Letter One

Ms. Alison McGinn

381 Harewood Road
Bishopdale
Christchurch
Thursday, 11th March 2010

Dear Ms. McGinn,

Thankyou for your phone call earlier today. The phone was on a diverted line and as
a result it cut off after 15 minutes. I was unable to contact you by phone after that so I am
dropping you a quick note to summarise where we had got to.
1.

I understand that your landlords Neil and Irene Jacks have issued you with a three
month eviction notice on the basis of some damage they have found in the property at
381 Harewood Road which you rent off them. You have also suggested that the property
is held in a trust in which your husband or ex-husband has some involvement.
2.

You have also suggested that your husband/ex-husband was an employee of

Canterbury District Health Board (CDHB) and you have some on-going issues with him
and CDHB. You also mentioned the name of Mr. Greg Brogden, the corporate solicitor of
CDHB, who you say has some involvement in this issue. You have suggested that you
cannot take you problem to the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC) because Mr.
Brogden has some professional involvement with HDC office.
3.

You also claimed that Christchurch City Council workers visited your home in
March and were abusive which, you said, was witnessed by your neighbours.
4.

You also expressed displeasure with my previous letters to you which outlined how
you could apply to the tenancy tribunal if you had concerns about your rental property
and/or your relationship with your landlord. You said you considered this not to be taking
enough interest in your case and described my behaviour as cowardly. However, you
acknowledged that you had not applied to the tenancy tribunal. Moreover, I am still
waiting for you to let me know who your GP is, which we had agreed was the next
important step in resolving your health issues.
5.

You pointed out today that you believe that your mail is being intercepted even
when you delivered letters by hand, that I cannot understand how this could happen, and
for this reason you have not written to me as you believe any letter you sent would be
intercepted. You were not clear who was intercepting your mail.
6.

You claimed to have a lawyer acting for you (which you describe as international
by which I understand that this woman works overseas) who is taking your case because,
you claim, the justice system in New Zealand will not help you.
7.

You have previously remarked to me that you consider there is a conspiracy against
you which involves your ex-husband, the Canterbury District Health Board, the Police,
the Christchurch City Council and the Health & Disability Commissioners Office. You
reiterated that you and your daughter were unwell because of a problem with the house.
8.

I am aware that you were visited by an ex-colleague of yours called Martin Gledhill
who you engaged to check your house for radiation, as you believed that this may have
been a cause of the poor health you and your daughter are experiencing. Mr Gledhill
carried out some tests in March and reported to the Christchurch City Council (CCC) that
he could find no evidence of radiation at your home. Moreover, he did not find any
evidence of mould, which had also suggested may be causing your illness.
9.

I understand that you have also considered mercury poisoning in your calls to
Graeme Pulley at the CCC, but you have not been able to produce any blood results
which indicate abnormal mercury levels or other possible toxins.
10.

In a previous phone call with me, you told me that you were convinced that the
source of the problem was your water supply. When I pointed out that you are on the
reticulated city water supply which is regularly tested and for which there have been no
reported problems you said that you thought your particular supply was being
deliberately poisoned, but you did not know who was doing it or how they were doing it.
11.

You have not told me who your doctor is, so I have not been able to discuss the
presentation of your symptoms and any test results you may have had.
12.

As previously explained, I have no authority to act on your behalf with the City
Council (or anyone else) except where there is a health issue. As explained to you
previously, I would need to discuss your health (in confidence) with your doctor. You
have yet to indicate who your doctor is.
13.

I remain concerned about your health, particularly your level of anxiety, which has
been noted by a number of people who have had contact with you. It is very important
that you enrol with a skilled GP whom you trust as your health situation is complicated. It
goes without saying that your GP should not be a relative.
14.

