Sandra Finley

2006-06-06 Complaint to Human Rights Tribunal, Donna Malcolm, forced psychotropic drugs, amnesia, locked up.

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Health, Take back the University  No Responses »
Jun 062006
 

June 6, 2006 

TO:    Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal

P.O. Box 24005

Saskatoon, SK

S7K 8B4

FROM:

Sandra Finley

656 Saskatchewan Crescent East

Saskatoon, SK S7N 0L1

306  373  8078

sabest1_AT _sasktel.net

 Dear Members of the Tribunal, 

I wish to appeal a decision by the Human Rights Commission NOT to hear my case.

 Documentation of the case, mostly in the form of my submissions to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the response of the doctor involved, is enclosed. 

I appeal to you under The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, page 14.  There it says

  1. S-24.1

Duties of commission 

25    The commission shall:

 (a)   forward the principle that every person is free and equal in dignity and rights without regard to . . . disability 

(g)   forward the principle that cultural diversity is a basic human right and fundamental value.

 The doctor deemed that I was disabled (manic, incapable of making decisions that were in my best interests).  She saw only one culture, the drug culture, and imposed that on me.  I was forcibly confined from Saturday until Friday – 7 days.   Drugs were put into my body forcibly and without my consent.  One of the drugs caused complete memory loss of things I was doing and saying, and of things that were being done to me.  It was an unjustified violation of my person and my civil rights.

 Thank-you for your consideration. 

Yours truly,

 Sandra Finley

BRIEF HISTORY OF ACTIONS TO DATE

  1. I hired a lawyer, Julian Bodnar.  He talked with Mr. Van Olst, lawyer for the Saskatoon Health District who, as I am told, looked at my Hospital file and said that the doctor was acting within the regulations arising out of the Mental Health Services Act.  The cost to find this out was more than $400.  Julian suggested I file a complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons.
  2. Different people told me that it is almost impossible to get a human rights complaint such as this addressed, and it will take years.  It is best to get a lawyer with experience.  I called Terry Zakreski; he knew of one lawyer that might have a bit of experience, Lucille Lamb.  I happen to know Lucille and talked with her.  She was sympathetic but felt that she doesn’t have a lot of experience and reinforced the view that it would take years in the justice system. 
  3. I telephoned the Human Rights Commission (Saskatoon, 933-5952) on two different occasions and asked to set up an appointment.  I was effectively interviewed by the person who answered the phone.  I was asked the question whether this was on-going abuse.  The answer is “no”.  On that basis I was told that the HRC could not take my case.   End of discussion.   On both occasions I had the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the HRC has more work than it can manage and that there was a couple of minutes in which to hear the complaint:  the first screen to pass through is whether the complaint is systemic.  I am middle-class, white and not on welfare.  Therefore there has not been a serious violation of human rights.  I can understand that the Commission’s efforts are best applied to cases that address systemic issues.  (My case is actually representative of what is happening to other people, but that is for another day!)
  4. On April 7, 2006 I filed a Complaint with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, copy attached.  I delivered a copy of the Complaint to the lawyer for the Health District, Mr. Van Olst. 
  5. On April 18 the College wrote to say that a review of my concerns is underway.    (Question 8 on the “Complaint Reporting Form” reads:  “What is your expectation from the review of this complaint?”)      The College also wrote, regarding:   a.      (My expectation) The College of Physicians and Surgeons will actively seek legislative changes to the Mental Health Act.    (Response) “It is not our mandate to lobby the government for changes.  You could speak with your MLA …”      b.      (My expectation) There will be an investigation into the operation of the Psych Ward at RUH.    (Response) “The College … also does not have jurisdiction over non-physician medical staff nor does it have any control over how the Psychiatric Unit is operated.  You need to raise those concerns with the Saskatoon Health Region, and that can be done through …” 
  6. On May 19th I received a letter from the College with the response from the doctor to my complaint against her.  (Attached)
  7. On June 1st I submitted my response to the College.  It includes the documentation for  Unresolved Concerns, Ones for which Objectivity Exists. 
  8. The situation is that my submission will be discussed at the “next meeting” at the end of June.   As I understand, a written response will then be prepared.  There is summer recess.   And the written response then has to be reviewed by the “next” meeting which won’t be until September  –  no problem.  
  9. The Complaint Reporting Form from the College of Physicians and Surgeons underscores that The purpose of the Complaints Resolution Process is educational in order to reduce the risk of occurrence.”   It is important that the education be done.   But there has been a very serious abuse of human rights.  I am not the only one to be a recipient of such actions. 
  10. And so I am approaching you, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal.    Will you hear my case?  I think that is the question to be asked at this point.

2006-06-06 Norway dumps Walmart stock (NOK 2.5 billion worth) because of its unethical behaviour. (CPPIB)

 Corporatocracy or Democracy or Administrative State or WHAT?, Culture and Ethics  No Responses »
Jun 062006
 

FROM NORWEGIAN NEWSPAPER, AFTENPOSTEN

Saturday July 29 2006   First published: 06 Jun 2006, 14:06

Norway dumps Wal-Mart stock

The huge fund that’s meant to preserve Norway’s oil wealth for future generations is pulling out of shares that don’t meet the government’s ethical standards. Among them is the Wal-Mart discount store chain.

Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen doesn’t want Norway to invest in Wal-Mart or Freeport.

Norwegian Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen revealed Tuesday that two new stocks will be banned from the country’s so-called “oil fund,” which now is called the Norwegian Government Pension Fund – Global and currently is worth about USD 250 billion. It ranks as one of the biggest pension funds in the world.

The ministry reported that it’s excluding Wal-Mart Stores Inc, Wal-Mart de Mexico and Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc from the fund “in line with recommendations from the Council on Ethics for the Fund.”

Halvorsen’s finance ministry officials cited “serious” and “systematic violations of human rights and labour rights” as its reason for pulling out of its Wal-Mart investments.

Another decision to dump shares in Freeport McMoRan was based on “serious environmental damage” incurred by the company.

Halvorsen was quoted in a government statement as saying that the exclusions “reflect our refusal to contribute to serious, systematic or gross violations of ethical norms in these areas through our investments in the Government Pension Fund – Global.”

Investing in either Wal-Mart or Freeport, Halvorsen claimed, “entails an unacceptable risk that the Fund may be complicit in serious… violations of norms.”

Wal-Mart’s offenses

US-based Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer with revenues of nearly USD 300 billion, has been harshly criticized for its labour practices. Norway’s Council on Ethics claimed that an “extensive body of material indicates that Wal-Mart consistently and systematically employs minors in contravention of international rules, that working conditions at many of its suppliers are dangerous or health-hazardous, that workers are pressured into working overtime without compensations, that the company systematically discriminates against women in pay,” and that attempts to organize workers into unions are stopped.

The council’s assessments involve Wal-Mart’s business operations in the US and Canada and at its suppliers in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Lesotho, Kenya, Uganda, Namibia, Malawi, Madagascar, Swaziland, Bangladesh, China and Indonesia.

The council and Norway’s central bank wrote to Wal-Mart last fall, asking them to comment on the allegations of violations of human rights. The Norwegian Finance Ministry said Wal-Mart never responded.

Freeport’s pollution

The Finance Ministry said that Freeport, which operates one of the world’s largest copper mines on the island of New Guinea in Indonesia, is using a natural river system to dispose of 230,000 tons of tailings a day. This, claims the ministry, inflicts “extensive and serious damage on the environment” because the disposal releases large quantities… copper, cadmium and mercury into the watercourse.”

The Council on Ethics found the environmental damage cause by Freeport’s mining operations to be “extensive, long-term and irreversible,” with “considerable negative consequences for the indigenous peoples residing in the area.”

Freeport, Halvorsen’s staff claimed, “gives no indication of intending to alter the way the company manages waste in the future, or initiating mearues that will significantly reduce the damage to the environment,” even though Freeport’s management “has long been aware of the environmental damage caused by the company’s practices.”

Norway’s central bank (Norges Bank) also asked Freeport to comment on the Council’s assessments last December. Freeport responded on January 20.

“While Freeport refutes the allegations levelled at the company, it chooses not to provide evidence in support of its position,” stated the Finance Ministry.

Continuing to invest in Freeport, Halvorsen said, would leave Norway’s pension fund with an “unacceptable risk of contributing to severe environmental damage.”

Norway’s disinvestment procedures gives Norges Bank two months to disinvest from a company before a decision on exclusion is made public. It sold off about NOK 2.5 billion worth of Wal-Mart stock and NOK 116 million worth of Freeport stock by the end of May.

Aftenposten English Web Desk

Nina Berglund Publisher: Aftenposten Multimedia A/S, Oslo,  Norway.Telephone: +47 – 22 86 30 00.

All rights, including copyright and database right, are owned by or licensed to Aftenposten Multimedia.© Aftenposten Multimedia.

2006-06-05 Email from and Reply to Ivan Fellegi, Chief Statistician

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
Jun 052006
 

Dear Ivan,

In your response you defend the tendering process.

The tendering PROCESS is of little concern to me.

The OUTCOME is.

I am vehemently opposed to actions that enrich corporations that are part of the American war machine.

I doubt it is possible for you to address my fundamental objection, communicated to you beginning in 2003 or 2004.    (INSERT:  Links to those communications follow the “Original Message”.)

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

—–Original Message—–

From: Ivan.P.Fellegi@statcan.ca [mailto:Ivan.P.Fellegi@statcan.ca]

Sent: May 18

Cc: Jacques.Morin@a.statcan.ca; Lyne.St.John@a.statcan.ca

Subject: Count me out of the census!

Importance: High

The Minister Responsible for Statistics Canada, the Honourable Maxime Bernier, has asked me to respond to your email of May 3, 2006.

I would like to assure you that Statistics Canada has taken a number of important safeguards to protect the privacy and confidentiality of your Census responses. These safeguards have been independently assessed by IT security specialists and the entire assessment process overseen by a Task Force headed by the former Auditor General of Canada, Mr. Denis Desautels. The task force was clear in their conclusion: “Canadians can trust that the information gathered during the 2006 Census will be secure.” The entire report is available at www.census2006.ca. I would also like to expand on some of the security safeguards in place for the 2006 Census.

Statistics Canada is completely responsible for every phase of conducting the 2006 Census. The contract with Lockheed Martin Canada, IBM Canada and Transcontinental Printing Canada is strictly for the provision of hardware, software and printing services. No contractor ever has access to or is in possession of Census responses.

Census information is, at all times, under the complete care and full control of Statistics Canada employees. In fact, all census databases, facilities and networks containing confidential data are physically isolated from any networks outside Statistics Canada. Therefore, even if a request were ever to be made by an external authority to any contractor for confidential data, it would be physically impossible for a contractor to comply, given that they are never in possession of census responses.

Public Works and Government Services Canada awarded the contract through an open, transparent, and stringent competitive bidding process following all the laws and regulations pertaining to procurement.

Statistics Canada has relied on the private sector in the past to provide equipment and services to conduct a Census in a cost effective manner, without compromising confidentiality, and the 2006 Census is no exception.

Census data are a vital source of information for decisions by governments and private citizens and businesses that affect the daily lives of Canadians. The data must be complete and accurate for these purposes. We have put so much emphasis on security and confidentiality measures regarding contractor provided systems to ensure that Canadians can complete their Census questionnaires in full confidence of these measures. It is critical that we all be part of the Canadian family portrait that is the Census. I urge you to be part of that portrait.

Thank you for your interest in the census.

Ivan P. Fellegi

Chief Statistician of Canada

= = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = = =

EARLIER COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CHIEF STATISTICIAN, IVAN FELLEGI:

2006-06-01 Reply to College of Physicians & Surgeons: psychotropic drugs lorazepam and haloperidol. Physician forced, over-dosed, caused amnesia, abuse of human rights.

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Health, Take back the University  No Responses »
Jun 012006
 

June 1, 2006

TO:   College of Physicians and Surgeons

M. Camille Dunlop

Complaints Coordinator

YOUR FILE:  #32/06.   YOUR LETTER:  May 19, 2006

In response to communication from  Donna Malcolm, 05 May 2006,  Addressed to College of Physicians and Surgeons, Dr. Shaw

Dear Camille,

In accordance with your request I hereby advise “the College in writing of the concerns that remain unresolved.”

I believe you will want objective evidence.

I doubt it will be helpful to your assessment of the veracity of my statements, versus those of Donna Malcolm, if I merely challenge what she says (which I do!).

I have therefore selected an item which captures some of my concerns and which demonstrates the lens through which Donna Malcolm viewed me.    The item is verifiable, with information provided by Donna herself, and with evidence external to myself.  “UNRESOLVED CONCERNS, ONES FOR WHICH OBJECTIVITY EXISTS” is attached.

If this is insufficient, I believe you are then in a position where you must assess whether my initial submission to you is truthful.  If that be the case, I recommend that:

–        You speak with Dr. Stuart Houston, who, as recorded in the earlier submission visited me in the Psych Ward and initiated the suggestion that he attend and provide evidence to the Appeal Hearing (the hearing was cancelled before it could happen).

–        You speak with Sue Peterson of The Safe Drinking Water Foundation who also visited me in the Psych Ward.

–        I have the opportunity, in person, to answer questions you might have about the incongruities between the record I provided to you, and that of Donna Malcolm.

I would like to thank Donna for inputting into this process, a copy of my note to people in my email network, a few of who are doctors.  The note was a request for assistance in the form of information, and includes reference to Risk Management.  Donna submitted a copy of my note to the College – as evidence of my manic behaviour, I believe.

To assist understanding of the note:  Prior to sending it into my network, I had shared information on Risk Management with people in the network, but in the context of Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA), which is run on the basis of Risk Management. (The PMRA is responsible for the assessment and licensing of pesticides in Canada.)  …  Is Risk Management appropriate in the PMRA (or in health care? – I am a graduate of the College of Commerce and am interested in the question.)   It used to be the case that prevention (the precautionary principle) prevailed over what is today called Risk Management.

So, behind the note is the question:  Is Risk Management an appropriate tool in these public institutions, or, is it as George Soros, the billionaire Fund Manager alludes to in his book “Open Society, Reforming Global Capitalism” ,  p.30, “…Scientific method is a good example:  It worked for nature;  therefore we want to apply it to society.  The market mechanism is another case in point:  It works well in allocating resources among private needs;  therefore we are tempted to rely on it for fulfilling public needs. … “.  (The Risk Management model is appropriate in some business settings, but is it appropriate in unlocking the causes of deterioration in a person’s health?)

This bit of background may be helpful to someone reading what Donna submitted (my communication). I believe everyone is familiar with the use of  X, Y and Z to denote unknowns, as in algebra, so there is no need to explain that part of the note.

I received a handful of replies to the email, with appropriate suggestions, so it is not incomprehensible.   The email was sent out Friday night;  I went back to the Hospital for information on Saturday morning.  The replies came in while I was in the Hospital (2 weeks).

The email is presented as evidence of manic behaviour.

An equally legitimate interpretation is that it is evidence of healthy behaviour.

