Human Rights violations applicable to EHS misdiagnosis
Mr. Des Hogan, Senior Case Worker
Irish Human Rights Commission
17-19 Lower Hatch Street, Dublin 2.
July 4, 2003
Dear Mr. Hogan:
What I have written below is additional to the
references I have made to
the Human Rights violations. I have suffered and will continue to suffer
throughout the duration of my life, due to the medical negligence of the
defendants I have named in my Civil Bill. I made these references during
my scheduled meeting with you last Tuesday, in letters to you, and in
copies of affidavits and other documents I have submitted to IHRC.
This submission to you today pinpoints some Human
applicable to my case. It is not comprehensive. As you have directed me
to confine my remarks to Human Rights violations caused by my medical
misdiagnosis I make but a passing reference to my EHS condition.
Among the articles in the EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF
HUMAN RIGHTS (ECHR)
that I feel have been most clearly violated in my case are: Article 3
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment", Article 13 " Everyone whose rights and freedom
as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective
remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation
has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity", and
Article 1 of the 1952 Protocols "Every natural or legal person is
entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be
deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to
the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
How Article 3 above relates to my case: I suffered
"cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment" at the hands of my defendants. I was committed to a
psychiatric facility on very insufficient information provided by a
person who lived in a different country from me. I was given no medical
examination. I was not questioned personally. I was lied to to get me
into that psychiatric facility. I was treated in a most degrading
fashion as a person of unsound mind who was unworthy of being questioned
or even being consulted with about the medical treatment she would be
subjected to. I was gravely humiliated by my enforced stay in a
psychiatric facility and having to ask permission even to exit for a
short while. It was degrading to be forced to attend outpatients
facility and then not even listened to. And my defendants with their
ill-considered, hasty diagnosis have permanently branded me with a
mental illness I do not have and by doing so have tried to wrench from
me my right to chart my own destiny for the duration of my life.
It's down permanently in my medical records that
they diagnosed me as a
psychotic and the young intern house doctor who wasn't even qualified to
make such a judgement blithely wrote me up as a paranoid schizophrenic
without even a conversation with me.
Due to them the quality of my life has been
destroyed for over six years
now and will continue so for the duration of my life. I have been
degraded and shunned by people, socially and professionally because of
what they branded me with. I have stated repeatedly in my affidavits
that this mental illness is noted by authors of texts on schizophrenia
to be the most socially and professionally damaging and that it
adversely affects every aspect of the person's life.
It has been the most "cruel, inhuman or degrading" experience I have
ever had and my reputation remains permanently injured due to their
While the word "possessions" in Article 1 of the
1952 Protocols may be
generally thought to signify physical or material possessions there is
no reason why it should not also encompass intellectual possessions or
property. Self-esteem or self-worth are examples of non-material
possessions or properties. My greatest assets are my intellectual
possessions or properties and my intellectual self-esteem is
commensurate with external indicators that I do possess a high level of
general and specialised forms of intelligence and intellectual
Some of the external indicators are that I have
earned advanced degrees
including a Ph.D. from accredited universities and that I write lucidly
on a vast array of subjects. My defendants in their judgments of me
deprived me of my entitlement to my intellectually based self-esteem. Dr
Aisling Campbell indeed wrote in her medical notes of me that I had not
come to accept my reduced capacity to function intellectually nor to
realise what I would be capable of anymore throughout my life. I felt
degraded when reading her statements about me.
In the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND
POLITICAL RIGHTS (ICCPR)
Article 7 is similar to article 3 of ECHR. Article 7, however, adds "In
particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to
medical or scientific experimentation." (It is outside the focus of my
discussion here to observe just how exactly that addresses the abuses
inherent in targeted energy weaponry which is another aspect of the
whole EHS issue). My consent nor opinion was not sought before I was
prescribed the medication that I had a very severe reaction to. This was
just another violation of my Human Rights.
Article 26 of ICCPR states: "All persons are equal
before the law and
are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the
law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and
guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against
discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion national or social origin,
property, birth or other status."
To focus on this "other status". It appears to me
that I have been
legally discriminated against due to the status my defendants decreed I
should be identified as--that is as a person who was and is mentally
ill. I note the ongoing nature of my status as that of a person who is
mentally ill because it has been entered as such in my medical notes. I
could not get legal help to bring my case to court and Professor Brice
Dickson of Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission told me that there
were also some people in N. Ireland who believed they had been
misdiagnosed with mental illnesses but they could not get legal
representation to seek justice!
