On June 20 I sent Dr Warrington a draft letter with a very detailed description of my symptoms and observations and why I thought they were specifically linked to piezo-electrical biomedical implants. Dr Warrington still had not asked me any questions about the archive of evidence I’d organized.
Two weeks later, on July 4, Dr Warrington responded with his own version for me to comment on. I sent him requested revisions of his letter later in the day on July 4, and on July 5 emailed a revised version of his letter with some of my requested revisions.
Generally I think that Dr Warrington’s letter, even with my revisions, was significantly watered down and less persuasive. It was not the type of support that I was looking for, and the way my medical records look from this period of time also supports the idea that he is constantly spinning this as an emotional, rather than a physical issue. I “perceive” that I’m being assaulted, not that I’ve reported and showed evidence of a biomedical assault.
Dr Warrington reported that he sent the email to the list of biomedical researchers on July 6. He did not cc me. He suggested we wait something like “a couple of weeks” to send the same letters in the mail (my idea had been send both emails and letters out simultaneously). When I asked in July 7 if he’d included my revisions, he said yes, he thought maybe he changed “one word” but it was basically the same. When he later sent me the version he emailed, I saw he’d also left out the sentence at the end inviting researchers to contact me directly. The email list was six individuals at two different academic institutions.
After some time, Dr Warrington reported no responses to the email, and so I asked him to send the letters by mail, individually. On July 23 he reported that he mailed the letters. I was trying to get him to document all of this within my medical record itself – what the content of the letter was and when, how and to whom the letter was sent. But sometime around July 26, without prior notice, Dr Warrington took a leave of absence. He was originally scheduled to return in late August, but that was then switched to November, and last I heard no one is sure when he is returning. Other providers at the clinic say I have to “wait” for Dr Warrington if I want to pursue putting this documentation into my medical records.
My hope had been that Dr Warrington would have contacted each researcher individually by name, put more precise documentation into the letter (like I had done in my first draft), and include a stronger call to action which also would have given me agency (they could respond to me personally) – rather than this general inquiry addressed to “colleagues.”
The salutation of “colleagues” in and of itself puzzles me slightly. To me, the word “colleagues” would imply that they are all working in the same field, if not at the same institution, yet the recipients are all biomedical researchers and lab techs at academic institutions. I don’t think a single one of them was a medical doctor.
Dr Warrington also left out the sentence about Providence not possessing the proper equipment to do the assessments I’ve been asking for. This is in fact what I’ve been told by him and other doctors at Providence: that there is literally no way for them to do wireless frequency detection of this type. That their lack of ability to help properly assess the situation is entirely due to lack of available technology and expertise. While I find this difficult to believe, it’s what I’ve been told by more than one provider. It helps explain why a medical doctor would be sending inquiries of this sort to college professors. So if that is in fact the truth, why isn’t that detail included in the letter?