I was seeking information to try and better understand my situation.  From my earlier documentation: I was shown the x-ray of my lung with the large amount of fluid on it and I was told by the doctor on Wednesday night to come back to the clinic on Friday.  I went home and used the Internet to inform myself about fluid on the lung.  On Friday I was told by Dr. Lacny that Wednesday’s doctor had basically been incompetent (not his precise words) and, after obtaining the results of the blood test that should have been done,  I should get right over to Emergency because things there close down by about 4:00 – 4:30 pm Friday.  I was told that nothing (little?) gets done over the weekend; there was urgency because of this.  I did as Dr. Lacny directed.

The events of Friday afternoon in the Emergency Ward are recorded in my earlier submission.  At the end of the day I signed a waiver form and returned home where I did more work.  I was perplexed by one thing that the medical process considered irrelevant.  It is a sign of healthy behaviour that I sought more information (my email submitted to you by Donna Malcolm).  

 Let me elaborate a little.  In my earlier submission I said “so I got information on one other symptom I had experienced prior to going to the Clinic.  I looked it up under “skin discoluration” which was the best way I could think to describe it.”.   The process at the Hospital was not interested in this bit of information, maybe because it  is unrelated to fluid on the lung – I don’t know.  But I was interested in it.  And dissatisfied with what I had learned to date about it.

Specifically the “skin discolouration” occurred on my right hand.  It was quite alarming and I shook my head to see if I was hallucinating.  This was during the time prior to going to the walk-in clinic when I thought I had a bad flu with aching bones and fever.  It was on the Sunday I believe.   I knew I wasn’t hallucinating when, unsolicited, my daughter said, “Mom, what’s wrong with your hand?”.  The hand she and I were looking at, was not my hand by any stretch of the imagination.  It was a hand that belonged on the body of a person in their nineties.  It was an eery bronze (as I recall) in colour (not as in “tanned”);  it was skin stretched over the bones of a skeleton,  there was no “meat” in my hand.   You would have thought that you were hallucinating had you seen such a hand on your body!   Had there not been someone there to verify what I was seeing, I would have believed that I was hallucinating.   I simply could not make any sense of it.  At the time I was fatigued (and sick), so just stuck my head in the sand and went to sleep.

On Monday I got up and  started doing things.   The “flu” symptoms were replaced by pains in my side, especially when I breathed in.   They did not abate and by Wednesday evening I decided to have them checked out.    As I finished explaining to the doctor about the “flu” and then the pains in my side, the pains stopped.  I was disconcerted by this, thinking “My God!  Is this psycho-somatic?  The pains are gone.  The doctor is going to find that there is nothing wrong with me!”  When an x-ray showed a large volume of fluid on my lung, I was actually quite relieved,  as weird as that may seem!  The pains that took me to the walk-in clinic did not happen again.  Except for fever, sweating, fatigue and weakness I was comfortable after presenting myself for medical assistance.  (I had not taken any pain killers or any other medication.) (3 to 4 weeks later, on April 1st,  it was confirmed that I had tuberculosis.)

By Friday when I left the Hospital I had seen many doctors and had many tests.  As stated in the email submitted by Donna,  “I have been from well-intentioned doctor to well-intentioned doctor today.  Not once was I asked any question about what was happening with my urine.”  I used urine as the example because skin discolouration is sometimes associated with liver and maybe kidney (?) malfunction.   That and the small volume of urine I experienced, and more importantly, the timing of the symptoms, led me to think there might be a relationship between this and the build-up of fluid on the lung.  Unfortunately, the symptom (withered hand) had disappeared so I couldn’t show it to anyone.  And you will understand that “the process” had no interest in hearing about it.  Nevertheless, as part of a problem-solving exercise I could attempt to get more information and understanding on my own.  An attempt to obtain information, to understand, is a sign of healthy behaviour.  If it isn’t, then the admonitions I give my children are creating more numbers of alleged manic people like myself!

You might also appreciate that once I had been committed to the Psychiatric Ward I deemed that it was not in my best interests to talk about this and some other things.  Had I, at that time said that I experienced my hand in the form it might be when I am 90 years old, it would have been confirmation of the diagnosis that I was manic.  A man I know came to the Psych Ward to visit a woman he knew and was overtly surprised to see me there.  I could not say to him, “But I don’t belong here”, because that would have confirmed the diagnosis to anyone overhearing the statement.  I could not smile or chuckle to myself when I considered who were the real nuts in the Cuckoo’s Nest, because again, smiling or chuckling to myself would have been used to confirm the diagnosis.   I could not laugh at the predicament in which I found myself, a world turned upside down, because that too, would have been used as confirmation.   All I needed was to have the fluid-on-the-lung dealt with.  At the risk of being re-committed!, let me tell you this  – afterwards I have regaled friends with a description of my predicament until tears of laughter streamed down our cheeks.  My advice to them:  don’t ever go to the Hospital, especially if you are sick, without a companion to advocate on your behalf.  You never know where you’ll end up!

I appreciate your attention to my file.

I have included some thoughts for provocation.   It is not a requirement that you read them!

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

(Contact information deleted)

UNRESOLVED CONCERNS, ONES FOR WHICH OBJECTIVITY EXISTS:

In response to communication from Donna Malcolm, 05 May 2006,  Addressed to College of Physicians and Surgeons,  Dr. Shaw

Regarding page 4, Item #7 (a)  “was the doctor justified in forcing an injection which caused permanent amnesia for a period of time and in forcing mood-altering drugs on me?”

Donna Malcolm defends “I know of no evidence that haloperidol 3 mg and lorazepam 2 mg cause permanent amnesia,  I do believe that if a person’s thoughts are much disorganised, memories are not laid down in the usual way.  A severe manic state is somewhat like a delirium, such as after surgery or a brain injury, and typically much of this period is not remembered whether drugs are administered or not.  The treatment with risperidone and divalproex are recognised and research-based treatments for acute manic states.  I know of no instances or evidence that the short term treatment (3 days) with these two medications has ever produced amnesia.”

Response:

The evidence is not hard to find.

“Intravenous or intramuscular administration of the recommended dose of 2 mg to 4 mg of lorazepam injection to patients is followed by dose-related effects of sedation (sleepiness or drowsiness), relief of preoperative anxiety, and lack of recall of events related to the day of surgery in the majority of patients. The clinical sedation (sleepiness or drowsiness) thus noted is such that the majority of patients are able to respond to simple instructions whether they give the appearance of being awake or asleep. …”

Donna’s statement illustrates the persistence of a diagnosis in spite of the contrary evidence I submitted to the College and thereby to her.  She determined that I was manic and therefore interprets everything about me from that viewpoint.

“I do believe that if a person’s thoughts are much disorganised, memories are not laid down in the usual way.  A severe manic state is somewhat like a delirium, such as after surgery or a brain injury, and typically much of this period is not remembered whether drugs are administered or not …   “

I think all would agree that “a lack of recall” is the same as “permanent amnesia of a period of time” (my description).

It was not too difficult for me to find on the Internet that lorazepam is associated with a lack of recall.

The length of the period of amnesia is related to the dosage given.  And if the drug is used in conjunction with certain other drugs, the effect is increased.

Not only is there persistence of diagnosis, but a reasonable interpretation of the information is that Donna over-prescribed by using haloperidal 3 mg and lorazepam 2 mg simultaneously.

For my body weight and alleged condition, the maximum I should have been administered is 2 mg of larazepam with warning that the dosage of certain other drugs that might be used in conjunction must then be reduced in dosage.   The information follows.

I have included information on haloperidol to show that the dosing I received ignored the warning to decrease the dosage if a second drug is used.  The information on haloperidol, as with that on lorazepam, states that use of the drug will add to the effects of certain other drugs used in conjunction.

It is unacceptable that I was held down and forcibly given these drugs, under the direction of Donna Malcolm, especially when she is poorly versed  “I know of no evidence …. ”     .

You may note in the information below that haloperidal, although commonly used in “emergency” situations, is for “acute” and “acute and chronic” cases.  My situation was neither.

The evidence below also substantiates my claim of abuse of power and unjustified violation of  … my civil rights.

Regarding page 3, Item #6  (Donna Malcolm):  “ As far as I can tell the procedures stipulated by the Act were followed in regards to Ms Finley’s care in that a legal representative was informed immediately of her compulsory admission, the legal representative saw her within a few hours, and proceeded to put in place an appeal hearing.”

Access to legal counsel, to which I have a right, was effectively denied.  I was not allowed access to a phone to call my own lawyer.  I was given access to the Health Authority’s lawyer.  From my earlier complaint form “And so I understand that a person who has received the injection can carry on conversations but when they come out from the influence of the drug, have no recollection of anything that has happened.  So I was given access to a lawyer, but it was meaningless access.”   To this day, I would not know that I had talked with any lawyer, except that I was told I had.

This is confirmed by the information on the drug:

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/loraz_cp.htm#CP

“Intravenous or intramuscular administration of the recommended dose of 2 mg to 4 mg of lorazepam injection to patients is followed by dose-related effects of sedation (sleepiness or drowsiness), relief of preoperative anxiety, and lack of recall of events related to the day of surgery in the majority of patients. The clinical sedation (sleepiness or drowsiness) thus noted is such that the majority of patients are able to respond to simple instructions whether they give the appearance of being awake or asleep. The lack of recall is relative rather than absolute, as determined under conditions of careful patient questioning and testing, using props designed to enhance recall. The lack of recall and recognition was optimum within 2 hours following intramuscular administration …

The intended effects of the recommended adult dose of lorazepam injection usually last 6 to 8 hours. In rare instances and where patients received greater than the recommended dose, excessive sleepiness and prolonged lack of recall were noted.”

Evidence that the combined dose was greater than recommended appears below.

——————————————-

RESOURCES   (I have cut and pasted.  Scroll through;  select what is pertinent to you.)

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/loraz_ids.htm#D

Intravenous Injection: For the primary purpose of sedation and of anxiety, the usual recommended initial dose of lorazepam for intravenous injection is 2 mg total, or 0.02 mg/lb (0.044 mg/kg), whichever is smaller.

(INSERT: There is no indication that the dose for intramuscular injection is different from that for intravenous injection.  I am 120 pounds.  .02 mg/lb = 120 X .02 = 2.4 mg.  So, giving benefit of the doubt, given my alleged condition, and ignoring the fact that I have a history of over-reacting to drugs,  2 mg would be the recommended initial dose.)

This dose will suffice for sedating most adult patients and should not ordinarily be exceeded in patients over 50 years of age.   (I was 56 at the time.)

Doses of other injectable central nervous system depressant drugs should normally be reduced.   See Precautions.

INJECTIONS  (INSERT: Precautions)

General:  The central-nervous-system effects of other drugs, such as phenothiazines, narcotic analgesics, barbiturates, antidepressants, scopolamine, and monomine-oxidase inhibitors, should be borne in mind when these other drugs are used concomitantly with or during the period of recovery from lorazepam injection.

—————————————

Haloperidol 3 mg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haloperidol

(Link no longer valid  http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/drug-information/DR202278)

Haloperidol (ha-loe-PER-i-dole) is used to treat nervous, mental, and emotional conditions. It is also used to control the symptoms of Tourette’s disorder. … For haloperidol, the following should be considered:   …

Older adults

Constipation, dizziness or fainting, drowsiness, dryness of mouth, trembling of the hands and fingers, and symptoms of tardive dyskinesia (such as rapid, worm-like movements of the tongue or any other uncontrolled movements of the mouth, tongue, or jaw, and/or arms and legs) are especially likely to occur in elderly patients, who are usually more sensitive than younger adults to the effects of haloperidol.   ….

Other medicines

Although certain medicines should not be used together at all, in other cases 2 different medicines may be used together even if an interaction might occur. In these cases, your doctor may want to change the dose, or other precautions may be necessary. When you are taking haloperidol, it is especially important that your health care professional know if you are taking any of the following:

  • Amoxapine (e.g., Asendin) or
  • Metoclopramide (e.g., Reglan) or
  • Metyrosine (e.g., Demser) or
  • Other antipsychotics (medicine for mental illness) or
  • Pemoline (e.g., Cylert) or
  • Pimozide (e.g., Orap) or
  • Promethazine (e.g., Phenergan) or
  • Rauwolfia alkaloids (alseroxylon [e.g., Rauwiloid], deserpidine [e.g., Harmonyl], rauwolfia serpentina [e.g., Raudixin], reserpine [e.g., Serpasil]) or
  • Trimeprazine (e.g., Temaril)—Taking these medicines with haloperidol may increase the frequency and severity of certain side effectsCentral nervous system (CNS) depressants (medicine that causes drowsiness) or
  • Tricyclic antidepressants (medicine for depression)—Taking these medicines with haloperidol may result in increased CNS and other depressant effects, and in an increased chance of low blood pressure (hypotension)  …

Dosing

  • The dose of haloperidol will be different for different patients…
  • For short-acting injection dosage form:

Adults and adolescents: To start, 2 to 5 milligrams, usually injected into a muscle. The dose may be repeated every one to eight hours, depending on your condition.

(INSERT:  I was given 3 mg which indicates standard and not reduced dosing, as recommended in the dosing information on lorazepam when it is used in conjunction with certain other drugs.)

This medicine will add to the effects of alcohol and other CNS depressants (medicines that slow down the nervous system, possibly causing drowsiness). Some examples of CNS depressants are antihistamines or medicine for hay fever, other allergies, or colds; sedatives, tranquilizers, or sleeping medicine; prescription pain medicine or narcotics; barbiturates; medicine for seizures; muscle relaxants; or anesthetics, including some dental anesthetics. Check with your doctor before taking any of the above while you are taking this medicine .   …

If you are receiving this medicine by injection :

  • The effects of the long-acting injection form of this medicine may last for up to 6 weeks. The precautions and side effects information for this medicine applies during this time .…

… Other side effects not listed above may also occur in some patients.

Haloperidol

Uses

Haloperidol is used in the control of the symptoms of:

  • Acute psychosis such as drug psychosis (LSD, amphetamines, PCP), psychosis associated with high fever or metabolic disease
  • Acute and chronic Schizophrenia
  • Acute manic phases until the concomittantly given firstline drugs such as Lithium or Valproate are effective  …

Haloperidol is considered indispensable for treating psychiatric emergency situations. It is enrolled in the World Health Organization  “List of Essential Medicines”.

———————————–

Lorazepam (ativan)

Information for the Patient: As appropriate, the patient should be informed of the pharmacologcal effects of the drug, such as sedation, relief of anxiety, and lack of recall, and the duration of these effects (about 8 hours), so that they may adequately perceive the risks as well as the benefits to be derived from its use.

THE MONSTERS WE HAVE CREATED

We are making mistakes.  It is my hope that the following will prompt reflection in some people and not an out-right rejection, as it will in others – the defensive.

There is a lawyer who spends his time between the City and a small Town.  Of the Justice system he said, “We have created monsters.”.

Medicare is another such monster (I say, again, at the risk of being re-committed!)

