Connect with us

Health

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis slams Liberals for accepting WHO amendments

Published

5 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Conservative MP Leslyn Lewis has condemned the Liberal government for accepting the World Health Organization’s (WHO) health regulations.

In a July 21 post on X, Lewis revealed that Canada missed the deadline to reject WHO amendments to the International Health Regulations, thereby accepting the regulations which seek to control countries’ health measures.

“Canada did not reject these binding regulations, which would grant power to the WHO to influence Canada’s public health response during global health crises,” Lewis wrote.

“Not only did Canada fail to reject these amendments, there was also no Parliamentary discussion surrounding these changes, which have potential implications for our national sovereignty and our ability to respond as we see fit in times of crisis,” she continued.

Lewis further pointed out that countries including the United States and Italy have rejected the amendments, which are warned to undermine national sovereignty.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews, Campaign Life Coalition’s Jack Fonseca warned that “Mark Carney’s acceptance of the WHO amendments represents a major step into tyranny and subservience for Canadians. It represents a loss of freedom and autonomy for every Canadian where unelected bureaucrats in far away lands will have control over our lives.

“Many of us have not forgotten how Trudeau used a declared ‘pandemic’ to bring in a Nazi-style system of discrimination using vaccine passports and medical segregation,” he recalled. “We have not forgotten how Canadians who refused to take abortion-tainted Covid injections were subjected to social ostracization and exclusion from economic life.”

“How they were banned from being employed by the government, fired from their private sector jobs, denied entry into restaurants, cinemas, sporting events, swimming pools and other public venues, and banned from travel on planes, trains and ships,” Fonseca continued. “We remember how un-jabbed students were denied enrolment in Canadian universities and de-enrolled even midway through their programs.”

“By embracing the WHO International Health Regulations, the proud globalist, Mark Carney, has ensured that the same medical tyranny can be visited upon us again with the declaration by unelected, power-mad WHO bureaucrats of a new ‘pandemic,’” Fonseca declared.

Lewis has previously warned that the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) will compromise Canada’s autonomy by giving the international organization increased power over Canadians in the event of an “emergency.”

“Canada consented to the amendments to the WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR), which limits Canada’s time to respond to further amendments, despite thousands of Canadians signing a petition expressing their concerns,” Lewis said at the time, referring to a petition she endorsed demanding that the Liberal government “urgently” withdraw from the United Nations and its WHO subgroup due to these concerns.

The petition warned that the “secretly negotiated” amendments could “impose unacceptable, intrusive universal surveillance, violating the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

In her post this week, Lewis also called out the Liberal government for appointing an interim Chief Public Health Officer, Dr. Howard Njoo, who is the vice-chair of the WHO Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework Advisory Group.

“Canadians deserve a government that cares about protecting our national sovereignty. Unelected international bureaucrats do not know better than Canadians, and should not have authority over how Canada governs,” she declared.

However, the Liberals, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, appear unconcerned with signing away Canada’s sovereignty.

In May, Carney adopted the WHO’s Pandemic Agreement, despite warnings that the agreement gives the globalist entity increased power in the event of another “pandemic.”

Among the most criticized parts of the agreement is the affirmation that “the World Health Organization is the directing and coordinating authority on international health work, including on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

While the agreement claims to uphold “the principle of the sovereignty of States in addressing public health matters,” it also calls for a globally unified response in the event of a pandemic, stating plainly that “[t]he Parties shall promote a One Health approach for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Bruce Dowbiggin

Healthcare And Pipelines Are The Front Lines of Canada’s Struggle To Stay United

Published on

Ottawa and Alberta have reached a memorandum of understanding that paves the way for, among other things,. a new oil pipeline in return for higher carbon taxes.. How’s it doing? B.C. and Quebec both reject the idea. The Liberals former Climate minister resigned his cabinet post.

The most amazing feature of the Mark Carney/Danielle Smith MOU is that both politicians feverishly hope that the deal fails. Carney can tell Quebec that he tried to reason with Smith, and Smith can say she tried to meet the federalists halfway. Failure suits their larger purposes. Carney to fold Canada into Euro climate insanity and Smith into a strong motive for separation.

We’ll have more in. our next column. In the meantime, another Alberta initiative on healthcare has stirred up the hornets of single payer.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, “Canada’s health system is the worst in the world. Except for all the other systems.” If there is anything left that Canadians agree upon it’s that their provincial healthcare plan is a disaster that needs a boatload of new money and the same old class rhetoric about two-tier healthcare.

