Dear Mr Ferbrache

I write this letter with a burning conviction that I have never experienced in my 27 year professional career as a doctor, which has motivated me to relate my views regarding the public health proceedings that have unfolded over the past 18 months.

I understand that in your position time is at a premium. However, I urge from the outset that you carefully consider the statements and recommendations below. I am one of a growing previously silent group of medical professionals, businesspeople and well meaning individuals, who up to now have been willing to give the 'team in charge' of the pandemic the benefit of doubt when we were faced with many unknowns. However, the material facts relating to the core issues are now known and many untruths have subsequently been exposed.

At present, we all face a crossroads in our lives due to the clear and imminent danger of our freedoms and values being permanently and irreversibly expunged. I make this profound statement for the following reasons:

The proposed use of lockdowns and travel restrictions which were stated to be transient initially in March 2020 to 'flatten the curve' are clearly going to be maintained by the incumbents as there is clear evidence of back tracking from the initial limited lockdown for a finite purpose, resulting in the destruction of many businesses, personal lives, and avoidable deaths through suicide and the delaying of critical medical and mental care. Urgent decisive action is required by yourself and the Civil Contingencies Authority to permanently move away from the use of travel restrictions, vaccine passports and lockdowns. In short, the emergency status needs to be rescinded. Travel should be a allowed with a health questionnaire and temperature check either upon departure, en route or on arrival. Those with a positive finding should be offered a medical opinion as to whether further investigation is required. We now have excellent treatment for early and late disease as well as a significant portion of the population vaccinated or having prior immunity.

Covid 19, while a potentially lethal virus to some people with underlying health issues, is not the pandemic that it was made out to be by the so-called leading establishment epidemiologists across the world. The average infection mortality rate is only 0.2% for the whole population, yet these 'leaders' have failed us all and caused more harm through their obsessive, pessimistic and highly inaccurate modelling. Prior to 2020, the world lived with the coronavirus and its mutations with good and bad years, as we did with influenza and other respiratory viruses. We humans live in a constantly evolving mutating environment, a carefully balanced ecosystem, that despite the attentions of epidemiologists over the last 50 years has resulted in who we are, and the planet around us. I do not believe public health has a role or responsibility towards human evolution and more importantly the evolution of my personal cultivated ecosystem, the microbiome in which you, me and every individual thrives.

The coronavirus-19 is a mutation of an endemic virus and it will continue to mutate and evolve as all viruses do. If we allow ourselves to be misled into believing the mainstream mantra then the world as we know it will be controlled by a bio-security state backed by a small group of unelected unaccountable elite globalists and their foot soldiers.

The CCA has been led without interruption by a medical team of Dr Brink (a virologist) with support from Dr Rabey (an anaesthetist). They have been backed up by a 'medical cell' with representation across medical specialities. I have huge admiration of the CCA's efforts from the start and during the initial phase, in particular for Dr Brink's dedication and tenacity of approach to the outbreak. I have however realised that I need to voice my concerns, and my writing therefore is not to praise the many valiant efforts over the past 18 months but rather to focus upon the future. I feel that now is an appropriate time to review where we are headed. There has been an absence of open debate regarding the policies that have been implemented. I have been concerned from the start of this pandemic that there was no-one with real world clinical experience of dealing with patients with respiratory infections included at a top level. In addition the CCA and the medical leadership appear to have committed themselves to a policy that gives no exit from the current core strategy of viral variant/PCR test/"virus detection wave"/lockdown/repeat.

I as a General Physician responsible for the care of hospitalized covid patients have felt my views have not been given a fair hearing for the following reasons.

I emailed Dr Brink on 27 March 2020 explaining my concerns that I felt a total lockdown was unnecessary due to the clear evidence for the pivotal early data from the quarantined cruise ship the Princess Diamond where there were 10 deaths out of a total of 712 patients who were infected giving an infection mortality rate of 1.4% . The average age of those that died was circa 75-78. I recommended based upon these data we should use a policy of focused protection and isolate the ill and those at high risk of from covid-19 mortality and morbidity. I had no response. While I can understand at that time she was very busy I felt that a response to that email should have been made as it was a serious enquiry from an experienced general physician.

At Dr Brink's first presentation at an academic half day in the summer of 2020 I enquired what she thought of the Swedish approach to the viral outbreak. She had no real answer but dismissed their response out of hand, making mention that she would come back to it later. She never did but since then the final analysis of the Swedish approach has shown it to be the correct one with age standardised mortality ratio in 2020 being no different than the mean of the previous five years. In addition, at the peak of the pandemic with schools open and no masks, there was zero child mortality out of a total of 1.8million school children.

It became clear later in autumn of 2020 that the PCR test upon which the management of covid was built had serious flaws. I requested information from the head of pathology at the Princess Elizabeth Hospital as to the accuracy of the covid-19 PCR test. He specifically replied that the cycle threshold (CT) for the Guernsey tests were <38 and 40. A freedom of information request in 2021 on this matter sates that the CT being used is 40 and 45. There is now clear evidence that a CT above 30 is detecting background noise and not that of live viable virus. The inventor of the PCR technique Kary Mullis (Nobel prize winner) stated clearly that if you cutoff the upper limit at 20 everybody will be negative and at 50 everyone would be positive. On 21 May 2021 I requested from Paul Sutton that my personal PCR test results are listed on my medical record with the CT value used and the false positive and negative rates for the particular test used, but I received no reply.The PCR test must not be used alone to diagnose covid or indeed exclude covid. Guernsey has run many covid PCR tests the majority of which were done without the required clinical assessment.

