Documents attached to bibliography entries

For a period, CMHA Ottawa expressed concern about the ploughing under of psych patients whose problems are caused or exacerbated by environmental sensitivities. However, provincial and national organization, despite a recommendation from the Ottawa Branch, have yet to give up their lethally abusive position. Instead of helping such persons, the Canadian Mental Health Association is enabling their abuse by maintaining abusive attitudes within and encouraging them in the community.

The Ottawa Branch of the CHMA recommended that their organization learn more about the concerns of CNS reactors, and about their being ploughed under in the health care system. In 2010, the Ontario and National CMHA continue to invisibilize the ploughing under of psych patients whose problems are caused or exacerbated by sensitivities, contributing to perhaps 400 Canadian suicides annually.

Hate literature is published writing that encourages the commission of crimes against the group, in this case at least s.216 homicides and s.217.1 injuries, let alone other forms of negligence where there is duty of care. Stewart's work promotes an approach that will plough under persons with undiagnosed "cerebral allergies," which, contrary to the assertions of many abusers, are long reported and well documented psychological sequelae of sensitivities.

Regardless of the flakiness of "environmental medicine's" claim that they discovered environmental sensitivities, there were reasons to be concerned about the CMA turning a blind eye to lethal abuse by their members.

The Ontario Office for Disability Issues has morphed into different organizations over the years, is now a part of MCSS. They are still helping the Government of Ontario invisibilize the unnecessary daily killing of persons with sensitivities in health care.

People get killed while public servants equivocate.

Despite repeated attempts, I was unable to get CHRC staff to acknowledge that my complaint was about pesticide labelling rather than usage.

Lafreniere backed up Fecteau in providing a dishonest summary of complaint so that it could be dismissed.

Brown, the complainant, clearly repeats that his complaint concerns pesticide labelling as required under federal legislation, not pesticide usage as required by provincial legislation. Diane Fecteau and Charles Lafreniere continue to misrepresent the complaint as being about a provincial matter, deflecting the concern. More than 200,000 Canadians with sensitivities have been killed by human rights violations in health care since.

CHRC staff were fettering the discretion of human rights commissioners, children and other vulnerable persons were being injured and killed, yet it was not until Max Yalden and his assistants Denise Ommanney and John Dwyer were at the commission that the CHRC prodded Health and Welfare about human rights concerns.

My impression of Savoie was that she was too much of a lightweight to have any influence on belligerent journalists.

This led to a complaint being drafted, but I never signed the final complaint as I had lost confidence in the CHRC. Yalden, Dwyer, Ommanney and Beaty were helpful, but complaints staff were rife with misconceptions and hatefulness.

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

One is less persuasive when condemning otherwise respected persons for the unethical nature of their conduct in one area. So it hurts the argument. It is also less accurate, and accuracy is usually more useful in discussion. It was what Epp was doing and not doing that was unethical, not his overall person. It might have been better to avoid becoming fed up with his person, but to wait seemed irresponsible and dangerous. There was intense loyalty to Jake Epp, from the institutions in his community, from the people in his office, from cabinet colleagues, from public servants. However, after four years in office, he was still eclipsing the history of persons with sensitivities behind debate about the approaches of doctors of environmental medicine, as proscribed by Thomson and Zimmerman. His office and his officials were still accepting unethically held, damaging positions as credible in the debate. The department was still ignoring life and death areas where it had and has a legal duty of care. The arguments were ethical ones, legal rather bleeding heart. They were the reverse onus, long clinical history, existing method of diagnosis, human rights, institutional and consumer experience arguments. Ignoring them was unethical, in some situations illegal, and the consequences were horrific. Many honourable people betrayed persons with sensitivities.

CBC and other media outlets repeatedly did stories where they eclipsed the situation of persons with sensitivities by imposing a debate about the flaky theories of doctors of environmental medicine. Over and over again, the story was trivialized, journalistic ethics were breached,

The violations, by journalists, of ethics, of their own professionalism, of children and others with environmental sensitivities was so pervasive, and the reaction of even "progressives" to being called on their hatefulness so arrogant, it really did not matter what approach was taken for a period. As one advisor suggested, "Maybe it's not time yet."

Outlines concerns about hate literature published by CBC about persons with sensitivities.

CBC, like many other institutions, was unable to differentiate between the long mainstream history of persons with sensitivities and controversy about the revisionist history provided by "clinical ecologists." Over and over CBC journalists have sabotaged the security and well being of persons with sensitivities by making a sport out of their personal integrity, and by encouraging the practice of subjecting persons with sensitivities to a reverse onus about their experience of repeatable, controllable circumstances. David Bazay was inconsistent, abusive, arrogant, uncaring and delinquent as executive producer of The National and later as CBC Ombudsman.