I recommend that you taken any issues with your landlords to the tenancy tribunal, and
my previous offer to support you with respect to any health issues still stands.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Alistair R. G. Humphrey MPH FAFPHM FRACGP
Medical Officer of Health (Canterbury)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------reply, Letter Two

July 2010
Dr. Alistair Humphrey
Medical Officer of Health, Canterbury
Community & Public Health
cc. Ministry of Health; Canterbury District Health Board;
Christchurch City Council, Head of Environmental Health

Dear Dr. Humphrey,

I refer to your letter dated 11th March.
Note this letter on Ministry of Health letterhead (previously C&PH and CDHB).
We cleared our letterbox end of first week of June and know this letter to have arrived
after that date. Thus begin by refuting the date and origin of your letter, supported by
further comments in this reply.
I consider the language you use to be emotive and ridiculing, in short the letter to be
nothing short of bullying and intimidating in its attempt to scare us in to inaction. A
determination to distance yourself from a scandalous situation, of which you have
become more fully aware since my approach to Ministry of Health and you, early March.
Even reasons for writing are inexplicable, we were not cut off nor re-directed, we
completed our conversation. I rang to inform you of further recent happenings regarding
Christchurch City Councils continued refusal to act and subsequent consequences of
inaction by authorities following my initial call to you first week of March. Your initial
response a genuine expression of surprise and concern. I then ended the call.
One wonders why you are so clearly unwilling to speak directly and committedly on
phone (after our initial call, when you clearly explained landlord and councils
responsibility and that you would instruct accordingly), yet so keen to formalise in a
letter with such inaccuracies and rubbish.

That you make mention in your letter, of information which I have never given you,
shows clear breach of confidentiality and privacy and a determination to align yourself
with others perpetuating an inaccurate picture devoid of any facts.
I note that your letter arrived directly after a visit I made to Christchurch Hospital
Emergency Department 10th June.
I very reluctantly but urgently presented with clear symptoms of acute infection
following deteriorating health portrayed to you in initial call
Heart Rate
100-112 bpm

Temperature 35-35.9

Rigors with very hot, flushed face

Pain across left shoulder and down upper left arm

Crackling, congestion of lungs and discoloured sputum

Swollen left hand side of face

After blood and urine sample taken I was turned away, told nothing wrong.
At no time during visit did I get the usual work up, as with others.
I remained in observation cubicle only.
The attending doctor, Dr. Chris Hill, did not listen to chest or heart, did not use
stethoscope at all and proceeded only to test my reflexes with hammer, saying everything
normal. This despite Nurse Marlene taking vital signs on arrival (clearly displayed to us).
When I asked why he would not even listen to my lungs etc., he replied Oh I think we
have exhausted all possibilities of infection. He was unwilling to give me an antibiotic
despite us sitting in a cubicle next door to others who were standardly being scripted with
Augmentin for possible infection. His response to my swollen face was I dont know
you, despite obvious asymmetry.
At home I continued to deteriorate and Dr. Oxner suggested ECG and chest X-ray on
return to Emergency Department. Notes from previous visit hours earlier were left with
us. None of the symptoms with which I had presented and had been recorded were
subsequently recorded on my chart, excluding pain down left arm. Vital signs were
recorded inaccurately and there were no discharge notes written as was noted and queried
by new triage nurse. After several ECGs taken (doctor said normal and no sign of
thyrotoxicosis as suggested by Dr. Oxner) we were told this is an emergency department
for life and death situations only and that there would be no chest X-ray or thyroid
function done (even on blood already sampled).
My daughter was present throughout consultations.
Lack of improvement overnight meant needed to seek further help, at least to begin
antibiotic for symptoms clearly indicative of pleurisy/pneumonia (having held at least
two bouts previously).
Was difficult to find someone to see me, even a previous family doctor I have visited
infrequently but when necessary.
Dr. Ed Simpson would not see but rather chose to speak to me in adjacent room via his
nurse, despite having no patient present (arrived as I departed). Fortunately he prescribed

