Connect with us

Health

As cancer rates soar in younger people, experts seek answers

Published

5 months ago

13 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By John-Michael Dumais, The Defender

Two recent reports by the American Cancer Society reveal alarming increases in numerous cancers among millennials and Gen Z in the U.S. While mainstream medical experts debate causes, some doctors told The Defender mRNA vaccines may be to blame for the recent emergence of aggressive cancers that often don’t respond to conventional treatments.

Cancer rates among younger generations are rising at an alarming pace, with medical professionals reporting unprecedented increases in aggressive cancers over the past few years.

A study published in the August edition of The Lancet Public Health revealed that through 2019, the incidence rates for 17 of 34 cancer types were increasing in progressively younger people in the U.S., ABC News reported on July 31.

Lead author Ahmedin Jemal, DVM, Ph.D., from the American Cancer Society (ACS) told The Washington Post that if current trends in cancer and mortality rates among Gen X and millennials continue, it “may halt or even reverse the progress that we have made in reducing cancer mortality over the past several decades.”

More recent data from the ACS’ “Cancer statistics, 2024” report — with data on cancer incidence through 2020 and mortality through 2021 — showed the trend continuing.

As of 2021, among adults under 50, colorectal cancer has become the leading cause of cancer death in men and the second-leading cause in women, despite ranking fourth for both sexes in the late 1990s.

Some researchers point to lifestyle, poverty and environmental factors as potential causes for the uptick in cancers, while others suggest the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines may be to blame for the rise in “turbo cancers.”

Meanwhile, Pfizer in December 2023 spent $43 billion for Seagan, a “cancer care” biotech company with only $2.2 billion in sales. Seagan’s already-approved drugs include those for bladder cancer, cervical cancer, breast cancer and Hodgkin lymphoma.

The cancer trend has also caught the attention of health organizations worldwide, including the World Health Organization, which in February predicted a 77% rise in new cancer cases — from 20 million cases in 2022 to over 35 million cases by 2050.

Which cancers are on the rise?

The Lancet study revealed disturbing trends in cancer rates for people born between 1920 and 1990, finding that through 2019, incidence rates for 17 of 34 cancer types analyzed were increasing in progressively younger birth cohorts.

For some cancers, the incidence rate was approximately 1 to 3 times higher in the 1990 birth cohort (people in their late 20s at the time of the study) compared to the 1955 birth cohort (people in their mid-60s at the time of the study).

Particularly concerning were the increases in cancers of the small intestine (256% higher), kidney and renal pelvis (192% higher), and pancreas in both males and females (161% higher). For women, liver and intrahepatic bile duct cancer rates also saw a significant uptick (105% higher).

In younger cohorts, cancer incidence also increased for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, uterine corpus (endometrial) cancer, colorectal cancer, non-cardia gastric (stomach) cancer, gallbladder and other biliary cancer, ovarian cancer, and testicular cancer, anal cancer and Kaposi sarcoma in males.

For those around 30 years old, cancer rates increased an average of 12% across all cancer types.

The study also noted that mortality rates mirrored incidence trends for several cancers, including liver cancer in females, uterine corpus, gallbladder and other biliary, testicular and colorectal cancers. This suggests that the increase in incidence is substantial enough to outweigh improvements in cancer survival rates.

The findings from the ACS’ cancer statistics report, which contains data through 2021, provide additional context to the rising cancer rates in younger generations, particularly for colorectal cancer in both sexes and breast, cervical, uterine and liver cancers in women.

The Ethical Skeptic, a well-regarded statistician on the social platform X, posted more recent cancer mortality data. The following graph, based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s  WONDER online databases, shows excess mortality from malignant neoplasms (spreading tumors) “elevated 29% and still rising” for ages 0-54 through week 22 of 2024:

More recent ‘turbo cancers’

Dr. William Makis, a Canadian board-certified nuclear medicine radiologist and oncologist, reported in an interview on the “America Out Loud PULSE” podcast on July 6 that he has seen “just an explosion of extremely aggressive cancers in very young individuals” since the COVID-19 pandemic began.

Cancers Makis identified that are particularly affecting younger populations include breast cancer, colon cancer, bile duct cancer, pancreatic cancer, leukemia and lymphoma.

