Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Health

LGBT group challenges Alberta pro-family bill, wants puberty blockers for 10-year-olds

Published

3 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

A federally funded pro-LGBT group is challenging Alberta’s pro-family legislation that bans giving often sterilizing puberty blockers to kids, claiming sex “reassignment” procedures are necessary for children.

On December 9, Egale Canada, an LGBT activist group, filed an injunction against Alberta’s newly passed Health Statutes Amendment Act (HSAA), also called Bill 26, at the Calgary’s Court of King’s Bench 

“If you deny a kid access to blockers and then they go through permanent changes via puberty, they then have to pursue medical treatment and interventions to undo the effects of [puberty], so that is how the coercion is operating,” Bennett Jensen, legal director at Egale Canada, told CBC News. 

Alberta’s new legislation, passed last week, reflects “the government’s commitment to build a health care system that responds to the changing needs of Albertans,” it said.  

The bill will amend the Health Act to “prohibit regulated health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.”  

It will also ban the “use of puberty blockers and hormone therapies for the treatment of gender dysphoria or gender incongruence” to kids 15 and under “except for those who have already commenced treatment and would allow for minors aged 16 and 17 to choose to commence puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender reassignment and affirmation purposes with parental, physician and psychologist approval.”  

Egale Canada, which receives funding from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s federal government, has paired with Skipping Stone and five Alberta families to challenge the new law. The group is using five gender-confused children to argue their case.  

They claim that the new legislation violates both the national Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the provincial Alberta Bill of Rights.

The court filing effectively argues that if the Alberta bill is upheld, the gender-confused children, some as young as ten, will not be able to halt naturally occurring puberty through artificial means, which presents an impediment to their ability to “transition.”

Despite the claims of LGBT activists, there is overwhelming evidence showing that people who undergo so-called “gender transitioning” are more likely to commit suicide than those who are not given irreversible surgery.  

Transgender surgeries and drugs have been linked to permanent physical and psychological damage, including cardiovascular diseases, loss of bone density, cancer, strokes and blood clots, and infertility.  

Meanwhile, a recent study on the side effects of transgender “sex change” surgeries discovered that 81 percent of those who had undergone “sex change” surgeries in the past five years reported experiencing pain simply from normal movement in the weeks and months that followed – and that many other side effects manifest as well.  

Brownstone Institute

The Cure for Vaccine Skepticism

Published on

From the Brownstone Institute

By Martin Kulldorff Martin Kulldorff 

The only way to restore public trust in vaccination – which has taken a big hit since the lies attending the rollout of the Covid-19 vaccine – is to put a well-known vaccine skeptic in charge of the vaccine research agenda. The ideal person for this is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who has been nominated to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

At the same time, we must put rigorous scientists with a proven track record of evidence-based medicine in charge of determining the type of study designs to use. Two ideal scientists for this are Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Marty Makary, who have been nominated to lead the NIH and FDA, respectively.

Vaccines are – along with antibiotics, anesthesia, and sanitation – one of the most significant health inventions in history. First conceived in 1774 by Benjamin Jesty, a farmer in Dorsetshire, England, the smallpox vaccine alone has saved millions of lives. Operation Warp Speed, which rapidly developed the Covid vaccines, saved many older Americans. Despite this, we have seen a sharp increase in general vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine scientists and public health officials who did not conduct properly randomized trials made false claims about vaccine efficacy and safety and established vaccine mandates for people who did not need the vaccines, sowing suspicion and damaging public trust in vaccination.

What went wrong? The purpose of the Covid vaccines was to reduce mortality and hospitalization, but the randomized trials were only designed to demonstrate short-term reduction in Covid symptoms, which is not of great public health importance. Since the placebo groups were promptly vaccinated after the emergency approval, they also failed to provide reliable information about adverse reactions. Despite these flaws, it was falsely claimed that vaccine-induced immunity is superior to natural infection-acquired immunity and that the vaccines would prevent infection and transmission.

