By Helena Handbasket – January 25th 2021
Dear Dr. (School Doctor’s Name Here)
It is with dismay that I find myself put in a position whereby I feel I must write to you regarding your latest decision to close the school based on nothing more than highly dubious , at best, PCR tests which are not, and never were intended as a diagnostic tool for any virus, and also the assumption that someone may have walked by someone else who may have tested ‘positive’ using the same useless diagnostic methodology.
Are you aware of the latest WHO guidelines regarding the use of these ‘tests’ to diagnose Covid-19?
I have included the link from the WHO website here for your perusal.
“Most PCR assays are indicated as an aid for diagnosis, therefore, health care providers must consider any result in combination with timing of sampling, specimen type, assay specifics, clinical observations, patient history, confirmed status of any contacts, and epidemiological information.”
As should be obvious to any medical professional, it is now clear that RT-PCR tests have been misused, indeed abused, to create vast numbers of false positives leading up to the recent change in WHO guidelines for their use. In my humble opinion this now means that all previous RT-PCR positive test results must be highly dubious at best, if not completely bogus.
There can be no assumption made of close contact with a ‘positive case’ in light of these facts. All previous ‘positive’ results cannot be claimed to be correct by any measure and so any ‘close contact’ is irrelevant in this regard.
In fact, no assumption can be made that any RT-PCR test done prior to the new guidelines from the WHO have any merit whatsoever and therefore must be disregarded as a valid reason to assume ‘close contact’ with an assumed ‘infected person’.
I fully understand that you are under extreme pressure to protect both students and staff. However, as a medical professional, you must understand what is laid out here. It is obvious that the reasons for quarantines and self-isolation are based on extremely dubious data as is clear from this latest WHO ‘Medical product alert’.
From now on, nobody can be diagnosed as a ‘positive case’ without two positive RT-PCR tests backed up with a clinical diagnosis by examination of the suspected infected person. If they have no symptoms, they are not a ‘case’.
As a physician, you must be aware of what constitutes a ‘case’.
“A case definition must be clear, simple, and concise, allowing it to be easily applied to all individuals in the population of interest. It typically includes both clinical and laboratory characteristics, which are ascertained by one or many methods that might include diagnosis by a physician, completion of a survey, or routine population screening methods.”
You must also be aware of what constitutes a diagnosis.
“The diagnostic process is the method by which health professionals select one disease over another, identifying one as the most likely cause of a person’s symptoms. Symptoms that appear early in the course of a disease are often more vague and undifferentiated than those that arise as the disease progresses, making this the most difficult time to make an accurate diagnosis. Reaching an accurate conclusion depends on the timing and the sequence of the symptoms, past medical history and risk factors for certain diseases, and a recent exposure to disease. The physician, in making a diagnosis, also relies on various other clues such as physical signs, nonverbal signals of distress, and the results of selected laboratory and radiological and other imaging tests. From the large number of facts obtained, a list of possible diagnoses can be determined, which are referred to as the differential diagnosis. The physician organizes the list with the most likely diagnosis given first. Additional information is identified, and appropriate tests are selected that will narrow the list or confirm one of the possible diseases.”
Again, I understand you are under extreme pressure in regard to maintaining a safe environment for all concerned at the school but surely you must realise that there is something extremely worrying about the methodology being used to determine whether our children receive the valuable educational service they desperately require.
Again , it is with dismay that I find myself having to write this letter to you but again, if the object of your policy is to protect students and staff, I implore you to look at the facts, not the hysteria, and to your own medical training.
The damage being done to the students may well be irreparable with the long term effects of so much change over the past year as yet unknown.
To use just one example, the use of facemasks, highly dubious in efficacy itself, must be highly disturbing to children who rely heavily on facial expression from teachers and other students to determine comprehension and what is being communicated.
Are these highly sensitive children to be denied the right to see others smile?
What psychological effects have been studied in this regard?
What risk assessment, if any, has been carried out to formulate your current policies?
Surely in light of these latest WHO guidelines, it is incumbent on you to reassess your policy immediately.
I look forward to your reply but please desist from giving a ‘cardboard cut-out’ response and instead use your own medical training to formulate a valid, medically accurate and objective reply.
(Parent’s Name Here)
Please note that this was sent to a school for autistic children but can be edited for your own use in an ordinary school setting.