antibiotic and within hours symptoms improved; rigors ceased, temperature and heart rate
returned to normal.
Attempts to make a complaint through department led to long lengthy delays on phone
whilst being connected, reconnected to whom knows. Noticed by us both, without even
introduction to operator/reception is aware of who I am. When queried, suggest they
know my voice, despite acknowledged change of staff since my visit.
Clearly I have had independent testing of sputum and urine taken same day, justifying
necessity for treatment.
The following refers to tabulated statements in your letter which clearly comes penned
with at least the collaboration of Christchurch City Council personnel, such ridiculous
mistruths and misconstrues of the facts is appalling.
1. As stated earlier, our call was not diverted. I spoke with you until end of
conversation. Your necessity to formalise in a letter is curious given such inaccuracies.
2. Landlords are Jack Trust, i.e. Neil and Irene (parents), David and Graeme (sons).
Graeme instructed some years ago that I was to deal with he only. It appears that much of
our communication is unknown to other trust members. I have knowledge of and
concerns over Graeme Jacks involvement and motives. Both David and Graeme
acknowledge house in family trust as all recent communication confirms.
I acknowledge damage to base of some veneer doors as done by ex-partner (one) and
daughter many years ago during stressful school times. It has always been our expressed
intent to fix doors before leaving.
Graeme and David have been in house several times over period of eleven years we have
rented from them. We have even discussed repair with another Jack family member
tradesman; i.e. spoke to Mark Jack (out of work due to injury) near end of 2009. He was
keen to have the money and was to get back to us after Christmas break with
arrangements convenient to him. The Jacks have suggested eight doors badly damaged.
Four only damaged, rest standard wear and tear (as inspected). Photographs were taken
by Jacks close to damage without frame of door for context.
Similar damage to door by Jack family before we moved in was repaired by placing small
piece of veneer over damage, yet they insist we replace all eight doors and have written
quote for $4000.
Law states house be returned to original, allowing for normal wear and tear. Jacks have
also demanded that they have possession of doors we replace. We have a requirement to
keep as evidence of wear and tear.
Since our eleven years in house, kitchen and bathroom painted. There has been very little
upkeep in house. Much done by us at own expense when landlords unresponsive. The
house is overall in state of disrepair.
I have never stated to anyone ex-partner has some involvement in landlord trust. Though
is an interesting thought, given knowledge of rent returns. I have, however, stated David

Oxner has his own relationship with members of Jack family- exclusive of our
association.
3. Ex-partner of 20 years, Dr. David Oxner has been employed by Canterbury District
Health Board (Emergency Department, Christchurch Hospital) for most of last ten years.
I enclose correspondence with Mr. Greg Brogden, indicating sour relationship I have had
with many CDHB staff (especially colleagues of Davids in Emergency Department) to
my initial bewilderment and concern. Consequently became my policy to make as little
contact with David during his working hours, such was the rude and belittling response.
David has his own social life with colleagues and we as his family were always excluded.
We came to accept without question our exclusion from everything.
Mr. Greg Brogden (solicitor for CDHB) contacted me last year when I began making
enquiries about a malicious result placed in my medical records (I enclose relevant
correspondence). Mr. Brogden rang and requested I speak to him only on the matter and
requested I send him relevant information. Information included both mine and
daughters medical consultation results and reporting of such, showing extent of
erroneous and dishonest treatment from CDHB employees.
After expressing my concerns at the lack of transparency and the requirement for keeping
quiet, Mr. Brogden did suggest I could speak to the Health and Disabilities Commission.
It was acknowledged very early by laboratory staff and evident compared with previous
records that, though false malicious result was reported in 1999, it had been very recently
placed in my records.
I had requested recent results of daughters and mine and found it to be included, all
placed in letterbox by Dr. Oxner.
I received no further communication with Mr. Brogden for several months. With concern,
made contact. He seemed surprised I had received nothing as had requested staff member
at CDHB Laboratories to write. He said he did not wish to talk, but rather I should write.
I did eventually receive a letter stating record had been removed from all sources, i.e.
Medlab (Christchurch), Canterbury District Health Board Laboratories & Hospital and
Capital Coast Hospital (Wellington)- where apparently I had visited. I have never been a
visitor inpatient or outpatient to any medical facility in Wellington.
Mr. Brogden did not acknowledge any correspondence.
Mr. Brogdens own CV, as seen on Canterbury District Health Board website, states
clearly he also works for Health and Disabilities Commission.
4. Christchurch City Council workers were directed to our home by you. Process put in
place to inspect mould/fungi and water after initial discussion with you.
Bruce Chisholm (CCC) arrived at gate unannounced as we were leaving Tuesday 10th
March. Tentatively rearranged visit for Thursday 12th March but said would ring first.
Wednesday morning Martin Gledhill and NRI colleague arrived on doorstep for prearranged visit, they were closely followed by Graham Pulley and Bruce Chisholm (CCC)
whom I could clearly not see at same time. Mr. Chisholm acknowledged Thursday
arrangement and asked is this not Thursday?. He was immediately pounced on by Mr.

