⟡ “It’s Not Mental Health. It’s Eosinophilic Asthma.” ⟡
Diagnosis is not defiance. Medical conditions are not behaviour. And safeguarding is not an excuse to rewrite pathology.
Filed: 21 April 2025
Reference: SWANK/WCC/MEDICAL-CRITIQUE-ASTHMA-01
📎 Download PDF – 2025-04-21_SWANK_Critique_WestminsterRBKC_EosinophilicAsthmaMisuse.pdf
A formal medical and procedural rebuttal issued by Polly Chromatic to Westminster and RBKC, challenging the false interpretation of a documented disability as a safeguarding concern. The submission was circulated to professionals across NHS, education, social work, and legal oversight — all of whom had access to the correct diagnosis but allowed mischaracterisation to stand.
I. What Happened
On 21 April 2025, Polly Chromatic submitted a clinical response to the PLO and related safeguarding communications that inaccurately framed symptoms of Eosinophilic Asthma as indicators of emotional instability, behavioural refusal, or social concern. The rebuttal clarified — for the record — that asthma-induced communication limits, fatigue, and vocal restrictions are medical realities, not safeguarding red flags. The institutions in receipt of this correction had known the diagnosis for over a year.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
Eosinophilic Asthma was known, diagnosed, and medically recorded
Westminster misrepresented the condition in written safeguarding materials
Health-related boundaries were distorted into risk indicators
Professionals failed to correct or contextualise the misuse of clinical language
The safeguarding rationale was constructed from medical distortion, not evidence
III. Why SWANK Logged It
Because asthma is not antisocial.
Because a disability is not a diagnosis of defiance.
Because when medical facts are rewritten as behavioural symptoms,
what you're safeguarding isn’t the child — it’s your narrative.
SWANK London Ltd. logs this submission as a formal rejection of Westminster’s medical manipulation.
It’s not refusal.
It’s asthma.
And it was never hidden.
IV. Violations
❍ Equality Act 2010 – Misuse of disability as grounds for procedural escalation
❍ Safeguarding Misconduct – Reframing a diagnosis as instability
❍ Clinical Negligence – Failure to consult or apply medical evidence appropriately
❍ Professional Dishonesty – Omission of relevant health history in risk framing
❍ Article 8 ECHR – Violation of health privacy through interpretive distortion
V. SWANK’s Position
This wasn’t a clinical error.
It was institutional editing of illness for bureaucratic convenience.
Eosinophilic Asthma is a chronic, diagnosed, and documented condition.
It limits voice.
It causes fatigue.
It requires refusal.
And when Westminster turned that into cause for concern —
they weren’t making a referral.
They were rewriting the facts.
Polly Chromatic isn’t here to perform wellness for public approval.
She’s here to live —
with asthma, not apology.
The diagnosis is final.
The narrative is revoked.
The archive is updated.
⟡ This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. ⟡ Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. This is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt, preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance. And retaliation deserves an archive. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.