Health
World Health Organization negotiating to take control “when the next event with pandemic potential strikes”

From Dr. John Campbell on Youtube
British Health Researcher Dr. John Campbell is raising the alarm about the latest moves by the World Health Organization to consolidate authority over governments all around the world.
As argued in UK Parliament, the World Health Organization is asking for a vast transfer of power and some MP’s are very much in favour of ceding power to the WHO.
In this video, Dr. Campbell outlines new regulations countries are currently negotiating to hand over vast new responsibilities to the WHO. The treaties would put the World Health Organization in charge – not just of the global health response, but of what information is shared, and how that information is shared. The regulations would also allow the WHO to take control not just in the event of a health emergency, but in the event of any emergency that could potentially impact public health.
From the commentary notes of Dr. John Campbell.
Countries from around the world are currently working on negotiating and/or amending two international instruments, which will help the world be better prepared when the next event with pandemic potential strikes.
The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) https://inb.who.int to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response (commonly known as the Pandemic Accord).
Amendments to the International Health Regulations https://www.who.int/teams/ihr/working…) https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/pdf_fil… to amend the current International Health Regulations (2005) https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/ https://www.who.int/publications/i/it… 66 2005 articles
Underlined and bold = proposal to add text
Strikethrough = proposal to delete existing text (cut and paste does not copy strike through so I’ve put them in comic sans)
Article 1 Definitions
“standing recommendation” means non-binding advice issued by WHO
“temporary recommendation” means non-binding advice issued by WHO
Article 2 Scope and purpose including through health systems
readiness and resilience in ways that are commensurate with and restricted to public health risk – all risks – with a potential to impact public health,
Article 3 Principles
The implementation of these Regulations shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons
Article 4 Responsible authorities
each State Party should inform WHO about the establishment of its National Competent Authority responsible for overall implementation of the IHR that will be recognized and held accountable
Article 5 Surveillance
the State Party may request a further extension not exceeding two years from the Director-General,
who shall make the decision refer the issue to World Health Assembly which will then take a decision on the same
WHO shall collect information regarding events through its surveillance activities
Article 6 Notification
No sharing of genetic sequence data or information shall be required under these Regulations.
Article 9: Other Reports
reports from sources other than notifications or consultations
Before taking any action based on such reports, WHO shall consult with and attempt to obtain verification from the State Party in whose territory the event is allegedly occurring
Article 10 Verification
whilst encouraging the State Party to accept the offer of collaboration by WHO, taking into account the views of the State Party concerned.
Article 11 Exchange of information
WHO shall facilitate the exchange of information between States Parties and ensure that the Event Information Site For National IHR Focal Points offers a secure and reliable platform
Parties referred to in those provisions, shall not make this information generally available to other States Parties, until such time as when: (e) WHO determines it is necessary that such information be made available to other States Parties to make informed, timely risk assessments.
Health
Last day and last chance to win this dream home! Support the 2025 Red Deer Hospital Lottery before midnight!

Deadline: June 16, 2025
Draw: June 26, 2025
|
|
|
The 2025 Red Deer Hospital Lottery Dream Home, designed by Sorento Custom Homes, continues Sorento’s tradition of award-winning designs. This gorgeous bungalow features 2,824 sq ft of developed living space and showcases a tall, vaulted ceiling.
Located at 128 Emmett Crescent in the neighbourhood of Evergreen, this outstanding home features a screened deck off the dining room, a large family room on the lower level, and of course, a beautiful primary suite. Sorento’s ensuites are always something to behold, and this one features a claw foot tub. There’s an office on the main level, two bedrooms below, and a large fitness room that includes a two-person infrared sauna. Enjoy the convenience of a walk-in pantry, main floor laundry, and chef quality appliances. The design of this unique home is complemented by gorgeous furnishings by Urban Barn.
Our Grand Prize Dream Home package is valued at $1,074,472! You won’t want to miss seeing this outstanding home or your chance to live in it.
Aristotle Foundation
The Canadian Medical Association’s inexplicable stance on pediatric gender medicine

