16 June 2020

The Threat-sensitive Brain: a theory about animals applied to Gabriel Wortman

An analysis of
Seeking to explain Nova Scotia shootings: Inside the 'threat-sensitive brain'
'A threat-sensitive brain that is always looking for evidence to confirm the world is against them' by Michael MacDonald· The Canadian Press· Jun 08, 2020 7:25 AM AT | Last Updated: June 8

The Threat-sensitive Brain 
Can such a theory be applied to human beings or is it better off being applied to animals who survive on instinct? (revision of response to same article previously posted elsewhere).
This type of mental health explanation, as described in the article, ignores the reality of informal social networks or community ideals of conforming to the authority of those who have been granted power to control the lives of those living within their borders. Communities based on tradition or other cultural values may well result in the individual being punished discreetly and informally for breaking the rules of the hierarchy, which could be based on sexuality, or gender, wealth, or another kind of perceived status of members of the community.
Seeking to understand the behaviour of the individual presumably isolated within it, in relationships with fragile bases in which loyalty and trust have little place, means that injustices will build up, and if not resolved may eventually result in the individual attempting to break away from this insurmountable problem.
The idea of the 'threat-sensitive brain' must surely result in loud beeps in the brains of those reading about it, as though the individual has some kind of physical brain disorder (or animal-like brain where instinct is what counts) that results in the individual being unable to reason, to adapt, to be in a relationship, and to live a life of substantial success within the community and at a distance, doing work that has earned him compliments and security, doing sensitive, personal work with clients/patients seeking dental repair. If Gabriel Wortman were this kind of person, he probably wouldn't have been able to achieve all that he did.
The term 'injustice collector' is the creation of those who have lived at the top too long and has little understanding of what really happens in society, in communities that are encouraged and rewarded for demonstrating the collective value of family, sharing, and conformity and excluding those who don't quite measure up.
Referring to being an 'injustice-collector' as a way of seeing the world, as Tracy Vaillancourt (children's mental health and violence expert) does, according to this article, is only one possibility of a motivation for this tragic event. This expert in child bullying would do better spending more time on the subject of 'peer victimization' among adults.
Read ‘Dangerous Instincts’: FBI profiler explains the dangers of that ‘nice’ neighbor <https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/dangerous-instincts-fbi-profiler-explains-the-dangers-of-that-nice-neighbor/2011/10/17/gIQAkvNCDM_story.html> for information on the world-view of Mary Ellen O’Toole, a former FBI profiler who coined the term.
Michael Arntfield, criminologist turned armchair psychologist, who speaks of the 'injustice-collector' as someone who often feels "cheated or disrespected by others, even though there may be no evidence to support those beliefs." And that is most likely the problem. If a community does show disrespect in small ways, in an unrelenting manner, there may well be no “evidence” of the type that someone like Arntfield, a former police officer now working in a 'customized academic appointment' at Western University, would value (see Wikipedia, Michael Arntfield). Most of his work seems focused on the individual rather than the community, as most psychologists involved in extrapolating this theory of 'injustice-collecting' and the 'threat-sensitive brain' are.
I suggest a focus on the community, and I don't mean accepting their stories on Wortman as 'evidence' of his guilt or fitness-of-mind or not, but treating them, too, as though they might not be as credible as the investigators of this horrendous tragedy would like them to be. Liking should not translate to 'credibility'. Rather, investigators should attempt to be objective and to keep in mind that when such a tragedy happens, evidence of the sort that shows the killer in a good light may well be kept hidden. No one wants to support the bad guy at a time like this. Mr Wortman was known to be a caring and community-minded denturist in his working community and among those who knew him in that role. But community is often set apart from a person's work-life. It doesn't mean that Wortman should be labelled 'injustice-collector' because those in the business of psychology see him as such. 
A perspective taken from the discipline of Sociology might be better at undoing some of the falsehoods of this perspective, and the very one-sided blame on one man, similar, in fact, to the moral culpability of the tragedy of the Montreal massacre of 1989, during which killings were committed by Marc Lepine, for reasons that were distorted and attempted to be hidden from Canadians.

Seeking to explain Nova Scotia shootings: Inside the 'threat-sensitive brain'  
by Michael MacDonald·
The Canadian Press·
Posted: Jun 08, 2020 7:25 AM AT | Last Updated: June 8

 ‘Dangerous Instincts’: FBI profiler explains the dangers of that ‘nice’ neighbor
By Monica Hesse 
October 24, 2011

11 June 2020

HPARB Notice of Intention Not to Proceed with Review

2020 June 11 re Dr D                                                                         Susan McPherson
In Response to Notice of Intention not to Proceed with Review by HPARB

Following is the Response I submitted on June 11 to the Notice I received from HPARB  (Health Professions Appeal and Review Boardthat they were planning not to proceed with the Review of the CPSO complaint that I had asked them to do.  I was required to submit responses to HPARB within 30 days, which I did. the case is complex, and I could see that they hadn't really understood what I had said, so I tried again to explain.  In the following document, I have omitted the names of the parties involved and other extraneous information, such as titles of attachments and their job titles, etc.

This is one of two responses I made about two doctors I had laid the complaint about to the CPSO, originally. The CPSO (College of Physicians and Surgeons), had decided not to go forward with the investigation, having saying that my complaint looked as though it was “frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process.” They didn't say which. HPARB followed suit, the reason being that they do not conduct an investigation of the original complaint, only looking at the CPSO ICRC (the Committee) to see if they would have reached the same conclusion. They did, by making the same mistakes and relying on staff at LHSC to be able to explain this situation to them.

If viewers have questions, you are welcome to ask, or leave a comment. Please excuse the spelling errors. 

HPARB Notice of Intention Not to Proceed with Review
by Susan McPherson, Complainant
Dr D, Respondent
Case File: Dr D  HPARB   (CPSO, Complaint June 28, 2019)
Date:   June 11, 2020                                                
Sent by email to    

1.  The respondent, Dr D, was and possibly still is one of the health care custodians of reports and other documents about me that are related to this case; in fact, he was one of the main ones, being the person in authority, as submitter and receiver, responsible for the sending and receiving of documents from the lab he worked in at LHSC, and possibly providing authorization for some of them.