Governments and universities then mandated the vaccines for people with superior natural immunity and for young people with very low mortality risk. These mandates were not only unscientific but with a limited vaccine supply, it was unethical to vaccinate low-mortality-risk people when the vaccines were needed by older high-risk people around the world.

Since government and pharmaceutical companies lied about the Covid vaccine, are they also lying about other vaccines? Skepticism has now spread to tried-and-true vaccines that are proven to work.

And there are real, unanswered vaccine safety questions. Seminal work from Denmark has shown that vaccines can have both positive and negative non-specific effects on non-targeted diseases, and that is something that must be explored in greater depth. Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) scientists studying asthma and aluminum-containing vaccines concluded that while their “findings do not constitute strong evidence for questioning the safety of aluminum in vaccines…additional examination of this hypothesis appears warranted.”

While VSD and other scientists should continue to do observational studies, we should also conduct randomized placebo-controlled vaccine trials, as RFK has advocated. Since we have herd immunity for many diseases, such as measles, trials can be ethically conducted by randomizing the age of vaccination to, for example, one versus three years old, while spreading the trial over a large geographical area so that the unvaccinated are not all living close to each other.

I am confident that most vaccines will continue to be found safe and effective. While some problems may be found, that is more likely to increase rather than decrease vaccine confidence. For instance, it was found that the measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMRV) vaccine causes excess febrile seizures in 12- to 23-month-old children. MMRV is now only given as a second dose to older children, while the younger kids get separate MMR and varicella vaccines, resulting in fewer vaccine-induced seizures that scare parents. Although safety studies were inconclusive, it was also wise to remove mercury from vaccines. Even if we end up with fewer vaccines in the recommended vaccine schedule, that’s not necessarily a terrible thing. Scandinavia has a very healthy population with fewer vaccines in their schedules.

We won’t restore vaccine confidence by preaching to the choir. After the Covid debacle, Kennedy’s stated goal is to return to evidence-based medicine free from conflicts of interest. Letting him do that is the only way that skeptics will trust vaccines again, and those of us who trust vaccines have no reason to be afraid of that.

Attempts by the public health and pharma establishments to derail the nominations of RFK, Bhattacharya, and Makary are the surest way to further increase vaccine hesitancy in America. The choice is stark. We cannot let lopsided “pro-vaccine scientists” who clamp their hands over their ears at the mildest questions do any more harm to vaccine confidence. As a pro-vaccine scientist, and in fact, the only person ever being fired by the CDC for being too pro-vaccine, the choice is clear in my mind. To restore vaccine confidence to previous levels, we must support the nominations of Kennedy, Bhattacharya, and Makary.

Republished from RealClearPolitics

Author

Martin Kulldorff

Martin Kulldorff is an epidemiologist and biostatistician. He is Professor of Medicine at Harvard University (on leave) and a Fellow at the Academy of Science and Freedom. His research focuses on infectious disease outbreaks and the monitoring of vaccine and drug safety, for which he has developed the free SaTScan, TreeScan, and RSequential software. Co-Author of the Great Barrington Declaration.

Continue Reading

Addictions

Annual cannabis survey reveals many positive trends — and some concerning ones

Published on

By Alexandra Keeler

On Christmas Eve, during his final year of high school, Justin Schneider’s friend handed him his first bowl of weed.

Schneider says he remembers it being an especially stressful evening and thinking, ‘Oh my God, they were lying to us about this.’

“Here I was this ‘good kid,’ staying away from alcohol and drugs, but this stuff is the best thing I’ve ever had,” he said. “But that reaction was brought on because it was the first time I’d ever taken any type of medication for anxiety.”

At first, Schneider used cannabis to cope with generalized anxiety, depression and insomnia. By his late twenties, he had become a heavy user.

In 2018, after more than 20 years of daily cannabis use, he was finally able to overcome his cannabis dependency with the help of a psychiatrist and addictions counselor.

Canadians’ relationship with cannabis has shifted dramatically since it was first legalized for non-medical use in 2018, a new survey shows.