By Dr. J. Edward Les
The thalidomide saga is particularly instructive: Canada was the last developed country to pull thalidomide from its shelves — three months during which babies continued to be born in this country with absent or deformed limbs
Physicians have a duty to put forward the best possible evidence, not ideology, based treatments
Late last month, the Canadian Medical Association (CMA) announced that it, along with three Alberta doctors, had filed a constitutional challenge to Alberta’s Bill 26 “to protect the relationship between patients, their families and doctors when it comes to making treatment decisions.”
Bill 26, which became law last December, prohibits doctors in the province from prescribing puberty blockers and hormone therapies for those under 16; it also bans doctors from performing gender-reassignment surgeries on minors (those under 18).
The unprecedented CMA action follows its strongly worded response in February 2024 to Alberta’s (at the time) proposed legislation:
“The CMA is deeply concerned about any government proposal that restricts access to evidence-based medical care, including the Alberta government’s proposed restrictions on gender-affirming treatments for pediatric transgender patients.”
But here’s the problem with that statement, and with the CMA’s position: the evidence supporting the “gender affirmation” model of care — which propels minors onto puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and in some cases, surgery — is essentially non-existent. That’s why the United Kingdom’s Conservative government, in the aftermath of the exhaustive four-year-long Cass Review, which laid bare the lack of evidence for that model, and which shone a light on the deeply troubling potential for the model’s irreversible harm to youth, initiated a temporary ban on puberty blockers — a ban made permanent last December by the subsequent Labour government. And that’s why other European jurisdictions like Finland and Sweden, after reviews of gender affirming care practices in their countries, have similarly slammed the brakes on the administration of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones to minors.
It’s not only the Europeans who have raised concerns. The alarm bells are ringing loudly within our own borders: earlier this year, a group at McMaster University, headed by none other than Dr. Gordon Guyatt, one of the founding gurus of the “evidence-based care” construct that rightfully underpins modern medical practice, issued a pair of exhaustive systematic reviews and meta analyses that cast grave doubts on the wisdom of prescribing these drugs to youth.
And yet, the CMA purports to be “deeply concerned about any government proposal that restricts access to evidence-based medical care,” which begs the obvious question: Where, exactly, is the evidence for the benefits of the “gender affirming” model of care? The answer is that it’s scant at best. Worse, the evidence that does exist, points, on balance, to infliction of harm, rather than provision of benefit.
CMA President Joss Reimer, in the group’s announcement of the organization’s legal action, said:
“Medicine is a calling. Doctors pursue it because they are compelled to care for and promote the well-being of patients. When a government bans specific treatments, it interferes with a doctor’s ability to empower patients to choose the best care possible.”
Indeed, we physicians have a sacred duty to pursue the well-being of our patients. But that means that we should be putting forward the best possible treatments based on actual evidence.
When Dr. Reimer states that a government that bans specific treatments is interfering with medical care, she displays a woeful ignorance of medical history. Because doctors don’t always get things right: look to the sad narratives of frontal lobotomies, the oxycontin crisis, thalidomide, to name a few.
The thalidomide saga is particularly instructive: it illustrates what happens when a government drags its heels on necessary action. Canada was the last developed country to pull thalidomide, given to pregnant women for morning sickness, from its shelves, three months after it had been banned everywhere else — three months during which babies continued to be born in this country with absent or deformed limbs, along with other severe anomalies. It’s a shameful chapter in our medical past, but it pales in comparison to the astonishing intransigence our medical leaders have displayed — and continue to display — on the youth gender care file.
A final note (prompted by thalidomide’s history), to speak to a significant quibble I have with Alberta’s Bill 26 legislation: as much as I admire Premier Danielle Smith’s courage in bringing it forward, the law contains a loophole allowing minors already on puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones to continue to take them. Imagine if, after it was removed from the shelves in 1962, government had allowed pregnant women already on the drug to continue to take thalidomide. Would that have made any sense? Of course not. And the same applies to puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones: they should be banned outright for all youth.
That argument is the kind our medical associations should be making — and would be making, if they weren’t so firmly in the grasp, seemingly, of ideologues who have abandoned evidence-based medical care for our youth.
J. Edward Les is a Calgary pediatrician, a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and co-author of “Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.”
-
Health5 hours ago
Last day and last chance to win this dream home! Support the 2025 Red Deer Hospital Lottery before midnight!
-
Business1 day ago
Carney’s European pivot could quietly reshape Canada’s sovereignty
-
Alberta1 day ago
Alberta’s grand bargain with Canada includes a new pipeline to Prince Rupert
-
Aristotle Foundation8 hours ago
The Canadian Medical Association’s inexplicable stance on pediatric gender medicine
-
Crime2 days ago
Manhunt on for suspect in shooting deaths of Minnesota House speaker, husband
-
conflict11 hours ago
“Evacuate”: Netanyahu Warns Tehran as Israel Expands Strikes on Iran’s Military Command
-
Energy11 hours ago
Could the G7 Summit in Alberta be a historic moment for Canadian energy?
-
Bruce Dowbiggin10 hours ago
WOKE NBA Stars Seems Natural For CDN Advertisers. Why Won’t They Bite?