Ontario Reported on MCS/ES in 1985, Yet…

MCS/ES is not new. Over 30 years ago, the Province of Ontario created the “Committee on Environmental Hypersensitivity” and appointed George Thomson, a former provincial court judge, as chairman, with a mandate to study and “advise the Ministry of Health on the occurrence of environmental hypersensitivity in Ontario and on current methods of diagnosis and treatment. Further, the committee was to make recommendations to the ministry concerning future approaches to treatment and research that should be taken”


From the the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Official Records for 17 December 1985:

Hon. Mr. Elston: Members of this House may also recall a six-member committee which was appointed in November 1984 to study a disorder which is known as environmental hypersensitivity, or 20th-century disease. The condition has been described as multiple sensitivities or allergies to a wide range of foods, chemicals and environmental substances.

The disorder does not present a clear-cut clinical picture; the range of symptoms that its victims may have is quite varied. Nor is the disorder recognized by many medical authorities. Despite disagreement among medical practitioners and researchers about the nature of environmental hypersensitivity, however, it is certain that many patients who attribute their ill health to this disorder suffer greatly, and that some of them are seriously disabled.

Therefore, it was decided that the disorder required study and, in November of last year, George Thomson, a former provincial court judge, was appointed chairman of the Committee on Environmental Hypersensitivity.

The committee’s mandate was to advise the Ministry of Health on the occurrence of environmental hypersensitivity in Ontario and on current methods of diagnosis and treatment. Further, the committee was to make recommendations to the ministry concerning future approaches to treatment and research that should be taken.

To learn as much as possible about environmental hypersensitivity, the committee held public meetings, reviewed the relevant scientific literature, interviewed many interested people and visited clinics in the United States which specialize in treatment. In addition, the committee received more than 1,000 submissions and thoroughly examined the cases of nearly 200 patients.

Following this extensive investigation, the committee presented its findings to the ministry in a report of more than 300 pages. The report is divided into eight chapters. Its conclusions cover nine major areas and it gives 30 recommendations concerning prevention, research, funding of tests and treatments, information and education about the disorder, as well as financial and social support for patients.

The appendices of the report contain confidential medical and personal information that was provided to the committee by many individuals. Therefore, it was necessary to postpone making the report public, pending permission from those individuals to release this information. This permission has now been obtained and I am pleased to table the committee’s report for the information of the members of this House.

There are PDFs of the report and the Appendix from AGES (which by the way are impossible to find anywhere else  in Ontario, but might still be available via inter-library loan from BC):


Thomson Report. Ontario Ministry of Health, Toronto, 1985.

“The Ad Hoc Committee on Environmental Hypersensitivity Disorders (note plural) was commissioned by former Ontario health minister Keith Norton. The report’s authors included Judge George M. Thomson, two teaching hospital physicians, and an epidemiologist. They pointed out that there was an existing, publicly-insured method of diagnosis, and a method of patient management long known to physicians.

People who were to be protected have been injured or killed, instead.

The appendices include a list of symptoms reported by persons with sensitivities. Many of the conditions are included in the diseases treated at the National Jewish Hospital, in Denver, Colorado, which was built on Fresh Air Hospital guidelines more than a century ago.”…


Judge George M. Thomson, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., who chaired the extensive report by the Ad Hoc Committee on Environmental Hypersensitivity Disorders for the Province of Ontario in 1985,  wrote for a foreword in

Accommodating Employees with Environmental Sensitivities:
A Guide for the Workplace

by Debra Sine, Leslirae Rotor and Elizabeth Hare,
November 2003; revised May 2005

More than fifteen years ago,  I chaired a committee on environmental sensitivities established by Ontario’s Ministry of Health. The committee included two eminent teaching hospital physicians and a highly respected epidemiologist. We issued a report that identified existing, publicly funded means of diagnosis, and accepted various methods of patient management, including avoidance of offending agents.

Equally important in our minds were measures, such as income support, that would provide concrete assistance to members of this vulnerable group and reduce the risk of preventable harm.

To this end, we recommended that financial and social support services be awarded on the basis of the extent of a patient’s disability, rather than on the basis of a particular diagnosis.

This would reduce the risk of depriving patients of support simply because medical professionals might be unable to differentiate between the myriad possible causes.

We also called for further research and the development of services to support that research, while also helping those who were experiencing a wide range of very difficult symptoms.

We did not feel that more research was needed before these and other measures were introduced to protect patients from being caused harm through inappropriate labelling or the denial of reasonable accommodation.

In the years immediately following the report, several positive steps were taken in response to the recommendations. Public support systems became more accepting of these individuals’ needs. At the federal level, departments and agencies began addressing unhelpful attitudes about this disability, not only within the departments and agencies themselves, but also within doctors’ offices, medical associations and the broader community.

Health Canada organized conferences, distributed documents and publicly supported recommendations to protect patients from unnecessary harm. The Department of Justice and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation funded self-help groups to support citizens with environmental sensitivities.