Pulley saying dont say anything else, dont speak to her. Mr. Pulley was very rude and
aggressive and said he would not come back. I made no mention of neighbours, but rather
was witnessed by those present in my home, as doors were open to next room.
Last mid-year (09) I approached council and spoken to Graham Pulley about possible
mercury contamination in water and house. I had received blood test results to show had
above normal levels of mercury and other heavy metals present. Advised by Medical
Officer of Health, Mr. Warmsley, to have urine mercury test to differentiate between
intrinsic or environmental contamination. Initial urine result came back low within
normal parameters. Daughters result was somehow lost in system. After several weeks of
requests, daughters result arrived normal and repeat send of my previous normal result
now showed elevated (same sample).
Mr. Pulley gave me his card and asked for twenty-four hours to make enquiries, told me
not to do anything and would ring next day.
He never rang and attempts to contact him via Christchurch City Council and messages
on his cellphone were ignored.
It is of concern that again Mr. Pulley is being obstructive and evasive. Earlier samples of
our water is shown to be contaminated, but again when samples to test were taken to
council, Mr. Pulley refused them saying they would take their own. This despite woman
at counter saying usual to send to laboratories and protocol followed, i.e. clean
containers, fresh samples in preservative as provided by Hills Laboratories. No samples
have been taken by council to date.
There clearly is a determination to avoid any standard procedures for health and safety,
especially water. Clearly determined to prevent exposure of the serious contamination
that has affected our home environment. Soil is contaminated; unable to grown
vegetables as have for years. No fruit on trees for last few years (despite thriving at
neighbours immediately over fence). Clear fungus on any plants watered by hand, i.e.
under verandah.
Has become apparent Mr. Pulley as Christchurch City Council representative and
landlords have their own agenda for stance they have taken, i.e.

refusal to undertake any of standard sampling and testing of our environment

unlawful eviction from our home of eleven years

5. My expressed displeasure with your previous letter is the irresponsibility of
suggesting we simply leave our home. The tone of this letter was at odds with your
advice and support in initial phone call. Then you showed concern and explained the
process- instruction to CCC to inspect property. Landlord contacted and given ten days to
present solution, then approximately period of forty-two days to repair.
I have had legal advice regarding tenancy/eviction laws. Letter evicting us on grounds
landlords have used is unlawful.
However Christchurch City Council and landlords seem comfortable and determined in
this instance to bend all rules for their own protection.
May remind you that for the sake of relationship with landlords we had for many years
spoken to them about state of house.

