An appeal for sanity, by Natalie M. Brown, who arrived in Brisbane on a flight from Thailand on June 3.
Having lived in Thailand for 4 years where I worked as a teacher, I was urged by family to return home to Queensland, Australia, due to the deteriorating health of a grandparent. I was met by police at the airport and placed directly into a quarantine facility at the Rygent Hotel in South Brisbane.
On the second day of my quarantine on June 4, after being informed that I would need to take three nasopharyngeal swab tests during my quarantine, I submitted a medical certificate to the Queensland Health department. The medical certificate states a medical condition and requests for samples of fluids to be taken either by saliva or blood. For the first test the staff came to the door and I explained that I had already provided a medical certificate and that the fluids need to be taken by either blood or saliva. They accepted the information and handed me a swab stick for me to place in my mouth for 30 seconds, to gain the saliva for testing.
On June 5, I received an sms message from Sullivan and Nicolaides with the result that my test result was negative for the Sars Cov 2 virus.
On Monday, June 7, I was phoned by the Queensland Health staff who informed me that the following two tests would need to be submitted via a nasopharyngeal swab sample. I drew their attention to the medical certificate that I had already provided and expressed that I would be happy to provide a blood or saliva sample for them to test whether I am carrying the Sars Cov 2 virus. I asked for this direction to be reviewed, given my medical condition and that I did not feel comfortable providing a nasal swab.
Later that day the testing staff arrived at the door of my room, requesting for me to have the nasopharyngeal test. I again explained the situation and drew their attention to the fact that I had asked for a review. They informed me that they would be taking the nasal sample and then two police stepped forward to inform me that if I did not take it they would be holding me for an additional ten days of quarantine, as per the information that I had been given on my arrival at the airport as well as at the quarantine facility. After I had closed the door, a police sargent phoned me from downstairs and also informed me that if I do not provide a nasopharyngeal sample I would need to be held for an additional ten days at the end of my 14 day quarantine.
Over the next few days I was phone repeatedly by Queensland Health staff, harassing me with the threats that I would need to provide the sample via a nasopharyngeal swab test or be held for an addition ten days. On Friday the 11th of June I was again phoned by the Queensland Health staff who now informed me that I would be held for an additional 14 days. When I drew their attention to the fact that they I had previously been told by the police and their staff that it would be ten days, they denied me having been told this.
I checked the paperwork that they had given me on my arrival at the quarantine facility on June 3, as well as the paperwork I had been given by the police at the airport and called them to confirm that the paperwork clearly stated that it would be ten additional days of quarantine. The staff member (Stacy) informed me that this direction had been changed, but would not provide me with any documentation as to when it had been changed, nor a date when it had been changed. (I was later informed by email from the Queensland Health department that the additional quarantine had been changed from ten days to fourteen days on April 23, as quoted below.)
“I note that the information provided to you from the Metro South Hospital and Health Service (MSHHS) which you attached in your email is out of date. The requirement to be quarantined for a further 10 days was increased to 14 days from 23 April 2021 in the (now superseded) Quarantine for International Arrivals Direction (No. 8).”
On June 12 I sent an email to the office of the Health Minister, Yvette D’Ath with concerns about the treatment during my mandatory quarantine and the fact that they were not honouring my medical certificate. On Monday June 14, I was phoned by a staff member from the office of the Health Minster, Gwen, who informed me that the matter was being reviewed by their office.
Over the next few days I was harassed daily with phone calls from the Queensland Health staff, continually informing me that if I did not take the nasopharyngeal test I would be held for an additional fourteen days.
On June 14, I was phoned by Dr Joshua Ginnane from the Metro South Public Health Unit to discuss my situation. He explained that they were unable to honour my medical certificate and that they refused to grant me permission to supply fluids for PCR testing via a saliva or blood sample. He again referred to their belief that the RT-PCR nasopharyngeal test protocol was the ‘gold standard’ of testing for Sars Cov 2, and that the fact that I have already provided one negative sample as well as showing no symptoms of the virus were not important facts in their decision to force me to stay for 28 days in isolation. I found their stance to be most upsetting and that evening I started to research into the RT-PCR test protocol in an attempt to understand why they deemed it to be of such high value in diagnosing asymptomatic people for the virus. Over the next two days, I was able to find a huge amount of information in peer reviewed scientific articles, which formed the basis of a document that I wrote addressed to the Health Minister (and other Australian government parties) in the form of a letter of notice of liability for unlawful detention.