Both prescriptions have been tried multiple times since Tommy Douglas made single-payer healthcare a reality. As a result today’s delivery systems are constantly strained to breaking and the money poured in to support it evaporates in red tape and vested interests.

But suggest that Canada adopt the method of somewhere else and you get back stares. Who does it better? How can we copy that? Crickets. Then ask governments to cut back and create efficiencies. No one wants to tell the unions they are the first to move. As a result, operating rooms sit empty for lack of trained nurses and rationed doctors. The system is all dressed with nowhere to go.

There are many earnest people trying their best to fit the square peg in the round hole. But so far it has produced a Frankenstein quilt of private clinics in other provinces handling overflows and American hospitals taking tens of thousands of overflows or critical cases. Ontarians travelling to Quebec for knee surgery. Albertans heading to eastern B.C. for hips and shoulders. Nova Scotians going to Boston for back surgery.

To say nothing of the legions of Canadians on waiting lists for terminal cancer or heart problems who, in despair of dying before seeing a specialist in 18-24 months, voyage to Lithuania, India or Mexico to save their lives. Everyone knows a story of a family member or friend surgery shopping. Every Canadian health authority sympathizes. But little solves the problem.

Which has led to predictable grumbling. @Tablesalt13 if the Liberals hadn’t surged immigration over the last 4-5 years and if all of the money spent on refugees and foreign aid was redirected to health care how much shorter would Canada’s medical waitlists be?

And if any small progress is made the radical armies opposed to two-tiered healthcare raise a stink in the media, stopping that progress in its tracks. Suggesting public/ private healthcare systems is a quick trip to a Toronto Star editorial and losing your next election.

Into the impasse Alberta has introduced Bill 11 to create a parallel private–public surgery system that allows surgeons to perform non-urgent procedures privately under set conditions, moving ahead with the premier’s announcement last week. The government says the approach will shorten wait times and help recruit doctors, while critics argue it risks two-tier care.

The legislation marks a major shift in healthcare reform in Alberta and faces (shock) strong opposition from the NDP which is pairing these reforms with the province’s use of the notwithstanding clause in banning radical trans surgery and medication for minors in the province.

There are examples of two-tiered healthcare elsewhere in the West. France, Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland and Germany, among others, use a dual-tracked system mixing public and private coverages. Reports FHI, “In the most successful European healthcare systems, e.g., Germany and Switzerland, the federal government handles the PEC risk, via national pools and government subsidies, sparing the burden on individual insurers.” While not perfect it hasn’t produced class warfare.

The Americans, meanwhile learned to their chagrin with ObamaCare (the Affordable Care Act, that government healthcare is not the answer. The U.S. heath system replaces government accounting with health insurance rationers as the immoveable force. Many Americans were outside this traditional system, paying out-of-pocket. Under the Obama plan everyone would be forced into a plan, like it or not.

The AFI continues, “ACA has a flawed design. Its architects meant to appeal to the public, promising what the old system could not fully deliver – guaranteed access to affordable health cover and coverage for pre-existing conditions (PECs). But they were wrong about being able to keep your doctor or your old policy if you wanted.

Previously individual policies had to exclude PEC coverage to be financially viable. Yet employer group policies often covered it after a waiting period, but the extra costs were spread over their fellow workers – a real burden on medium and small-sized companies. Under Obamacare, the very high PEC costs are still spread too narrowly – on each of the very few insurers who have agreed to stay as exchange insurers.”

In other words getting a universal system that helps the needy while not degrading treatment is illusory. Alberta is willing to admit that fact. Like agreement on pipelines it will face nothing but headwinds from the diehards (pun intended) who still believe Michael Moore’s fairy tales about a free system in Canada. And will do nothing to bind Canada’s warring factions.

Bruce Dowbiggin @dowbboy is the editor of Not The Public Broadcaster  A two-time winner of the Gemini Award as Canada’s top television sports broadcaster, his new book Deal With It: The Trades That Stunned The NHL And Changed hockey is now available on Amazon. Inexact Science: The Six Most Compelling Draft Years In NHL History, his previous book with his son Evan, was voted the seventh-best professional hockey book of all time by bookauthority.org . His 2004 book Money Players was voted sixth best on the same list, and is available via brucedowbigginbooks.ca. 

Continue Reading

Health

Organ donation industry’s redefinitions of death threaten living people

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Heidi Klessig, M.D.

Playing fast and loose with the definitions of death for the sake of organ donation must stop.

