top of page

Queensland Health Failure

Updated: Jul 27

Subject: Formal Response to Queensland Health’s Denial of Compensation – TCDD Exposure


7/06/2025


Dear Dr Rosengren,


Thank you for your letter dated 4 July 2025.


I note your statement that Queensland Health does not consider itself liable for the harm I have suffered, and that you find “nothing in the documents provided that identifies a basis” for compensation.


With respect, I must clarify that your position is factually, medically, and legally unsound. I will be placing your letter on record with the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the OECD National Contact Point system, where a formal complaint is now active.


  1. Breach of Duty of Care & Medical Oversight

    Queensland Health, as a provider of diagnostic, referral, and triage services, failed to recognise congenital and toxicological indicators consistent with TCDD (dioxin) exposure, despite multiple opportunities. You ignored or misinterpreted evidence of structural anomalies linked to toxic inheritance, as recognised under international toxicology frameworks. This constitutes medical negligence and, in view of known international research, reflects gross systemic failure to act on foreseeable harm.

  2. Failure to Apply the Stockholm Convention

    Australia is a party to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, which mandates risk assessment, public health protections, and monitoring of vulnerable populations for exposure to TCDD, a listed Class 1 persistent organic pollutant. Queensland Health has no policy, no screening process, and no clinical pathway for those exposed in utero to TCDD, despite binding treaty obligations. This is a breach of international environmental and public health law.

  3. Breach of Human Rights Obligations

    Your refusal to compensate or investigate further constitutes a violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – specifically Articles 3, 6, 24, and 39 – and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), including denial of appropriate care and recognition of environmental causality. It also breaches the ICCPR, due to state tolerance of discriminatory denial of inherited chemical harm. These are not aspirational principles. They are binding instruments ratified by the Commonwealth and enforceable under Australian administrative law.



Intent to Escalate

This letter — combined with the Department’s continued silence following my formal compensation notice — will now be added to Annex A of my ICC case (under Article 7 – crimes against humanity, persecution), and to Annex B of my OECD complaint (as evidence of procedural failure and refusal to engage).


I urge you to review your position. There is now a growing international record of state-level refusal to acknowledge known toxic harm, despite scientific consensus, UN warnings, and survivor testimony.


Final Remark

This matter is not concluded. Your decision does not extinguish liability — it deepens it. Compensation denial in the face of documented harm, expert warnings, and international treaties is not a defence — it is evidence.

ree


What International Laws Were Violated?

On 4 July 2025, the Director-General of Queensland Health, Dr David Rosengren, issued a formal letter denying liability for lifelong harm caused by exposure to TCDD (dioxin), the toxic chemical found in Agent Orange.


This wasn’t just a departmental rejection — it was a signed denial of responsibility for inherited chemical warfare harm against a civilian child, despite clear international warnings, treaties, and formal notice of escalation to the International Criminal Court (ICC).


By issuing that denial, five major international laws were breached:

1. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

• Article 24 – Right to health

• Article 3 – Best interests of the child

• Article 6 – Right to survival and development

• Article 19 – Protection from harmful effects

Violation:

Queensland Health denied my right to health, protection, and redress as a child affected by inherited toxic exposure, despite overwhelming evidence. This contradicts Australia’s obligations to uphold the rights of children harmed by preventable causes.

2. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

• Article 25 – Health

• Article 4 – General obligations

• Article 5 – Non-discrimination

• Article 31 – Data collection for policy and prevention

Violation:

By refusing to acknowledge disabilities caused by TCDD and failing to act on known scientific risks, Queensland Health breached its duty to provide accessible, non-discriminatory healthcare and protect people with disabilities from preventable harm.

3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

• Article 7 – Protection from inhuman treatment

• Article 2 – Right to remedy

• Article 26 – Equal protection under law

Violation:

The denial of health justice — despite evidence, diagnosis, and international law — constitutes inhuman treatment through deliberate neglect and refusal of redress. It also breaches my right to equal protection under Australian and international law.

4. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

• Requires states to eliminate or reduce POPs, including TCDD

• Mandates protection of future generations

• Obligates governments to act on known risks, raise public awareness, and ensure medical response

Violation:

Dr Rosengren’s denial ignored TCDD’s classification as a highly toxic pollutant. His department failed to implement basic precautionary measures, screen exposed civilians, or recognise ongoing damage — all of which Australia is legally bound to do.

5. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)

• Article 7(1)(h) – Persecution

• Article 7(1)(k) – Other inhumane acts

• Article 25 – Individual criminal responsibility

• Article 28 – Command responsibility

Violation:

By issuing a formal denial after receiving ICC notice and treaty-based evidence, Dr Rosengren became personally responsible for institutional persecution — targeting a civilian child for denial of truth, health, and redress. This qualifies as a crime against humanity under international law.

Summary

This isn’t just a bureaucratic failure — it’s a state-level cover-up of inherited chemical harm.

It violates the rights of children, persons with disabilities, war survivors, and future generations.

And now, that denial is part of a permanent international legal record.



 
 
 

Comentarios


Citrus Fruits

© 2035 by Agent Orange Child. Powered and secured by Wix 

bottom of page