Health
Kenyan doctor condemns WHO for sterilizing African women with vaccines
Dr. Wahome Ngare
From LifeSiteNews
In 2014 and 2015, the WHO campaigned for the eradication of Tetanus in Africa, pushing a vaccine that, according to Dr. Ngare, made women “sterile.”
A Kenyan doctor denounced the World Health Organization (WHO) before Uganda’s president for being untrustworthy as shown by its African vaccination campaigns, including a Tetanus shot push that caused infertility in women.
Dr. Wahome Ngare, the director of Kenya Christian Professionals Forum (KCPF), warned President Yoweri Museveni in a speech posted online Tuesday, as the WHO was negotiating amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), that the massively influential global health body has a recent history of working against the best interests of Africans.
As a glaring example of this, he told how in 2014 and 2015, the WHO campaigned for the eradication of Tetanus in Africa, pushing a vaccine that, according to Dr. Ngare, made women “sterile.” He explained that the vaccine combined the Tetanus virus with a substance that produces antibodies against a hormone needed to maintain pregnancy, called human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG).
“When we inject a woman with that vaccine, she produces antibodies against that hormone and therefore is rendered sterile,” Dr. Ngare noted. A paper has been published in the journal Vaccine Weekly echoing the Kenyan doctor’s claim, asserting that “similar tetanus vaccines laced with hCG” (to produce antibodies against the natural hormone) “have been uncovered in the Philippines and in Nicaragua.”
The article’s abstract pointed out that a former president of Human Life International (HLI) “asked Congress to investigate reports of women in some developing countries unknowingly receiving a tetanus vaccine laced with the anti-fertility drug.”
Dr. Ngare said he and other doctors in Africa have noticed increasing cases of young couples who appear medically “normal” but cannot conceive children, as well as couples who are losing as many as “three, four, or five” children before the mother can carry a child to term.
He went on to argue that another reason the WHO cannot be trusted is that it has proposed the vaccination of African children against malaria despite the fact that it is a “treatable disease.”
He pointed out that the U.K. “was able to eradicate malaria in 1921,” and the U.S. eliminated the disease in 1951, but the WHO has seemingly not yet worked out how to rid the African continent of malaria. Dr. Ngare argued that in fact, there is a natural treatment for malaria, found in the trees used to create quinine, which is known to treat malaria. There is further a plant, known as Artemisia annua or sweet wormwood plant, grown in Africa, that also treats malaria.
“One of our doctors in Congo wrote a paper that demonstrated how well the Artemisia tea worked and compared it to conventional medicine and even demonstrated it works better than conventional medicine. And two years later, his paper was pulled out. It was retracted. We do not need a vaccine for our children to treat malaria,” Dr. Ngare told Museveni.
The WHO continues to push novel, untested biological interventions in Africa, such as genetically modified (GMO) mosquitoes, which Dr. Ngare noted “sterilize” natural mosquitoes, and have an unknown potential for damage to humans — as if it’s “not enough” to cause poverty by introducing patented GMO seeds, the doctor lamented.
Dr. Ngare has previously advised African countries to “collectively treat all vaccination programs as a national security risk,” stating, “If you cannot determine what is in the vaccine that is being given to your people, you may be opening a door to destroy the African population.”
The WHO has been under heavy fire recently from politicians and activists around the world for its proposed “pandemic agreement” and amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), on which the WHO failed to gain consensus from its member states this week. A more modest “consensus package of (IHR) amendments” will be presented this week, and The New York Times reported that negotiators plan to ask for more time to come to an agreement.
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has also suggested that efforts to come to an agreement on the proposals will continue.
“We all wish that we had been able to reach a consensus on the agreement in time for this health assembly and crossed the finish line,” Tedros said, reported The Straits Times. “But I remain confident that you still will, because where there is a will, there is a way.”
Alberta
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
Alberta’s government is launching a public engagement to gather input about legislation and policies around assisted suicide, also referred to as medical assistance in dying (MAID).
Medical assistance in dying is a process that allows an eligible person to receive assistance from a medical practitioner in ending their life. To be found eligible, a person must be suffering from a serious and permanent medical condition.
Alberta’s government is reviewing how MAID is regulated to ensure there is a consistent process as well as oversight that protects vulnerable Albertans, specifically those living with disabilities or suffering from mental health challenges. An online survey is now open for Albertans to share their views and experiences with MAID until Dec. 20.
“We recognize that medical assistance in dying is a very complex and often personal issue and is an important, sensitive and emotional matter for patients and their families. It is important to ensure this process has the necessary supports to protect the most vulnerable. I encourage Albertans who have experience with and opinions on MAID to take this survey.”
In addition to the online survey, Alberta’s government will also be engaging directly with academics, medical associations, public bodies, religious organizations, regulatory bodies, advocacy groups and others that have an interest in and/or working relationship to the MAID process, health care, disabilities and mental health care.
Feedback gathered through this process will help inform the Alberta government’s planning and policy decision making, including potential legislative changes regarding MAID in Alberta.