2.  I understand what HPARB is saying, that it was simply HIS name and hospital address that appeared on documents coming and going and that to him and the hospital it meant nothing. It wasn’t as though anyone was taking responsibility for what went out or was accepted in. I can see that. I already knew that. But I would like to know Dr D’s part in that, and whether he could have done better, and whether he should have been doing that job, and whether he did it to other patients, and more. Shouldn’t the hospital, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, be accountable for their mistakes?   

3.  In the response I received from M, formerly of P   O LHSC, on May 31, 2019, she sent an explanation about the various documents that was not accurate.

4.  In the email bundle I received from HPARB on May 13, pages from M were listed under p 2, - -  that they used in determining the Decision on this case.   They are attached here.

5.  First of all (re Item 2 of the ROI) it wasn’t me who said that EMERG was involved in my path from Bronchoscopy to being TB Suspect. That information was on the Suspect form filled out by B, as well as other forms, such as the requisition form, and was an error. I don’t know how, except that almost everything she wrote on the form was incorrect. I didn’t have symptoms not able to be explained by emphysema, for instance. She just picked things up from my medical record and plopped them into the TB SUSPECT form. I state this because HPARB has accused me of being frivolous, and I don’t want them to think I just made things up out of the blue and asked M to find out about something that didn’t exist.

6.  M, P O, LHSC, thought that an “automatic notification” was “triggered” due to the “nature” of my visit to Dr M, and presumably did not involve any human action to be taken. Somebody has to put the piece of paper into the FAX machine, or lift up the telephone, or copy an email to God knows who. It doesn’t happen automatically, unless these people at LHSC are AI robots or in a daze and things get forwarded “automatically.”  Likewise with the requisition that was said not to have been sent by anyone. It simply exists, presumably and D was not responsible, you claim.  

7. Farther down on page 2 of her letter, M tried to tell me – and I am copying again for you - that “bacteria in the TB family was found during the exam.”  Actually, bacteria cannot be seen while the bronchoscopy is being carried out. It has to be discovered at the lab – presumably at the LHSC lab if possible, or if not at the Public Health lab locally or in Toronto.  Sounds like circular reasoning on her part – using the “find” as a reason to conduct tests on the sample to try to discover what it was, if anything, no matter how many labs they had to send it to.

8. HPARB and thus, CPSO, chose to refer to P O M’s response to me, received by me on May 31, 2019.  See pages 1 and 2 of her letter attached.   HPARB wrote in Section II,    of the Notice of Intention not to Proceed with Review (May 13, 20) how they understood the process, that “possible bacteria” of the TB family was present. However, it wasn’t possible for TB to be found until some reason was found for pursuing it – as with COVID-19 - such as having symptoms, or being in contact with someone who had it. In one assessment tool at MLHU that was written on, too, for no reason, the word “contact” was added.  It was thought I might have had an infection previously, but that could have been pneumonia or bronchitis. TB wasn’t suspected at the time of the bronchoscopy. If it was, no one told me, at least, not in a way that indicated what I might be up against, which was a lot more than most immigrants are. The doctor might have wondered to himself, but there was NO INDICATION that I had TB. Sure, you can say it was “possibly TB,” or possibly anything on the list of infectious diseases, or anything not infectious. It could have been - anything. But I didn’t fit the profile for TB and had no symptoms and I didn’t have close contacts so there was no reason to pursue that avenue.  

9.  It wasn’t until B filled out the form that anyone could seriously consider that I had TB, contradicting what you claim happened, that TB was suspected from the beginning. If she had filled out the form accurately, with more care, it would have been realized right away that I probably didn’t have TB and didn’t need to be tested. It is possible that once a test was done that indicated by the AFB test that TB was possible, B would have made out the inaccurate SUSPECT form, but it would take Dr D or someone to say how that test happened, and where, and when. And I don’t mean M saying she asked someone and they said this or that was a reasonable explanation. She was not a spokesperson for the LHSC and ought not be giving her word on how things happen there (and nor is Patient Relations, if that idea comes up). We are supposed to be able to put our trust in doctors, but how can people do that when things like this happen?

10. What I mean is that someone, such as Dr D, or whoever conducted the AFB test and signed the test result as being authentic and authorized by a requisition,  and received the lab report back, should be investigated by HPARB as the person being investigated should be. If CPSO did not do this, then it can be said that in this matter, the investigation they conducted was not adequate.

11. I realize that the inadequacy of the CPSO investigation of my complaint is one of the reasons I was able to request a review.  The other part was whether or not the Decision of the Investigating Committee of the CPSO was reasonable. And it was not. I cannot state what their final conclusion was because they don’t exactly say – either I was being “frivolous” or I was “abusing the process”. What was it? HPARB says the same thing, which isn’t really anything unless it was something.

12. Still looking at Item 4 of the HPARB Notice, it is stated that TB is a mycobacterium. Tuberculosis most certainly is a contagious disease on the list of reportable diseases to Public Health. However, non-TB Mycobacterium, the query that someone had in order to have sent up a sample culture to Toronto to be identified as such, is not reportable - meaning, it is not reportable to Public Health as a public health concern and need not be investigated in samples submitted by any patient, or immigrant from countries where it is most likely to occur in large numbers. Most often, the two diseases are separated, into TB and non-TB mycobacterium. The kind that was presumably found in a test culture in (date), 2018, in a sample that was taken from me during the bronchoscopy in August, ened up being non-TB mycobacterium.  It was an unusual investigation, as most immigrants do not even have the test done upon arrival in this country.  They just have a regular TB test, perhaps a sputum test, which I did not have in the first place. I was sent straith through to having the full TB mycobacterium and non-TB mycobacterium investigated.

13. Speaking of TB mycobacterium and non-TB mycobacterium as though they are in the same family – as the HPARB Notice does - may or may not be correct, legally, but they are not talked about – nor investigated – nor in the same risk category  -  in medicine.  And it distorts the issue to write about it in that manner. Where in the Notice it is written “That testing revealed the bacteria was not one that causes tuberculosis,” (Item 4, Notice . . Dr D) that is another error. It was already known by that time that the bacteria I had, if I really did have any worth mentioning, or a conclusive test result, was not TB. The sample culture was sent to Toronto to discover whether is was a non-TB mycobacterium,  not to check whether it was not one that causes TB. And I don’t even know whether proper submitting protocols for the sample were carried out.  Based on the looks of the requisition I managed to get and the lab test result that came back with no clear dates or results, nor names of authorizing doctor, and B’s methods, one would have to question whether the lab even followed proper travel protocols of the sample. 

