Mistakes and Consequences




Placing the Presumption on the Wrong Side


The most common mistake people make is to subject persons with sensitivities to a reverse onus when they report their experience of repeatable, controllable circumstances, contrary to ethics, social convention and laws since the Magna Carta. This practice is unethical in any context, but becomes especially damaging in clinical medicine.


Prevalence - Caress and Steinemann

“We examined the prevalence of multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS), a hypersensitivity to common chemical substances. We used a randomly selected sample of 1582 respondents from the Atlanta, Ga, standard metropolitan statistical area. We found that 12.6% of our sample reported the hypersensitivity and that, while the hypersensitivity is more common in women, it is experienced by both men and women of a variety of ages and educational levels.

Literature Review - Eugene Garfield

In 1985, Eugene Garfield, PhD, President & Founding Editor of The Scientist provided an excellent overview of medical literature about sensitivities. Garfield documents several approaches, as described in scientific and medical literature before the discussion was subsumed under debate about the approaches of doctors of environmental medicine.


The daily unnecessary killing of persons with sensitivities is, in duration, numbers affected, and extent of injury, one of the top five human rights abuses in Canadian history. It is ignored by civil health authorities, invisibilized by journalists, and betrayed by Canadians who are normally concerned about social justice and human rights. The Advocacy Gateway for Environmental Sensitivities was created to document the long mainstream history, and the contribution of various parties to the exclusion, injury and unnecessary killing of Canadians with sensitivities.

The documents on the site were collected during more than thirty years of confronting abusers and enablers, lobbying, consumer leadership, case advocacy, civil disobedience, and human rights complaints. Scientific, clinical and consumer experience date back centuries. A 1985 Ontario Ministry of Health report identified an existing, publicly insured method of diagnosis. Various parties have misled the public about the availability of this diagnostic method for more than a quarter century, despite legal ramifications concerning consequent preventable harm. Between 1988 and 1993, CMHC, Health and Welfare Canada and the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, along with several other federal departments and Ontario ministries, were working to reduce preventable harm being caused to persons with sensitivities, work that public servants and politicians are now invisibilizing. In contrast to their position in the early 1990's, the CHRC is now eclipsing the actual history of sensitivities behind a revisionist version provided by so-called “doctors of environmental medicine.” Canadians are being injured and killed daily as a result of human rights violations that health and human rights officials ignore.

Protections that Health Canada had been encouraging were abandoned after the 1993 election. The response of abusers to being confronted about this negligence says a lot about governance in Canada. Mapping the prevalence of sensitivities against statistics on adverse drug events provided by Terence Young, MP, in his book, “Death by Prescription,” suggests that more than a dozen Canadians with sensitivities are being unnecessarily killed in health care daily, if you believe the overall numbers Young puts forward. This is a significant portion of Canada's adverse drug event deaths. Instead of protecting people in high risk groups, as they were ecouraging in the late 1980s, Health Canada is merely counting the dead. Agencies of remedy, journalists and civil society invisibilize the abuse, trivialize the issues, join in the bullying or turn a blind eye.

Chris Brown



Subscribe to consumer