I think we need to look at two things:

–        is Risk Management an appropriate model for HEALTH care ( as opposed to MEDI care).  From Soros. Page 47, “The behaviour of people – exactly because it is not governed by reality – is easily influenced by theories.  In the field of natural phenomenon, scientific method is effective only when theories are valid;  but in social, political, and economic matters, theories can be effective without being valid. …”

–        Is the Medical Profession up-to-speed with the public?  out of numerous examples:

(a)    “Tooker was driven to suicide after just 5 weeks on an antidepressant drug that agitated him. What is known about these drugs? By sharing information, I’m turning my anger into action,” says tour participant…  (attached)

(b)   “New Canadian research shows that the suicide rate among seniors taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors was nearly five times higher than among those who were treated with other forms of antidepressants.”  (attached)

(c)   “This is directly related to David Suzuki’s “Selling Sickness”, on the  “Nature of Things”, Sept 30 and Oct 3/04. Also to Angell Marcia’s book “The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It” (Angell is former New England Journal of Medicine editor, now senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School).  (I have more information if you would like it.)

(d)   Dr. Tana Dineen did her Ph.D. at the University of Saskatchewan, and authored “Manufacturing Victims” in 1996.  You may want to do a quick read of it.

(e)   Pharmacare and medicare, the masking of symptoms, versus addressing the causes of disease .. My case is a sad commentary on the system

WHY DO I BOTHER?

Against my will, I was administered drugs that gave me amnesia.  I said and did things of which I have no recollection.  I was locked up for a week.  I was forced to take other drugs.

Why did it happen?

  1. in the first place, my behaviour was “outside the system”.  When you go to Emergency (which is where my file was), you go for Treatment by Professionals, not for information.   Had I said, “I am here for medical treatment”, everything would have been fine.  But I said, “At this point, I just want information.  I want to better understand the cardiovascular system, the flow of the blood as it circulates in the organs of my body.  Also, I was here yesterday.  I would like information from my file.  It was either my liver or my kidneys that were tested and found to be healthy.  I don’t remember which one it was.  Would you mind looking in my file for the information and telling me which one it was.”  (This was on a weekend when laboratory services are pretty well shut down, when I knew they would not be “treating” me.  The question about which organ was healthy is part of the process of elimination in problem solving.)  The workers could not understand a request for information; it was outside their frame-of-reference.  I became the confused one.
  2. On the previous day I asked questions (some would say “challenged”) people in positions of authority.
  3. I was more informed than many people are.
  4. I am not afraid to ask questions and expect answers.
  5.  I assumed responsibility for what was happening to me.  I believed that I could provide intelligent information about my own being to doctors who will interview me for five minutes.  And I believe that I have the responsibility for being informed and being the one to make the final decision about what will be done.  (I note that the doctors I saw on Friday, the ones who brought the waiver form to me for signature after which I was free to leave, actually listened to my explanations,  presented their concerns, but in the end respected my decision to leave the Hospital, at least for the time being and knowing I had full capability to return.  It is noted that without information about the drugs that were forced on me,  and when my civil rights were taken away, the decisions forced upon me were the wrong ones.)
  6. OTHER PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM knew that everything was not right.  They did not stand up and speak out.  From my original submission to the College:  “I made a point of asking, when speaking with a doctor from a different ward (for example, Internal Medicine), “Doctor, where should I be placed in order for you to deal most effectively with the fluid on my lung?  Should I be here, or should I be in Internal Medicine?”.   I was told I should be in I. M.   I asked if they could initiate paper work that would transfer me out of this Ward to where I should be.  It was awkward because there were no clear lines of authority.  I asked the question directly:  “who has the authority to initiate the paperwork to transfer me?”.  There was no definitive answer.  I then surmised that because Donna Malcolm had committed me, she maintained power.”.
  7. The Medicare system is designed to process people:  I talked enough while I was going through the system.  But I was saying the same thing over and over in response to the same set of questions administered by each interviewer, probably “professionally designed”  and standardized.   If you think about it, that system actually controls the information that gets recorded.  My guess is that people probably get allergic to the information:  I suspect that my file is thick, but it contains a whole lot of repetitive information.  You will know if I’m wrong.
  8. I don’t believe the system is actually designed to “care” for people.  The evidence I offer is the example of Donna Malcolm’s response to my email.  …  if the intent is to “care” for a person, the first thing you do is to listen to them.  You take yourself out of the equation, you focus, and you piece together what it is that the person is telling you.  If you don’t, then you are caring for yourself, not the other person.  Donna did not ask what my note was about.  She assigned her own “professional” interpretation.  In other words, she didn’t hear me.   If other people thought I was mentally ill, then I suspect that they, too, did not actually try to hear or understand what I was saying.  It is like talking with a person who has, for example, an East Indian accent.  You can dismiss them saying, “I can’t understand a word they’re saying.”  Or, you can focus, listen intently, and find that if you try, you can understand what they are saying.  If you care about the other person, you will hear what it is they are saying.   Had I presented myself to be processed, there would have been no problem.

You know that what happened to me has happened to others, and it will continue to happen:  we have created the conditions for it.

SO WHY DO I BOTHER?

You are cutting too close to the line between freedom and fascist or nazi regimes.  If I have been forcibly drugged and locked up, I know for sure that it has happened to other people and at this same location.

I have the advantage and hence the responsibility of being able to defend against this abuse of power.  And so I will.  A democracy is dependent upon the engagement of its citizens in the processes of the society.  It is a fragile thing that must be safeguarded.  We are on a slippery slope if “authorities” can get away with the abuse of rights of which my experience is example.

FOR PROVOCATION

http://www.greenspiration.org/

Healthy Mind, Healthy Body Planet Tour by Train
Tuesday, May 16, 7 pm, Frances Morrison Library (23rd Street)
Cross-country multimedia presentation commemorates life of renowned environmentalist Tooker Gomberg; sheds light on dangers of anti-depressants and the influence the pharmaceutical industry has in our lives.

“Tooker was driven to suicide after just 5 weeks on an antidepressant drug that agitated him. What is known about these drugs? By sharing information, I’m turning my anger into action,” says tour participant and Tooker’s widow Angela Bischoff.

Committed to low-impact transportation, tour participants will use the train and other forms of mass transit for their cross-country tour. Bischoff, director of Greenspiration, will be accompanied by Kelly Reinhardt and Bridget Haworth of boilingfrog, an independent media organization based in Toronto.

The Healthy Mind Body Planet Tour celebrates the most current information, analysis and inspiration related to mental, physical and planetary health. We will look at the reasons for the recent rise in depression, and at the myriad of treatments available, including pharmaceutical.

The Healthy Mind-Body-Planet Tour arrives in Saskatoon as part of their journey through 23 Canadian cities and towns. This event is free, donations welcome. More info visit http://www.greenspiration.org
—————-

 FOR PROVOCATION

Globe and Mail

Drug heightens suicide risk in seniors, study shows

By ANDRÉ PICARD

PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTER

Monday, May 1, 2006, Page A7

There is more damning evidence that a popular class of antidepressants that includes Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft may trigger intense suicidal thoughts in some patients.

New Canadian research shows that the suicide rate among seniors taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors was nearly five times higher than among those who were treated with other forms of antidepressants. That heightened risk lasts for about a month.

FOR PROVOCATION    You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man’s freedom.  You can only be free if I am free.    Clarence Darrow.

When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force.  When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered.   Dorothy Thompson

Freedom is what you do with what’s been done to you.    Jean-Paul Sartre

FOR PROVOCATION

On my list of books to read,  “Development as Freedom” by Amartya Sen, 1999:  “Amartya Sen makes a convincing case that development should be defined in terms of freedom, not in terms of gross national product.”   How “developed” is Canada, in the light of my experience?

2006-05-11 The Census? Count me OUT. Susan Thompson rebutts Murray Dobbin.

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
May 112006
 

Bernadette Wagner caught this rebuttal written by Susan Thompson from Vive le Canada.  Susan’s profile is at http://www.vivelecanada.ca/

We have worked alongside Vive le Canada (Susan) and Mel Hurtig for some time.

In retrospect I would say that the value of Murray Dobbin’s article is to point out the good things that we have had.  Many of us have not reflected on, understood, or appreciated their value.  Now when they are threatened, we see that they are worth fighting for, and more people are joining the fight.

We rise to the occasion.

Many thanks to Bernadette who writes:

Hi Sandra,

There’s a rebuttal to it (Murray’s viewpoint) on Vive le Canada

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060509115336130#comments

It’s a tough one, isn’t it?     /B-)

===================================

Tuesday, May 09 2006 @ 11:53 AM MDT

Murray Dobbin says count me in to census

Contributed by: sthompson

**UPDATE  from Susan (late May 9): Murray Dobbin has written me in reply to my email to say he is having rabble.ca correct his error regarding who is running which actions re the census.

My response as sent May 9:

Dear Murray,

We’ve met before, I think through a Parkland Institute function on deep integration in Edmonton.

I’m writing regarding your article “The Census? Count me in”. I’m disappointed at the inaccuracies and errors in your article.

I founded and run (along with a board of directors) Vive le Canada.ca, the organization that actually has been promoting and running a boycott regarding the census since 2003. While I respect CountMeOut.ca, CountMeOut.ca is not the organizer of a census boycott as written in your article, and was certainly not the architect of our slight victory regarding the census in 2003, ie the limitations on Lockheed Martin’s involvement.

That’s not possible, you see, since CountMeOut.ca was founded only this year by Don Rogers and was not involved whatsoever in the original 2003 action boycotting the census test, which was run by us at Vive le Canada.ca.

(Census links on Vive le Canada are no longer valid)

You therefore convey the wrong impression when you say “CountMeOut — not satisfied with its share of the victory in changing the contract — now must rely on conspiracy theories to maintain its position that we should not co-operate with the Census” since you are crediting CountMeOut with a victory it had no part in, not existing at the time.

And CountMeOut is not organizing a boycott but in fact only the minimum cooperation aspect of the campaign which is made clear on that website. At present, we at Vive are partnering with CountMeOut.ca–we are referring people to that site if they want to engage in minimum cooperation, and they are referring people to us if they want to fully boycott or send our editable email form letter to politicians protesting Lockheed Martin’s involvement in the census.

Therefore you are simply in error when you state that: The principal organizer and promoter of the boycott of the Census comes in the form of the website CountMeOut whose motto is “Empowering every Canadian to oppose NAFTA and deep integration through minimum co-operation” with the Census.

I would very much like a retraction or correction to appear in Rabble stating the correct facts, which are that Vive le Canada.ca spearheaded the original 2003 boycott of the census test that led to Statistics Canada putting limitations on Lockheed Martin’s involvement, and that Vive le Canada.ca remains the primary organizer of any actual boycott of the census and therefore it is Vive at the centre of that debate, partnering with CountMeOut.ca which is promoting minimum cooperation.

Additionally, I would love to write an op-ed rebuttal to the article to be published on rabble. But for now I’ll respond here.

So on to the substance of your article. First of all, since Vive was the primary organizer of the original boycott and has been working on this issue since 2003, I can give you some information you have missed mentioning in your article. It’s important to note that yes, we did successfully limit Lockheed Martin’s involvement to ONLY the software, hardware, and printing of the census after they were originally involved in processing the census.

However, AFTER StatCan told us that, CBC then found out that Lockheed Martin employees were still processing data. In response StatCan fired those employees (on a Friday)–but hired many back the very next business day (a Monday). Statistics Canada admitted this itself after other upset StatCan employees posted the information to our website, spinning it as allowing employees a fair chance to compete for the same jobs–but to us it looked like a big public relations exercise, which certainly was successful considering that these actions led both NDP MP Bill Blaikie and at least one news report to erroneously report that Lockheed Martin no longer had ANY involvement in the census, quickly quieting much of the outrage over the issue at the time.

As you may guess, such actions make it difficult to continue to trust Statistics Canada’s word on the safety of census information and the limitations of the contract. I am certainly glad that Statistics Canada has responded and limited the scope of the contract, and I certainly hope that our information is safe and secure. However, many Canadians remain concerned that it may not be and we share their concerns. We offer several examples of past cases with sources on our website of vital information being taken secretly by third-party contractors–one case involved US census information, taken by NASA even asfter assurances from the US census bureau that the information was secure, and one high-profile US case of airline records being taken even involved Lockheed itself. It may not happen in this case, but the question is whether we want to take the risk.

And yes, as you allude to in the article, this issue certainly goes beyond privacy. Lockheed Martin is the world’s largest military contractor, the prime beneficiary from not only the war in Iraq but missile defence and even private interrogations in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is a moral repugnance and a stark inconsistency to paying a company, with taxpayer money, that not only benefits from but lobbied for so many of the the very U.S. policies that Canadians have rightly rejected.

Since you can’t criticize us on that front, you instead criticize us on strategy. You say we should not boycott the census because this will not hurt Lockheed Martin but Statistics Canada itself.

Well, how do you propose we boycott Lockheed Martin? Most of us aren’t in the market at present for a nuclear missile, and 80% of Lockheed’s contracts are with the U.S. government–to successfully boycott Lockheed, we’d have to boycott the US government. Or, as in this case, unfortunately the Canadian government, and specifically Statistics Canada. I am no right-wing opposer of government in general, and understand and agree with the value of the statistics gathered by our own government agency. However, this is the sort of situation we face when we deal with the military-industrial complex–the military contractors become so enmeshed with government agencies that the line between the two blurs and disappears. In this particular case, what we are seeing is the encroachment of the U.S. military-industrial complex into Canada, and that is a large part of what makes it so odious. And we are opposing it with the only means at our disposal, a boycott of the census which Lockheed (and yes, IBM, the company that handled Holocaust statistics among other things) has been contracted to help run.

All of the actions we offer make it abundantly clear that we are not demonizing Statistics Canada itself but only the fact that our generally respected and trusted government agency privatized in this manner, and with this particular company, which Canadians do not at all respect and trust. We offer information on the corporation and its past and present profile, not negative information on Statistics Canada. We ask people to boycott this particular census for these particular reasons, not any future census or statistics gathering in general. We are ultimately calling not for mistrust of government but for mistrust of the corporation that should not be doing government work in the first place, and people so far have generally not confused the two. What we are saying here is that yes, this information is vital and important–and that’s precisely why it should be handled by Statistics Canada, or at least a Canadian company, not a U.S.-owned military contractor.

That is why we have Statistics Canada employees themselves continuing to feed us information privately on this issue as they have since 2003, easily shown by the cases where we have had inside information published on our site that StatCan has later confirmed, again as listed in our timeline.

And that said, frankly, as much as I’d like to believe that Vive le Canada.ca has the reach and ability to organize millions of Canadians into a boycott, the reality is that the number of people who engage in a full boycott will be statistically insignificant. 20? 50? 100? 1000? Out of millions. The vast majority will engage in any number of the other legal and easy alternatives we offer, not least of which is sending the email form letter we provide to government officials.

The power of the boycott is not, after all, in wrecking the stats but in the attention it draws. A boycott is the riskiest, strongest and most outrageous action anyone can take, which is why we advocate it–it creates surprise and interest, and with interest comes publicity and with publicity comes the chance we can make this a national issue. If you really want to talk strategy. The more radical action taken by some also makes the less radical actions taken by others more acceptable and mainstream. Another strategy.

The precious stats that we all rely on will still be there. But the action raises an outcry, and makes it possible that Lockheed Martin won’t be, and that in future Statistics Canada won’t contract out to that company or similar companies. As a result of the letters sent and the boycott the NDP has already raised this issue in the House of Commons and questioned why Lockheed is involved. Would that have happened had we remained silent? Would Lockheed’s involvement been limited at all had we been silent in 2003?

Simply, no.