Regrettably, over the past few years, that initial momentum has been largely lost, and many of the earlier recommendations seem to have been forgotten. An ongoing, legitimate, but separate debate about medical approaches is again obscuring protection issues and returning us to the situation that prevailed when the report was written.


~ George M. Thomson, B.A., LL.B., LL.M. (2001)

Considering how our needs have been abandoned despite official knowledge for over 30 years, and things are worse now than they have ever been for us, one could easily come to the conclusion that there’s a deliberate desire NOT to prevent our suffering, but to inflict more until we either die from the exposures and lack of care, or suicide…

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

Article III

The following acts shall be punishable:

(a) Genocide;

(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;

(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;

(d) Attempt to commit genocide;

(e) Complicity in genocide.

Article IV

Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.


In 2016, Ontario announced the Task Force on Environmental Health. While this looks good, I have to wonder what is different now?

How will they address the multi billion dollar chemical and pharmaceutical elephants in the room?

(I apologize to the elephants but I couldn’t think of another word to use)

From the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada:

“Ontario is Canada’s largest chemical-producing province – its $21-billion chemistry industry has major operations in Sarnia, the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), and in the eastern regions of the province.

Seven of the world’s largest chemistry companies operate in Ontario, and the industry manufactures products spanning the entire value-chain: from specialized polymers to alternative fuels, lubricants, paints, adhesives and buildings blocks for high-tech fabrics and other goods. …

Ontario’s chemistry industry is also poised for growth, and could secure up to $5 billion in new investment over the next decade.

Key Facts

– produces 43 per cent of Canada’s chemical output
– relies on feedstock from the province’s crude oil and petroleum refineries, natural gas pipelines and processing plants, as well as its mining and biomass resources
– directly employs 43,000 Ontarians, and supports another 215,000 jobs in the province’s automotive, food and beverage, construction, plastics, electronics and pulp and paper industries
– exported $15.6 billion worth of products in 2012

From invest in ontario dot com

“There are more pharmaceutical companies in Ontario than in any other Canadian province, including global companies like GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur, and homegrown companies such as Apotex. Here you’ll find the talent, scientific excellence, reputable research partners and low costs to help you accelerate drug discovery and keep your pipeline full.”

Also from invest in ontario dot com:
“Ontario has an immensely strong telecom ecosystem” (ecosystem???)

When in 2016 we STILL have no safe access to health care, housing, employment, services, products, etc., despite all this knowledge, then it IS genocide, and industry profits are being valued more than our lives..

It’s not only the canaries suffering and dying,  it affects everyone.

Report from Women’s College Hospital in 2011

“Delegitimizing those with ES-MCS, who may be warning us all of the need for toxics reduction, also tends to impede development of practical, precautionary, potentially preventive and cost-saving public health strategies.”

As we are discovering, exposures to toxic chemicals are causing all kinds of health problems, and pharmaceuticals (which contain petrochemicals too) often exacerbate symptoms, as well as cause fatalities, even when used as directed, but the oil, gas, chemical, and pharmaceutical companies are at the table when our health (and money) are being discussed.

Why is the US Big Pharma lobby sponsoring a conference on the future of healthcare in Canada?

With that crowd, I’m surprised the tobacco industry wasn’t there, but notice the representation from the wireless industry, as their devices are also causing health harm. Banks were there too!

Which begs the question:

Who is looking after the environmental health issues that those companies are causing when public health is concerned?


Making people sick and selling  drugs to deal with some of the symptoms has become so great for the (toxic) economy!

They don’t want the canaries with “sensitivities” to be heard.
When the canaries are all gone, who will be there to warn you?


Who is going to save the canaries?

4 responses to “Ontario Reported on MCS/ES in 1985, Yet…

  1. Thank you for this valuable information.


  2. Let’s say you have to avoid gluten…

    Here’s a new article about how there are no regulations or true disclosures required for drugs:


    Other allergens are also far too common, and also not disclosed. Prescribers rarely look into this when recommending meds to their allergic or “sensitive” patients.

    Adverse effects and deaths from meds are rarely reported or tracked.

    Vanessa’s Law not helping boost drug safety, ER doctor says
    Health-care institutions now mandated to report serious drug reactions but not document them


    But the law misses the first key step, Hohl says, adding it doesn’t require health-care providers to document serious drug reactions such as those that lead to hospitalization, deaths, near fatalities and congenital malformations.

    “There’s far less than five per cent of adverse drug reactions that are reported,” she says.

    To illustrate the scale of underreporting, Hohl says Health Canada received about 9,004 adverse event reports in 2014. At her hospital alone, she said there’s probably at least 3,000 such reports every year. “

  3. Related:

    Multiple Chemical Sensitivities Under Siege
    by Ann McCampbell, MD


  4. Pingback: Statement From ARCH and CELA re MCS, ES, and the Ontario Task Force on Environmental Health | Seriously "Sensitive" to Pollution

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.