There has been the occasional inspection but never times made to carry out repairs.
Repairs undertaken in spare time outside usual work, never treated urgently and often
ignored, requiring many awkward requests again not followed up.
We hoped that inspection and instruction from other authorities would afford us some
protection. After Christchurch City Councils unannounced arrival at our house and
refusal to return they made contact with landlords then rang independently, asking to
inspect areas I had mentioned. Again I consider gross breach of confidentiality at this
stage. Mrs. Jack senior said how dare you go behind our backs. She was uninformed of
any of the calls/appeals I had made to Graeme Jack (whom we were asked to deal with
only), as were other members of the family. Landlords inspected upstairs bathroom;
obvious dampness, mould and mildew requiring stripping of room. After attempting to
bring to their attention over years, we had sealed off bathroom and not in use.
Much electrical wiring required safety checks and disconnecting. Hissing and droplets of
water in light sockets, bulbs blowing/shattering when partially used.
Areas of dampness to batts in ceiling space particularly on east side of house. Inspection
by David and son Steve Jack (used by family trust to maintain property) saw
acknowledgement that east side of house damp. Spouting fitted incorrectly and in times
of torrential rain, water flowed back into house rather than downpipes. David Jack said
council supposed to have inspected at time of building by Graeme Jack and that blame
lay with lam, however he said council had insisted personnel involved were no longer
employed by Christchurch City Council.
David and Steve said would get back to us regarding time, repairs etc. following a trust
meeting. I in turn assured them would no longer pursue official channels to get work
done, i.e. formalising with ten days notice. Instead received text message from Graeme
Jack suggesting we check letterbox, where found eviction notice because of damage to
doors.
No mention was made of repairs or follow-up. We were flabbergasted at the blatant
determination to smokescreen the real issue of state of disrepair and health concerns.
Clearly the council and Jacks are colluding to protect themselves.
Damage to doors was done seven to eight years ago when daughter was early primary
school age.
We have on multiple occasions made reference to the damage and our intention to repair.
We have even had Jack family members (09) measure doors for repair.
Over the years Jacks were happy to accept our assurances doors would be fixed, until
they required a necessity to evict.
It seems extraordinary you would consider I should be comfortable allowing discussion
between you and GP.
I have never met you and given patient-doctor privacy, would expect all communication
to be via me or at least in my presence.
I have not until recent times required medical practitioner, excluding prescriptions for
inhalers and thyroxine; Dr. Oxner has acted in that capacity under his own advice.

6. I accurately stated that mail has been forwarded to several parties regarding our
situation and has not been received. I have even delivered by hand to Mr. Brogdens place
of work and found information not delivered to him personally, but intercepted.
I have also replied to your initial correspondence, stating process to date (regarding
council and landlords). You stated not received. Again your statements inaccurate and
emotive.
7. I stated received legal advice from overseas because of an education scandal
involving victimising and cheating on my daughter at school and tertiary institutions.
Initial support from Labour Government was withdrawn when local politicians became
involved. Attempts to get impartial legal help became impossible. I also have been
dragged through our local courts when falsely arrested over an incident of victimisation
of my daughter, which I recorded. Was left in holding cells for many hours, giving police
opportunity to erase the confiscated recording.
Case was pushed through courts without following any of the correct legal procedures,
i.e. no explaining details of case to lawyer, no status hearing. Eventually charges
dismissed after four court appearances involving the intentional degradation.
Honesty and impartiality for us in this country has proven impossible. My daughters
work was passed to overseas academics and situation went from there.
We have spent many years attempting to get help from appropriate authorities in this
country.
8. It seems impossible for me to believe that someone in your position would write
such emotive and ridiculing statements with such obvious bias.
I shall attempt to answer factually.
Certainly issues with ex-partner Dr. D. Oxner have overflowed to his employer
Canterbury District Health Board. Aside from the many issues over years, the information
requested by and sent to Mr. Greg Brogden involving slanderous information placed in
medical records, plus testing and reporting of both daughter and me clearly showed the
inaccurate and often degrading nature which we continue to be subjected to (latest visit)
by employees of Canterbury District Health Board. Also extraordinary you should
mention police. I have never until now spoken to you of police. Further evidence of the
colluding between all parties to trivialise the issues we face.
However truth remains; police, Christchurch City Council and Canterbury District Health
Board are closely involved.
Dr. Oxner continues to be involved. He has betrayed trust, colluded and lied. He has his
own tragedy thus feels unjustifiable bitterness and revenge toward us. Which brings into
question his employment by Canterbury District Health Board.
He has worked with police over several issues, i.e. a private matter, physical assault of
daughter by exam supervisor, his brothers phone call and complaint and my own false
arrest when he was in close contact with police prosecutor.
I have never made accusations of Health and Disabilities Commission; only pointed out
as stated earlier, Greg Brogden acknowledges he works for them also.

