Dear [name],

RE: PCR testing at work

I am a [job role] at your company, and am in receipt of correspondence from you stating I must receive regular PCR testing in order to retain my employment and avoid disciplinary action.

I take my health very seriously - as I am sure all of us do at the current time - and always give very careful consideration to any medical decisions I make, including deciding whether to consent to medical testing. Having researched the PCR test at length, I do not wish to receive this test, and this is for the following reasons:

In the first instance, the PCR test is an extremely unreliable indicator of the presence of active viral infection. In fact, the PCR test was never intended to be used to detect viral disease at all, and its inventor, Nobel-prize winning scientist, Kary Mullis, specifically stipulated it should never be used for these purposes, since the test is only able to detect genetic sequences of viruses, and not viruses themselves. As the human body is full of viral genetic sequences, then, as Mullis clarified, "anybody can test positive for anything with the PCR. It doesn't tell you that you're sick" (1).

The PCR test works by amplifying results many times. If they are amplified less than about 30 times, nobody will test positive. If they are amplified more than 60, everyone will. Therefore, a positive PCR test result is ultimately clinically meaningless. 

It is important to note that using PCR test technology to falsely diagnose viral illness is not a new phenomenon. In the USA in 2007, a pertussis epidemic was falsely declared on the basis of PCR testing. Nearly a year later, the entire episode was declared a false alarm, since not a single case of pertussis was confirmed with the definitive test, growing the bacterium, Bordetella pertussis, in the laboratory. Instead, it appears the individuals who tested positive on the PCR were probably afflicted with ordinary respiratory diseases like the common cold. According to epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists, this episode occurred because too much faith was placed in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test - the PCR test - that led them astray.

Reflecting on the situation, Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.

"The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives," Dr. Petti said. "No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on PCR." (2)

Further compounding my concerns about PCR testing is the method by which the tests are administered. The insertion of a swab far up the nasal cavity is an extremely invasive experience, the thought of which not only causes me significant anxiety and distress, but which is documented to be potentially dangerous. Media reports have detailed cases of the nasal swab penetrating the blood-brain barrier and causing brain fluid to leak (3), and there are also reports of the swabs being contaminated due to inadequate quality controls (4).

Of further grave concern are the deeply alarming news reports issued in November 2021 that PCR testing companies are using their test kits to harvest and sell human DNA, with neither the explicit fore-knowledge nor informed consent of test subjects. The Telegraph newspaper reports that:

"A leading Covid-19 testing firm is planning to sell swabs containing customer’s DNA, prompting an investigation from the UK’s data privacy watchdog.

Cignpost Diagnostics, a government-approved supplier trading as Express Test, said it will analyse samples to sell the information to third parties, company documents have revealed.

The company claimed it will also use the medical data to "learn more about human health" and develop new drugs and products, the Sunday Times reported." (5)

I certainly am not prepared to be involved in any scheme which involves my DNA being recorded, analysed, and sold by any companies, and I would never consent to participating in any exercise where this was a material risk. Clearly, this is a very real and substantial risk where it comes to PCR testing, which therefore further underlines my unwillingness to consent to this testing regime.

Having taken legal advice on this situation, I am advised that my rights to decline medical testing without being discriminated against or penalised as a result are protected by domestic and international human rights law, including UNESCO's Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which states at Article 6, section 1:

"Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice." (6)

With the above in mind, I look forward to receiving your prompt written acknowledgement that no further pressure will be exerted upon me to receive PCR testing as a condition of my continued employment.

Yours sincerely,

[Name]

References:

1. https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/05/pcr-inventor-it-doesnt-tell-you-that-you-are-sick/
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html
3. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-swab-test-womans-nose-brain-leaked-a4562066.html
4. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/coronavirus-lab-testing-kits-contamination-false-positives-delay-a9472601.html
5. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/11/14/covid-test-firm-sell-swabs-carrying-customers-dna/
6. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html