14. And of course, as I have said, the test result of that single test was positive, and remains unconfirmed because Dr M didn’t follow standard guidelines for the testing for TB. If it was Dr M who authorized the requisition for further testing, or Dr D2, or Dr D, I would like to know. So far, it is only Dr D’s name on the requisition, as Submitter, And he was the receiver of the finished lab result. At least, for this investigation, I would like to hear from Dr D himself, what his job description is and did he not think he was supposed to check important documents like requisitions from his department before they were sent out, with the sample culture?

15. I have included the original handwritten Dr D Requisition form here so it can be compared with the typed-up data on the lab information forms located in the bundle of documents sent to me. Both those are OLIS data, with information jumbled together not making much sense unless one already had a good grasp on the details of the lab testing, etc. But both had Dr D’s name on them, one even stating that Dr D was the “Ordering physician”. The other one refers to him as the “Provider,” while the original requisition uses the term “Submitter.”   The original requisition was not obtained through M at LHSC, although one would have thought they would have saved a copy, since it was proof that the testing done in Toronto was legitimately authorized and not simply pushed through.   There is no clinician named on that original requisition order, nor a Doctor’s name to forward the results to. It all went from Dr D back to Dr D after being carried out.  The two lab reports are attached here.

16. But I do know that the requisition with Dr D’s name on it was scribbled on, after striking out the words Final AFB (a different test, done locally) and inserting the word mycobacterium, whereas if it were going to be tested for TB, then it would say TB – the title given on the back of the form to identify the test required. I imagine TB had already been cancelled out, because I didn’t have it. And so, someone came along and put  “mycobacterium” on it, so it could be sent to Toronto, without a new requisition having to be made out and having to have someone take responsibility for adding on this extra testing, which I was not informed was going to happen, nor why, preventing me from knowing what was going on. So it wasn’t meant as this being a test for TB and “mycobacterium.” It was a meant to be for a non-TB mycobacterium. so in those Item numbers where this is discussed, eg Item 4 and Item 9 in the HPARB Notice.

17. I have attached a blank general test requisition, of the kind Dr D permitted to leave his department unchecked by him, including the back of it. If you look, you can see where TB is listed, as being mycobacterium. There is no category for non-TB mycobacterium, whether because there is a different requisition form for it, or I don’t know why. I am not a doctor and it is difficult for me to get answers from OLIS or any lab on these matters because they only answer questions from doctors, they say, about procedures. Or perhaps lawyers.

18. To be accurate, the term non-TB mycobacterium probably should have been put on the requisition at that point, and someone should have signed it, or initialed it, instead of leaving it such a difficult-to-understand document.  It makes it difficult, too, because people who access it and change it, etc, don’t put dates on it, or initial it, so no one knows for sure where it was nor when, nor who.

19. I understand the CPSO does not deal with administration, but it does deal with rules about how doctors should act if they have custody of a patient’s medical record or other important documents, and this is one of them – and Dr D had the document in his office, for it to have been stamped with his name. And it deals with ethical issues – issues of accountability. That’s why I am asking.

20. If Dr D was the only person who had access to that requisition, and if he did not instruct his staff on how to deal with them (eg, read the document and if there is anything unusual about it, such as if it is an unsigned requisition, hold it for me, he could have said). Who signed the original requisition? So whose responsibility is it if his staff did not know how to deal with it?

21. The report referred to in Item 4 was the SUSPECT form, by B. I don’t know how it got to MLHU. It got there, whether by Dr D or someone else. That should have been caught, too. The name Mrs N,  B’s boss, was on the list of witnesses to interview, in the Application, but CPSO did not bother.

22. TB WAS ruled out, by the way (Item 4 of your Notice says it was NOT ruled out). This is the problem I have been telling you about, and CPSO. I did not have TB. And then someone decided to send a requisition up to Toronto so they could look into non-TB mycobacterium. I don’t think people who have TB have to have their samples checked by LHSC lab, and MLHU lab and then by Toronto’s genome lab. Someone went out of their way to have my culture sample sent up to Toronto. But non-TB Mycobacterium is not on the Reportable Diseases list of Public Health.

23. The information you give in Item 9 has fragments of truth bu in it essence is inaccurate. Non-TB Mycobacterium is not a reportable disease. I can give you lists, but it’s not on them, because there are only lists of reportable diseases, like TB, not of non-reportable ones. I gave that information to the CPSO.

24. A sample was taken from the bronchial lavage I had (and signed a consent form that enabled them to do whatever research they wanted on it.). I asked Dr D2 if I could sign the consent form and he said wait until you are in the Procedure room. By the time I got there I was lying flat on my back with my reading glasses safely tucked away. I signed under pressure! Uniformed consent. I had not realized I would be tested in ways no other patient would ordinarily be tested, not even recent immigrants who, according to their profiles, probably came came from the major continents where their ancestors were raised in mud huts and ate off the ground and thus were more susceptible to the kind of diseases these doctors and staff were investigating me for, I allege, so that they had a guinea pig they could test these poisonous drugs on.

25.  M makes it up as she goes along, in her letter of response. She couldn’t find the requisition, she didn’t know how things got from one place to another, and she says in Item 3, p 2, that the “culturing process has to be referred out  by LHSC.”  By L H S C – by the *hospital,* by magic, because no one fills out the form and no one signs it. It is all automatic!

26. Generally, people start off this process that I went through by having symptoms they go to a doctor for. I didn’t have symptoms that could [not] be explained away. I already was short of breath due to emphysema, and had a cough that went with it. Yet B of LHSC wrote on the form that I had clinical symptoms of TB.  People at LHSC say different things about the process. M says, “the reportable disease notification was sent automatically to the Middlesex Health Unit as part of our standard protocol (which adheres to legislation).”  I am explaining again because I think it takes hearing it more than once to sink in. She knew only a small part of what this was about and the most important parts she got wrong anyway. Someone was responsible. It didn’t happen “automatically.” 