Another congressional committee is investigating more whistleblowers’ complaints regarding the organ transplantation industry. United States House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman David Schweikert are seeking answers from Carolyn Welsh, president and CEO of the New Jersey Organ and Tissue Sharing Network (NJTO), regarding multiple allegations of legal and ethical violations on her watch.

The complaints include the horrific case of a “circulatory death” organ donor who reanimated prior to organ retrieval. Despite the fact that the patient had regained signs of life, NJTO executives actually directed frontline staff to continue the organ recovery process. (Thankfully, hospital personnel at Virtua Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Camden, New Jersey, refused this request.) NJTO is also accused of pressuring the families of potential donors by falsely implying the New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicles had registered a consent to donate when that was not known to be the case. NJTO apparently also continued to insist that people were registered donors even after they had removed their consent to donate from their driver’s licenses. The official complaint further states that NJTO allegedly tried to delete evidence pertaining to the committee’s investigation.

Since 1968, when 13 men at Harvard Medical School redefined “desperately injured” people as being dead enough to become organ donors, organ procurement has continued to push the boundaries of life and death in a never-ending quest for more organs. When the first and only multicenter prospective study of brain death discovered in 1972 that a brain death diagnosis did not invariably correlate with a diffusely destroyed brain, principal investigator Dr. Gaetano Molinari pointed out that “brain death” was a prognosis of death, and not death itself. Dr. Molinari wrote:

[D]oes a fatal prognosis permit the physician to pronounce death? It is highly doubtful whether such glib euphemisms as ‘he’s practically dead,’… ‘he can’t survive,’ … ‘he has no chance of recovery anyway,’ will ever be acceptable legally or morally as a pronouncement that death has occurred.

But despite Dr. Molinari’s doubts, history shows this is exactly what has been accepted, and the rising numbers of people who have been taken for organ harvesting while still alive bears this out. Even though “brain dead” TJ Hoover III was still looking around and visibly crying such that two doctors refused to remove his organs, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates ordered their staff to find another doctor to perform the procedure. “Circulatory death” donor Misty Hawkins was found to have a beating heart when her breastbone was sawed open for organ procurement. And Larry Black Jr. was rescued from the operating room table just minutes before having his organs removed, and went on to make a full recovery.

Given that we have been stretching the definitions of death for nearly 60 years, is it any wonder that organ procurement personnel appear to be thinking “he’s practically dead,” “he can’t survive,” “he has no chance of recovery anyway” as they push still-living people towards the operating room?

But it’s not just organ procurement teams that are pushing these new definitions of death. Just three weeks after failing in their attempts to broaden the legal definitions of death by revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) published a new brain death guideline that explicitly allows brain death to be declared in the presence of ongoing brain function. Since this obviously does not comply with the UDDA, which requires “the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain including the brain stem,” the AAN has been trying to get around the law by contacting state health departments, medical boards, medical societies, and hospital associations requesting that they acknowledge the AAN’s brain death guideline as the “accepted medical standards” for declaring neurological death.

The AAN has also just published a position statement of additional guidance on brain death discussing how to handle objections to the brain death diagnosis. Even though the AAN’s brain death guideline does not comply with U.S. law and has been proven to be unable to predict whether or not a brain injury is irreversible, the AAN still wants to make the use of their guideline mandatory. If a family’s objection to a brain death diagnosis cannot be overcome, the AAN says that life support may be unilaterally withdrawn – over the family’s objections. The AAN also says that clinicians are professionally obligated to make a brain death determination, and that they should be credentialed to do so according to the standards of the AAN guideline. Laughably, the AAN recommends the Neurocritical Care Society’s brain death determination course, which consists of a one-hour video, followed by unlimited attempts to correctly answer 25 questions, following which a certificate of completion can be had for as little as six dollars.

The Dead Donor Rule is an ethical maxim stating that people must neither be alive when organs are removed nor killed by the process of organ removal. Redefining neurologically injured people as being “brain dead” and redefining people who could still be resuscitated as being dead according to “circulatory death” standards have for too long allowed organ procurement teams to meet the letter of the Dead Donor Rule through sleight of hand. Playing fast and loose with the definitions of death for the sake of organ donation must stop. Patients with a poor prognosis must not be considered “dead enough” to become organ donors. People registering as organ donors must be given fully informed consent as to the risks involved.

Even utilitarian philosopher Dr. Peter Singer has called brain death an ethical choice masquerading as a medical fact. Imposing mandates that force patients and doctors to accept these questionable ethical choices is NOT the best way to establish trust.

Continue Reading

Trending

X