And of course we offer the boycott option because people requested it. We are a grassroots organization and we serve Canadians, we don’t order them to do things. Several people were planning on boycotting and wanted support, which we knew because we are a platform where people can post their own thoughts and opinions rather than simply receive the daily missive from us on what to think. So we responded. Some of those people who boycott fully are sometimes doing so because that means they can rest fully assured that their information will not be at all seen or used by a military contractor, or any other unscrupulous body or person, because they are not offering it in the first place. Not one has questioned the need for Statistics Canada itself.

Ultimately, we would not be in this situation had Statistics Canada not opened the contract to bid in the first place, which then meant that under the rules of NAFTA that American companies had to be treated exactly the same as Canadian companies, and likely easily underbid them due to its status as a multinational giant and the excellent profits the company has been raking in lately elsewhere, such as from the sale of its weapons for use in Iraq and its lead role in the development of the same missile defence system that so many activists in Canada and the US opposed. You yourself suggest we abrogate NAFTA, but yet argue against an action which is all about discussing this situation on a national scale as the example that it is of why NAFTA doesn’t work.

So I must conclude with my disappointment that you yourself, and also the CCPA, have continued to discount and discourage people from engaging in an action which has the potential to break the topic of deep integration, NAFTA, and the similarities/differences between Canadian and US policy into the mainstream national discussion. And I remain most disappointed because you have done this twice now (in the CCPA Monitor, and now in rabble) without even talking to us here at Vive about what we’re doing and why–nor even, it seems, visiting the website.

I hope that you will remedy that situation now, and I invite you to participate in our action by editing and sending our email to the federal government opposing Lockheed Martin’s participation in the 2006 Canadian census. Since we also encourage people to write letters to the editor, I hope you will ask your own Word Warriors to raise the issue as well.

Sincerely,

Susan Thompson

founder/president

http://www.vivelecanada.ca

PS Please also see our rebuttal of the CCPA Monitor articles at:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060429161934674

Best-selling author and Vive supporter Mel Hurtig has since also written the CCPA to complain about its support for the census.

2006-05-10 rabble.ca: The Census? Count me in (Murray Dobbin)

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
May 102006
 

I circulated this piece by Murray Dobbin, but I do not agree with it.  Susan Thompson wrote an excellent rebuttal, see the next posting.  The issue re-surfaces in summer 2010 after the Harper Government announced that the census long form is no longer mandatory.

Many thanks to Alan for sending this in.

=========================

The following article has been sent to you by:

Alan Appleby  and they provided the following comments:

Hello Sandra: I appreciated you sending out the material last week. I had written to StatsCan several years ago about contracting out. I found this article by Murray Dobbins, who always seems pretty practical, presented another side of the issue, and one I can identify with as a user of census materials in my work.   /Alan

To view the article online click here:  (Link no longer valid  http://rabble.ca/redirect.php3?ID=7605 )

The Census? Count me in

Our government has been hijacked — we should be fighting to take it back. We can’t do that by demonizing it. That’s why when it comes to the Census you should count yourself in.

>by Murray Dobbin

May 9, 2006

There’s a tug-of-war going on amongst progressive activists on the question of whether to boycott — or give minimum co-operation to — the Census, due to be completed by May 16. Lockheed Martin Canada (along with IBM) won a contract to provide software and hardware for the Census. Its status as one of the world’s largest arms manufacturers in combination with the U.S.

Patriot Act is at the core of the call for non-co-operation.

The principal organizer and promoter of the boycott of the Census comes in the form of the website CountMeOut whose motto is “Empowering every Canadian to oppose NAFTA and deep integration through minimum co-operation” with the Census.

The problem with this notion of empowerment and the call for minimal co-operation is it’s just the wrong strategy, targeting the wrong agency. A successful boycott would have no impact whatever on Lockheed Martin but would hurt one of the most important government agencies we have working for us.

As for who would be happiest with such a successful campaign, think Stephen Harper — and every other radical right wing politician in the country who is dedicated to dismantling democratic governance.

StatsCan is a key institution of Canadian democracy because hundreds of researchers in social movement organizations, progressive think tanks, unions and NGOs rely on its information to lobby, criticize, expose and otherwise hold to account, the governments of the land. For a social activist, whacking StatsCan is like smacking yourself in the face. Perhaps this is why the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives CCPA has come out in favour of full co-operation with the Census after investigating the issue and getting a detailed briefing from StatsCan on its privacy protection measures. [I should acknowledge here that I am on the board of the CCPA.]

First, let’s look at the main arguments of both sides of this issue. When StatsCan first announced its contract with Lockheed Martin it was clear that this giant U.S.-based corporation could have access to the data collected for the Census. Immediately, all sorts of activists and NGOs raised the alarm, pointing out that because of the Patriot Act, Lockheed Martin would be obliged to secretly provide a whole slew of U.S. intelligence agencies access to information about Canadians — or face huge penalties. Oddly, no one raised the same concern about IBM.

Remarkably, given the usual response of the federal government and its agencies to such protest, StatsCan changed the contract because of the complaints. Lockheed Martin will, as a result, have no access to any of the information gathered, have no staff involved in the program as data is being collected, and the whole Census process will be in a closed system with no connections to any other government information systems.

According to CountMeOut, even though Lockheed Martin is now technically blocked from access to any Census information “We believe it would be entirely possible for Lockheed Martin to plant a ‘Trojan horse’ within the Census software, to secretly allow the CIA to tap into Canadian Census  data.” How is not made clear. The Census is not a website to be hacked.

StatsCan has developed an excellent reputation for guarding the privacy of the information gathered in the Census. The people who work there are dedicated public employees, committed to their jobs and to Canadians.

The question isn’t whether or not Canadians should be concerned that a corporation the CCPA lists as one of the Ten Worst Corporations in the World should be providing software for the Census. The question is what we should be doing strategically to oppose corporatism and the growth of the security state in general.

CountMeOut — not satisfied with the changes to the contract — now must rely on conspiracy theories to maintain its position that we should not co-operate with the Census. Are their conspiracies afoot? I am sure there are — especially arising out of the paranoid and dangerous Bush administration. Yet having said that, our politics must guard against falling into the trap of the politics of fear. Conspiracies are by definition unknowable — and therefore unchallengeable. Concocting them disempowers people. All it would take is a dozen declared conspiracies to take up all the energy and resources of Canadian activists.

There is no lack of political work to be done. The challenges we face in stopping Stephen Harper and his government are so serious and so formidable, I don’t think we can waste energy on a campaign that will do literally nothing to expose his sinister agenda. There’s enough bad stuff out there — obvious stuff, documented, already happening, about to happen — without feeding people’s fear that there are also conspiracies that we have no power to affect.

CountMeOut says that even if the privacy issue were resolved we should still refuse to co-operate with the Census because of “…deep integration, Canadian sovereignty, Lockheed Martin itself, and job losses [at StatsCan].” But this is hardly an effective strategy regarding any of these issues — and again simply targets the wrong player.

Statistics Canada — the activist’s friend

In the late 1980s and early 1990s every corporate think tank, neo-liberal columnist, editorial writer and TV anchor was on side promoting a campaign of deficit hysteria. We were going to hit the debt wall, Canada was going to go bankrupt, we had to tighten our belts. The Business Council on National Issues ranted and raved about how Canada had been “spending like drunken sailors” — beyond our means — and that the only solution was radical cuts to social spending.

Then in 1990, StatsCan produced a study that put the whole issue in context.

The study revealed the composition of the huge accumulated deficit (it was huge — and it was a problem). “..50 per cent of the [accumulated] deficit between 1974-75 and 1988-89 may be traced to a drop in revenue relative to GDP; 44 per cent to an increase in debt service charges relative to GDP; and six per cent to program spending at a higher relative to GDP, than in 1974-75.” That’s right — just six per cent of our debt was due to increased government spending.

The study handed to social movements, unions and others fighting social program cuts a weapon they could never have created themselves. It effectively debunked the carefully-constructed deficit terror campaign. It allowed activists to argue that because spending was not the cause, cutting was not the solution.

Which is why the federal government of Brian Mulroney moved quickly to suppress the study after a summary of it contents were published. Kevin Lynch, a powerful assistant deputy finance minister (and now Harper’s most powerful civil servant, Clerk of the Privy Council) wrote a blistering letter to the head of StatsCan objecting to the study.

The full study was never published and StatsCan was forced to issue a retraction of the summary. But it was eventually obtained through Freedom of Information and circulated broadly. Even though we lost the deficit war, it wasn’t for lack of data backing our arguments.

I tell this lengthy story simply to indicate the critical role of StatsCan to progressive politics. Every movement in the country is fighting for public support using whatever facts and arguments it can muster. Whether it is information about the environment, energy consumption, poverty, tax breaks for wealthy, the percentage of health care dollars now going to the private sector, the gap between rich and poor, the increasing number of hours worked by the average Canadian, the gender gap in wages and salaries — StatsCan is there with the raw data that give our arguments credibility and power. The Census is the core source of much of that data.

For 30 years now right wing politicians, the media and corporate think tanks have been demonizing government: Government — not corporations — is the source of all of our problems. Government has its hands in our pockets; government is inefficient and corrupt; individuals are customers, not citizens, and know how to spend their money better than government does; government red tape slows investment; we need tax “relief” — as if the source of revenue for the services we need is somehow an affliction.

The campaign has been working well. Voting levels are at historic lows — as are corporate taxes and taxes on the wealthy. Social spending as a percentage of GDP is at 1950s levels — despite the fact that we are twice as wealthy in GDP per capita as we were when medicare came in. The creation of “useful crises” has convinced millions of Canadians that for-profit health care might be a good thing.

We need to expose Lockheed Martin for what it is and what it does. We need to hold politicians accountable for their complicity with transnational — and domestic — corporations. We need to fight to abrogate NAFTA and defend our country against deep integration.

Our government has been hijacked — we should be fighting to take it back. We can’t do that by demonizing it. That’s why when it comes to the Census you should count yourself in.

Murray Dobbin writes from Vancouver. He is author of Paul Martin: CEO for Canada?

2006-05-01 Census coming up – what to do – fill one out or not?

 Lockheed Martin, War Economy (includes Cdn Census & Trials)  No Responses »
May 012006
 

 Lockheed Martin (Canada) is a subsidiary of the American company, same name, which is a major corporation in the American war machine.  Since 2003 we have been telling the Government that we do not want any part of the 2006 Census out-sourced to Lockheed.  I personally, as a citizen and payor of taxes, will not co-operate with the Government to enrich or be “an enabler” of Lockheed Martin. 

My particular letter to the Government, the first one, pointed out that Statistics Canada has always been able to process the Census.  What has happened now that we no longer have that capability?  Are we getting dumber? … When any community (or country) farms its work out to another, it disempowers itself.  It’s an opportunity cost.  My muscles grow weak (atrophy) if I don’t use them.  The last thing Canada needs is to disempower itself.  And don’t give me the bull that Lockheed Martin is “really” a Canadian company, as they tried to tell me when I spoke directly with people in Statistics Canada. 

When we worked on “Smart Regulations, the Government Directive on Regulating”,  I used the example of the Census to say that the Government is creating a situation where citizens are learning non-compliance with regulations.  That is not a good state-of-affairs. 

What am I going to do when the census-taker arrives at my door?  I have to make the decision now; I don’t want to be making it as I’m walking to the door. 

I collected the information we have circulated about the census from 2003 to the present, to help clarify what is right for me.  The emails are pasted below, in case they will be useful to you. 

The second email is from Mel Hurtig;  it provides resource material for making the decision.  This is a very serious matter.  (UPDATE: the resource material was on a webpage that no longer exists.) 

/Sandra 

NOTE:  You will see the name “Don Rogers”.  Our first introduction to Don was in a newspaper article “Angry retiree pays off Visa bill with pennies”.  Since then Don has established “Count me Out” (of the census). 

============================= 

NOTE:  I removed the name of the party with whom Don Rogers was corresponding. 

CCPA = Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives  /S

—————— 

Fw: FYI: Excerpt from CCPA – Census and Lockheed

Date: Apr 17 2006 – 4:15pm

—– Original Message —–

From: “Don B. Rogers”

Cc: <administration@countmeout.ca>; <info@canadianactionparty.ca>

Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 10:06 AM

Subject: Re: FYI: Excerpt from CCPA – Census and Lockheed 

Hello, 

Thanks for your message and the “heads up” about the CCPA Monitor item.

We are fully aware of it.  (Insert: CCPA = Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives) 

Below, I am reproducing the Letter to the Editor of the Monitor which has already been sent to them:

Dear Editor 

The Monitor has painted itself into an embarrassing corner. 

You defend your support of the upcoming Census, notwithstanding the contracting out of its software to Lockheed Martin (Canada), by stating you are satisfied that the privacy of Canadians’ personal census information is assured. Lockheed Martin will not have access to the census data.

That may or may not be true. It is a judgment call. But did the Monitor investigate the rumours that onsite Lockheed Martin employees were “fired” on a Friday and “hired” on the Monday as instant StatsCan employees?

But the privacy question is a sidebar. The Monitor has remained deafeningly silent on the moral contradiction of having Census taxpayers’ money going to the subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, one of the world’s biggest armaments manufacturers.

The same edition of the Monitor contains an article about the 10 Worst Corporations in the World. There is Lockheed Martin, rubbing shoulders with the worlds’s worst. What an irony!

Those who disagree with the Monitor may wish to visit the website”

www.CountMeOut.ca which offers suggestions on how Canadians can show their disapproval of the Lockheed Martin deal, by slowing down the Census. The minimum cooperation suggestions should make Statistics Canada think twice in the future about outsourcing part of the Census to the likes of Lockheed Martin.

Again, thanks for taking the time to contact us. 

Best regards

Don Rogers

Kingston Ont

www.CountMeOut.ca

=================================

Date: Apr 6 2006 – 10:17am

Excerpt from the April 2006 edition of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives monthly newsletter, The CCPA Monitor. 

Re: The Census and Lockheed 

Several readers have written, phoned or e-mailed to question the editorial in our March issue urging participation in Statistics Canada’s 2006 Census, to be conducted in May. They were under the impression that StatsCan had contracted out the census to Lockheed, or a subsidiary of that big U.S. “defence” corporation, and feared that their personal information would be passed on to Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, and other American “security” outfits.

The CCPA has investigated this matter, talked with Statistics Canada officials (including the Director-General of the 2006 Census), and we are satisfied with the explanation we have received.

The census requires highly specialized technology, and, after a bidding process, StatsCan contracted with three firms – Lockheed Canada, IBM Canada, and Transcontinental Printing Canada – for some hardware, software, and for the printing of the questionnaire. But that is all. The administration and collection of census data remains entirely in-house with Statistics Canada, as does all interaction with the data and the storage of the data.

No contractor will ever have access to or be in possession of the census responses of Canadians. All census databases, facilities, and networks containing confidential information are physically isolated from any networks outside Statistics Canada. It would therefore be impossible for any contractor or other external body to gain access to this data.

Given these assurances – which have been independently checked by CCPA research associates – we can assure our concerned readers that there is no truth to the rumours that Lockheed or any other private American or Canadian firm will be involved in any way with the collection, storage, or use of the census data. 

