades of lethal abuse.

I was dreaming in Technicolor to think that journalists would include the smothering of a disabled group in an election campaign. Journalists were not open to looking at their own stereotypes and misconceptions, and so they remained blind to those in other institutions.

Thomson report listed three "clearly untenable" premises, each of which has been given credibility by journalists, politicians, public servants and NGO's.

Lynda Brooks assembled a great team and a great conference!

Several departments were willing to pressure Health and Welfare to act on concerns facing persons with sensitivities. Jake Epp (helped greatly by his staff and bigots in the department) continued to invisibilize the issues through equivocation. The health department was hostile until after Perrin Beatty became health minister, and was approached by Bruce Halliday, MP, a former Ontario family physician of the year.

News Release hoping to encourage bandwagon of acceptance on basis of positives in Zimmerman report, even though abuse and killing of patients was not yet part of the discussion. For the 1980's until there was some momentum federally and in Ontario, you couldn't hope to continue any discussion or process if you you mentioned the ongoing preventable killings in federal and provincial jurisdictions. So, release builds on what positive was expected, adds other recent positives.

Trying to up the anti in leverage of several departments against bigotry at Health and Welfare Canada (HWC). Release thanks various parties who have helped, while venting about HWC intransigence.

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

Framing of issues in last throws of Mulroney's first government. Many federal departments and agencies had moved forward, but what about Health and Welfare?

Various related news articles sent out to other journalists with new hooks.

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.

After trying privately repeatedly, it seemed important to name the protection issue publicly and to publicly inform the Ontario Ministry of Health about the fact that the federal health department was acting on the concern Ontario was ignoring.

Description of how Fresh Air Brick was used to help move federal government forward on concerns about environmental sensitivities.

Journalists, as much as anyone, have fostered attitudes that result in the exclusion, injury and killing of persons with sensitivities.

Many health and other service providers were subjecting persons with sensitivities to adverse differential treatment in the 1980's. I chose to complain about the District Health Council because 1)if you can't get into planning where can you get in? and 2) they were a group of people representing the community, rather than one of many discriminating agencies. Al Warren, Executive Director at the DHC, understood the local planning issues and invited a process toward an amicable resolution of the complaint. Therese Legault, in the OHRC Ottawa office, was very helpful. The promised conference took place in just over a year. The inclusion in local health planning never happened. The commitment the DHC made before the OHRC to include the needs of persons with sensitivities was never kept or enforced.

After CBC journalist Terry Macleod lied to police about statements Brown made to him in a telephone call about planned Morningside coverage, Brown was charged with telephone harassment. After Brown's lawyer, Justin Fogarty, showed a letter of recommendation from the contemporaneous Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, the crown agreed to change the wording of the peace bond requested by CBC so that Brown could continue to approach CBC programming staff concerning journalism that was contributing to the exclusion, injury and killing of persons with sensitivities. The abusiveness of attending police officers was never dealt with. Deceit by Macleod was never dealt with. He had stated, to police, that Brown had told him that Brown was the only person Morningside should talk to on the issue, when in fact Brown had begged Macleod to talk to John Krauser, of the Ontario Medical Association, who was familiar with how persons with sensitivities were being caused preventable harm by the practice of confusing debate about the approaches of doctors of environmental medicine with the actual history of persons with sensitivities. Krauser had written Premier Peterson's office. He was to write to Rosemary Brown. He later encouraged action by Dr. Bill Mahoney, the OMA's representative on the Ontario Ministry of Education's special education committee. Meanwhile, CBC was saying the OMA was sceptical about sensitivities, contributing to exclusion, injuries and deaths. (Some people associated with the OMA were quite concerned about some of the ideas of doctors of environmental medicine, but the organization had repeatedly expressed support for persons with sensitivities, and for government assistance on their social and health needs.) CBC has never addressed hatefulness on the part of CBC journalists concerning persons with sensitivities. CBC management, including producers and editors, have never addressed their journalists' trivialization of the issues, or their practice of eclipsing the actual history of sensitivities behind controversy about the ideas of so-called "doctors of environmental medicine." Hateful journalism continues. Brown was elected president of the NGO representing people with sensitivities in the Ottawa area the day after his court appearance. The charges were dropped, although hostility on the part of Ottawa Police continues.

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).

CMAJ article confuses court decision about liability in a specific case with legitimacy of centuries old health complaint. Brown responds.

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.

OPHA had a look at sensitivities in 1987, recommended action to Ontario Ministry of Health, invited presentation to their 1991 conference.

Over emphasis on environment, not enough on sensitivities, history of sensitivities...emphasizes new when actually old, lots of literature, science, clinical and institutional experience.

If you express an argument that persons are contributing to deaths through unethical acts, those persons will sometimes accuse you of imagining the issues as a result of mental illness. If you become angry or frustrated by the abuse of clinicians, authorities, journalists, they may use your expressions of anger as "proof" that you are mentally ill. In other words, the response of abusers to being called on their abuse is very often further abusiveness. This provides a catch 22 for anyone who cares about the unnecessary killing of persons with sensitivities in health care.

Outlines some of the myths, provides corrections.

The Liberals invited testimony before their task force on disabilities, then ignored it once they were in power, contributing to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Dr. Maclennan was in town to receive environment award, went on cruise with Environment Minister and national self-help group President Lynda Brooks.