My fellow Canadians, it's not every day that a story leaves me truly incensed, but today, you better believe I'm seething. The saga of Sheila Annette has crossed my feed again, and this time, it ends in tragedy. Sheila was one of those courageous individuals who said, "Enough is enough, I want control over my own body," refusing to bend to the COVID vaccine mandate. She needed a transplant—a lifeline, a chance at a future. Yet because she stood up for her own bodily autonomy, she was denied that crucial procedure by the very professionals sworn to uphold the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." Well, let me tell you, they've done harm. They have blood on their hands, and they ought to be ashamed. Doctors, administrators, policy-makers—every single person who had a hand in creating or enforcing this authoritarian, draconian policy has failed not just Sheila, but the very essence of medical ethics. She's gone now, passed away because she was denied the medical treatment that would have saved her life. So, we have to ask ourselves, what is going on with Canadian health care? What's happening in the tangled web of our bureaucracy that allows this to happen on our soil? Stick around, because we're going to dig deep into the broken machinery of Canadian health care and bureaucracy. This isn't just about Sheila Annette—this is about the soul of our nation. It's time to take a hard look in the mirror, Canada. Sheila Annette Lewis' story serves as a profound case at the intersection of public health policy, medical ethics, and individual rights. She was diagnosed with a terminal illness and placed on a high-priority organ transplant list. However, her decision to not receive a COVID-19 vaccine led to her removal from the list by Alberta Health Services (AHS) and six involved doctors. This action spurred Sheila to challenge the vaccine mandate for organ transplant patients at the Supreme Court of Canada, which ultimately declined to hear her case. Not deterred, Sheila and her legal team filed a separate negligence suit against AHS and the doctors who removed her from the transplant list. This legal battle reached a confidential settlement. A GiveSendGo campaign set up in her name raised a significant sum to help cover her healthcare costs, though it didn't meet the total goal set for her complex medical needs. Despite the legal and financial hurdles, Sheila found a hospital in the United States that agreed to perform the organ transplant she needed without requiring her to be vaccinated. However, the financial cost for the procedure and associated tests were estimated to be in the hundreds of thousands of Canadian dollars. Sheila Annette Lewis fought an arduous battle not just against her terminal illness, but also against a healthcare system and a set of policies that many believe should have done more to prioritize her life. She navigated legal mazes and public opinion, raising complex questions about the role of personal freedom and medical ethics in our society today. This was her story, and unfortunately, it was cut short with her passing—due to a system that, some argue, was more interested in serving a narrative than in serving its patient's health. After discussing the tragic case of Sheila Annette Lewis, it's critical to look at some of the ongoing debates about Covid-19 and vaccination. The CDC recently released a risk assessment about a new variant, BA.2.86. Now, here's where it gets interesting. The CDC admits that existing tests and treatments appear effective against this new variant, yet they also mention it may be more capable of causing infections in people who have had COVID-19 or have been vaccinated. That's right—you heard it here—vaccinated. So why was Sheila forced to make a life-altering decision based on a vaccine that may not offer ironclad protection against all variants? CDC goes on to say that they're evaluating the 'effectiveness' of a forthcoming updated vaccine. They believe it will be effective in reducing severe disease and hospitalization. Well, that's comforting, isn't it? But remember, their assessment may change as 'additional scientific data are developed.' So let's boil it down: We've got a new variant. The old vaccines might not be as effective, but hey, we have a new one coming, and it will probably work, but no guarantees. And in the midst of all this, a woman lost her life because she questioned the system. Folks, it's a time to question, to probe, to be skeptical, especially when lives are at stake. People like Sheila Annette Lewis deserved better than to be entrapped by a system that is continually changing its guidance, often shrouded in uncertainties. It's a troubling landscape. One where individuals like Sheila are lost in the crosshairs of a system seemingly obsessed with narratives over individual patient care. This is about a woman's life, about her choices, and the harsh consequences she faced. Her story was cut tragically short in a system that appeared more bent on maintaining a specific narrative than truly serving its patients' health. It's a grave reminder of how complex and, at times, punishing our healthcare landscape has become for those seeking simple rights to their own bodies. So here's the grand disconnect, the glaring inconsistency in a system that's full of them. On one hand, you've got Alberta Health so overwhelmed—or perhaps just so eager to try new options—that they're willing to consider sending patients across provincial lines for surgeries. Presumably, to get them the care they need, or maybe just to lessen the burden on their own stretched resources. But that's fine; it shows flexibility, an admission that maybe, just maybe, they don't have all the answers. Now, let's switch gears back to Sheila Annette Lewis. A woman who merely wanted the same privilege of choice, the same kind of healthcare flexibility. And what did she get? She got a rigid, immovable system that told her, "Sorry, these are the rules. Don't like them? Too bad." Even though these rules are seemingly as solid as quicksand, changing with every new press release from the CDC. Where was her option to seek different avenues for her healthcare? Where was her emergency meeting to discuss her unique case? So, the crux of the matter is this: Alberta Health can explore outsourcing healthcare when it suits them, but they couldn't offer the same latitude to a terminally ill woman questioning the prevailing narrative. Is it just me, or does that sound more like a system