Makis emphasized that these cancers are presenting at advanced stages (3 or 4), are behaving “very aggressively” and are often resistant to conventional treatments. He referred to these as “turbo cancers” due to their rapid growth and spread.

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a renowned oncologist and professor at St. George’s, University of London, has reported rapidly progressing cancers in patients receiving COVID-19 mRNA booster shots, although he did not specify the ages affected.

In particular, melanoma patients who had been in remission in his practice experienced sudden relapses. Cancer doctors around the world told him him about rapidly accelerating cancers, including lymphomas, leukemia, kidney and colorectal cancer and “multiple metastatic spread” of cancers throughout the body.

A Japanese study published in April in the journal Cureus reported post-COVID-19-vaccination increases in mortality for most age groups, including those under 50 years old. Cancers with the highest excess mortality rates included ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer and pancreatic cancer.

We do not have the data to point to

Mainstream medical experts have proposed several theories to explain the rising cancer rates among younger generations.

In the Lancet paper, the authors attribute the increase in cancers in younger people to higher exposure to carcinogens early in life, obesity, unhealthy diet, environmental chemicals, changes in reproductive patterns and alcohol-related behaviors.

In its “Cancer statistics, 2024” report, the ACS pointed to several additional potential culprits, including poverty-related factors such as inadequate health insurance and lack of access to screening and high-quality healthcare, and to structural racism-related factors, including mortgage lending bias and neighborhood-level redlining.

Dr. William Dahut, a medical oncologist and ACS chief scientific officer, told ABC News that finding a single cause is difficult. “It’s so easy for us to say ‘yes, it’s obesity’; ‘yes, it’s lack of exercise’; ‘yes, it’s processed food.’ But we do not have the data to point to.”

Dr. Kevin Nead, a radiation oncologist and assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center, told ABC News that something different could be happening with the biology of cancer in younger patients, indicating a need for new approaches to screening and early detection.

Left entirely unaddressed by the current mainstream medical and media reporting is the potential contribution to the rising rates of brain, thyroid and salivary gland cancers of EMR (electromagnetic radiation) exposure from cellphones, Bluetooth headsets, Wi-Fi routers and 4G/5G transmission towers.

Rapid cancer onset ‘basically impossible along the known paradigm’

Dr. Harvey Risch, professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, told The Defender, “Clinicians have been seeing very strange things, for example, 25-year-olds with colon cancer who don’t have family histories of the disease.”

He stressed that this cancer typically takes decades to develop and that its appearance in younger people is “basically impossible along the known paradigm for how colon cancer works.”

On the podcast with Makis, Dr. Peter McCullough, a prominent cardiologist and researcher, also noted the typically longer lead time for cancers to develop.

“Is what we’re seeing now — are these just individuals who have cancers at the time they take the COVID vaccines or are these brand new cancers caused by the vaccines?” he asked.

Possible mechanisms for mRNA vaccine-caused cancers

Makis hypothesized that the mRNA vaccines could be accelerating already existing cancers and are likely responsible for the recent rise in aggressive cancers.

“These lipid nanoparticles [LNPs] — one of the key features is that they don’t stay in the arm. They end up in the systemic circulation,” Makis said.

He suggested that about 75% of the injection ends up in the bloodstream within a few hours, potentially depositing “pseudouridine, modified mRNA and DNA” throughout the body. He listed the brain, bone marrow, liver, pancreas, gall bladder, spleen, testes, ovaries, liver, colon and breast milk as among the locations where these components have been found.

“We are seeing cancers where there is deposition of these vaccine particles,” he said, noting that bone marrow deposition could be causing the increased incidence of leukemia.

Risch, while cautioning that long-term data is still lacking, pointed out potential mechanisms by which vaccines might affect cancer risk.

“The spike protein is toxic,” he stated. “The LNP itself is toxic. The biological manufacturing process involving inadequate filtration of possible harmful components can be toxic.”

Both Makis and Risch discussed the “IgG4 [immunoglobin type 4] antibody shift” caused by the mRNA vaccines as a likely contributor to rapid-onset cancers.