On June 16, I received an email from a Departmental Liaison Officer by the name of Amy (no surname given) from Queensland Health who was replying to the email that I previously sent to you. She confirmed in writing that they have chosen to keep me against my will in hotel quarantine for an additional 14 days following the 14 days that I have already been held in isolation, and that they have waived my right to a blood or saliva test to prove that I am not carrying the Sars Cov 2 virus.
On June 17, I received a ‘Quarantine Direction’ from Benjamin Rochester from the Public Health Department who informed me that I would be held against my will and subjected to a second 14 day quarantine for ‘refusing a PCR test’, despite showing no symptoms of the virus and already having provided one negative saliva test. His ‘Quarantine Direction’ did not make any note of the fact that I was happy to provide saliva or blood sample for PCR testing.
A key element of my letter (sent on June 17) to the Queensland Health Minister was with regard to some serious concerns to the validity of using the RT-PCR test as a diagnostic tool, as well as the validity of forcing someone to do 28 days of quarantine, when they have already provided one negative sample, and are not showing any symptoms of the virus.
To my understanding the basis of the Q.Health department holding me for 28 days in isolation was due to my refusal to undergo the nasopharyngeal swab test, which has been demonstrated to be a highly invasive procedure, with a high likelihood of damaging the sensitive nasal cavity and blood brain barrier area of the body. As someone with acute rhinitis and a medical certificate from my doctor verifying this information, I was both shocked and disappointed that the Queensland Health department were unable to demonstrate any empathy or respect for my medical condition.
In my letter I was able to demonstrate that the Queensland Health department’s confidence in the RT-PCR test as the best and most appropriate diagnostic tool for detecting the presence of the Sars Cov 2 virus was unfounded. My research demonstrated that the RT-PCR test has been scientifically proven to be both inappropriate to be used as a diagnostic tool, and is a flawed testing device.
The information from the document that I provided to the Queensland Health Department is as follows:
Of particular importance is the fact that the RT-PCR test protocol (that is being used worldwide for testing of the Covid 19 virus) was developed using flawed data and methods, solely in reliance upon the article “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” published in Eurosurveillance (January 23rd, 2020).
This article and the RT-PCR testing methods that were developed as a result of the findings in this article, have been proven to be scientifically flawed.
On November 27th, 2020, a consortium of life-science scientists completed an external review of the paper which found it to have 10 major scientific flaws. This review is titled “External peer review of the RTPCR test to detect SAR-CoV-2 reveals 10 major scientific flaws at the molecular and methodological level: consequences for false positive results.” This review (here-on referred to as the Corman-Drosten Review Paper) was co-authored by some of the worlds most respected scientists; Pieter Borger, Bobby Rajesh Malhotra, Michael Yeadon, Clare Craig, Kevin McKernan, Klaus Steger, Paul McSheehy, Lidiya Angelova, Fabio Franchi, Thomas Binder, Henrik Ullrich, Makoto Ohashi, Stefano Scoglio, Marjolein Doesburg-van Kleffens, Dorothea Gilbert, Rainer Klement, Ruth Schruefer, Berber W. Pieksma, Jan Bonte, Bruno H. Dalle Carbonare, Kevin P. Corbett and Ulrike Kammerer.
The article is available here: https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/
Notable quotes from the review paper above, reveal a number of scientific flaws in the “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (which from here-on will be described as the Corman-Drosten paper). I will highlight 3 key areas that the RT-PCR test does not satisfy the scientific requirements of it being an adequate method for detecting whether a person is infected with or is able to transmit the Sar Cov 2 virus into the community.
1. The RT-PCR test was developed without having any actual virus material available.
”The first and major issue is that the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (in the publication named 2019-nCoV and in February 2020 named SARS-CoV-2 by an international consortium of virus experts) is based on in silico (theoretical) sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China , because at the time neither control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 nor isolated genomic RNA of the virus was available to the authors.”