27. The College didn’t conduct an investigation prior to making a Decision. In their first paragraph in their Analysis they quoted from the CPSO’s rules on reporting and left it at that, stopping at the point of the supposedly necessary TB SUSPECT report. Non-TB Mycobacterium is not a reportable disease. I can give you lists, but it’s not on them, because there are only lists of reportable diseases, like TB, not of non-reportable ones. I gave that information to the CPSO but they must have presented it to you incorrectly.  That’s why this situation was so unjust – I was subjected to this testing, which so many others do not have to have done, even though from foreign countries where it is more known. I was subjected to it, and people hid it from me, and hid the part they played in allowing it to happen.

28. The second paragraph of the CPSO Analysis  focused on lab protocols, incomplete forms, and health policies, for the most part irrelevant. The third and final paragraph was completely false. Dr D was meant to be working under the supervision of Dr C at the time this situation took place, and only to be given tasks to do that he was capable of doing satisfactorily – or complaints would be made, which I did, while he was still uder restrictions.  

29. The CPSO’s final Decision was that they would take no action with respect to the complaint. Instead, they decided that my complaint looked as though it was “frivolous, vexatious, made in bad faith, moot or otherwise an abuse of process.” They don’t say which.

30. My presence (in writing) and complaints, may leave you feeling vexatious, or show how I was feeling, but they are relevant in today’s health care system, and as far as I know, were not an abuse of process, but if they were, were made in good faith.  I put much work into this, provided extra material for the ICRC, and kept the Board up to date on the lack of attention by the CPSO to what is going on in hospital settings.

31. Doctors or not, we all know from the coronavirus pandemic that there is always some concern over patients who have symptoms and who test negative, or those who test positive and yet are asymptomatic. I only had one test and the doctor started talking about it as though I had bee diagnosed with this non-TB mycobacterium. And then other residents would mention it, as though I actually “had” it and had not simply had one unconfirmed test result. No symptoms, did not fit the profile, no contacts. Nothing! Just one test, and we don’t know whether protocols were carried out in sending it to Toronto.

32. I would like to get this matter dealt with, as it is part of a larger whole. Each piece is complex enough, so doing them all together would be impossible. I still have other people I believe need to be questioned about this. It may seem frivolous to you now, or an abuse of process, but these questions need to be asked of Dr D and others mentioned in the application, so that when I file a complaint about another doctor, you will know what has been covered. If D doesn’t respond to questions about his part in this – such as about his job description – then no one will know whether he is the one (along with Dr C) who should take responsibility and how the LHSC can become more accountable in its hiring and supervision, with the cooperation of the CPSO.

33. I am attaching what appears to be the original requisition *submitted* to PHO labs by Dr D, it states, complete with one part crossed (AFB Final) out and the word Mycobacterium written in, with no signature nor date to indicate whether it was Dr D who made the change or someone else.   No reason for the test is given. Under clinical symptoms, “respiratory symptoms” has again been listed, falsely. The patient setting was given as ER – not true. Dr D is clearly listed as the Submitter, although apparently, M may be right, No one person needs to be identified as requesting the test, or authorizing it, as a health care provider or custodian, it being a mysterious process at the best of times.

34. And who does that leave as health care custodian in this situation of documents coming to the lab and going out, if not Dr D, the one who “submitted “ the requisition to have the test in Toronto, the test that didn’t need to be done and that I was not informed about in advance! I have attached the requisition, and a copy of a blank requisition,  as well as a copy of the Fact sheet on Health care providers, since this last item, the status of Dr D, as provider, was mentioned in the responses of CPSO and HPARB to my complaint.  

35. In responding to HPARB’s decision, I would first say that there were several errors and distortions in the CPSO’s investigation, repeated in your response, to address each one in detail. I have already made this case once to the CPSO, and your making a case against me, based on what they claim I said and what they choose to believe, doesn’t do justice to my request for a review. I realize this is how a Review by the Board is undertaken, but it still doesn’t make sense. If PHARB is not analyzing the original documents from my Complaint and seeing if they come up with the same conclusion, instead of looking at CPSO’s interpretation of the Complaint, and seeing what’s wrong with it, to what purpose is having a Review?

36. An excerpt taken from my request for review, in Item 13 of the Notice, is what the HPARB has decided to hold against me, as the essence of what I am asking them to do and the reason for not proceeding with the Review. However, going back to the original Complaint I made, which presumably is what the CPSO used to base their investigation on, would be more appropriate. See attachments.  Here you will find my concerns, the start of a description, and the names of two persons who could offer more information. My concerns are not as you describe in Item 13, but this, from p 3 of my CPSO Complaint about Dr D and Dr C, which surely the CPSO used as the basis for their interpretation of my Complaint? :

37.      1. Dr D was involved in submitting information about me to MLHU in September or October 2018, that resulted in the Health Unit screening me for Tuberculosis.  After it was discovered I did not have TB, the lung sample  was sent to Toronto for further testing. I question, first, the basis on which I was deemed to be suspect for having TB, and the process by which the report was approved and sent to MLHU. Secondly, did Dr D also approve the requisition for the lungsample sent to Toronto?
             2.  My concern is that Dr D wasn’t doing his job well, and that errors were made in having my information submitted to MLHU. CPSO public information about Dr D indicates that he may practise medicine only in a setting that is approved by the Chair.  Dr C  is the Chair. I question whether he, too, was not doing his job effectively.
              3. It was the responsibility of Dr D, and thus indirectly of Dr C, to ensure that the documents sent (and received) to and from MLHU and other labs were valid and completed with accuracy. This didn’t happen with the form that was submitted by LHSC to MLHU, nor with other documents related to this situation.  If Dr D's work was not to be trusted, why was my health care entrusted to him, with no one overseeing it?

38.  As I said above, on its own, this case is not the entire story of what happened to me. This entire situation, of Drs D and C, is connected to others including Dr M, LHSC, who I have alleged mistreated me and manipulated me, with the compliance of staff and doctors including Dr D2, LHSC) employee B, Drs D and C, Ms B MLHU, and others; that said, if the participation of the various employees and physicians wasn’t done out of compliance, then it had to be out of ignorance.

39. On its own, one might see D’s actions as trivial, but connected as they are to the wider issue, of the supposed chance occurance of a patient being lied to, misrepresented, and dragged through the system to a conclusion not out of her (my) informed consent, one can see that what they did was essential to this effort by Dr M and colleagues to inveigle me into being their research subject.