Risch explained how this particular antibody differs from IgG1 and IgG2 responses, which work to neutralize foreign pathogens. By contrast, IgG4 creates a “tolerance response” to keep the immune system from overreacting to things like pollen and food allergens.

Makis explained how after multiple mRNA injections, the level of IgG4 antibodies markedly increases, reducing immune surveillance, thus making “cancer invisible to your immune system.”

“If you’ve got tolerance to cancer cells, it’s not going to stop the cancer cells from reproducing,” Risch said. “You don’t want that to happen.”

Risch said that no one yet knows the depth of damage to the immune surveillance mechanisms the mRNA vaccines are causing, “but there are plausible mechanisms to be looking at.”

This article was originally published by The Defender – Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views
Related Topics:

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

More from this author
International / 30 mins ago

California’s soaring electricity rates strain consumers, impact climate goals

Crime / 1 hour ago

Former UK MP says ‘nothing was done’ with child trafficking information given to police, MI5

National / 4 hours ago

Chrystia Freeland’s WEF page deleted after she announces bid to replace Trudeau

Brownstone Institute

The Deplorable Ethics of a Preemptive Pardon for Fauci

Published on January 20, 2025

By

From the Brownstone Institute

By Alex Washburne 

Anthony “I represent science” Fauci can now stand beside Richard “I am not a crook” Nixon in the history books as someone who received the poison pill of a preemptive pardon.

While Nixon was pardoned for specific charges related to Watergate, the exact crimes for which Fauci was pardoned are not specified. Rather, the pardon specifies:

Baseless and politically motivated investigations wreak havoc on the lives, safety, and financial security of targeted individuals and their families. Even when individuals have done nothing wrong – and in fact have done the right things – and will ultimately be exonerated, the mere fact of being investigated and prosecuted can irreparably damage reputations and finances.

In other words, the dying breath of the Biden administration appears to be pardoning Fauci for crimes he didn’t commit, which would seem to make a pardon null and void. The pardon goes further than simply granting clemency for crimes. Clemency usually alleviates the punishment associated with a crime, but here Biden attempts to alleviate the burden of investigations and prosecutions, the likes of which our justice system uses to uncover crimes.

It’s one thing to pardon someone who has been subjected to a fair trial and convicted, to say they have already paid their dues. Gerald Ford, in his pardon of Richard Nixon, admitted that Nixon had already paid the high cost of resigning from the highest office in the land. Nixon’s resignation came as the final chapter of prolonged investigations into his illegal and unpresidential conduct during Watergate, and those investigations provided us the truth we needed to know that Nixon was a crook and move on content that his ignominious reputation was carve d into stone for all of history.

Fauci, meanwhile, has evaded investigations on matters far more serious than Watergate. In 2017, DARPA organized a grant call – the PREEMPT call – aiming to preempt pathogen spillover from wildlife to people. In 2018 a newly formed collaborative group of scientists from the US, Singapore, and Wuhan wrote a grant – the DEFUSE grant – proposing to modify a bat sarbecovirus in Wuhan in a very unusual way. DARPA did not fund the team because their work was too risky for the Department of Defense, but in 2019 Fauci’s NIAID funded this exact set of scientists who never wrote a paper together prior or since. In late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 emerged in Wuhan with the precise modifications proposed in the DEFUSE grant submitted to PREEMPT.

It’s reasonable to be concerned that this line of research funded by Fauci’s NIAID may have caused the pandemic. In fact, if we’re sharp-penciled and honest with our probabilities, it’s likely beyond reasonable doubt that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a consequence of research proposed in DEFUSE. What we don’t know, however, is whether the research proceeded with US involvement or not.

Congress used its constitutionally-granted investigation and oversight responsibilities to investigate and oversee NIAID in search of answers. In the process of these investigations, they found endless pages of emails with unjustified redactions, evidence that Fauci’s FOIA lady could “make emails disappear,” Fauci’s right-hand-man David Morens aided the DEFUSE authors as they navigated disciplinary measures at NIH and NIAID, and there were significant concerns that NIAID sought to obstruct investigations and destroy federal records.