=============================

(deleted duplication of information from postings that pre-date this one)

2006-05-01 (#9) CONTEXT Corruption of the companies. Public Record.

 Food, Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Health, Take back the University  No Responses »
May 012006
 

#9  Context:  Corruption of the companies, public record

If the parties gathered at the table do not acknowledge the corruption and find ways to neutralize it, we will not solve the problem.  The problem is the chemical load and its effects in the creation of disease, developmental problems, cognitive and reproductive functioning.

=====================

Monday, May 1, 2006

Letter to:

(1)  Federal Ministers

  • Health, Tony Clement
  • Agriculture, Chuck Strahl
  • Fisheries and Oceans, Loyola Hearn
  • Environment, Rona Ambrose

(2)  University of Saskatchewan, Office of Vice President Research, c/o Laura Zink; Deans Ernie Barber and Lynne Pearson

(3)  Others

———–

Dear All,

We solve a problem IN A PARTICULAR CONTEXT.  If you do not understand or know that context, you cannot remove all the obstacles to finding a solution.  Context is “the realities of our time”.

From email #8:  “I have yet to put out the email that documents the Corrupting nature of the chemical companies, the “clients” of the PMRA. …”

This email is the documentation of the corruption.  If the parties gathered at the table do not acknowledge it and find ways to neutralize it, we will not solve the problem.

Thank-you for citizen input, courtesy of George:

re BASF, Minnesota Supreme Court, $52 million dollar verdict.  I have added it to the list of examples of the corrupt nature of the companies  (#10 below).  (BASF came up in the discussion about herbicide-tolerant wheat which will increase the chemical load on the environment, licensed by the CFIA (email #2a).)

We have recent input from Francois Guimont, head of the CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency), party to these discussions.

I will table Francois’ input prior to the promised documentation for the budget slashing (reduced money for enforcement of regulations) at DFO (Dept of Fisheries and Oceans). The move leads to increased abuse of our water supply and hence an escalation in disease outcomes.  Courtesy of the Liberals before they bit the dust.

Tabling of citizen input:  when you read below the appalling record of the corruption of these companies, you will understand how abhorrent and completely unacceptable it is that even one penny of tax-payer money should go to these companies, whether through Government Fronts (email #3a) or through “matched funding”.  For a Government official to say that the amounts of money are small, is simply not true.  Nor is it a reasonable defence.  The record of corruption demonstrates that these companies need to be POLICED, with no leaway.

When Connie from the PMRA asked how the public might be convinced that the PMRA is doing its job, after you read the record, you will understand that having “Industry Scientists” on panels that make any decisions related to governance or policy or regulation is to undermine public trust in the PMRA.  Call a spade, a spade:  you judge a person by the company s/he keeps.

The University is part of this exercise: the history of corruption will be of interest to them.  I remember picking up a brochure years ago, at the College of Agriculture.  Monsanto contributed $11 million to the construction of the new College.  And they fund research.  The undermining of “science” is well documented (email #3a – “Science Under Siege”).  The College of Agriculture has state-of-the-art computers and expensive software.  The Thorvaldson Building (science) has poor equipment in contrast.

Ha!  it’s a little funny how we delude ourselves: the difference between a “prostitute” and a “mistress” is the manner in which they are kept, which is to say that money buys vocabuary to elevate the image.  David Suzuki described the same thing in a different way.

At the National Farmers Union (NFU) meeting in Saskatoon Nov. 2004, in the question period following David Suzuki’s presentation, Tom Wolf placed the case for the scientists before the audience:  the chemical corporations fund the research.  David shrugged his shoulders, was forthright and unapologetic:  the University sells its soul to the devil.

Recently the same criticism has surfaced at the University of Guelph where Keith Solomon is from (email #8 – Solomon on the 2,4-D panel, a scientist who was bought by the tobacco industry earlier on).

CITIZEN INPUT, thanks to Michael:

“University fights Suzuki criticism Noted environmentalist cites 17-year-old television program GUELPH (Apr 26, 2006)

Environmentalist David Suzuki has said University of Guelph faculty are “in bed with the chemical industry.” But a plant agriculture professor says that view is naive.

“It’s fundamentally wrong,” said Clarence Swanton about what Suzuki said during a recent interview with the Mercury. “Working with the industry, we can make advancements of how technology is introduced and how it’s used in the marketplace.”

In an interview last week just before he flew out from Vancouver on his book tour, Suzuki criticized the University of Guelph’s agriculture department, saying it strongly supports industrial-type agriculture, with its reliance on chemicals and genetically modified organisms.

“I’ve been stunned to find myself arguing with a lot of faculty,” he said. “It’s clear that Guelph is in bed with the chemical industry.”

Suzuki said he was “hammered” by Guelph’s agriculture faculty for a 1989 TV episode on organic farming.

“It’s obvious they’re getting grants from the chemical industry and they see the world differently from the way I see it as an environmentalist,” he said.

University president Alastair Summerlee said he was disappointed Suzuki focused on such an old reaction from university faculty. “It’s very important to focus on what we’re doing now and the reputation we have now,” Summerlee said. …”

I present this exchange with Suzuki, not to titillate, but to shine light on THE OBSTACLES.

Jane Jacobs, before departing, warned us in “Dark Age Ahead” that five social pillars are crumbling: family and community, HIGHER EDUCATION, SCIENCE, REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, and professional self-regulation.  Her words reinforce our experience.  As do those of George Soros when he speaks of the “unholy alliances”.

The problem for the Government and the Universities is that the public is well-informed.  And no longer willing to be silent.

It is my expectation that you will govern with common sense and integrity. Read the track-record on the chemical/pharmaceutical/biotech companies. It’s long.  These people should be in jail.  They have done far more harm than jailed people have done.  It is well documented.

This context is tabled.  It is an obstacle to be dealt with if we are to achieve solutions to the problem.

 

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

———————–

CONTEXT

Unacceptable levels of corruption exist.
We know that.  “Public Private Partnerships” have been promoted since 1982. Government is a part of industry through entities such as BioTech Canada, many other public-private partnerships and “government fronts” (see email #3a).

——————

ILLUSTRATE IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT BEFORE PROCEEDING TO “THE PUBLIC RECORD” ON THE COMPANIES.

The conclusions I would reach about:

  • a child in a refugee camp in Ethiopia could be starkly different from

those reached in relation to a child raised in Disneyland Villa because of only one consideration – the context in which their lives are set is dramatically different.

Other examples of the importance of context:

  • decisions that affect prairie animals would be very different in a contextual setting of 1830 compared to the conditions that will exist in 2030.
  • decisions related to women could be very different in the context of a fundamentalist Muslim community versus Hollywood.

Failure to delineate context would be a serious error.

Some elements of context:

  • system of governance (a decision made in an oppressive regime will be different from the same decision made in a democracy)
  • time in history
  • levels of awareness (is it an Age of Enlightenment or one of relative ignorance?)
  • community values
  • ecological context

To this list, I would add:

  • levels of corruption in the society.   (When I am dealing with manipulative, dishonest people I make different decisions than when I am dealing with people who are trustworthy.)

The CONTEXT in which a decision is made needs to be spelt out. It greatly affects the decision and what becomes of the decision. One benefit of addressing CONTEXT is that some items of context can be changed.

(Email #2a: It can only happen if we can each see a potential role for ourselves in solving the problem (of the pesticide load and health).)

———————–

Now, on to the PUBLIC RECORD:

CHEMICAL INDUSTRY, A HISTORY OF LIES AND CORRUPTION

This is just a SMALL sampling of behaviour.  It is just what we have come across in the course of our work;  we didn’t set out to compile a list. Anyone interested in more examples can easily google it.

Also, the chemical companies are owned by the pharmaceutical companies.

Together they are the biotechnology companies (biotech plants, biotech animals, biotech fish, biotech drugs).  The list below is for the chemical/biotech companies.  I have not set out anything about the pharmaceutical companies.  I believe that their history of cover-up is well enough known that the chemical company record is sufficient to make the case.  I would just add this one thing:  Aug 13, 2004 we circulated information re ANGELL MARCIA, former New England Journal of Medicine editor, now senior lecturer at Harvard Medical School and her book “The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It” (Random House, 2004).

It is highly unreasonable to rely on ANY information supplied by these companies themselves. They are notoriously corrupt.  If they were “citizens” they would be in jail.

(1)  SEVERELY POISONING PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND LYING ABOUT IT:

In August 2003, in an Alabama court, MONSANTO was fined $700 million for poisoning people with PCBs.  The community of people in which its plant was located and from which it drew its employees were the ones poisoned and diseased.  Monsanto KNEW what it was doing, told great big lies, but in the end they were caught.

The Washington Post carried a very lengthy piece regarding the Alabama court case. The details were heart-rending – hard to believe that a company could be so callous.  The $700 million dollar fine reflected Monsanto’s depravity.

(2)  BRIBERY:

In 1998 the Senate of Canada Hearing into attempted bribery by Monsanto to get Bovine Growth Hormone licensed in Canada drew press coverage under headings such as: THE ‘PURE’ MONSANTO CO. AND HEALTH CANADA. “Scientists pressured to approve cattle drug. Health Canada researchers accuse firm of bribery in bid to OK a questionable product.”  The bribery amount was a million dollars.  Monsanto was unsuccessful in its attempt to get BGH registered because Health Canada scientists blew the whistle. Senator Eugene Whelan was instrumental in getting a Senate Hearing.

(3) BLATANT DISREGARD FOR LAWS AND FALSE ADVERTISING:

Dec 2003, The Attorney General for the State of New York fined DOW CHEMICAL $2 million (the highest amount ever for this kind of charge) for making false safety claims in pesticide ads.  This was after the State, BEGINNING IN 1994, negotiated settlements under which the Company agreed to not use the ads. They turned around and ran the ads anyway.  They are accustomed to getting their way.  The Attorney General of New York was a surprise for them.

(4)  CORRUPTING SCIENCE AND THE REGULATORY PROCESS  (The “IBT Scandal”):

A reporter for the Regina Leader Post gained temporary notoriety for his persistence in tracking down information related to the “IBT scandal” in the early 1980s. Monsanto’s RoundUp was implicated. All its safety studies had been done by IBT.  This was a huge scandal in the United States, well documented, which had implications for Canada:  the largest commercial laboratory in the United States, IBT, one of several companies supplying the research studies used by the pharmaceutical/chemical company complex to get their products registered by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) was investigated and found to be routinely falsifying data.  At the time, Canada automatically licensed any product which had received licensing from the Americans.  The scandal brought about changes in the Canada licensing system.  (And now there is pressure to once again, “harmonize” the Canadian licensing system with the American.)

Thousands of IBT studies were revealed through EPA and FDA investigations to be fraudulent or grossly inadequate. One of IBT’s top executives was Dr. Paul Wright, a Monsanto toxicologist who took a job at IBT Labs in part to supervise the PCB tests.  He then returned to Monsanto.  Wright was eventually convicted of multiple counts of fraud in one of the longest criminal trials in U. S. history, with his legal fees paid by Monsanto.

(5)  MORE LIES:

Then there’s “Trade Secrets”, a documentary I watched on PBS in March 2001, by Bill Moyers.  It arises out of an “Erin Brockavitch” type story of a woman whose husband’s life ended prematurely.  She was convinced that a connection existed between his death, deaths and rare diseases among his co-workers and their workplace – connections the Company not only denied, but for which it supplied “the science” to refute.  “Trade Secrets” reveals how the public’s right to know the truth about the thousands of chemicals in the world has been compromised.   It shows documents from a secret archive uncovered during the lawsuit against the chemical companies.  Their own words show how these companies sometimes hid the truth about the health implications of their products from the public.

(6)  DECEPTION, INDUSTRY FRONTS, TORONTO ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION:

This tool for manipulation of information became better known during Toronto’s pesticide bylaw struggle (which was successful).  Chemical industry associations establish in-name-only “organizations” used to sell the public on the benign nature of their products.  The Toronto Environmental Alliance and the Toronto Environmental Coalition sound like sister organizations. They aren’t.  One is a bona fide volunteer organization whose work is environmental protection; the other is an industry front, a telephone number and a name under which press releases are issued.  Unsuspecting media pick up the content and feed it to a public that has no way of distinguishing the reliability of the information.  Other Fronts in Ontario include the “Pest Control Safety Council of Canada” and the “Environmental Coalition of Ontario”.

(7)  CROPLIFE CANADA, MAIN INDUSTRY LOBBY, CHEMICAL AND BIOTECH,  also known as the Urban Pest Management Council of Canada “represents the manufacturers, formulators, distributors and allied associations of specialty pest management products, for the consumer or professional markets used in turf, ornamental, pest management, forestry, aquatic, vegetation management and other non-food/fibre applications.

The Council is involved in all aspects of industry-wide and public education, communication, stewardship, legislation and regulation appropriate to pest management in the urban environment. The Council is dedicated to the protection of community health and the environment.” CropLife Canada is part of CropLife International.  Lorne Hepworth is President. The preceding description of who they are is courtesy of their web-site.

(8)  2005:  attempted bribery in Indonesia.

You should not dismiss it on the basis that corruption is expected in Indonesia.  Monsanto also tried to bribe officials in
Canada and was caught. I assume they are successful in their bribery attempts more often than they are caught.

(9)  The Vermont dairy Monsanto took to court because the dairy labelled its milk as being free from bovine growth hormone.  That was a threat to Monsanto’s product sales in the U.S.  (Canada and Europe would not and have not licensed BGH.)

Recent CITIZEN INPUT, thanks to George:

(10)  $52 MILLION AWARD AGAINST BASF FOR PESTICIDE CONSUMER FRAUD REAFFIRMED ON APPEAL

(the CFIA, Cdn Food Inspection Agency, Agriculture Canada) has licensed BASF’s herbicide-tolerant wheat – introduced in email #2a).

(Link no longer valid)
Insider eJournal, Vol. 1, No. 4 (March 2, 2004)

Minnesota Supreme Court Upholds Jury Verdict Awarding $52 Million To Farmers Who Alleged BASF Fraud In Its Sales And Advertising For Similar Herbicide Products

A legal decision that sends a serious warning to pesticide producers was handed down Feb. 19 by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which upheld a $52 million judgment against BASF Corporation for consumer fraud.

The class action suit was brought because BASF was allegedly overcharging minor crop growers for a product that was virtually identical to a product sold to major crop growers for less money. The practice of “splitting” pesticide labels among similar products isn’t necessarily unusual, and the shock waves from this decision are still rumbling through the industry.

However, Robert Shelquist, one of the Minneapolis attorneys representing the growers, told Insider that “this was an advertising case – not a subset labelling case – which proved that BASF was intentionally deceiving the farmers.”

For the complete text of the February 19th, 2004 Minnesota Supreme Court Decision, see:

Ronald Peterson, et al. v. BASF Corporation

(11)  From the February 2001 Idaho Observer:  Some of the president’s Monsanto men

There is a reason why Bill Clinton was the president: His antics kept the dominant media, and therefore the people, preoccupied with nonsense while the real agenda moved forward. There is a reason why GW is the president: His affable and unpolished down home charm is a perfect contrast to the power players that have been chosen to be his cabinet.

