on November 29? Does it mean that the date in the letter - "November 23" - was incorrect? Or the letter has not been sent in 2-3 days? Or - if it is known that a letter from Ottawa to Montreal goes 5-6 days - why then I was not given more time? I ask you to submit me an explanation what November 30 means and why not December 10 or January 15? I want to know how the agent justified that particular date. Was that small misconduct planned in advance?
2. The suggestion that somebody else went and did the x-ray instead of me was another serious assault. That suggestion was made in ignorance of the fact that on Clark Lab's official (original!) paper IMS (Immigration Medical Service) officer could see my name, date of birth, telephone number, name of the ordering physician, and the number of my medical card (which - everybody knows - has my photo on it). Besides, it mentioned the "MILD PECTUS EXCAVATUM", a cosmetic defect, which I have since birth. Besides, it is known that the film itself has a negative image of the whole ID data! Then this ungrounded abuse was based on nothing and went far beyond any medical or even legal matter.
3. The demand to send an original film from the November 14 x-ray in the light of two above disputed demands might be ungrounded. This x-ray film was already seen by 3 medical doctors: the radiologist at the Clark Lab, dr. Jast (who referred me and evaluated the film), and dr. Giannakis. All three came to a conclusion that there is NOTHING abnormal, not a slightest possibility.
Both dr. Jast and Giannakis also examined me. The official conclusion is NIL ACTIVE. Besides, it was informally evaluated by a chest specialist: with the same conclusion. What else the IMS agent needs? I have a well-grounded concern that 1) he/she will find a black spot even on the whitest paper - because he/she is determined to; and 2) after he/she will find "a black spot" the film will vanish, but not the IMS's "evaluation". Immigration pretended already many times (dates, documents might be provided) that lost our applications, medical data, etc.
4. It was an abuse to mention that "After overview if necessary applicant may have to be referred to the chest specialist." It is a prejudgment and prejudice. "...if necessary", "may" are just a form. It is a very clear message that he/she will not let me alone! Why to speak about next medical procedure before seeing the x-ray?
Lev GUNIN Dec. 01 2000
Copy - DOCUMENT NUMBER FIVE
From Lev GUNIN ( 514-499-1294)
Document 5
LETTER TO THE MONTREAL CHEST INSTITUTE - A Copy
(The letter was submitted on November 09 in respond to an anonymous letter from the Montreal Chest Institute received on November 6 2000; below you can find a modified version (November 12-14), which was submitted to the same destination on November 15).
.
Lev GUNIN
address
telephone
From Lev GUNIN to anonymous person, author of the letter (the copy of the letter is enclosed).
Montreal Chest Institute
3666 St-Urbain
Montreal, QUEBEC H2X 2P4
Sir or Lady! Please, forward this letter to an appropriate Immigration department, which you mentioned on page 1 of your letter.
First of all, any suggestions that I could be infected by tuberculosis were ridiculous. I had some other suggestions, but later a medical doctor I spoke to - as well as my legal advisers - told me that the only answer of what happened is that Immigration might just make a false report on my x-ray. Besides, a x-ray could not determine whether or not any of such shadow means tuberculosis, or simply any kind of pneumonia, bronchitis, or a combination (see medical books). Any conclusions based on only one x-ray are ridiculous, partial, and prejudicial. In modern time - when there are so many flu infections accompanied by pneumonic consequences (side effects) such conclusions are a complete nonsense. It is obvious that your decision to attach me to the Infectious Disease Unit (IDU) before you have a 100 percent proof of any tuberculosis infection and initiate an appropriate legal procedure was a drastic misconduct. The only admissible way to handle the situation was (before sending me to the Infectious Disease Unit)
1) to request a second opinion in existing x-ray
2) to send me a letter for my physician for another x-ray.
On November 14 I did another x-ray. It revealed that there is no any suspicious shadow, no abnormalities - and (as my medical advisers told) could not be 2 weeks before, especially tuberculosis-like shadows. Was my x-ray photo (a negative) replaced by somebody else's or IMS (Immigration Medical Services) just falsified the reading of my x-rays, - I do not know. That all is a subject of a criminal investigation.