Such obstructive actions did not inspire confidence in the innocence of Anthony Fauci or the US scientists he funded in 2019. On the contrary, Fauci testified twice under oath saying NIAID did not fund gain-of-function research of concern in Wuhan…but then we discovered a 2018 progress report of research NIAID funded in Wuhan revealing research they funded had enhanced the transmissibility of a bat SARS-related coronavirus 10,000 times higher than the wild virus. That is, indisputably, gain-of-function research of concern. Fauci thus lied to the American public and perjured himself in his testimony to Congress, and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has referred Fauci’s perjury charges to the Department of Justice.

What was NIAID trying to preempt with their obstruction of Congressional investigations? What is Biden trying to preempt with his pardon of Fauci? Why do we not have the 2019 NIAID progress report from the PI’s who submitted DEFUSE to PREEMPT and later received funding from NIAID?

It is deplorable for Biden to preemptively pardon Fauci on his last day in office, with so little known about the research NIAID funded in 2019 and voters so clearly eager to learn more. With Nixon’s preemptive pardon, the truth of his wrongdoing was known and all that was left was punishment. With Fauci’s preemptive pardon, the truth is not yet known, NIAID officials in Fauci’s orbit violated federal records laws in their effort to avoid the truth from being known, and Biden didn’t preemptively pardon Fauci to grant clemency and alleviate punishment, but to stop investigations and prosecutions the likes of which could uncover the truth.

I’m not a Constitutional scholar prepared to argue the legality of this maneuver, but I am an ethical human being, a scientist who contributed another grant to the PREEMPT call, and a scientist who helped uncover some of the evidence consistent with a lab origin and quantify the likelihood of a lab origin from research proposed in the DEFUSE grant. Any ethical human being knows that we need to know what caused the pandemic, and to deprive the citizenry of such information from open investigations of NIAID research in 2019 would be to deprive us of critical information we need to self-govern and elect people who manage scientific risks in ways we see fit. As a scientist, there are critical questions about bioattribution that require testing, and the way to test our hypotheses is to uncover the redacted and withheld documents from Fauci’s NIAID in 2019.

The Biden administration’s dying breath was to pardon Anthony Fauci not for the convictions for crimes he didn’t commit (?) but to avoid investigations that could be a reputational and financial burden for Anthony Fauci. A pardon to preempt an investigation is not a pardon; it is obstruction. The Biden administration’s dying breath is to obstruct our pursuit of truth and reconciliation on the ultimate cause of 1 million Americans’ dying breaths.

To remind everyone what we still need to know, it helps to look through the peephole of what we’ve already found to inspire curiosity about what else we’d find if only the peephole could be widened. Below is one of the precious few emails investigative journalists pursuing FOIAs against NIAID have managed to obtain from the critical period when SARS-CoV-2 is believed to have emerged. The email connects DEFUSE PI’s Peter Daszak (EcoHealth Alliance), Ralph Baric (UNC), Linfa Wang (Duke-NUS), Ben Hu (Wuhan Institute of Virology), Shi ZhengLi (Wuhan Institute of Virology) and others in October 2019. The subject line “NIAID SARS-CoV Call – October 30/31” connects these authors to NIAID.

It is approximately in that time range – October/November 2019 – when SARS-CoV-2 is hypothesized to have entered the human population in Wuhan. When it emerged, SARS-CoV-2 was unique among sarbecoviruses in having a furin cleavage site, as proposed by these authors in their 2019 DEFUSE grant. Of all the places the furin cleavage site could be, the furin cleavage site of SARS-CoV-2 was in the S1/S2 junction of the Spike protein, precisely as proposed by these authors.

In order to insert a furin cleavage site in a SARS-CoV, however, the researchers would’ve needed to build a reverse genetic system, i.e. a DNA copy of the virus. SARS-CoV-2 is unique among coronaviruses in having exactly the fingerprint we would expect from reverse genetic systems. There is an unusual even spacing in the cutting/pasting sites for the enzymes BsaI and BsmBI and an anomalous hot-spot of silent mutations in precisely these sites, exactly as researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology have done for other coronavirus reverse genetic systems. The odds of such an extreme synthetic-looking pattern occurring in nature are, conservatively, about 1 in 50 billion.

The virus did not emerge in Bangkok, Hanoi, Bago, Kunming, Guangdong, or any of the myriad other places with similar animal trade networks and greater contact rates between people and sarbecovirus reservoirs. No. The virus emerged in Wuhan, the exact place and time one would expect from DEFUSE.