40. In Item 15 of the HPARB’s Decision May /20, Dr D’s role is referred to, that HPARB is saying means he was not involved in this situation. But that is his title and address as it appears on his documents. He does do clinical work, and practical research. He has Hospital privileges at all the hosptals under LHSC. He may even have had something to do with speaking with the referring doctor (Dr M) or Dr D2, about what lab testing did they want done.

41. No, there was no doctor/patient relationship between Dr D and myself, as you suggest in Item 15 of the Notice.  I am saying he was a hac – a health care custodian. He had personal data on me (some of it incorrect) and he was the person in that environment, of the clinical lab, not as academic, who sent and received reports including requisitions, and perhaps even consulted on what kinds of lab tests could be done. He wasn’t an administrator per se. \

42.  Many professionals in hospitals have numerous titles, sometimes, as heads of Committees, and so on. Regardless of his title, whichever one it is, look at the form, reports, lab requisitions and so on. All the ones to do with me have his name on them. And the question is, regardless of whether he was away that day (see Item 15 again) should he had been a little more careful of what was happening with patients’ requisitions and lab results that had inaccurate medical information on them. It surely was his job. And of course, it was Dr C that was also at fault. I have included D’s CPSO profile as it was before it was updated.

43. Re Item 16. I am not talking about protocols in this case. I gave the CPSO the background information to my complaint. How otherwise would they have been able to comprehend what the issues were with Dr D. It wasn’t just about him. Somebody or some persons were involved in manipulating me from start to finish. If not that, then the professionals at LHSC are incompetent. And yes, again, I have given you the information on the limitations requested on Dr D on his file, before July 1. So while you are correct in what you say, “there is no persuasive information that the Respondent’s licence is restricted due to competency issues,” what you say is not correct as far as this complaint is concerned. He has a different profile now. The restrictions I was referring to were lifted.

44. On June 28, 2019, I emailed my Complaint to CPSO about Dr D and Dr C.  It was not acknowledged until Tuesday July 2, due to the long weekend.  I submitted the application before I knew what changes would be made to the restrictions on Dr D’s CPSO file but I had wanted it to be there before the file was altered and so that the CPSO and others at LHSC knew that this had happened while Dr C was supposed to be supervising him and that my Complaint was submitted before that restriction came to an end. I submitted my complaint before the restrcition was lifted. It is up to HPARB when they decide to follow up on it.

45. The damage had been done while Dr D was still under supervision, despite what HPARB believe about there not being restrictions due to his ability. He may have been competent within himself, but the question is, was he capable of overseeing incoming and outgoing documents (or even authorizing requisitions) whose existence and careless use might well have dire consequences for someone caught up in the incompetence or manipulative behaviour of others. Lacking experience, he might have been a risk being in that position.  

Thank you for taking the time to examine my response to your Notice Not to Proceed with Review. The Decision made by the board about my case against Dr D was inadequate, and was also unreasonable.

Susan McPherson    

17 Attachments follow

14 September 2019

Introduction to CPSO-HPARB Reconsideration Request

Following is an Introduction, now on my website, Accountability in Health care: ethics in aging, to the Reconsideration Request that I submitted earlier that month (August, 2019) to the HPARB Board, which had declined my Request for another look into how a case I had taken to them was handled by them. The formal Request was not an investigation into the case itself, only into how the appeal and review board – HPARB - handled it. The case originally had been investigated by the CPSO. My Request was declined. The original CPSO-HPARB Reconsideration Request of Aug 13, 2019 is located on my website; please follow links.
Introduction to CPSO-HPARB Reconsideration Request
                                                                                        by Sue McPherson August 29, 2019

For the purpose of this introduction and my Request to HPARB that follows, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, known as the CPSO, is responsible for setting requirements for standards of practice and professionalism for doctors. The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, known as the HPARB, closely related to the CPSO, is supposedly responsible for setting requirements for standards of practice and professionalism for doctors, and conducting complaint reviews of complaints that have gone through the CPSO’s complaint system, and also registration reviews of doctors.

The text of a Reconsideration Request – names removed -  that I wrote follows this introduction. I submitted it to HPARB (Health Professions Appeal and Review Board), on Aug 13, 2019. The Request I submitted was a result of their Decision of July 24, 2019 to take no further action on the College of Physicians and Surgeons (CPSO) Committee’s Decision of October 5, 2018. I had laid a Complaint in 2018 against a family doctor I had been going to. I have had difficulty gaining access to a doctor I could depend on, actually every since I came back to London. First one, then the next, treated me badly. It could be for different reasons, not always the same. But I am an older woman, alone here, and am virtually unknown, having graduated from Western but not had a career or relationships that might have granted me some credibility and status in the community.

This family doctor who has been the subject of this complaint with the CPSO, and the Reconsideration Requestion, knew almost from the start that there had been some troubling incidents happen regarding the specialist I had gone to for an appointment in late 2016. The specialist did treat me unfairly, no matter what the final Decision is on the subject, my case with the HRTO (Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario). And when I asked questions of his staff, they turned on me, blaming me for being rude to them and telling me if I wanted health care with the specialist I would have to apologize, otherwise I would have to go to Toronto for treatment. I hadn’t been rude, and didn’t apologize. But it made no difference. The specialist wrote up a report of the appointment repeating what his girls in the office had told him. And then a couple of months later wrote up another one, so now there were two. Reports don’t simply disappear when they are written up for Health Records at the local hospital. So trying to find a reasonable, understanding, family doctor has been a nightmare, and Dr G, the subject of this Complaint to the CPSO, is part of that nightmare. Oh, yes, and soon after that I laid a complaint against the specialist who had treated me so badly, and his staff, and others, with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), in November 2017, a year after it happened.  

The situation with Dr G, the family doctor, has evolved, going through the steps, each no better than the last as far as receiving just attention and consideration of my experience with him. I submitted my complaint on June 27, 2017. First – not first but the first main decision on the matter - after a period of lengthy, time-consuming errors and time-wasting on the part of the caseworker/investigator assigned to the case, came the Decision by the CPSO’s Committee on October 5, 2018, which stated, in part:

“the Committee is satified that the Respondent provided excellent care in the circumstances. We commend him for the accuracy and level of detail with which he documented his care of the Complainant. Disposition: For the reasons set out above, the Committee takes no further action on this complaint” (ICRC [Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee] Decision, Oct 5, 2018, CPSO. Toronto). Notice how the CPSO emphasizes the “accuracy and level of detail” of his notes, documenting his care of me. That’s because the doctor has credibility and I apparently don’t, in their eyes, or if I do, then they are trying to destroy that.