Robert Cohen, author of “Milk, The Deadly Poison” which details the horrid politics behind the contamination of our nation’s milk and beef supply with bovine growth hormone, says that the new Bush administration could accurately be described as the Monsanto Cabinet.

Attorney General John Ashcroft reportedly received $10,000 for his senatorial campaign from Monsanto in the mid 90s. Ashcroft’s contribution from Monsanto was five times that of any other congressional hopeful. Ashcroft, and Sr. Bush Supreme Court appointee Clarence Thomas were instrumental in gaining Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for Monsanto’s controversial artificial sweetener aspartame, which has been linked to over 200 ailments that include Alzheimer’s disease, juvenile diabetes, depression, epileptic seizures, blindness, memory loss, excitability, weight gain, multiple sclerosis and lupus (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was president of Searle Pharmaceuticals, a company owned by Monsanto. Rumsfeld was also the Secretary of Defense under President Ford.

Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman was on the board of directors of Calgene Pharmaceutical, another company currently owned by Monsanto.

Secretary of Health Tommy Thompson is the fourth member of the Bush cabinet to have direct ties to Monsanto. The former governor of Wisconsin designated his state as a “biotech zone” for the use of Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone even though dairy farmers in his state opposed the designation by a 9-1 ratio. Thompson reportedly received $50,000 from biotech companies during his election campaign.

Bovine growth hormone, which does increase the productivity of dairy cows, has also been linked to many health problems in children and adults (The Idaho Observer, November, 2000) and makes cows sick.

Bovine growth hormone has been outlawed in most countries, but not the U.S. And as Cohen points out, another player in the Monsanto-studded Cabinet is Rep. Richard Pombo, who will head the Agriculture Subcommittee on Dairy, Livestock and Poultry. Pombo is also a Monsanto boy, having taken campaign money from it while stalling a 1994 bill to make labeling mandatory for milk or milk products containing Bovine Growth Hormones. Pombo helped kill the bill in committee.

Monsanto also holds the patent on the “terminator gene” which prevents plants from producing viable seed so that farmers, and therefore people, will be dependent upon the multinational corporation for their food supply.

Monsanto has proven to be one of the most greedy, ruthless and environmentally irreverent corporations in world history. One cannot serve the interests of Monsanto and serve the interests of people at the same time.

2006-04-12 Real-life experience. PPP’s and corruption in action. Government-University-Chemical Biotech. (from a series)

 Freedom of Speech. (Remove some wrong postings from category), Genetically Modified, Take back the University  No Responses »
Apr 122006
 

The problem we are resolving is the impact of the chemicals on health through the water supply, air, and food (as has been documented in emails #1, #1a and #2.)

The role of the corporations in the Government and in Universities (the undermining of regulation and of “science”) has to be understood and addressed if effective problem-solving is to occur.  We must first remove the obstacles to finding a solution.

As you will see, the relationships between industry and Public Institutions takes us to the conclusion:   ACCOUNTABILITY is not possible if the Government is allowed to hand off money to incorporated companies (Inc.’s) and Foundations, the names of which hide the fact that they are run on public money.  I call them “GOVERNMENT FRONTS”.  They are organizations that operate on behalf of an industry and which are government funded.

As long as this continues, citizen participation in governance is futile.    Things won’t be cleaned up.  The problem of chemicals (or bioteched foods or nuclear or war or … ) will not be addressed because the industry has entrance through back-doors.  The documentation makes it clear.

In this case “the industry” is the pharmaceutical transnationals.  They own chemical companies.  The two together are the biotechnology companies.

Herbicide-tolerant plants lead to an increase in the chemical load which increases disease and developmental problems.  Biotech pharmacy (pharmacy owns chemical and together they are biotech) ensures that there will be little effective action in the removal of cause – – especially not when the Government is in collaboration (it is passed along, doesn’t matter whether Liberals or Conservatives.  The Saskatchewan branch of the NDP – I don’t know who else).

——————–

Letter to:

Federal Ministers

  • Health, Tony Clement
  • Agriculture, Chuck Strahl
  • Fisheries and Oceans, Loyola Hearn
  • Environment, Rona Ambrose

University of Saskatchewan

  • Board of Governors
  • Deans Ernie Barber and Lynne Pearson

Others

——————————

Parliament has begun its work on Accountability legislation (news reports April 11, 2006).

From the bottom of my heart:  thank-you!

  1. The Accountability legislation in its draft form should be evaluated against the events described below.  Would it have stopped the events from occurring, and if not, do we have the ingenuity to make changes to the legislation so that it would?
  2. The Accountability Legislation must outlaw “Government fronts”.

———————————–

Re  (1):  Would the Accountability legislation have prevented …?

The letter below provides concrete examples of what happens when the Government and the Universities are “partnering” with industry.  One example is that I, the citizen, become the subject of attempts by a civil servant to silence me, if I challenge conflicts-of-interest.  I believe the new legislation will provide a clear and easy path for the individual citizen to have the conflicts-of-interest addressed.  Thank-you.

But I note that in order to achieve accountability, there has to be adequate public funding for the regulatory functions of Government.  (The civil service cannot be held to account if it doesn’t have the political will behind it AND the money to enforce regulations.)

There also has to be adequate funding for the universities so that we have research without corporate bias – research in the public interest.  The notion that corporate money is a necessity in the public sphere because “we can’t afford things” without it, is ludicrous and a door through which insidious corruption manoeuvres into position.  Documentation below.

——

(2)  The Accountability Legislation must outlaw “Government fronts”.

In following emails there will be documentation of what happened under the Liberals:  funding was withdrawn from public-interest research at Health Canada (the Canadian Childhood Cancer Surveillance and Control Programme).

Then, “Health Research Foundations” were established with a stated priority for “funding research that has the potential for commercialization”.

Biotech pharmacy is, through the Health Research Foundations, a recipient of public money but the trail is covered over because the public has no way of knowing, from the name, that “Health Research Foundations” are funded by Government.  Here we have a clear example:  public money is diverted away from the research that would help address the CAUSES of a 25% increase in childhood cancers; then public money is funnelled to biotech pharmacy research with its “potential for commercialization”.  There will be no progress on REMOVAL OF CAUSE.  “Government fronts” are an obstacle that need to be removed / outlawed.

If an organization receives a significant portion of its funding from the Government, the public must be able to decipher this, FROM THE NAME OF THE ENTITY.  If Agwest Biotech Inc receives almost 100% of its operating funds from the Government, then it IS a department of the Government and must carry the Government’s name.  Similarily with Biotec Canada and the Health Research Foundations.  There can be no accountability for public funds when the money is passed out, from under the control of the Department and Minister responsible for it.  Through Government fronts, tax-payers’ money is going to organizations that lobby or operate on behalf of an industry.

SECOND EXAMPLE, CAN’T TELL FROM THE NAME

The biotech arena is not the only arena in which this is happening.  What is “TransGas Pipeline”?  (A Saskatchewan example.) You can’t tell by the name that it’s a crown corporation.  I just did a quick google search:  TranGas is a bronze sponsor:  “Cougar Racing Welcomes TransGas As A New Sponsor”.

This is money for Formula race cars … when the Government is supposed to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

TransGas builds pipelines.  Nexen Inc (oil and gas) is a beneficiary.

Dwayne Lingenfelter, former deputy minister works for Nexen.  Doug Anguish, former cabinet minister works for the pipeline lobby.  A Dept of Environment employee, Larry Kratt, also works for Nexen after co-chairing the Sask Petroleum Industry Government Environment Committee (SPIGEC).  Thank goodness the new Accountability legislation will address the latter.  But it has also to address NAMES – people have to be able to tell from the name that TransGas Pipelines is a crown corporation.

LAST EXAMPLE, YOU CAN’T TELL FROM THE NAME

A third example of the need for full disclosure:  I worked in a community that has a dependent and co-dependent relationship with the Federal Government.  I was dismayed that my tax money, given in earnest to help these communities, was ending up in the bingo halls and in drugs.  People in the community receive $75 each to attend regular meetings of community associations.  (This was the amount paid in 1998 and there was movement underway to increase the amount.)  It would have been very difficult to hold anyone responsible because the money was funnelled through different organizations that do not report to a Minister of the Crown, and again, you can’t tell by the name that they are simply “the Government” as far as funding is concerned.

Back to point (1), would the new Legislation address these events?

The documentation of the corrupting influence of the corporations takes the form of a letter submitted to the University of Saskatchewan (below).

Best wishes,

Sandra Finley

========================

Feb 14, 2006 letter to the University of Saskatchewan Board of Governors is moved to:  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5309

==============================

THINKERS OF THE DAY ON PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS is posted at:  http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=5312

= = = = = = = = = =  = = = = = == = = = = = =

SCIENCE UNDER SIEGE    (The full article is at 2005-08-05 )

An ill wind is gusting through the halls of science these days: faked research, suppression of unwelcome results, corruption of science advisory panels, university research falling under the influence of corporate sponsors, and many other conflicts of interest.

It’s as if science were under siege.   . . .

==================================

TO: Carmen DePape, Clerk to the Standing Committee on Health,    DepapC  AT  parl.gc.ca

Dear Carmen,

Will you please supply the Committee Members with a copy of my submission?

Many thanks,

Sandra Finley

===================================

TO: Members of the Standing Committee on Health:

  • The Chair (Bonnie Brown (Oakville, Lib.))
  • James Lunney  (Nanaimo—Alberni, CPC)
  • Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, CPC)
  • Réal Ménard (Hochelaga, BQ)
  • Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)
  • Jean Crowder (Nanaimo-Cowichan, NDP)
  • Ruby Dhalla (Brampton-Springdale, Lib.)
  • Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC)
  • Nicole Demers (Laval, BQ)
  • Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph, Lib.).

Thank you for your patience and diligence on behalf of Canadians.

I have read parts of the testimony given to the Standing Committee on May 19th, 2005 by Drs Chopra, Haydon and Lambert. http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=117785

My experience with Health Canada reinforces what the scientists are telling you. I was heartened to read Mr. Réal Ménard’s remark, “I think that it almost warrants a public enquiry”.

A public enquiry is most certainly required.

Please find attached the letter I received from a lawyer representing a Health Canada scientist who also works for the chemical industry (CropLife Canada). The letter threatens to sue me if I give such-and-such evidence to Saskatoon City Council.  My response is also appended – “Gangsters bully people through threat of broken bones. The chemical industry has an established history of attempting to intimidate through the threat of harm to the person’s finances and well-being, utilizing the legal system as the weapon.”

In my case, the gangster is a Health Canada employee and his bullying is a consequence of the problem identified in the testimony of the 3 scientists:  the Government sees its “clients” as the industry it is supposed to be regulating.

Also appended is copy of the newspaper report that arose out of my calling “foul” to the intolerable conflict-of-interest that the Government employee is in.

This particular incident is but one example of what is happening in Health Canada. I have sent a list of 14 items (of which I am aware) to the Minister of Health that documents other egregious events.

My experience, as documented below, lends support to Mr. Ménard’s statement.  An enquiry is most certainly in order.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

(contact info)

=======================================

APPENDAGE:

2004-04-10  Tom Wolf, Health Canada scientist threatens to sue me.  Response – the mafia uses threat of broken bones.

= = = = = = = = = = == = == =

(appendage continued)

TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY,  see   Terminator Technology  (GMO), UN Convention on Bio-diversity, Dr. Tewolde affair, (Norway) Spitsbergen seed bank

==================================

Réal Ménard (MP) is absolutely right that an Enquiry into the operations of  Health Canada (PMRA – Pest Management Regulatory Agency) is in order.

Further to the personal experience submitted to you earlier (Health Canada scientist’s attempt to intimidate me into silence) I have appended documentation of 2 events related to biotechnology. The events make a loud statement that something is very rotten in the state of Canada.

Some will think that the UN Biosafety Protocol Meeting in Montreal and the February UN Meeting in Bangkok have nothing to do with Health Canada and are therefore irrelevant to the decision on whether an Enquiry into the operations of Health Canada is warranted. But Health Canada plays a large role in biotech in Canada.

The PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency) is responsible to the Minister of Health. The CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency) is responsible to the Minister of Agriculture.

The clients of the PMRA (Health Canada) are the chemical companies. The pharmaceutical companies have large ownership interests in the chemical companies, who in turn, by-and-large are the biotechnology industry.

Biotechnology in Canada has a current main thrust into agriculture where crops (our food supply) are developed to be resistant to herbicides. (One might logically think that the food supply would be developed using the criteria of nutritional gains and environmental impact on the common good, but this is not the case.) The companies go to Health Canada to get their pesticides and pharmaceuticals licensed for use, and they make large payments to the PMRA (at least $8 million a year as reported by the television programme W5 a few years ago). These companies then have partnership agreements whereby the Government through Agriculture Canada pays half the research costs for developing seeds that are resistant to the licensed chemicals. And they have agreements through Health Canada to fund research on biotech drugs.

A second developing main thrust of biotechnology in Canada, and with the same corporate criteria as are applied in agriculture, is into the development of biotech pharmaceuticals. The partnership agreements through which public funding flows to the drug companies to fund research are through a front known as the Health Research Foundation. Health Research Foundations exist at the Provincial level of Government as well. These publicly funded “foundations” fund research that has “the potential for commercialization”. Biotech pharmaceuticals figure prominently. Government funding of the transnational pharmeceutical companies is done in precisely the same way as its funding of the chemical/biotech companies (e.g. for the development of crops such as roundup resistant wheat) which is through front organizations with names such as BioTech Canada and AgWest Biotech.

Both the food and the drugs we consume are determinants of health. The PMRA, other branches of Health Canada, and the CFIA work together – their “clients” are the same companies. As I have mentioned, the pharmaceutical companies own the chemical companies who own the biotechnology companies.

These are mostly large transnational corporations many of which have a very long and well-documented history of corruption and non-compliance with the laws of the land.  (documentation in a separate email.)

Given the overlaps in ownership, the overlapping interests in biotechnology, and the collaborations between the Government and the industry through partnership agreements, it is very reasonable to presume that Health Canada may indeed be collaboratively behind the 2 events mentioned. Both the witholding of entry visas to scientists who are effective in their work to insist on a Biosafety Protocol, and the attempted sabotage by Canadian Government negotiators of the UN deliberations on genetic seed sterilization technology, have the same end in view. I therefore presume that the same people in Government are behind both events. The events are an outrage to democracy and an international embarrassment to Canadians. I don’t know of any other way than an Enquiry to determine what is going on.

(1) Dr. Tewolde and other scientists who were to attend the UN Protocol Meetings on Biosafety in Montreal

(2) the UN Meetings in Bangkok in negotiations on genetic seed sterilization technology

Documentation on both is appended. It tells you that what Drs Chopra, Haydon and Lambert are telling you is the truth. What is going on in the Government and specifically in Health Canada is not to be tolerated in a democracy.   There needs to be a public enquiry.

Yours truly,

Sandra Finley

==========================================

CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC-PRIVATE-PARTNERSHIPS AND CORRUPTION

The false idea of Public-Private-Partnerships has been embraced by different political parties . . .

=============================================

APPENDAGE: ANNUAL REPORT CROPLIFE

(Lorne Hepworth, President of CropLife, presented industry information to Regina City Council during the pesticide bylaw attempt. Lorne was a Cabinet Minister in the Saskatchewan Government of Grant Devine.)

