[Source] Comment:

Limitations of techniques used to screen people (in Canada)

The Quarantine Act (S.C. 2005, c. 20):

4. Purpose – The purpose of this Act is to protect public health by taking comprehensive measures to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases.

5 (1) Designating analysts and certain officers – The Minister may designate qualified persons, or classes of qualified persons, as analysts, screening officers or environmental health officers.

14 (1) Screening technology – Any qualified person authorized by the Minister may, to determine whether a traveller has a communicable disease or symptoms of one, use any screening technology authorized by the Minister that does not involve the entry into the traveller’s body of any instrument or other foreign body.

The Canadian Quarantine Act serves the same purpose as the restrictions and measures introduced by the governments to combat the Covid-19 pandemic, namely, to protect public health by taking comprehensive measures to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases. It seems only reasonable to conclude that the measures applied by our governments to combat the Covid-19 pandemic are (or ought to be) subject to the same limitations as those listed in Point 14 (1) of the Quarantine Act. The use any screening technology authorized by the Minister must not involve the entry into the tested person’s body of any instrument or other foreign body. This limitation and restriction is not being observed in screening with the RT-PCR test.

The collection of cells from the back of the pharynx, approached through the nose or mouth, must be performed by a specialized and trained caregiver. It is NOT PAINLESS! This sample may cause bleeding, damage to the pharyngeal (surface) mucous membrane, and/or the nasal mucous membrane if approached through the nose. [Source]

This is a risky technique, as it may cause injury. I was tested with the RT-PCR technology twice. After the second test, my nasal mucous membrane was injured and I was bleeding from my nose for three days. The healing was probably prolonged by the blood thinner injections that I was receiving at the hospital to lower the risk of a heart failure.

Regardless of the risks involved, the RT-PCR test should not be authorized (or mandatory), because it involves the entry and penetration of the tested person’s body with the swab – in order to collect the sample. By extension, injection of a vaccine also constitutes entry into the person’s body of an instrument and other foreign body (the actual mRNA “soup”). Vaccines serve the same purpose as quarantine, namely, they protect public health and prevent the spread of communicable diseases. Therefore, they should be subject to the same limitations.

Individual Rights vs. Collective Rights

Limitations of individual human rights and implementation of measures that, in some cases, are unhealthy and degrading, (for example the requirement to wear masks), are being justified by necessity to protect collective public safety, health, and morals. Measures applied by the governments and corporations suggest that collective safety is more important than individual rights and freedoms. However, in case of a pandemic, this priority is not consistent with international law:

UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights:

Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights

1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.

2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

I could not say it better.