Credibility has nothing to do with telling the truth. It has everything to do with being believed, or having people take your side whether or not you are believed, which is called loyalty. Instead of saying “loyalty,” say the reason you are supporting what a person does or says is “credibility” and you will be more likely to be believed, and so will the person to whom you may only be being blindly loyal. See Presumed Innocence in politics and health care, on my Blog, Sue’s Views on the News. Feb 6, 2018.   http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2018/02/presumed-innocence.html .

And since I didn’t have a career, I must either have been stupid or a drug addict, in the eyes of some, or perhaps they simply want people to believe that, and not that I was married to a man who didn’t want me to work and insisted that I stay home and had a family. Many of us knew little about the world back then. Some of us didn’t realize the harm that would do, staying home and taking care of the family to avoid family arguments.

After the CPSO ICRC (the Committee) handed down their Decision, I applied to the HPARB for a Review of the CPSO’s Decision. The CPSO was meant to submit all documents I had sent them and which passed between her and myself and the respondent, including one controversial one, submitted to me by the caseworker, Ms V, asking me to sign off on a Summary she had written of my original letter of complaint and return it by private mail (not CPSO envelope) to her. I didn’t as it did not accurately reflect what I saw as a good Summary, and I also thought that if I did, the brief description might be used against me, leaving out important parts. I di, however, waste much sffort in trying to rewrite her Summary, but ending up with a slightly shorter version of my original letter and her Summary combined, that I had been presssured into writing, unecessarily, and which she accepted. More about that later.

Once the HPARB became involved, I received a phone call stating that the process had been expedited, receiving a package of information on Dec  24, 2018, which apparently was the same information the CPSO had used to make its Decision, now handed over to the HPARB so they could analyze it – and to me, so I could too, for the first time.  I was denied it before, even though I wrote several letters to CPSO officials about it. And of course, it was not complete, and there were errors. And I did not have time to delve into it in great detail at the time. By this time I was dealing with problems with my respirologist and with the HRTO case over Dr A, the specialist, which had  rescheduled their Summary Hearing for Dec 7, 2018, instead of Nov 7, leaving me little time to prepare for each of these events - the case conference with the HPARB on Feb 7, 2019, and the Review also by teleconference with them on April 3. A meeting I had had with my respirologist on Jan 7, 2019 didn’t go well and it was only a matter of time before I decided I could nnot have him as my respirologist any longer. None of this will make much sense to readers; however my point is there was a lot going on and a lack of information as well as obstacles were being placed in my way.

By the time all that was over, I had received a Decision about the complaint I had made about the specialist to the HRTO (on March 5, 2019) to which I responded with a Request for Reconsideration on March 28. In due course, on July 24, 2019, the HPARB responded, on the matter of the Complaint I made against Dr G with the CPSO. I did also receive acknowledgment from the HRTO of the Request for Reconsideration that I had sent them. That HRTO case, against the specialist and his staff, is closely related to the CPSO complaint I made against the family doctor on June 27, 2017, who had sent away for all specialists’ reports on the first day and soon let me know that he believed him – what he had said in his reports of that appointment and about his female staff and others. There was no way this patient-doctor relationship could work out well.     

Returning to the Decision against Dr G, the HPARB Board wrote that the Committee (of the CPSO) had “investigated the Complaint and decided to take no further action” (Item 11, HPARB Decision, July 24, 2019).

It further stated, “Accordingly, the Board (HPARB) finds the Committee’s decision to take no action on this aspect of the Applicant’s complaint to be reasonable” (Item 38, HPARB Decision July 24, 2019. CanLII 67524).

That is when I wrote the Reconsideration Request of the Decision made by HPARB and submitted it on August 13, 2019.

The decision made by adjudicator Bonnie Goldberg, on Aug 19, 2019, on my Reconsideration Request from HPARB was as follows:

11. While the Applicant has provided the reasons as to why she believes the Board failed to properly consider adequacy of the investigation and the reasonableness of the decision, I
am not persuaded that the reasons advanced by the Applicant warrant reconsideration of the Board’s decision.
12. Accordingly, the Board’s decision of July 24, 2019 will not be reconsidered”
(Items 11 and 12. Decision, Aug 19, 2019, HPARB, Toronto).

The Board of the HPARB isn’t required to give a reason why they will not reconsider a Request for Reconsideration, according to Practice guidelines. And although the Rules state that the Board will make corrections of errors and missing documents, none of the ones I mentioned in my Request for Reconsideration were acted upon. It only took adjudicator Bonnie Goldberg 6 days to examine my 19-page Request, and she was new to it, not being present for the Review – not being a member of the original panel of Board members.

In Rule 16.5 of the Rules for the HPARB, it states,

“The Board, on its own motion or at the request of a party to the proceeding, may reconsider any decision made by it and may confirm, amend, or revoke it. The Board may do so if it considers it advisable to do so.” (p. 30, Power to Reconsider a decision of the Board. Consolidated Rules of Practice and Procedure, HPARB and HSARB. http://www.hparb.on.ca/english/docs/directions/2013%20HPARB%20&%20HSARB%20-%20Consolidated%20Rules%20of%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20-%20EN.pdf ).      

One may wonder why someone who was not part of the original Board was invited in to place judgement on me – on my Reconsideration Request. But there are other rules that cover that kind of situation, described in “Powers of the Board”. See General Rules, Rule 2,  Application of rules; and Powers of the Board, 2.1  -  2.8.  pp 7-8. Consolidated Rules of Practice and Procedure, HPARB and HSARB.  http://www.hparb.on.ca/english/docs/directions/2013%20HPARB%20&%20HSARB%20-%20Consolidated%20Rules%20of%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20-%20EN.pdf

Moreover, in the HPARB and HSARB Consolidated Rules of Practice and Procedure, under Corrections, it is stated,

“After rendering a decision or order, the Board may at any time correct a typographical error, an error of calculation, an error of omission, or any other similar error in its decision without prior notice to the parties. The Board shall notify the parties of its correction to the decision or order (16.4, p 30-31. Rule 16 – Decisions, Corrections, Consolidated Rules of Practice and Procedure, HPARB and HSARB. http://www.hparb.on.ca/english/docs/directions/2013%20HPARB%20&%20HSARB%20-%20Consolidated%20Rules%20of%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20-%20EN.pdf
Yet in the Reconsideration Request sent to the HPARB, I included several instances of errors and omissions from material submitted to the CPSO, hence that also went to the HPARB from the caseworker/investigator. And that’s just the minor part of my Request. The legal aspect of it is about the idea of “error of law” based on the matter of Medical Records being seen as legal documents, even though there may be errors.