There has been no recognition that immunity from coronavirus infection is long lasting. There are papers showing T cell immunity from patients 17 years after the outbreak of SARS 2004 (80% shared genes with covid-19) and similar papers now show that covid-19 recovered patients have excellent immunity too. There is good evidence that the background level of T cell immunity against covid 19 in the UK is 26%. There are now two validated T cell tests currently available, one from Oxford Immunotec (CE marked) at a cost of £65 per test and another from Adaptive Biotechnologies in the USA (FDA validation March 05 2021). Despite the above factors, for unknown reasons it appears that patients in Guernsey who have just recovered from covid have been pushed to have the vaccination which has no scientific validation while T cell testing has been ignored as a strategy to determine people who are immune and do not require the vaccine. I have aired my concerns at the physicians' meetings but have not received satisfactory explanation for the policy.

At the departmental physicians' meeting, I voiced my concerns that the strategy of the CCA, by relying on a poor PCR test, will result in perpetual lockdown due to what is known as a case-demic. With a low viral load in the population of 1.3% but a false positive rate that is 2.3% between 60% -70% of the results in the UK were in fact false positives ie 2.6-2.9 million of the 4.3 million positive tests. My physician colleagues agreed with my interpretation. I asked that my findings be submitted to the medical cell for comment and feedback.

At the last academic half day presentation from Dr Brink I challenged her about the false positive rate and its dire effect on tests accuracy when the incidence of the virus in the community being tested is low. To my surprise Dr Brinks reply was completely incorrect in that she stated that the false positive rate would have very little effect. I am seeking a meeting with Dr Brink to get her clear views on this matter as a priority.

I have over the last few months realised that the vaccination policy is flawed for the following reasons:

The strategy of vaccinating all subjects is unheralded and not necessary. Only people at risk require the vaccine as covid-19 poses a very low risk to healthy people. We have never mandated vaccinating the whole population for influenza, so why vaccinate the healthy for covid?

The vaccines have little long term safety data and have emergency use authorisation. We should never offer these vaccines to children or pregnant women. The safety data for these subjects will take much longer than that for a 75yr + person.

I have over the last few months seen increasing signals of major vaccine side effects which I have been reporting to the authorities and the physicians' group. I have written to the MHRA and the GMC to express my concerns. It is clear that these data are not reaching you. This includes two cases of myocardial infarction (incontrovertible proof of cause and effect), one serious myocarditis, one cardiovascular collapse requiring critical care admission, two cases of headache and mild neurological impairment with a severely raised d-dimer, one severe stroke and one case of large pulmonary embolism. I strongly believe there is a signal of damage to the cardiovascular system from the current vaccines. In addition, we have seen inexplicable increase in the number of infections of the heart valve over the last six months to six cases while we normally see one case every 12-18 months. You can rest assured I have and will be raising my concerns about these issues with Dr Rabey and Dr Brink.

The current Pfizer and AZ vaccines have emergency use authorisation and have incomplete phase two and three trials, due to complete in 2022 and 2023. When the trial data was submitted to the MHRA to enable their emergency use authorisation in late 2020, it would have been incumbent upon the drug company to inform the placebo group subjects of the potential benefit and offer them the vaccine. In addition over the last few months there has been a major drive towards vaccination of the whole population irrespective of the risk that covid poses to those subjects. In effect this means that the placebo group in these studies has been severely depleted meaning the power of the study to detect side effects has been severely reduced. Considering the high take up of the vaccine in the UK, it is highly likely that these safety data have been completely invalidated.

This major failing of the safety studies taken together with the ineffectiveness of the MHRA and the yellow card scheme in being able to actually determine vaccine attributable safety signals means it is incumbent upon me to draw these failings to the General Medical Council.

As things stand I believe the de facto failure of vaccine phase two and three studies, together with the MHRA's inability to compensate for this crucial loss of study patient safety data effectively means that the process of informed consent (where these vaccines are stated to be safe) for the subjects of the covid-19 vaccination programme is null and void. As such it appears that any doctor and healthcare worker employed in the current covid-19 vaccine programme is in breach of Domain Two of the General Medical Council where a doctor must respond to risks to patient safety and contribute and comply to systems to protect patients.

As the vital safety data for the phase two and three covid trials has been invalidated by the mandatory vaccination programme, the current use of the vaccines now constitutes a medical experiment.

Patients being given the vaccine must be informed of this vital fact, as well as their rights under the Nuremberg Code.

In closing you may be aware I have been closely involved with patient care as a General Physician in the management of the covid outbreak at the PEH site, but more importantly I have been analysing the impact of the CCA strategy and have serious concerns that I do feel require further discussion. I am sure you will have further questions which I will embrace with the fervour that motivates me to seek resolution to the impasse. Finally I wish to express to you that this letter in no way should be misconstrued as a criticism of any particular person or committee, but rather it is my assessment of how we can move forward as an island to a prosperous future.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Dean Patterson
Consultant General Physician & Cardiologist
The Medical Specialist Group and Princess Elizabeth Hospital

---

A copy of Dr Patterson's original letter is reproduced below. 

The MSG, PEH Medical Director and Deputy Peter Ferbrache refute most of the concerns raised in Dr Patterson's letter and their comments are reported HERE.

Express' interview with Dr Patterson after receiving the letter is reported HERE.