Consequently, it would appear that there is
"discrimination to an equal
protection of the law" when it comes to psychiatric misdiagnosis. It may
also be worth considering if there is a connection between the careless,
sub-standard manner in which I was treated throughout by my medical
defendants and the fact that this lacuna in legal protection for persons
misdiagnosed as mentally ill exists.
Also, I have noted in a copy of an affidavit I
submitted to you that
many mental health specialists disagree among themselves on any given
Article 2 of ICCPR addresses in more extensive
form the protection of a
person's Human Rights as stated in Article 13 of ECHR.
This applies to my grievance.
Some Articles in the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND
CULTURAL RIGHTS (ICESCR)that address Human Rights abuses in these fields
are also relevant to my case.
Article 6.1. states: "The States Parties to the present Covenant
recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the
opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or
accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right."
Article 7 states: "The States Parties to the
present Covenant recognize
the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions
of work which ensure, in particular . . . (b) Safe and healthy working
My right to work commensurate with my intellectual
capacities and skills
has been usurped in written pronouncements made on me by my named
defendants. According to them what I am now capable of doing is quite
low on their graph of human achievements. Please refer again to Dr.
Aisling Campbell's notes on my supposedly impoverished abilities and
Should any potential employer be informed of their
medical diagnosis of
me, it would unfavourably bias that employer about my capacities in his
workforce. I would not lie nor deceive about what my defendants
diagnosed me as just to get employment I know I'm very capable of doing.
But once I would inform employers about their diagnosis the negative
connotations that accompany that mental illness would affect my success
in the workplace.
Please refer again to what I have noted about
social and professional
attitudes to persons who have been diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic.
Indeed, I have experienced many times such negative attitudes since I
have been misdiagnosed and have had to suffer humiliating comments
directed at me by some individuals and equally humiliating treatment. I
argue that my defendants, due to their diagnosis, have restricted my
choice to "freely choose" my work situations, colleagues, and employers.
My defendants have never addressed my actual disability, that is my
electrohypersensitivity. There are many work situations that I can not
tolerate due to their excessive levels of EMR but my defendants'
misdiagnosis further frustrates my efforts to secure a work situation
which is tolerable for me as an EHS person.
While Article 12 of ICESCR may be seen to address
directly the rights of
EHS persons, yet it has relevancy to my medical negligence case. The
Article reads as follows:
1. The States parties to the present Covenant
recognize the right of
everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical
and mental health."
The medication that I was prescribed without prior
solicitation of my consent badly affected--ironic though it may be--my
mental and physical health. Specialists whose professional remit
it is to care for and improve patients' mental and physical health did
the very opposite in my case.
To Turn to my Human Rights as an Irish citizen
that are guaranteed to be
protected by specific articles enshrined in THE IRISH CONSTITUTION.
The section of the IRISH CONSTITUTION which
specifically addresses Human
Rights issues is:
"Fundamental Rights: Personal Rights, Articles
40-44." A major reason
frequently aired for not incorporating the European Convention of Human
Rights into Irish Law is the fact that Irish people's Human Rights are
already generously safeguarded by this section of our Constitution.
ARTICLE 40 states:
"1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held
equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State
shall not in its enactments have due regard to
differences of capacity, physical and moral, and
of social function."
As pointed out above, my right to be treated as
"equal before the law"
has been usurped by the diagnosis of my defendants. I have already
alluded to Professor Brice Dickson's comments on this issue.
Furthermore, the devaluation of my worth due to my
pronouncements of my mental health could also affect--and incorrectly
so--how the state judges my "capacity, physical and moral, and of social
Article 40.3.1 states "The State guarantees in its
laws to respect, and,
as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal
rights of the citizen."
As an Irish citizen I wish to avail of my rights
enshrined in Article 40.3.1.
Article 40.3.2. states: "The State shall, in
particular, by its laws
protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice
done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of
My good name as an intelligent, rational, sociable
person has been
destroyed by the defendants I have named in my Civil Bill. What they did
to me is equivalent to the very worst libel.
Also, I argue that property rights rather than
being narrowly confined
to material assets or possessions should include all intellectual
properties or possessions including the very hardware or means of
production of these intellectual assets. In other words, it should
include the most fundamental asset of all: one's brain. The quality of
my brain, it's merit and capacity to produce admirable high-quality
intellectually significant work in a competitive market has been
unjustly, most grievously, and permanently devalued by my named
I look forward to hearing from you.