“Nevertheless, these in silico sequences were used to develop a RT-PCR test methodology to identify the aforesaid virus. This model was based on the assumption that the novel virus is very similar to SARS-CoV from 2003 as both are beta-coronaviruses.”
2. The PCR test itself (invented by Kerry Mullis) was never designed to be used as a diagnostic tool because it cannot perform this function. It can only find the presence of tissue without being able to identify if it is living or dead tissue. Hence why the “RT-PCR is not recommended for primary diagnostics of infection. This is why the RT-PCR Test used in clinical routine for detection of COVID-19 is not indicated for COVID-19 diagnosis on a regulatory basis.”
“The fact that these PCR products have not been validated at molecular level is another striking error of the protocol, making any test based upon it useless as a specific diagnostic tool to identify the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”
3. The issue of amplification cycles is another issue with the methodology of using this test as a diagnostic tool. “It should be noted that there is no mention anywhere in the Corman-Drosten paper of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a positive or negative result. These types of virological diagnostic tests must be based on a SOP, including a validated and fixed number of PCR cycles (Ct value) after which a sample is deemed positive or negative. The maximum reasonably reliable Ct value is 30 cycles. Above a Ct of 35 cycles, rapidly increasing numbers of false positives must be expected.” PCR data evaluated as positive after a Ct value of 35 cycles are completely unreliable.
“There should be a Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) available, which unequivocally specifies the above parameters, so that all laboratories are able to set up the identical same test conditions. To have a validated universal SOP is essential, because it facilitates data comparison within and between countries. It is very important to specify all primer parameters unequivocally. We note that this has not been done.”
For your information and consideration, I note an example within Australia where we currently see this effect of the high number of false positives as a result of the high amplification of the RT-PCR test swab results in the laboratory, in Victoria. I have received a document from the Department of Health and Human Services in Victoria that confirms that they are currently testing at 35-40 cycles, which explains why the State is experiencing such a high number of false positives from their testing of the community. Please find this document attached.
In relation to the actual validity of the RT-PCR test being used as a diagnostic tool, the paper outlines three major flaws in the testing protocol:
“The unconfirmed assumption described in the Corman-Drosten paper is that SARS-CoV-2 is the only virus from the SARS-like beta-coronavirus group that currently causes infections in humans. The sequences on which their PCR method is based are in silico sequences, supplied by a laboratory in China , because at the time of development of the PCR test no control material of infectious (“live”) or inactivated SARS-CoV-2 was available to the authors. The PCR test was therefore designed using the sequence of the known SARS-CoV as a control material for the Sarbeco component (Dr. Meijer, co-author Corman-Drosten paper in an email exchange with Dr. Peter Borger) .
All individuals testing positive with the RT-PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, are assumed to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 infections. There are three severe flaws in their assumption. First, a positive test for the RNA molecules described in the Corman-Drosten paper cannot be equated to “infection with a virus”. A positive RT-PCR test merely indicates the presence of viral RNA molecules. As demonstrated under point 1d (above), the Corman-Drosten test was not designed to detect the full-length virus, but only a fragment of the virus. We already concluded that this classifies the test as unsuitable as a diagnostic test for SARS-virus infections.
Secondly and of major relevance, the functionality of the published RT-PCR Test was not demonstrated with the use of a positive control (isolated SARS-CoV-2 RNA) which is an essential scientific gold standard.
Third, the Corman-Drosten paper states:
“To show that the assays can detect other bat-associated SARS-related viruses, we used the E gene assay to test six bat-derived faecal samples available from Drexler et al. […] und Muth et al. […]. These virus-positive samples stemmed from European rhinolophid bats. Detection of these phylogenetic outliers within the SARS-related CoV clade suggests that all Asian viruses are likely to be detected. This would, theoretically, ensure broad sensitivity even in case of multiple independent acquisitions of variant viruses from an animal reservoir.”
This statement demonstrates that the E gene used in RT-PCR test, as described in the Corman-Drosten paper, is not specific to SARS-CoV-2.