My next step should be to appeal the case to Divisional Court, but this is another new area for me, and one that would take even more physical effort and energy that is sometimes lacking. The filing of documents and attending the court room sessions is not something I would look forward to or maybe not be able to do well enough, especially when it is obvious justice has not been done if anyone took the time to read what I have written. Why would they believe what I say, or what I show them, when the authorities in this situation have not done that yet themselves? I can write and explain all that happened, but they aren’t listening. And they don’t have to. There’s nothing or no one to make them, and nothing within themselves to enable that to happen.

Click here to go to the CPSO-HPARB Reconsideration Request

18 July 2019

The CBC and Trump's tweets about 4 black women

In the CBC article, ‘EU president takes shot at Trump's “unacceptable” tweets after Trudeau meeting’, the original tweets made by President Trump become entwined in news articles with stories of the chants of “Send her back” by his supporters at a Trump rally a day or so later.

At the same time as accusations were being made against Trump, Donald Tusk - President of the European Council, after meeting with Trudeau in Montreal, himself tweeted about being glad not to be met with a’ Send him back’ chant by his audience.

These are just incidents aside from the main one, the tweets sent out by Trump on July 14 which some took to be racist, and others only “unacceptable”.  

But why his tweets should be considered to be something more than unacceptable, in terms of being racist, or him being racist, is unclear. The idea of freedom of speech was mentioned by some commenters in the Comments Section of the CBC news article online. No one had a clear idea, it seems, of what the tweets actually consisted of, only that, for many commenters, they were racist.

Eventually, I posted the contents of the tweets by Donald Trump in a comment, and lo and behold, they were not put under moderation soon to be disabled.

Nowhere, however, are the actaul remarks made by these 4 black women in Donald Trump’s Congress, on the Conservative side, available. And no article I have read on this or seen on tv news programs, mentions what it was that Trump was responding to, what sorts of troubles the female “squad” was probing into, and were questioning, that led to such words from Trump.

I wanted to know what brought this on, because I have been involved in my own situation where at least some non-white doctors who must have been from foreign cultures, had caused me trouble at a local hospital, dragging me into a situation that never should have happened, whereby I was tested for something I never had, and then tested again, in a way I know foreigners coming here as refugees and immigrants are never tested, unless obviously ill. Speaking as I did against these doctors – some of them – got comments I made deleted, as though I had no credibility and could not possibly be telling the truth. And although I took my complaint  - part of it – to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the response I got from them was that I was not telling the truth (or could have been that they knew I was telling the truth but that one does not say things like that about doctors from foreign countries, even though they had been shirking their duty and allowing incorrect information to pass by them, affecting the way I would be treated at the next step.

No one commenting or responding to comments on the news article comments Section online knew or spoke of what the actual tweets were, from Trump, and yet most seemed to have already made their minds up and for the most part were against Trump. Quite a few were against me. Are we not allowed to speak truths against people from other cultures, and are we not allowed to mention their colour when relevant, as a means of identifying who they are? I have been stopped midsentence while speaking to someone at the hospital who supposedly had some knowledge of ethics, but I didn’t get a sense that he had much. Just say the person was black and one gets accused of racism, just as a black person accusing a white person of racism would get the undivided attention of people like Trudeau, and probably a lot more at the local hospital.
The CBC has been called too politically-correct by some readers, but I don’t know what it is about them, and the moderators who look after the Comments Sections of various news articles. But quite a few of my comments were getting moderated and then deleted. How could this be, when so many people say such terrible things about someone who is President of the United States? How is it they are allowed to be so disrespectful towards him, and so intolerant and not believing he may have had a reason to say the things he said. He was judged by people who didn’t have the full story. And I was being judged also, by CBC, and by the CPSO, and probably by the LHSC, to whom I have also submitted a complaint.

In 3 separate but connected tweets on July 14,  Trump wrote the following:

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
5:27 AM – 14 Jul 2019

....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....

....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!

No doubt that the tweets were harsh. But were they racist?

I saved copies of comments made by individuals in the Comments Section of the article about the EU Council President and PM Trudeau, which I shall refer to below without naming them but including them anonymously, and deleting any words or ideas that might betray their identity.  Although they are written for a public forum, the usual practice is for them to be deleted or stored so practically inaccessible from the page the article is on, or anywhere. Mine will have my name on them.

Reply to W
She is allowed to speak her mind. Called democracy.

 Sue McPherson              CONTENT DISABLED
 Reply to H:
Trump didn't say, Send her back, or Send them back. He said if they didn't like America they could always go back where they came from /Now this EU guy Tusk is saying Yup, that's what Trump said - Send her back. these distortions of truth have to stop.

Sue McPherson
Now Trump is getting known for apparently saying "Send them back" when what he said was, if the black members of his cabinet did not like America, they can always go back home. This distortion of truth is being carried on into tv and and even this news article by the CBC, as though it is truth.

Canadians aren't really such great people, and Donald Tusk doesn't know that, although it has nothing to do with suggesting that if people don't like it here they can always go back to where they and their ancestors came from. I don't know why he would even raise that issue here in Canada. He has no idea what goes on here.

Reply to Sue McPherson:
he said they're from "broken, crime infested countries" and they should go back there. Was he talking about their homes in America?

(He was absolutely NOT talking about members of his own cabinet!!!)

Sue McPherson    35 minutes ago    AWAITING MODERATION
 Reply to L:
He said that if they didn't like America they could always go back to their broken crime-infested countries and fix them.

What was the racist part of what he said? Was it because he called their poverty-ridden countries broken, or crime-infested? Or was it because he suggested they could go back if they didn't like it here. that's not the same as saying Send them back! Send them bacK!

Do you think Trymp is racist, or that his remarks were? Explain your position.