Croplife Canada 2003-2004 Annual Report    (Link no longer valid)

2 0 0 3 – 2 0 0 4 P R O G R E S S R E P O R T

President’s Message

There are not many years when Canada’s pest control industry – and indeed, Canadian agriculture as a whole – faced as many challenges as those that presented themselves in 2003-2004. Some challenges you expect and even anticipate in this business, such as bad weather, global competition, disease and pest infestations. Others – such as challenges we face from people propagating misinformation – are less predictable, and require different responses and resources to address. These public education challenges are a modern reality and are a large part of our role at CropLife Canada, as a trade association representing developers, manufacturers and distributors of pest control products and plant biotechnology in Canada.

Physicians startle the public with unbalanced report

One of the highest-profile matters we’ve dealt with lately is the Ontario College ofFamily Physicians’ (OCFP) selective review of scientific literature about pesticides, which makes alarming recommendations against pesticide use. We believe this group, like others who oppose our industry’s products, has a right to its opinion. But scientifically, the OCFP report is disturbing. It focuses on only a limited number of studies – mainly, those that support its anti-pesticide position. It ignores the fact that Health Canada regulates all pest control products manufactured and sold in Canada, and that the products are subject to some of the toughest regulatory standards in the world. Nonetheless, despite its lack of balance, the OCFP report garnered major headlines across Canada. Our communications team, partners and member companies responded quickly to inform the public about the facts. This included hosting a news conference to present CropLife Canada’s position on the OCFP report, and distributing a joint statement from scientists, academics, farm and grower organizations, pest management professionals, manufacturers and distributors stating that the safe, responsible use of pesticides holds significant benefits for Canadian society.

CropLife Canada is now conducting two separate third-party reviews of the OCFP report, one involving internationally acclaimed epidemiologists. People need to know that Canada has exemplary risk-and safety-assessment procedures in place for pesticides, and that the responsible use of pest control products poses no undue risk.

That is why CropLife Canada has public and media information campaigns to explain how plant science technologies support innovative and sustainable agriculture in Canada.

Dealing with Toronto City Council

The Urban Pest Management Council challenged the City of Toronto anti-pesticide bylaw in 2003, but the Ontario Superior Courts upheld the City’s bylaw. This decision has been appealed, and the Ontario Court of Appeals will hear the case on November 4, 2004. This case is important not only from a legal precedent standpoint, but from a validity of science standpoint as well. If these products are deemed safe for agricultural use, how can they be judged unsafe for non-agricultural uses? The results of this case will most likely influence all municipal bylaws in the province of Ontario, and our trade association is committed to the appeal process.

Provincial regulatory activity

Laws in Quebec and Prince Edward Island are prompting significant changes in pest-control product use there. Again, this signifies a tendency toward increased legislation at taxpayers’ cost, which is at best redundant, and at worst, confusing and contradictory due to the patchwork of inconsistent legislation.

The need to inform the public

CropLife Canada is handling these challenges head-on with a series of initiatives. These are aimed at enhancing Canadian leaders and society’s understanding of plant science technologies to increase the awareness of the benefit and value of our technologies especially as they relate to the environment and public health. CropLife Canada is stepping up its stakeholder and government relations program with a new plan that will promote the association’s goal of supporting innovative and sustainable agriculture in Canada. The new effort is necessary because, in part, the political landscape has changed at the municipal, provincial and federal levels. As well, many of the issues CropLife Canada deals with are overarching beyond science and regulation, into societal issues. No doubt you’ll have seen CropLife Canada appear in various media across the country. The number of contentious issues we’ve dealt with, from the previously mentioned Ontario College of Family Physicians report and the City of Toronto anti-pesticide efforts, to providing information and expertise about West Nile virus, have meant a plethora of print and broadcast media interviews. It’s given us an opportunity to build up relationships with reporters, and is increasingly resulting in CropLife Canada being the “go-to” organization for factual information when contentious issues arise over pest management. This is a good start towards presenting a more balanced case to the public for responsible pesticide use.

Lorne Hepworth, President … etc.

(I HAVE DELETED THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT)

===================================

IV.  ARTICLE IN STUDENT NEWSPAPER, THE SHEAF

The Sheaf is the student newspaper at the University of Saskatchewan.

Continuing series looks at privatization of University of Saskatchewan

Written by Jeremy Warren

Thursday, 09 February 2006

All it took for Homer Simpson to ignore his car’s engine problems was a little bit of duct tape to cover the ‘check engine’ light.

All it takes for the U of S administrators to ignore any criticisms directed towards them is a little bit of silence.

“There’s no response whatsoever from the [university] administration about concerns raised by the forums,” said Dr. Chary Rangacharyulu, a professor in the physics department and one of the organizers of the continuing series of forums about the direction of the U of S.

“Maybe we don’t exist,” he said wryly. “Things have been pretty quiet so we think we’re not saying anything that’s untrue.”

Indeed, some in the university community are troubled by the lack of response from administrators to their concerns raised about the direction of the U of S in a time of major growth and development of the institution.

These concerns were expressed at the latest of the forums, which carried the title “W(h)ither the Corporate University…No PAWS for thought.” Professors Howard Woodhouse and Michael Collins, both of the College of Education, were speakers at the February 1st forum.

Professor Collins, in an interview after the forum, explained why he believes the “knowledge economy has become a commodity to be bought and sold.”

He contends the university has developed into a corporate training ground, something he said is true now more than ever.

“There’s greater commercialization of research, and, in terms of teaching, the areas that are highly valued are those that feed the market, whether that be the applied sciences or the professions. There’s a greater emphasis on training for the market, which has its place on campus—it always has—but it’s a question of balance,” Woodhouse said.

“This claim that a university education always leads to a better job can be questioned. It can lead to a job, but is that the purpose of university? I think the real purpose of all education is the advancement and dissemination of shared knowledge.”

Woodhouse said there are two things that have led to this shift towards privatization of universities: government and industry, both of which have come to see universities as instruments to create private wealth. And, as government support for education dwindles, universities must turn to other sources of funding, such as corporations, he said.

“Whether it’s in terms of targeted research that’s geared towards the corporation’s own goals or programs that feed the market, like the cost recovery programs seen in commerce, outside forces have done what they can to change universities to fit their agendas.”

Administrators, Woodhouse explained, are complicit in this process.

“Universities have done little to resist this because the people running universities tend to have similar priorities, values, and goals. They talk as business wannabes rather than being academic leaders.”

Not that it’s easy to rollback this trend of privatization, said Woodhouse, who believes there is systemic and institutional resistance coming from universities as well as governments and industry. One positive step that he mentioned was the possibility of low or free tuition, similar to what the governments of Ireland and Wales have done, which would make this university “a beacon not just for western Canada, but Canada and the world in general.”

One critical problem Woodhouse pointed out was the lack of public access to contracts, financial statements, and other important documents on campus. He used the example of the minutes from Board of Governors meetings, which are only available to the public 10 years from the date the original meeting took place as one way the university administration undermines the credibility of this institution.

“This is a publicly funded institution and its accounts should be available for public scrutiny,” he explained. “There should be accountability in terms of what connections are made with corporations. These books should be open.

Too often transparency means they see us and we don’t see them.”

2006-04-07 Complaint to College of Physicians and Surgeons, Donna Malcolm re psychotropic drug injection by force and confinement.

 Health, Take back the University  No Responses »
Apr 072006
 

April 7, 2006 

Sandra Finley  (contact info)

 COMPLAINT TO COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS & SURGEONS,

DR. DONNA MALCOLM

 My Complaint:

The doctor’s assessment of my condition began prior to even seeing or talking with me.  Her assessment does not correspond to any factual information.  

I was forcibly confined from Saturday until Friday – 7 days.   Drugs were put into my body forcibly and without my consent.  One of the drugs caused complete memory loss of things I was doing and saying, and of things that were being done to me.  It was an unjustified violation of my person and my civil rights. 

The events: 

WEDNESDAY EVENING:  I went to the Walk-in Clinic (8th and Circle) because I knew the continuing sharp pains in my side required medical attention.  (On the previous Saturday and Sunday I had remained in bed with what I thought was a flu bug – fever, aching muscles and joints.  Those symptoms disappeared and were replaced by the pains in my side.)  An X-ray showed a large amount of fluid on my lung.  The doctor went over the X-ray with me, I understood the condition was serious.  He advised me to come back and see one of two (named) doctors who would move my file forward.  The booking clerk advised they would not be in until Friday at 10:00am.  It was agreed that I would come in on Friday on a walk-in basis.  I was not given any medical procedure to follow, just “come back the day after tomorrow”.

 I went home and used the internet to find out about fluid on the lung, pleural effusion, thoracentesis ,  removal of fluid when the cause is not known.   The information on various sites was pretty much consistent.  A thoracentesis is used like amniocentesis to draw a sample of the fluid off for diagnostic purposes, complications may arise if the fluid is simply all drained off, and so on.

 In my case the cause of the fluid was unknown at this point so I got information on one other symptom I had experienced prior to going to the Clinic.  I looked it up under “skin discoluration” which was the best way I could think to describe it.   I was by this time quite tired (sick) and so satisfied myself with what is probably quite common knowledge.  A change in skin colour can be a signal that an organ of the body is not functioning properly.  One example is the relationship between liver malfunction and yellowed skin.

 THURSDAY:   I advised my daughter who lives with me that I was seriously ill and must do everything possible to strengthen my immune system.   I must get a lot of rest – that would have priority over work.  And I must eat well.  We talked about pesticide residues in food and how they place an extra workload on the body as it moves extra toxins out of the body.   I told her that I needed to keep my muscles moving, so I would do some of the shopping at the organic Steep Hill Food Co-op, but only if I wasn’t too tired.  Things which I would normally have pushed myself to do, I didn’t do, because I viewed my health to be in need of whatever assistance I could provide.

FRIDAY at 10:00am I was at the Walk-in Clinic.   Dr. Lacny saw me.  He said there was a blood test that should have been done on Wednesday.  It was urgent to get it done because things start shutting down in the Labs on Friday afternoon.  The blood was drawn and couriered to the Lab.  I left and returned shortly after 1:00pm following a call from Dr. Lacny. 

Dr. Lacny advised me to go immediately to Royal University Hospital Emergency and to take the x-ray with me.   He told me that the doctor who saw me on Wednesday should have taken prompt action given the seriousness of fluid on the lung.

He told me that I should hurry because everything shuts down at the Hospital by 4:00pm Friday afternoon.

 Friday afternoon:   I checked into Emergency at RUH.  I saw numerous different doctors and had different tests.   RUH is a teaching hospital and so the number of doctors seen is more than at a non-teaching hospital.

 I kept mental track of the doctors I saw, their names, and their area of expertise.  At each stage I asked questions.   For example, when I am told to go for an x-ray I asked:  is the x-ray of my lung?  Answer:  yes.   My response:  there is an x-ray in my file, brought from the Walk-in Clinic.  What is the purpose of another x-ray?  Answer:  (basically it turned out that another x-ray wasn’t necessary at that point and so I didn’t have it).

 I asked questions for my own information but also because there were so many different doctors that saw me.   Each doctor asks questions.  If I don’t know WHAT has been done and WHY it has been done,  I am in a poor position to provide the communication links between one doctor and the next, let alone understand myself what is going on.   It allows you to pick up potential oversights or misunderstandings, in particular because not every doctor has time to read through the pile of paperwork accumulating in the file. I believe my attention to the details and concomitant ability to answer questions and provide input was helpful to some of the doctors.  I found that the little I knew about fluid on the lungs from the Internet information, placed me in good stead to understand what the doctors were telling me.  I did not require as much explanation as if I had come in “cold”.

 THE CONTEXT of my behaviour (essential to understanding whether or not my actions at the Hospital were “manic” (I believe that is the justification used by the doctor to forcibly confine me for 7 days, and to give me an injection that gave me permanent amnesia of what happened for a number of hours.):

 Notations are of course made in patient files.  After reading the remarks in my file one doctor said “You don’t believe in western medicine.”  I responded in good humour that if I didn’t I wouldn’t be at the hospital, would I?  I told him that you can’t beat western or allopathic medicine when it comes to diagnostic ability and things like operations that repair broken bones or detached retinas (with which I have experience).  However, “the western hemisphere” doesn’t have a corner on ALL there is to know.  Western medicine is poor at addressing the CAUSES of illness;  it directs its energies to the SYMPTOMS.   It also underestimates the ability of the human body to heal itself, under the right conditions.  Alternative therapies fill a gap.  So I support and pursue a combination of western and other knowledge bases, and give my body a chance to do its remedial work.

 I believe it is narrow-minded for doctors to dismiss the experience of patients, and to  place a label on them (stereotyping) should they raise questions and fail to follow orders, especially when the doctor’s information about the patient is limited to an interview that lasts a few minutes.  Does the body self-heal?  (This is the context – my personal experience – that causes me to act in a certain way.)   A couple of years ago in September I was told by a Saskatoon doctor that I had pre-cancerous cells in my reproductive tract and vaginosis.  She wrote out a prescription for me and I was to see a gynecologist who would then decide whether an operation was in order to remove the pre-cancerous cells.  I explained to the doctor that I would like to try other approaches first.  She emphatically read out loud to me as she wrote in my file “Patient …  declines …  treatment”.   I was nervous and had a lot of doubts, especially when the doctor was so clearly displeased, but I persisted.  I made changes to my diet and took other steps.   I returned to the doctor 5 months later, in February.  Tests showed that I no longer had vaginosis nor the pre-cancerous cells.   So my experience tells me that my body has the capability to right itself if I work with it.

 The last test of the day (Friday) was a CT scan prescribed by a doctor from Internal Medicine; it was explained to me what would happen.  Later, when I arrived in radiology I found I was to take a liquid first for the purpose of definition in the scan (the I.M. doctor had not mentioned this).   When putting substances into my body I want to know what’s going in, why, and whether there are alternatives.  (Under special circumstances I might, but normally I do not use medications because of experience in my twenties – without exception they have made me sicker than the ailment I had.  A muscle relaxant for a pulled muscle – once I knew the pain wasn’t anything other than a pulled muscle (which would have healed itself in time), I should have left the doctor’s office.  But I didn’t do my own thinking:  I relied on him and waited while he wrote out a prescription.  It laid me out sick on the bed for 3 days – until a friend pointed out that maybe it was the pills.  It hadn’t dawned on me to question the prescription given to me.  When I had bad allergies I was prescribed seldane – it has now been taken off the market because it is not safe.  Along with VIOXX, etc. etc, etc.  I know that the priority of many of the pharmaceutical companies (who own the chemical companies who together are the biotechnology companies) is how much money they make.  They have a long history of buying research (the IBT Laboratory scandals in the U.S. in the 1980’s are just one example).  There are almost no studies of the long term effects of the drugs, in spite of the fact that they are known to have many side effects in the short term. …. It seems ultimately reasonable to me that I should avoid the prescriptions of the pharmaceutical companies whenever possible and certainly if there is no clear need at a particular point in time.  I eat almost entirely organic food; I treat my body quite well!!  )   The radiologist came out to explain the reason for the liquid.  I mulled over his information and was not satisfied;  I declined the test, knowing I could return and have it later, if further information indicated it should be done.