The 2024 Canadian Cannabis Survey, released by Health Canada Dec. 6, reveals cannabis use has become increasingly normalized, driven by broader legal access and growing social acceptance. It also suggests legalization has achieved many of policymakers’ key goals.

But Schneider and others warn cannabis is not without its risks, and say better public education is required to address some of cannabis’ lesser known risks.

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

‘Some sketchy guy’

Health Canada’s annual survey, which collected responses from more than 1,600 Canadians aged 16 and older, reveals a thriving legal cannabis market in Canada.

The number of users purchasing cannabis through legal channels has nearly doubled since legalization, rising from 37 per cent in 2019 to 72 per cent today.

“I imagine if I was just starting out [with cannabis] now, I wouldn’t ever have to interact with some sketchy guy, and that would have been easier growing up,” said Jesse Cohen, a 34-year-old daily cannabis user from Montreal.

Cohen uses cannabis to unwind after work or while performing menial tasks at home. Today, he picks up his supply from a sleek, well-lit government-regulated dispensary. He feels this interaction is safer than buying it on the black market.

Cohen says he has also seen the quality and variety of products on the market improve — accompanied by an increase in price.

In the survey, just over one-quarter of all respondents said they used cannabis for non-medical purposes in the past year, up from 22 per cent in 2018. Among youth, that number was 41 per cent.

The number of youth using cannabis has remained stable since 2018, a finding that challenges some critics’ claims that legalization would lead to higher rates of youth consumption.

“For youth, I do think that the whole legalization de-stigmatized and took the risk out of it — it wasn’t a taboo subject or a taboo activity anymore — so there wasn’t the same draw,” said Ian Culbert, executive director of the Canadian Public Health Association, a non-profit that promotes public health.

“Let’s face it, youth experiment, and if it’s something your grandmother is doing, you don’t necessarily want to be doing it too.”

Another positive trend, Culbert says, is that cannabis users now seem to be better informed about the risks of driving while high.

Only 18 per cent of people who had used cannabis in the past year reported getting behind the wheel after cannabis use, down from 27 per cent in 2018.

Culbert interviewed cannabis users when cannabis was legalized. At that time, many said they thought their driving abilities improved when under the influence of cannabis.

“Of course, that’s just not the truth … They felt that their video game experience was so much better when they were consuming, therefore why wouldn’t driving a car be better?” Culbert said.

“I think [because of] education efforts, and the fact that police across the country have put in programs to identify and prosecute people who are driving impaired, that message has gotten through, and people are now equating it to drinking alcohol and driving.”

Public health campaigns also seem to have raised awareness of cannabis’ risks to physical health. Successive Health Canada cannabis surveys have shown a growing understanding of cannabis’ effects on lung health and youth brain development.

Schneider believes public health campaigns now need to focus more on the mental health risks associated with heavy cannabis use.

“I think there’s a responsibility to say that, for a small proportion of people, it can be very psychologically addictive and very, very risky to mental health.”

According to Health Canada, regular cannabis users can experience psychological and mild physical dependence, with withdrawal symptoms that include irritability, anxiety, upset stomach and disturbed sleep.

“You don’t actually have anxiety,” said Schneider about his own withdrawal symptoms. “But your brain creates it anyway, driving you to use cannabis to relieve it.”

Research also shows frequent use of high-THC cannabis is linked to an increased risk of psychosis, a mental condition marked by a disconnection from reality. Individuals with mental disorders or a family history of schizophrenia are at particular risk.

In the survey, only 70 per cent of respondents said they had enough reliable information to make informed decisions about cannabis use. And the number of respondents saying they have not seen any education campaigns or public health messages about cannabis has increased, from 24 per cent in 2019 to 50 per cent today.

Culbert says the revenue that the government generates from cannabis creates a disincentive for it to issue strong health warnings.

“There’s no coherence in our regulatory and legal frameworks with respect to health harms and the level of regulation,” he said.

“Governments are addicted to their sin taxes,” he said.


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