CBC journalists were passing on unsubstantiated damaging opinion, and refusing to report information that would completely refute damaging statements made. They embraced a practise of giving credence to positions that subjected people to a reverse onus. Eventually, I met with Bill Morgan. CBC journalists continue to invisibilize persons with sensitivities in relevant stories, and they continue to trivialize the numbers of people seriously affected, and the consequences.

Kerr seemed intelligent, not defensive, so I introduced the issues to him.

Personal issues related to confronting hatefulness in journalists.

The Parliamentary Press Gallery was not about to encourage journalists to stop being hateful, and it was not going to indicate to cabinet that it is innappropriate to make the media responsible, in any way, for stopping public servants from causing unnecessary deaths.

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.

Mapping prevalence against suicide statistics suggests that there have been more than 2,000 suicides of Canadians whose central nervous system dysfunction is caused or exacerbated by sensitivities since Dr. Gosselin discussed concerns about attitudes in psychiatry.

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.

When Health and Welfare began organizing a conference to address the abuse of CNS reactors in health care, the Burlington Spectator attacked the department for putting forward biased information, using abusers who had the very attitudes Health and Welfare was addressing as their source.

When Health and Welfare tried to address negative attitudes in medicine, the Spectator attacked them, using precisely the negative opinion Health and Welfare was trying to address.

The CHRC was subjecting persons with sensitivities to a reverse onus, invisibilizing our history, and not supporting complainants concerned about human rights violations.

Fairweather subjected people with sensitivities to a reverse onus concerning their reporting of their experience of repeatable controllable circumstances and turned a blind eye to the fact that medical authorities and physicians were subjecting people to arbitrary interference in this way.

Agriculture Canada was pretending they had never heard of sensitivities, while Health and Welfare file manager was recommending warning labels on pesticides.

Brown thanks Trinity United Church for donation.

When the Minister of Health and Welfare, the Chief Commissioners of the OHRC and the CHRC were acting to protect persons with sensitivities, it was relatively easy to encourage others to do the same. I had covered citizen participation in local affairs, and in 1990, there was still an understanding in the City of Ottawa and the RMOC about the value of inclusion.

The whole process during the 1980's was to get any and every part of officialdom to act on their responsibilities concerning persons with environmental sensitivities, so as to bring pressure on civil health authorities to stop abuses.

Bruce Drewett, in the OHRC policy unit, wrote a backgrounded on sensitivities that entirely eclipsed our history behind debate about the ideas of clinical ecology. As a human rights official, it was alarming that his analysis assumed it was appropriate for physicians to subject persons who experience repeatable controllable circumstances to a reverse onus, contrary to the basic premise of human rights--freedom from arbitrary interference.

Gary Gurbin was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment. His support was encouraged by Merron Proctor, in Environment Canada. Gurbin had mentioned that epileptics were once thought possessed by the devil.

AEHA National was mostly a voice for environmental medicine, and serious issues being faced by persons with sensitivities (or killing them) were not being addressed. I stopped a vote a couple of years later where almost the entire Ottawa Branch executive wanted to withdraw from AEHA due to its dysfunction, and its manipulation by Dr. John Maclennan, John Molot, and other physicians who did not understand they were (and are) a millstone around the necks of consumers who do not subscribe to their revisionist approaches.

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.

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.

When OMA decided to address attitudes contributing to the exclusion, injury and killing of persons with sensitivities, they published an incredibly offensive article by Susan Abbey that, if followed, guaranteed the continuing abuse and killing of patients. When they were informed of the lethal consequences of attitudes that they and Abbey promoted, they published only those parts of this expression of concern that did not mention the seriousness of the consequences of what physicians were (are) doing.

Concerns about CBC journalists eclipsing the actual history of persons with sensitivities behind debate about the ideas of "clinical ecology."

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.

Brown expresses position that if government is ignoring it's responsibilities in situations where individual public servants had a legislated duty of care, where it is causing injuries and deaths, that government has broken its social contract.

Issues brief proposed to Ontario DM of Health, before release of Thomson report.

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.

Basic abuse issue was not approachable by journalists who were still in the allergy-psychosomatic argument, eclipsing the history of sensitivities behind the legitimate but separate debate about clinical ecology.

Canadian health officials continue to kill persons with sensitivities because they cannot admit that they are killing them. To take action to stop killing persons with sensitivities requires an acknowledgement, explicitly or implicitly, that you are killing them. This is how and why health officials kill children to cover up their mistakes.