H   Reply to Sue McPherson: Are you Canadian? If not, please be quiet. If so, please explain "what goes on here".

Reply to H:
I live in London, Ontario, We are inundated with doctors from Africa and India, in which contagious diseases are rampant, and they're not being checked thoroughly on the way in for TB or other related diseases. Maybe the US doesn't have that problem, It's something Trump doesn't mention, re asylum seekers from the south.

I run into people too, at the hospital - doctors - who seem to have the same attitude that these 4 women from the Trumps cabinet have. They are given so much that they seem to develop a kind of arrogance about their position, wanting more.

I see people - white women, and Canadians, supporting those poor harassed members of cabinet - the equivalent of Christina Freeland whose buddy Trudeau got her a job in foreign affairs. she loves dealing with poor, oppresses, rich girls from abroad, not so much with the ebola crisis or anything that goes on here.

I am fed up with foreigners from abroad - usually wealthy - being treated with more respect than people here and bringing their cultural values with them, of attitudes towards older, unmarried females in Canada. And then we read the distortions of Trump's words, from what he said to "Send them back" which were not his words.

I have put in a complaint to the CPSO about 2 microbiologists at LHSC, which they seem very reluctant to deal with. I have also sent a compliant about D------ and C---------- to LHSC. How they can allow these people to continue when they have made these errors and not do anything about correcting them, and how the respirologist I had could simply refuse (also from a different cultural background) I do not know. What I do know is no one is analyzing what these 4 women have been critical of, in America. It is all blamed on Trump.

Reply to Sue McPherson: You should go back and visit exactly what trump said. You are completely off-base. BTW, please explain "what goes on" here? You don't sound very patriotic of loyal.

Sue McPherson 
Reply to M
I have just finished explaining to H but well you know what. my comment is not there.

Sue McPherson
Reply to H:
My response to you was not published. I have had problems with the health care system here, see my blog sue's views on the news. They are treated me very badly, trying to silence me. Canada - London - is not a nice place.

Reply to H
I live in London, Ontario, We are inundated with doctors from Africa and India, in which contagious diseases are rampant, and they're not being checked thoroughly on the way in for TB or other related diseases. This is fact - see your public health unit for more info. Maybe the US doesn't have that problem, It's something Trump doesn't mention, re asylum seekers from the south.

I run into people too, at the hospital – doctors – who seem to have the same attitude that these 4 women from the Trumps cabinet have. They are given so much that they seem to develop a kind of arrogance about their position, wanting more.

I see people – white women, and Canadians, supporting those poor harassed members of cabinet – the equivalent of Christina Freeland whose buddy Trudeau got her a job in foreign affairs.

I am concerned about these foreigners from abroad – usually wealthy – being treated with more respect than people here and bringing their cultural values with them, of attitudes towards older, unmarried females in Canada. And then we read the distortions of Trump's words, from what he said to “Send them back” which were not his words. I like foreign people, but not these.

I have put in a complaint to the CPSO about 2 microbiologists at LHSC, which they seem very reluctant to deal with. I have also sent a compliant about D-----t and C---------i to LHSC. How can they allow these people to continue when they have made these errors and not do anything about correcting them, the respirologist too (also from a different cultural background). No one is analyzing what these 4 women have been critical of, in America. It is all blamed on Trump.

Reply to Sue McPherson:
Yes I remember your many complaints about the way you were treated, your escape to England, and despise for men.

Reply to G
So, another one, You get to speak untruths and distortions, and my truth - my voice - is silenced, even here on CBC my posts are disabled. I was harassed then and I am now. but I know now that I was not to blame. I wrote a piece about a prof who behaved in sexualized ways in the classroom, in order to understand it. It is now published online Maybe that was part of it. He probably got used to women performing for him and doing as he pleased.

Reply to Sue McPherson:
Total BS. The meaning of the words in the tweets sre clear and anyone can plainly see that Trump was enjoying the chant while at his rally.

Sue McPherson
Reply to T:
I'm glad you think what Trump said originally was clear. Please post them. I am doing all the talking here despite most of my comments not getting p[ublished. Perhaps I will place them on my blog. How would that be,.

Reply to L
last comment disabled, See my blog sue's views on the news.
for now, please say, Didn't Trump say,.
If the girls don't like living in Mercia they can always leave or should leave or can leave. That's not racist. It's a bit nasty but no nastier than these moderators disabling my comments.

Reply to @Sue McPherson:
One would have to have a recording, but you're right, even if one does he is not all that articulate to be positive about it. LOL

Sue McPherson
Reply to H
Saying, if you don't like it here why don't you leave is a phrase that foreign people like to promote as a sign of racism, just as they keep saying that people don't like the colour of their skin. It's not the colour that matters, but it is an indication that they may have cultural values different from ours, and as I have learned, being a white, older, woman lacking wealth, spouse and family nearby, it is an opportunity for them to try to take advantage of me. I am fighting that, but without support, it is difficult. See my blog Sue's Views on the News, I shall try to post more. 

Reply to @Sue McPherson:
Trump insists he tried to quiet the chants ... by remaining completely silent and basking in the hateful chorus. His tweets were even worse.

Sue McPherson 
Reply to J
Yes, a lot of people in this city have done that to me, too - keeping quiet while my life is being destroyed. In this case, Trump was picked on first, by the media, as usual, after the original tweet. It is not nice to say that to children of immigrants, but it doesn't mean he is a racist for saying that. And the question remains, why don't we get to hear what the women were saying about America?

END of comments I am not pleased to see my comments deleted, when I put effort into them. In the end, they will be deleted, whether after a month or a year, but it is not as though any of us was privileged journalists who get to write not such great articles sometimes but still get something for doing it. I have unknown persona judging my comments and deleting them at will. At the CPSO and HRTO I often have unknown administration clerks judging the worth of my complaints and deeming them admissable, or not. As for the LHSC, there are very few people there I have respect for any more.

Placing this near the end, for your convenience, readers:

Donald Trump’s tweets July 14, 2019

So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly......
5:27 AM – 14 Jul 2019
....and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how....
....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!


EU president takes shot at Trump's 'unacceptable' tweets after Trudeau meeting.
by John Paul Tasker
CBC News. July 18, 2019

Donald Trump’s tweets
The real Donald Trump Twitter account
July 14, 2019