As you will find from the quotes I have taken from the paper, and upon reading the full paper, there are 10 clear major scientific flaws with the use of the RT-PCR testing protocol that is currently being used by the Queensland Health department to identify whether a person is carrying the Sars Cov 2 virus.
A guest articleby Howard Steen & Saji Hameed (that is included as an addition to the Corman-Drosten Review Report) makes note of ‘The Consequences of False Positives’, and the following quote from Part 2 (Saji Hameed) is pertinent to my situation: “In the literature of PCR testing, it is known that there are many dangers, such as operational false positives that can lead to misinterpretation of the test results. For this reason, it is recommended by Kurkela et al.  that PCR should only ever be used in tandem with a clinical diagnosis of infection based on symptoms.” In my case this has not been done, given that I have no symptoms whatsoever, and the reliance on ONLY the RT-PCR test as a diagnostic tool demonstrates the inadequacy and incompetency of the testing protocols provided by the Queensland Health Department.
In relation to PCR testing of asymptomatic people, I also draw your attention to a quote from an interview from 2014, with the virologist Christian Drosten, who was one of the co-authors of the Corman-Drosten paper, and who is the creator of the RT-PCR test protocol that is currently being used by the Queensland Health department. This interview is found here: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/mers-virologists-view-saudi-arabia
“Q: You’re saying these people should not have been tested at all?
C.D.: During the  SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] outbreak, there was a strict case definition. People who had had contact with SARS patients but showed no symptoms were not tested with PCR. Instead they were tested for antibodies later, to see if an infection had happened. That should happen now in Saudi Arabia, too. Asymptomatic people should not be tested with PCR.”
Another assertion that the Queensland Health department have used as a basis for their insistence on the use of the nasal swab as the primary testing protocol for the Sars Cov 2 virus is that saliva is not a sensitive and viable sample to be used for testing. However, in contrast to this assertion, a paper published in Nature.com, on February 4, 2021, of a study titled “Saliva is more sensitive than nasopharyngeal or nasal swabs for diagnosis of asymptomatic and mild COVID-19 infection”, (which I have included a copy of with this letter) came to the following conclusion: “We found saliva to be a sensitive and viable sample for COVID-19 diagnosis.”
Additionally, I call into question the scientific validity of keeping someone isolated for an extra 14 days after they have already provided one negative sample, have already completed a 14 day quarantine, and are showing no symptoms of the virus. (This would take the total time of forced isolation to a period of 28 days which is well beyond what the WHO and CDC recommends even for someone who has actually tested positive and is moderately ill with the virus, of which I am not.) I draw your attention to a peer reviewed paper that was published on the Oxford Academic website under Clinical Infectious Diseases, Volume 72, Issue 8, 15 April, 2021. “Duration of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infectivity: When Is It Safe to Discontinue Isolation?” (Available here: https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/8/1467/5896916)
The article discusses when it is safe to discontinue isolation for a patient who is showing symptoms and has delivered a positive test result for the Sars Cov 2 virus. I note again, that I have already provided one negative test result and I am not showing any symptoms. I quote information from the article as follows:
”WHO and CDC have modified their recommendations in response to data indicating that infectivity decreases to essentially zero after about 10 days from symptom onset in mild-moderately ill patients and after about 15 days in critically ill and immunocompromised patients, with a maximum reported interval thus far of 20 days.” Considering that I have not at any time shown any symptoms for the virus during my time in quarantine, and have already provided one negative test result on the second day of quarantine, I can see no scientific validity in holding me for a further 14 days.
In conclusion, I am putting you under notice of liability that I have provided you with evidence that the RT-PCR test protocol is not scientifically viable to be used as a diagnostic tool, that saliva is a viable and sensitive fluid for PCR testing, and that forcing me to remain in quarantine is neither scientifically justified and is unlawful under the constitution. I am putting you on notice of malfeasance for damages of income lost and stress caused to me as a result of not allowing me to provide a blood or saliva sample for testing, and being unlawfully detained from returning to my home.
The notice of liability letter was served upon the Queensland Health Minister and other government parties on June 17, and as of this date (apart from receiving auto-generated email replies of receipt of the letter), I have heard no reply from any of the parties of whom the letter was sent to.