Clearly my daughter and I are unwell because of neglectful medical diagnosis and coverup, plus the unsafe state of our immediate environment. It is a curiosity to me that after I
was unable to get help from the correct authorities phoned Ministry of Health, however
without even initial conversation I was connected through to C&PH.
I note C&PH is a division of CDHB, also note that your letters are on entirely different
letterheads.
9. Again I must enquire how are you aware of Martin Gledhill and NRI. You insist on
using emotive words such as conspiracy and collusion and ridicule such notions. Yet
provide me with information I have not given you and given our privacy laws, you should
not be aware of. I am surprised at the constant mention of information which you and
others involved seem to share- it is disgraceful.
If Mr. Gledhill did report to the Christchurch City Council, he had no legal right to do so.
We had a private arrangement and had been quoted $120 as is the standard fee. I note
NRI have not billed me despite my enquiries, but that does not change our arrangement
without my knowledge or consent.
Martin Gledhill is not ex-colleague, simply old acquaintance.
I approached him after initial tests showed very unusual electric/magnetic fields. These
fields or interference were affected by all electronic equipment, daughter and me passing
through particular areas, even animals when moving around our house.
Initial enquiries to NRI approximately August 09 told of standard fee to have home
checked as is done regularly. However attempts to make appointment proved elusiveconstantly delayed (Andrew at NRI).
I approached Martin in March to make a private request, he agreed to come to home
evening of March 9th but after intervention made visit following day, March 10th. Evening
was important as interference fields more prevalent. Our final arrangements were made
over phone.
It is concerning that this information is known to CCC, you and CDHB employees.
You have no concern writing to me on wider issues you have no right to be aware of, then
insist any reply keep solely to issues of health related to house.
This whole process has been an extraordinary breach of privacy.
I note since your letter, a determination by many involved to point finger at Martin
Gledhill for breach. I know Martin to be a honest, conscientious professional who would
not become involved in such a scandalous collusion without coercion from authorities.
To suggest that Martin was even looking for mould in our home is complete nonsense.
We did not even enter majorly contaminated rooms, we did not show him curtains
covered in mould- taken down, he did not go into cupboards or under house where we
have positive contamination samples. He also did not check our water.
Such attempts to detract from the seriousness of the situation, to ridicule and trivialise,
insult your role as Medical Officer of Health. You letter seems not to even use the same
language and grammar as your column in local paper. I am curious about the origin of
this latest letter. Your description of Martins visit to this house is far from factual.