With all the evidence pointing the hounds towards NIAID, it is essential for global health security that we further investigate the research NIAID funded in 2019. It is imperative for our constitutional democracy, for our ability to self-govern, that we learn the truth. The only way to learn the truth is to investigate NIAID, the agency Fauci led for 38 years, the agency that funded gain-of-function research of concern, the agency named in the October 2019 call by DEFUSE PI’s, the agency that funded this exact group in 2019.

A preemptive pardon prior to the discovery of truth is a fancy name for obstruction of justice. The Biden administration’s dying breath must be challenged, and we must allow Congress and the incoming administration to investigate the possibility that Anthony Fauci’s NIAID-supported research caused the Covid-19 pandemic.

Republished from the author’s Substack

Author

Alex Washburne

Alex Washburne is a mathematical biologist and the founder and chief scientist at Selva Analytics. He studies competition in ecological, epidemiological, and economic systems research, with research on covid epidemiology, the economic impacts of pandemic policy, and stock market response to epidemiological news.

Continue Reading

Addictions

Nanaimo syringe stabbing reignites calls for involuntary care

Published on January 19, 2025

By

Safe needle disposal box at Deverill Square Gyro 2 Park in Nanaimo, B.C., Sept. 5, 2024. [Photo credit: Alexandra Keeler]

By Alexandra Keeler

Some politicians, police and community groups argue involuntary care is key to addressing severe addiction and mental health issues

The brutal stabbing last month of a 58-year-old city employee in Nanaimo, B.C., made national headlines. The man was stabbed multiple times with a syringe after he asked two men who were using drugs in a public park washroom to leave.

The worker sustained multiple injuries to his face and abdomen and was hospitalized. As of Jan. 7, the RCMP were still investigating the suspects.

The incident comes on the heels of other violent attacks in the province that have been linked to mental health and substance use disorders.

On Dec. 4, Vancouver police fatally shot a man armed with a knife inside a 7-Eleven after he attacked two staff members while attempting to steal cigarettes. Earlier that day, the man had allegedly stolen alcohol from a nearby restaurant.

Three months earlier, on Sept. 4, a 34-year-old man with a history of assault and mental health problems randomly attacked two men in downtown Vancouver, leaving one dead and another with a severed hand.

These incidents have sparked growing calls from politicians, police and residents for governments to expand involuntary care and strengthen health-care interventions and law enforcement strategies.

“What is Premier Eby, the provincial and federal government going to do?” the volunteer community group Nanaimo Area Public Safety Association said in a Dec. 11 public statement.

“British Columbians are well past being fed-up with lip-service.”

Our content is always free. Subscribe to get BTN’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.

‘Extremely complex needs’

On Jan. 5, B.C.’s newly reelected premier, David Eby, announced the province will open two involuntary care sites this spring. One will be located at the Surrey Pretrial Centre in Surrey, and the other at the Alouette Correctional Facility in Maple Ridge, a city northeast of Vancouver.

Eby said his aim is to address the cases of severe addiction, brain injury and mental illness that have contributed to violent incidents and public safety concerns.

Involuntary care allows authorities to mandate treatment for individuals with severe mental health or substance use disorders without their consent.

Amy Rosa, a BC Ministry of Health public affairs officer, confirmed to Canadian Affairs that the NDP government remains committed to expanding both voluntary and involuntary care as a solution to the rise in violent attacks.

“We’re grappling with a growing group of people with extremely complex needs — people with severe mental health and addictions issues, coupled with brain injuries from repeated overdoses,” Rosa said.

As part of its commitment to expanding involuntary care, the province plans to establish more secure facilities and mental health units within correctional centres and create 400 new mental health beds.

In response to follow-up questions, Rosa told Canadian Affairs that the province plans to introduce legal changes in the next legislative session “to provide clarity and ensure that people can receive care when they are unable to seek it themselves.” She noted these changes will be made in consultation with First Nations to ensure culturally safe treatment programs.