serving itself rather than its people? And that, ladies and gentlemen, should give us all pause. Now get this in a neighboring province that Alberta was considering sending patientstoo—while Sheila's life hung in the balance, the B.C. government had a dazzling strategy up its sleeve: shipping cancer patients across the border to Washington. Oh yes, you heard that right. And what's the kicker? Washington doesn't even require these folks to be vaccinated! So here we are, in the 'Great White North,' with Canadians like Sheila languishing in a healthcare system that's more clogged than a rush-hour freeway. Yet, when it comes to certain treatments, lo and behold, the government finds it appropriate to send its citizens to the United States, bypassing all their high and mighty vaccination mandates. It's astonishing, really. We're looking at a government willing to turn a blind eye to its own so-called 'standards,' just to clear some room in their struggling healthcare system. They'll send you to a place with different vaccination rules but won't sort out how to save lives in their own backyard. How's that for government logic? These incident wernt just isolated health care, let's talk about the baffling decisions that came out of British Columbia two years ago. They closed gyms but kept malls open? Where was the logic in that? How was it defensible that a place where people actively worked to improve their health was deemed less essential than a shopping mall? Ben Stewart, an MLA in B.C., made it clear back then: these decisions were made 'without any supporting data.' That was a staggering admission. They affected people's livelihoods, their physical and mental well-being, based on what? A hunch? A whim? A political maneuver? Meanwhile, gym owners who dared to defy that senseless decree faced fines. It was a head-spinning double standard. They punished small businesses for trying to keep us healthy while simultaneously leaving the dens of consumerism wide open. So, you had Sheila, denied an organ transplant for making a personal health choice, and then you had gyms, closed despite being venues for improving public health. It was almost as if the system was making it up as it went along, more concerned with pushing a narrative than looking out for the well-being of its citizens. And the sad reality was, it wasn't just a narrative they were pushing. It was lives they were affecting. From Sheila's tragic story to the perplexing decisions that impacted our small businesses and our choices for a healthy lifestyle, the message was clear: it was a system that failed to serve the very people it was supposed to protect. In this context, it's reasonable to ask who these policies are ultimately serving. Are they in the best interest of public health, or do they serve a different agenda? The sad story of Sheila Annette Lewis juxtaposed with these new healthcare initiatives creates a jarring contrast, prompting us to question the underlying motives and effectiveness of such decisions. We were always told that Canadian healthcare was a treasure, a jewel in the national crown. Our teachers, our politicians—they all lauded the virtues of our system, contrasting it with the supposedly inferior American model. "At least we don't need health insurance," they'd say, conveniently omitting the fact that our neighbors to the south pay less in taxes. But what they never told us was that in Canada, there's a steep price to pay: your freedom, your autonomy, and sometimes even your life. Sheila Annette Lewis made a personal choice, and it cost her. She probably waved her middle finger to the government until her last breath, saying, "I refuse, over my dead body." Well, sadly, that's exactly what happened. This is a tragedy on multiple fronts. I blame our broken medical system, I blame the doctors who turned their backs on the Hippocratic oath, and I blame the politicians who turned this travesty into policy. You know exactly who you are. You made Sheila a martyr, and I for one am incensed. This isn't a moment for resignation; this is a call to action, a battle cry for all who believe in the sanctity of individual freedom and medical choice. I'm outraged, but most importantly, I'm emboldened. This is our country, built on the principles of freedom, autonomy, and the respect for human dignity. These aren't just ideals; they are the bedrock of our nation. It's stories like this that drive my pen dear reader, its stories like these that drive me to be a thorn in their side, reminding them of their arrogance and their fatal errors. And when 2025 rolls around, you better believe that I won't just ask for change—I will demand it. Because this is Canada, and we can, we must, do better. Good night, Canada. Keep fighting, keep questioning, and remember: the true north, strong and free, is worth fighting for. #cdnpoli
@DanKnightMMA TLDR…we know transplants weaken the immune system, we also know that there are long wait lists of people for this life saving procedure. It would be unethical to waste an organ on a person who won’t take some basic steps to protect their immune system when others will
@skepticalprune @DanKnightMMA If you have had 3 or more shots, you only have 2 years to live, I suggest you settle your affairs
@lstrmgnsn4 @DanKnightMMA It’s 2 years now ? Lol, sure bud
@skepticalprune @DanKnightMMA seems to be the situation,go running=dead, exercise = dead, just dying for no reason, I suppose your clever tweets will assure your immortality
@lstrmgnsn4 @DanKnightMMA I run marathons - train 80km+ per week - pretty sure I'll outlive you bud
@skepticalprune @DanKnightMMA I'm a senior who has had a half dozen surgeries, high blood pressure diabetes, heart attacks and a couple of strokes but I will still outlive you
@lstrmgnsn4 @DanKnightMMA Yikes - doesn't sound like it ...odds don't look good. You should consider getting vaccinated as you sound like one of the vulnerable . Stay well....sincerely
@lstrmgnsn4 @DanKnightMMA Oh wait - you're the guy who has fallen for the 'all will be dead in 2 years bit'...you are deluded, I shouldn't pick on you
@skepticalprune @DanKnightMMA you see lipids are a key ingredient in the vax but the problem is when they add the lipids to the vat they are a fat so they float to the top, Due to the nature of M-rna it cannot be stirred or it ruins the catalyst process in the manufacturing, 1/2
@lstrmgnsn4 @DanKnightMMA 🏆🏆🏆🚨🚨🚨Dumbest thing I read on twitter today !!!! 🚨🚨🚨🏆🏆🏆 congratulation...maybe stick to the trades