Though initially told did not check for ionising radiation, Martin bought along older
colleague (specialist in industrial radiation) with equipment to do so.
There were several hot spots throughout our home. Inside wall of house where
powerbox is situated outside, below rangehood which still gave reading when switched
off and unplugged. Martin and colleagues explanation was wired incorrectly. Much
interference not seen as daytime visit- clearly seen and felt during evenings. Outside in
garden colleague picked up high out of range reading, asking oh what have we got
here. When I explained that it was run-off area from outside tap water, he quickly recalibrated equipment and suggested it must have been a sunspot. Ridiculous nonsense.
10. I have made mention of this issue earlier in letter- 4.
11. Regarding water, our water is contaminated. I have been directed to speak to
landlords and council to allow them to make own inspections as required; they have
refused. As mentioned previously, I have taken samples to council (collected under strict
protocol), they refused to accept saying they would take their own. Landlord has said
they made arrangements with council to test water some time that week- several weeks
ago. No sampling has been taken.
Despite protestations our water supply is proven not to be same as neighbours.
Installation of best available water purifier (end of 09) still indicates water unsafe to
drink.
I have stated our water is contaminated and there is clear, obvious determination to
prevent exposure of such. We note whenever Dr. Oxner is present in this house he is
careful to drink only boiled water. I have never stated deliberately poisoned, or queried
who or how. Again I consider such statements by you to have their own agenda. No
amount of ridicule or degradation changes the fact our water is contaminated and there is
refusal to test or acknowledge my evidence.
12. I have already commented on this statement, repeated earlier in your letter.
13. In our earlier conversation you carefully explained the procedures you would follow.
You have chosen not to follow your own advice.
Instead of inspection, contact was made with landlords and we have been subject to
intimidation from them since, i.e. despite having contact number available anytime they
bashed and banged on our door Thursday 6th May 8.30am unannounced, after taking
gates off hinges. Said they had rung earlier that morning; no such call was received or
registered as attempted. An unseen note was placed in box despite arrangement to ring. A
week later we receive eviction notice.
You have stated your role is in capacity of health only yet chose to make inaccurate,
misinformed and misleading statements on other issues about which you should not be
informed.

On our health, we have had misreporting of times and results on time-critical tests, I
have had two differing results on same sample, we have had refusal to be accepted as
patient by new doctors and previous. Even a visit to Emergency Department is met with
overt change of protocol and negligence.
It is greatly concerning that all normal avenues for help are closed or obstructed and
we find ourselves bullied into doing nothing.
14. I believe this statement to be intimidating, insulting and bullying and clear evidence
of your determination to move blame from authorities for any of the issues. I have never
met you and you are in no position to discuss me with anyone. Clearly you and others
involved have their own agenda and we will not be bullied into silence by such
unprofessional comments.
I have never suffered from anxiety, but continue to raise concerns about these issues for
sake of daughter and me. No amount of portraying this situation as anything other than
purposeful negligence will deter us from pursuing these wrongdoings.
Clearly your reference about GP is Dr. D. Oxner. Again how are you party to this
information?
Its important to bring to your attention, despite your best intentions to detract from issues
raised, there are two people in this house. Both my daughter and I are unwell and have
deteriorated markedly over last two years.
Symptoms include:

visual disturbance

muscle weakness

nausea

dizziness, especially on standing

weight loss due to digestive involvement

discoloured (orange/brown) sputum

deteriorating lung function

cognitive dysfunction

patches of skin pigmentation

irregular period
Clear adrenal function involvement. We have had very conflicting and confounding
results, lost results, inaccurate and inexplicable reporting. My daughter has been urgently
requested to see specialist on results, then dismissed as nothing without further results at
hand. Six or more weeks later when we pursue further testing elsewhere, specialist writes
to request further consultation. Despite having a referral same specialist refused
consultation with me.
You suggest health issues are complicated, yet avoid the apparent proof that our
environment is being contaminated.

A previously misdiagnosed and familial illness which has also devastated lives of other
family members continued to be ignored.
Rather than acknowledgement and help from medical fraternity, we are confounded
and obstructed by a serial determination to disguise and dishonestly portray the facts.
The conditions in this house which you all so clearly wish not to expose, are further
serious threat to our health.
Are we seriously expected to be quiet and accept that intimidation, threats and eviction
are the answer?
I put to you the timing of the major downturn in our health.
It coincided with our well-voiced determination to take action and disclose the cheating
and victimising that has been my daughters education.
It also coincides with Dr. Oxners departure from this house. Bearing in mind Dr. Oxner
is refusing to make financial settlement but instead, trickles money into an account he
controls. Such is his determination to prevent further legal action, however means we
also have no means for resettling.
Your letter is filled with emotive, ridiculing, misinformed statements, information you
should not be party to and innuendo suggestive of intimidation and does nothing to
suggest you offer support.
Necessitated looking further afield for support.

Yours sincerely,
Alison McGinn
381 Harewood Road
Bishopdale
Christchurch 8053