I returned to the doctor from Internal Medicine and the resident doctor working under her.   We had a thorough conversation.  I listened to them, they listened to me.  In the end I signed a waiver form to absolve them of any responsibility should my departure from the Hospital bring about harm to myself.   They were concerned to be sure, but respected my explanation.  They were quick to ensure that I knew I could return to the Hospital at any time.  (Which I took for granted, but appreciated the articulation nonetheless.)

 I live not far from the Hospital and returned home. 

Friday night:  I sent an email into my email network – there are people who are doctors in this network.  If there was someone who had experience, perhaps they could supply information that would be helpful to my understanding.

Saturday morning:   No information came in.  Shortly after 8:00am I decided to go back to the Hospital for more information.  I knew that my liver or my kidneys had been tested on Friday and had a clean bill of health, but I didn’t know for sure which one it was.  Because of the skin discolouration I had experienced prior to the pains in my side, I had a particular interest in the functioning of my organs.  Also, I wanted to understand more about how it comes about that fluid will accumulate in the pleura.   What are the possible causes?  It seemed to me the best way to be able to make informed decisions about medical procedures was to understand as much as I could.

I arrived in Emergency not long after 8:00am.  It did not appear to be busy.   There was one fellow in the waiting room, waiting for someone who was in a cubicle.  No one else.  I went to the registration desk and inquired if by chance one of the two doctors from Internal Medicine who had seen me the previous day (I named them) might be in.  They weren’t.  I explained that I had come just to see if I could get more information, I probably didn’t need to see a doctor through the Emergency procedure.  I told the clerk that I had spent all of the previous afternoon at the Hospital and had left after signing a waiver form.  She went to get my file.  Based on the comment made by the one doctor on Friday after reading my file (that I didn’t believe in western medicine), I was aware and embarrassed that the admissions clerk would probably find notations in the file that indicated I was a bit of a kook.  I tried to explain. Eventually I was shown to a cubicle.  

A male nurse came in.  I was restless (and fevered) with nothing to do.  I told him that I had just come to the Hospital to obtain information.  Perhaps he could help me – maybe I didn’t need the expertise of a doctor.   Could he look in my chart and see whether it was my liver or my kidneys that had been tested the previous day and had tested out okay?  Also, I would like to know more about the flow of the cardiovascular system (the flow of blood through the lungs, over to the heart,  – where the liver and kidneys fit in – etc.).  He said he couldn’t provide the information but offered to bring a book,  – terrific!  I gladly accepted and he came back with a book.  I went to the index  – there wasn’t an entry for the cardiovascular system and so when he returned I asked if there might be another book.  He again obliged, this time with a book that had terrific coloured pictures of the parts of the system, but unfortunately there was nothing that showed the pieces when they are fit together.  So I went out to the nursing station and asked whether I might have a look at the books they had – maybe I could find for myself what I was looking for.   I had the impression that my request was unusual and that they were now beginning to look at me as someone who was weird.   I asked for a pen and paper and was obliged.

The nurse could not supply information.  The particular books I was given were not helpful.  I thought I would try to write down just what it was I wanted to know and ended up just doodling the time away.   I put down the lungs, the heart, and lower down a note re the kidneys and liver so I wouldn’t forget to ask the doctor just what had been tested.

The nurse returned and told me I was to go for an EEG or an ECG (I forget which).  I became annoyed:  how is it that a doctor is sending me for a test and he or she hasn’t even seen me?  That seemed highly unprofessional.  I had a pain in my side:  the doctors from Internal Medicine the day before had not suggested an ECG/EEG.  As far as I knew I had had every test they wanted me to have, with the exception of the Cat scan.  Who was this now that was sending me for this new test without even having seen me?  The nurse knew I was now upset and hastened to calm me down with reassurance that the doctor would be in shortly.  I was thinking that I should just go home and see whether there had been any email replies to my request for information.  I felt that I was wasting time here.  By this time I had been waiting for more than 2 hours, I was hot and feverish. 

 The doctor, Donna Malcolm, came into the cubicle.  She asked 3 questions in an extremely condescending tone.  The first question I forget.  The second:  “Oh, I see that you like to draw pictures.  Will you tell me about them?”.  The third question was “Now tell me, what makes you think you have fluid on your lungs?”. 

 Then I knew for sure that I was wasting my time, and I became quite angry.  I was sick and here was a psychologist or psychiatrist speaking to me like I was a child.  I could see that she didn’t have my file in her hand.  I pulled open the curtain of the cubicle, strode across the aisle to the nurses’ station, looked about for patient files, then pointed down and said (not calmly) “Look in my file.  There is an x-ray in it.  THAT is why I think I have fluid on my lung!  I am wasting my time here.”.   And I headed down the hallway toward the exit.

 The doctor called the security guards and told them to stop me.  I was surprised, I had no idea that I was not free to leave the Hospital.  Each of the guards took me by one of my arms.  I told them to let me go, I fought to free myself of them.   They put me in a closed cell that had a cot in it.   When they determined that I had calmed down, Donna Malcolm came to the cell.    Her opening question was “Now, what seems to be the problem?”.   You will understand that I was without any control over my being.  Physically I had been overpowered.  I was locked up.  And so I responded with the only tool available to me, a put-down, my attempt to gain some power (which I understand in retrospect).  I surprised myself by assertively stating to Donna Malcolm, “Either you have a very short memory, or you are a little short on brain power.  Less than 10 minutes ago I directed you to my file and the x-ray which shows I have fluid on my lung.  THAT is the problem.”  This kind of statement (a put-down)  is not characteristic of my behaviour.

I asked for a waiver form to sign, so I could leave the hospital.  The doctor seemed to agree with the request and left.  I waited and waited.  No forms were forthcoming.  I moved out of the cell into the corridor with the 2 security guards, and chatted with them.   Waited some more.  Finally, I interrupted a passing nurse and explained that I was waiting for a waiver form, would she mind seeing what had happened to it.   Donna Malcolm returned to the area from time to time.  Assertively and firmly I told her that I had been given a waiver form the previous day, and the same option would be available to me now.  Nothing.  Later I told her that what was happening was not right.   I asked for access to a telephone so I could call my lawyer.  Nothing happened.  Finally Donna said that the Hospital had its own lawyer who she would call.   I could not speak with my lawyer.

 I do not recall what prompted the next event.  There was no altercation.  I was taken out of the corridor back into the cell, and placed face-down on the cot.  The top of my slacks was pulled back and a needle injected into my hip area.

 The next thing I knew I was in a hospital room with my parents at bed-side.  I was confused:  they live two and a half hours from Saskatoon.  I didn’t know how long they had been at the Hospital or how they had gotten there.  We were in the middle of a conversation.

 Later I learned that I had spoken with the Hospital’s lawyer.  I have no recollection of her or of the conversation.  And so I understand that a person who has received the injection can carry on conversations but when they come out from the influence of the drug, have no recollection of anything that has happened.  So I was given access to a lawyer, but it was meaningless access.

 Soon enough I discovered that I had been “committed” to the psychiatric ward.  I objected and was told of an appeal procedure.  I filled out the form;  the appeal was scheduled for Thursday morning.

 While in the ward, I made a point of asking, when speaking with a doctor from a different ward (for example, Internal Medicine), “Doctor, where should I be placed in order for you to deal most effectively with the fluid on my lung?  Should I be here, or should I be in Internal Medicine?”.   I was told I should be in I. M.   I asked if they could initiate paper work that would transfer me out of this Ward to where I should be.  It was awkward because there were no clear lines of authority.  I asked the question directly:  “who has the authority to initiate the paperwork to transfer me?”.  There was no definitive answer.  I then surmised that because Donna Malcolm had committed me, she maintained power. 

When confronted with medications, I asked the reason why I should be taking them.  The reasons given were inadequate and I stated why I did not wish to have them.  I had no need for mood altering drugs. I was forced to take Epival, 500 mg twice a day and Risperidone, 1 mg twice a day.  Have you ever taken these drugs?  They deaden your brain.  Try as I might, there were routine pieces of information I simply could not bring to mind.  I knew I knew them, but I couldn’t find them in my memory.  You become monotone, dull, rather numb to stimulation, lacking in vitality.

Dr. Stuart Houston, retired radiologist from the University Hospital, came to visit me.  His comment, when he heard what had happened, “This is something one would expect in the 1950’s.  Not in today’s world.”   Dr. Houston volunteered to come to the Appeal Hearing and speak on my behalf.  Later, by telephone, he advised me that he had collected pieces of my work which he has at his house, to present as evidence to the Hearing.

 A friend was in attendance one afternoon when an employee of the Department came into my room with pills for me to take.  I asked what they were.  One was warfarin, a blood thinner.  I advised the employee that the drug had not been prescribed to me (I had absolutely no knowledge of any doctor having prescribed this drug for me) , and that I didn’t wish to take it.  My friend explained her experience with warfarin (it was not good) to the employee and said that warfarin should only be used if it was known what it was being used for, and only if it was absolutely necessary.   The employee was satisfied and left.  (I knew the reason someone would be administering warfarin from the previous day’s discussion with medical personnel.  It would be as a precautionary measure in case there was an embullism that would travel from my lung to my heart and be lethal.)

 My friend left, it was late afternoon or early evening:  5 people came to my room, three nurse-type people and 2 guards as back-up.  They came with pills in hand – the warfarin and 2 mood-altering drugs.  I told them that I had no need of the drugs.  They told me I had a choice:  either I could take the pills or they would give me an (another) injection.  I took the pills.

 My parents were very upset by what was happening.  My brother from Vancouver Island became party to the information.  He was unable to get any satisfaction by telephone and finally flew out here to Saskatoon.  (He has young children and work to look after at home.)  

 I had been “committed” on a Saturday.  At the end of the work-day on Wednesday Donna Malcolm came to tell me that I had progressed so well under her care (the mood-altering drugs) that I could be released.  Oh, and by the way, she had given instructions, someone would call and cancel the Appeal Hearing – it obviously wouldn’t be necessary since I was no longer certified.  I do not recall whether Donna knew that Dr. Houston would be presenting information on my behalf to the Appeal Hearing.

 I asked when I would be transferred to Internal Medicine.  It would be the next day (Thursday).

During the objections to the warfarin I learned that I had been started on the warfarin (and probably the mood-altering drugs) while I was “out” from the injection.  As mentioned I have no memory of anything that happened during that time.

 On Thursday I let the nurses know that I was to be transferred, and I asked of every doctor I encountered, “Have the papers been processed to transfer me to Internal Medicine?”.  I asked when I would get out, given that the decision had been made the previous day.  I didn’t get out.  My brother arrived and went to work on it.  On Friday, first thing in the morning we were both at work on it, I mindful that if I didn’t get out by the end of the day, I would remain in the psych ward until Monday because nothing happens on the weekend.  I finally got out late in the day Friday.

Internal Medicine was like dying and going to heaven.  I was cold during the first night and asked for a blanket.  The nurse returned with a blanket that she had warmed in the dryer.  I was almost moved to tears, her kindness was in such sharp contrast with what I had experienced since arrival in the Hospital. 

There were significant differences in care.  I had a thoracentesis (drawing of fluid from the pleura) done while I was in Psych and again later when I was in Internal Medicine.  In the Psych ward the care was no different than if I had returned from an x-ray.  You return to your room, use the bathroom if you have to, do whatever needs to be done.  No one tells you anything different.  In Internal Medicine, you are monitored in case the thoracentesis needle might have punctured the lung.  You are confined to bed, if you have to go to the bathroom they want to bring a bed pan; readings of your vital signs are taken every 15 minutes.

I was 2 weeks in Hospital altogether, a week in each ward.  The Psychiatric Ward, in addition to the removal of my civil rights, made a serious attack on my health at a time when I was very sick physically.  I can handle the attack on my health.   As a responsible citizen, and on behalf of other citizens, I cannot stand by and do nothing when persons in positions of authority abuse the civil rights of others.  More than anyone else in the medical profession, a psychologist or psychiatrist should understand and have developed the tools to deal effectively with interpersonal communications.  Instead, at the doctor’s direction I was overcome by physical force, and literally locked up for 7 days.  I was given an injection which efectively made me unconscious – gave me permanent amnesia of the time.  Drugs were forced upon me.  There was no justification. 

 I believe I am not an isolated case.  Fortunately I have the ability to seek redress.  Others do not. 

 Changes are required.

Three weeks following release from Hospital (April 1, 2005) it was confirmed that I had tuberculosis – in the pleura, not inside the lung.  Diagnosed early.  Not contagious.  It is with the consent of Dr. Hoeppner at the TB Control Centre that I am using his diagnostic capabilities and expertise, in conjunction with a well-credentialled and recommended naturopathic doctor.  I did not take the 8-month drug protocol normally assigned. 

 It is not because I think I am smarter than “the doctors” that I do this.  It is because

1)     I have faith in the ability of my body to heal itself, provided I do my part which is to get lots of rest, fresh air, sunshine, good food and live peacefully, in balance. 

2)     My Grandmother-in-law had TB.  She conquered it through the programme at the Sanitorium in the Qu’Appelle Valley back in the forties.  So I know the disease can be overcome without the use of drugs.

3)     Nature evolves.  We know this from the Centre for Disease Control that warns about the development of “super bugs”.  In Africa and in Eastern Europe in particular, TB has evolved to be resistant to the drug protocol we have so far been able to use here in Canada.  I try to live according to what I believe.  I try to do my part.  If I can overcome the disease by improving my immune system and removing that which is weakening it, that is the best way to go.  I do not contribute in any way to the development of resistant organisms.  Resistant organisms are an extremely serious long term problem.  “Problem” is not even the right word to be using.  We are contributing to the development of organisms against which we will eventually have no defence.  

4)     The drugs have side effects while you are taking them.  No one studies the long term effects of the drugs.  

5)     I would rather be tired as I work on the TB, than nauseated for 8 or 9 months from the drugs. 

6)     I am fortunate to have been diagnosed early.  There is time to experiment.  If I can’t beat it the way I propose, the drug option is still available. 

 The naturopathic doctor asks “Why was your immune system not functioning very well?   Lots of people carry inactive TB organisms.  Their immune system is strong enough to keep the bugs at bay.    What is weakening your immune system?”   That approach makes sense to me. 

 It is one-year later and I am returned to health.  Last month I cross-country skiied for 3 hours non-stop, uphill and down dale in the forested area north of Duck Lake.

 In conclusion,  I ask you:  did the doctor’s assessment of my condition began prior to even seeing or talking with me?   Does her assessment correspond to any factual information?   Was there an unjustified and serious violation of my person and my civil rights?  If so, changes are in order to prevent more of the same from happening.  

 Dr. Hoeppner (TB Control)  made a remark about the medical system.  I laughed and said, “Don’t go there.  Not with me.”.   I briefly told him of my experience with being locked up by the system.  He didn’t laugh in return.  He said, “That could have been me.” 

Respectfully submitted,       Sandra Finley

Please check out the relationship between Donna Malcolm and the young woman doctor who provided the second opinion on Donna’s diagnosis.  Was it an objective, independent second opinion?  Was that even possible, given the relationship?

(INSERT:  the second opinion came from a student doctor who was dependent upon Donna Malcolm’s assessment of her work.)

 Older Entries  Newer Entries