Radio and Microwave Frequency Radiation
and Health - an Analysis of
M. Röösli1,2, R. Rapp1, C. Braun-Fahrländer1
1 Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin der
2 Institut für Sozial- und Präventivmedizin der
This paper gives an overview of present scientific knowledge in health
research on the effects from radio and microwave frequency radiation, at
levels to which the general population is typically exposed. The review
is based on human experimental and epidemiological studies investigating
the effects of radiation in the frequency range between 100 kHz and
10 GHz. The relevant studies were identified via systematic searches of
the databases Medline and ISI Web of Science. The review concludes that
the existing scientific knowledge base is too limited to draw final
conclusions on the health risk from exposure in the low-dose range. Only
few studies have investigated the effect of long-term exposure on the
general population in the normal environment. Accordingly, little can be
predicted regarding long-term health risks.
Various studies observed an increased risk for
tumours in the
hematopoietic and lymphatic tissue of people living in the proximity of
TV and radio broadcast transmitters. However, methodological limitations
to these studies have been identified and their findings are
controversial. In studies of a possible association between brain
tumours and mobile phone use, the average period mobile phones use was
short compared to the known latency period of brain tumours. Although
these studies did not establish an overall increased risk of brain
tumours associated with mobile phone use, there were some indications of
Immediate effects associated with mobile phone use
have been observed in
human experimental studies that cannot be explained by conventional
thermal mechanisms. The observed effects are within the normal
physiological range and are therefore hard to interpret with respect to
an increased risk to health.
However, it can be concluded that mechanisms other
than the established
thermal mechanisms exist. Because of the present fragmentary scientific
database, a precautionary approach when dealing with radio and microwave
frequency radiation is recommended for the individual and the general
The cancer cure that worked
Worth you time -
I read the amaizing book "The cancer cure that worked", I really
recommend it - shortly, it is about a man who had a proof of cancer cure
that was threatening the economic interests of the medical
establishment of America, and they destroyed him.
He challenged the orthodox thinking about cancer,
but like in the
cellular technology issue, the orthodox establishment protected their
money and their convensional methods (chemotherapy etc) and looked the
other way. He actually showed that in order to cure cancer, it is not
about killing the cancer cells - this does not solve the problem, while
the orthodox establishment insists that the way to kill cancer is
through killing cancer cells. But it is much more than that. According
to the book and the documentation, the man had the answers about what
causes cancer and how to cure it, but nobody really wanted to cure
Informant: Iris Atzmon
Police masts opposed in Swansea
Police masts opposed
Councillors in Swansea are opposing plans for new police radio equipment
at two locations on Gower.
They have concerns about the safety of the Tetra
system that will be
used by police forces across the UK, although are objecting to the masts
on the grounds that they are visually intrusive.
Air Wave MMO2 Ltd wants to site antennae on an
existing mast at Southgate
Sewage Treatment Works at Pennard and at North Hills Farm at Cheriton.
The company says the equipment is needed to ensure
police radios are
able to operate on all parts of the peninsular.
At a planning meeting on Tuesday Swansea
councillors heard the mast at
the sewage works was less than half-a-mile from Pennard Primary School.
Speaking on behalf of objectors Liz Radcliffe
said: "We are not Nimbys
as we already have three masts but until there is proof it is safe Tetra
should not be in our midst."
Although hailed as cutting-edge technology, some
experts have raised
health concerns about the new transmitters the radio system requires.
Tetra masts pulse at 17.6Hz which is very close to
the 16Hz frequency
the government's Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones warns might
affect brain activity.
Virginia Pritfy spoke for those campaigning
against the mast at Cheriton.
She said: "Nobody will guarantee these masts are
"Seven children under the age of 10 are living
near the proposed mast.
"Please keep Gower the unspoilt and safe place
that it is at the moment."
Councillor Richard Lewis told the meeting: "I do
not believe the case
has been made for it in terms of safety."
Both applications were turned down by a majority
of councillors although
not all agreed with the decision.
Councillor Mark Child said: "I bet a lot of the
teachers at the school
have got mobile telephones and I bet a lot of the parents have got
"I believe that the people there do not really
believe that mobile
telephones are a danger to them.
"There are many things around us that are
infinitely more dangerous than masts."
And a spokesman for Airwave said the masts were
needed if Gower was to
be fully covered by police communication.
"The application is needed to ensure that South
Wales Police have
coverage for a new integrated communication system.
"The system is not new and untried but is in use
in 46 countries."
He accused campaigners and the media of
scaremongering over the alleged
Even though councillors have opposed the
applications the equipment may
still be installed as the final decision rests with the Welsh assembly.
Speaking after the meeting Cheriton campaigner
Virginia Pritfy said: "We
are very pleased but there is still a long way to go and we will have to
see what the assembly say."
Story from BBC NEWS:
Published: 2003/06/24 18:07:06 GMT
© BBC MMIII
Molecular Genetic Engineers in Junk DNA?