“Our government has been clear that we do not support the provision of medically assisted suicide for vulnerable Albertans facing mental illness as their primary purpose for seeking their own death. Instead, our goal is to build a continuum of care where vulnerable Albertans can live in long-term health and fulfilment. We look forward to the feedback of Albertans as we proceed with this important issue.”
“As MAID is a federally legislated and regulated program that touches the lives of many Albertans, our priority is to ensure we have robust safeguards to protect vulnerable individuals. Albertans’ insights will be essential in developing thoughtful policies on this complex issue.”
The federal Criminal Code sets out the MAID eligibility criteria, procedural safeguards and reporting obligations. The federal government has paused MAID eligibility for individuals with a mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition until March 2027 to ensure the provincial health care systems have processes and supports in place. Alberta’s government does not support expanding MAID eligibility to include those facing depression or mental illness and continues to call on the federal government to end this policy altogether.
Related information
Alberta
On gender, Alberta is following the science
Despite falling into disrepute in recent years, “follow the science” remains our best shot at getting at the truth of the physical sciences.
But science, if we are to place our trust in it, must be properly defined and understood; it is at its essence an ever-changing process, a relentless pursuit of truth that is never “settled,” and one that is unafraid to discard old hypotheses in the face of new evidence.
And it is in this light—in the unforgiving glare of honest science—that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s three new legislative initiatives around gender policy are properly understood, notwithstanding the opprobrium they’ve attracted from critics.
Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, proposes to prohibit the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria to youth aged 15 and under. It would allow minors aged 16 and 17 to begin puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender “reassignment” and “affirmation” purposes only with parental, physician, and psychologist approval. The bill also prohibits health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.
Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, seeks to enshrine parents’ rights to be notified if their kids change their names/pronouns at school, and it gives parents the right to “opt in” to what sort of gender and sex education their kids are exposed to in school.
And Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, is designed to protect females in sports by ensuring that women and girls can compete in biological female-only divisions, while supporting the formation of co-ed opportunities to support transgender athletes.
Each of these initiatives is entirely reasonable, given what we know of the science underpinning “gender care,” and of the undeniable advantages that a male physique confers upon biological males competing in sports.
The notion that the trifecta of puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and revisionist surgery is a pathway to good health was a hypothesis initially devised by Dutch researchers, who were looking to ease the discomfort of transgender adults struggling with incongruence between their physical appearance and their gender identities. As a hypothesis, it was perhaps reasonable.
But as the UK’s Cass Review exposed in withering detail last spring, its premises were wholly unsupported by evidence, and its implementation has caused grievous harm for youth. As Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, one of the architects of that country’s gender program, put it last year, “Gender affirming care is dangerous. I know, because I helped pioneer it.”
It’s no accident, then, that numerous European jurisdictions have pulled back from the “gender affirming care” pathway for youth, such as Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
It makes perfect sense that Canadians should be cautious as well, and that parents should be apprised if their children are being exposed to these theories at school and informed if their kids are caught up in their premises.
Yet the Canadian medical establishment has remained curiously intransigent on this issue, continuing to insist that the drug-and-surgery-based gender-affirming care model is rooted in evidence.
Premier Smith was asked by a reporter last month whether decisions on these matters aren’t best left to discussions between doctors and their patients; to which she replied:
“I would say doctors aren’t always right.”
Which is rather an understatement, as anyone familiar with the opioid drug crisis can attest, or as anyone acquainted with the darker corners of medical history knows: the frontal lobotomy saga, the thalidomide catastrophe, and the “recovered memories of sexual abuse” scandal are just a few examples of where doctors didn’t “get it right.”
As physicians, we advocate strongly for self-regulation and for the principle that medical decisions are private matters between physicians and patients. But self-regulation isn’t infallible, and when it fails it can be very much in the interests of the public—and especially of patients—for others to intervene, whether they be journalists, lawyers, or political leaders.
The trans discussion shouldn’t be a partisan issue, although it certainly has become one in Canada. It’s worth noting that Britain’s freshly elected Labour Party chose to carry on with the cautious approach adopted by the preceding administration in light of the Cass Review.
Premier Smith’s new polices are eminently sensible and in line with the stance taken by our European colleagues. None of her initiatives are “anti-trans.” Instead, they are pro-child, pro-women, and pro-athlete, and it’s difficult to see how anyone can quibble with that.
Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, is a pediatrician in Calgary, senior fellow at 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.
-
Brownstone Institute14 hours ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Economy1 day ago
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
-
Censorship Industrial Complex18 hours ago
Another Mass Grave?
-
Alberta17 hours ago
MAiD In Alberta: Province surveying Albertans about assisted suicide policies
-
Alberta1 day ago
On gender, Alberta is following the science
-
Energy1 day ago
Ottawa’s proposed emission cap lacks any solid scientific or economic rationale
-
International2 hours ago
Elon Musk praises families on X: ‘We should teach fear of childlessness,’ not pregnancy
-
Bruce Dowbiggin13 hours ago
CHL Vs NCAA: Finally Some Sanity For Hockey Families