“The care provided at these facilities will be dignified, safe and respectful,” she said.
Maffeo Sutton Park, where on Dec. 10, 2024, a Nanaimo city worker was stabbed multiple times with a syringe; Sept. 1, 2024. [Photo credit: Alexandra Keeler]

‘Health-led approach’

Nanaimo Mayor Leonard Krog says involuntary care is necessary to prevent violent incidents such as the syringe stabbing in the city’s park.

“Without secure involuntary care, supportive housing, and a full continuum of care from detox to housing, treatment and follow-up, little will change,” he said.

Elenore Sturko, BC Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, agrees that early intervention for mental health and substance use disorders is important. She supports laws that facilitate interventions outside of the criminal justice system.

“Psychosis and brain damage are things that need to be diagnosed by medical professionals,” said Sturko, who served as an officer in the RCMP for 13 years.

Sturko says although these diagnoses need to be given by medical professionals, first responders are trained to recognize signs.

“Police can be trained, and first responders are trained, to recognize the signs of those conditions. But whether or not these are regular parts of the assessment that are given to people who are arrested, I actually do not know that,” she said.

Staff Sergeant Kris Clark, a RCMP media relations officer, told Canadian Affairs in an emailed statement that officers receive crisis intervention and de-escalation training but are not mental health professionals.

“All police officers in BC are mandated to undergo crisis intervention and de-escalation training and must recertify every three years,” he said. Additional online courses help officers recognize signs of “mental, emotional or psychological crisis, as well as other altered states of consciousness,” he said.

“It’s important to understand however that police officers are not medical/mental health professionals.”

Clark also referred Canadian Affairs to the BC Association of Chiefs of Police’s Nov. 28 statement. The statement says the association has changed its stance on decriminalization, which refers to policies that remove criminal penalties for illicit drug use.

“Based on evidence and ongoing evaluation, we no longer view decriminalization as a primary mechanism for addressing the systemic challenges associated with substance use,” says the statement. The association represents senior police leaders across the province.

Instead, the association is calling for greater investment in health services, enhanced programs to redirect individuals from the justice system to treatment services, and collaboration with government and community partners.
Vancouver Coastal Health’s Pender Community Health Centre in East Hastings, Vancouver, B.C., Aug. 31, 2024. [Photo credit: Alexandra Keeler]

‘Life or limb’

Police services are not the only agencies grappling with mental health and substance use disorders.

The City of Vancouver told Canadian Affairs it has expanded programs like the Indigenous Crisis Response Team, which offers non-police crisis services for Indigenous adults, and Car 87/88, which pairs a police officer with a psychiatric nurse to respond to mental health crises.

Vancouver Coastal Health, the city’s health authority, adjusted its hiring plan in 2023 to recruit 55 mental health workers, up from 35. And the city has funded 175 new officers in the Vancouver Police Department, a seven per cent increase in the force’s size.

The city has also indicated it supports involuntary care.

In September, Vancouver Mayor Ken Sim was one of 11 B.C. mayors who issued a statement calling on the federal government to provide legal and financial support for provinces to implement involuntary care.

On Oct. 10, Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre said a Conservative government would support mandatory involuntary treatment for minors and prisoners deemed incapable of making decisions.

The following day, Federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions Ya’ara Saks said in a news conference that provinces must first ensure they have adequate addiction and mental health services in place before discussions about involuntary care can proceed.

“Before we contemplate voluntary or involuntary treatment, I would like to see provinces and territories ensuring that they actually have treatment access scaled to need,” she said.

Some health-care providers have also expressed reservations about involuntary care.

In September, the Canadian Mental Health Association, a national organization that advocates for mental health awareness, issued a news release expressing concerns about involuntary care.

The association highlighted gaps in the current involuntary care system, including challenges in accessing voluntary care, reports of inadequate treatment for those undergoing involuntary care and an increased risk of death from drug poisoning upon release.

“Involuntary care must be a last resort, not a sweeping solution,” its release says.

“We must focus on prevention and early intervention, addressing the root causes of mental health and addiction crises before they escalate into violent incidents.”

Sturko agrees with focusing on early intervention, but emphasized the need for such interventions to be timely.

“We should not have to wait for someone to commit a criminal act in order for them to have court-imposed interventions … We need to be able to act before somebody loses their life or limb.”

This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X