Great Article on Nuke Madness from
Association of World Citizens
This was included with a sign-on to the letter urging a peaceful
solution in North Korea.
President, Association of World Citizens
55 New Montgomery Street, Suite 224
San Francisco, CA 94105
MAD AS HELL AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE
(NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE ESCALATES)
By: Douglas Mattern -
When the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference
was held in New York
city in the year 2000, the nuclear weapons states make a commitment to
an "unequivocal undertaking" to eliminate nuclear weapons. This was an
empty and hypocritical promise, and experts now agree the danger of
proliferation is worse than in the past 50 years.
The NPT was undermined, if not annihilated, when
President Bush signed
National Security Presidential Directive 17, which states the United
States reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force-including
nuclear weapons---to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the
United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies. William Arkin,
a military analyst writes that the Bush administration's war planning
"moves nuclear weapons out of their along-established special category
and lumps them in with all the other military options."
The entire record of the Bush Administration on
the nuclear issue is
abominable. This includes refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Bat
Treaty, abrogating the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the
intention to resume nuclear testing to build a new category of nuclear
weapons, including the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This weapon
would be thousands of times more powerful than the conventional
bunker-busting weapons used in "Shock and Awe" bombing of Iraq.
The addition of India and Pakistan, and possibly
North Korea, to the
macabre nuclear club also increases the nuclear danger. Now add a recent
study by the RAND think-tank that gives a frightening assessment of
Russian's strategic capabilities. Former Senator Sam Nunn said "the risk
has increased for a perfect storm in terms of a nuclear miscalculation
or an accident."
The RAND study lists three reasons for this
* The U.S. and Russia maintain large nuclear
forces on "hair-trigger"
alert that could be launched in minutes and destroy both countries in
* Economic and social problems have led Russia to
rely more on nuclear arms.
* The vulnerability of Russian forces is enhanced
by the capability of
U.S. forces to deliver accurate and devastating strikes.
The Rand report gives three gruesome scenarios,
which could erupt at any time:
* An intentional unauthorized nuclear weapon
launch by a terrorists or
* A missile launched by mistake
* An intentional launch of nuclear weapons based
on incorrect or
Robert McNamara acknowledged that during the Cuban
missile crisis "we
came within a hairbreadth of nuclear war without realizing it." McNamara
said: "It's no credit to us that we missed nuclear war--at least we had
to be lucky as well as wise." We can only guess how many times we have
been lucky and escaped nuclear destruction throughout the Cold War.
There are many frightening close calls that received little media
Bruce Blair, Director of the Center for Defense
Information (CDI) and a
former Minuteman Missile Launch Officer, reminds us that both the U.S.
and Russia remain preoccupied with preparing to fight a large-scale
nuclear war with each other on short notice. Both sides have thousands
of nuclear warheads on a hair-trigger alert and aimed at each other.
U.S. spy planes monitor the Russian coast and U.S.
trail Russian submarines as soon as they leave port. The U.S. spends an
average of $27 billion annually preparing to fight a nuclear war.
In a "doomsday" scenario, the CDI reports that
Russia has come online at
their Kovzvinsky Mountain facility with equipment designed to ensure a
"quasi-automatic" Russian missile retaliation in case a U.S. first
strike destroys their nuclear chain of command.
Terrorism is a burning problems to counter, but by
far the greatest
terrorism is that each and every day for the past several decades, and
in this third year of a new millennium, we are daily under the threat of
nuclear incineration whether by accident, miscalculation, or by design.
McGeorge Bundy, former assistant to President
Kennedy, said: "In the
real world even one hydrogen bomb on one city would be a catastrophe;
ten bombs on ten cities would be a disaster beyond history. A hundred or
even less would be the end of civilization"
There are 30,000 nuclear weapons in the world
today and only a fool
could believe we can exist indefinitely without these weapons being
used. It's utter madness, and it's imperative that thinking people join
declare unequivocally that, similar to the TV anchorman in the movie
Network, WE ARE MAD AS HELL AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.
Liberation from the nuclear nightmare and the
destruction" is the first priority to which we must hold every
politician and policy maker, beginning with the reconstituted cold
warrior hawks that comprise the Bush Administration.
Douglas Mattern is president of the Association of
World Citizens (AWC);
a San Francisco based international peace organization with branches in
50 countries, and with UN NGO status. The website for AWC is
www.worldcitizens.org Douglas is a contributing writer for Liberal
THIS MAY BE YOUR LAST CHANCE TO SAVE AMERICA
Informant: Carol Wolman
The once and former rule of law
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
"The flames kindled on the Fourth of July, 1776, have spread over too
much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism;
on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among
Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That
whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness."
The United States Declaration of Independence -
July 4, 1776