Connect with us


Paying plasma donors is not ‘un-Canadian’ — it’s practical and necessary





As Canadians, we are inclined to be skeptical whenever we see the word “profit” associated with any aspect of our health care system, so it’s not surprising that the issue of paid plasma donation has sparked a national debate. Many worry that paid donation would threaten the principles underlying our public system. But this needn’t be the case.

Right now, a private company called Canadian Plasma Resources (CPR) operates two clinics in Canada — one in Saskatchewan and one in New Brunswick — where they offer donors up to $50 in gift cards for their plasma. CPR has applied to Health Canada for licenses to open several more clinics.

However, Senator Pamela Wallin has proposed a bill to put a stop to that. If passed, Bill S-252, the Voluntary Blood Donations Act, would mean a federal ban on donor compensation.

Meeting national demand

We do not collect enough plasma in Canada to meet the needs of patients. Canadian Blood Services (CBS) collects both blood and plasma through unpaid donations, and while it collects enough for direct transfusions, it does not amass enough plasma for plasma-derived-medicinal-products (PDMPs), which treat many serious conditions, including immunological disorders.

That’s why Canada imports 80 per cent of the plasma it needs for PDMPs from the United States, where donors are paid. This puts us in a precarious position, since U.S. clinics could decide to sell all their plasma to their other buyers. Plasma self-sufficiency is an important goal, and the only countries that have achieved it rely to some extent on paid donation.

Wallin is concerned that a paid donor system would exploit the vulnerable, including “young people at universities who are always short of cash.” But if students need books, and patients need PDMPs, what’s wrong with a mutually beneficial arrangement? And if payment were truly exploitative, how could we justify buying plasma from paid American donors?

While the tainted blood scandal had many causes, the compensation of Canadian donors wasn’t one of them. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

Wallin’s more central defence of her proposed bill is that we shouldn’t introduce a profit-motive into the blood system. She points to the recommendation against paid donation issued by the Krever Report in response to the tainted blood scandal of the 1980s, when 2,000 Canadians contracted HIV and more than 30,000 contacted Hepatitis C from tainted blood transfusions.

The thing is, while the scandal had many causes, the compensation of Canadian donors wasn’t one of them. Canadian donors at the time were unpaid.

When Wallin says that profit has no place in our blood system, she is more closely echoing the Romanow Report, which issued recommendations in 2002 regarding the ongoing sustainability of our public health system, for which it found widespread support across Canada. Vitally, it found a belief that profiting from health care is “un-Canadian” and offends Canadian values.  

Altruism is an important national value that is supposedly jeopardized by paid plasma donation. Payment is thought to incentivize people to do things out of self-interest rather than out of a concern for others, and so leads them, Wallin says, “to do things for the wrong reasons.”

But payment and altruism are not incompatible. Canadian doctors receive a wage for the work they do, and we don’t assume that they care only for themselves rather than for the people they treat. We don’t accuse them of practising medicine “for the wrong reasons,” or of jeopardizing Canadian values when they cash their paycheques.

Distribution based on need

The introduction of profit into the blood system might threaten another Canadian value identified by the Romanow Report, that health care should be distributed based on need, not ability to pay.

CBS collects plasma from donors and sells it to hospitals (or to pharmaceuticals to manufacture the PDMPs used by hospitals) for distribution to those in need. CPR does the same thing. Yes, it pays donors, but this happens on the collection side of things, and so doesn’t affect distribution. And yes, it has a profit-motive. But so do our other medical suppliers, and this doesn’t seem to offend Canadian values because it doesn’t derail the distribution of care on the basis of need.

Wallin says, “Canadian donors are not meant to be a revenue stream for private companies looking to make a profit.” Her concern is that Canadian plasma should serve a more important goal than to line the pockets of private shareholders. And she is absolutely right about this.

The most important reason for paying donors is to increase and secure Canada’s plasma supply. CPR wants to create profit for its shareholders, so it might sell the blood it collects here to a higher bidder abroad. CPR’s profit-motive means it can’t be counted on to increase Canada’s plasma supply and this is a good reason for Health Canada to not license any more of its clinics.

But it isn’t a good reason to support a ban on donor compensation. To increase and secure our plasma supply, compensation could be offered by a non-profit agency instead. Many not-for-profits — including our provincial health insurers — pay their providers. CBS should too.

A non-profit system of donor compensation subject to public oversight would increase Canada’s plasma supply without the risk of it going to the highest bidder. It could also enforce safety measures that can be more difficult to regulate when plasma comes from private clinics.

We shouldn’t allow Canadian donors to become a revenue stream for private companies looking to make a profit. But this doesn’t mean we can’t compensate them. Bill S-252 would foreclose the important option of non-profit donor compensation, and that’s why it should not become law.

This column is part of CBC’s Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read our FAQ.


Source link

قالب وردپرس


Bill Gates: Third Shot May Be Needed to Combat Coronavirus Variants





With more than 40 million Americans having received at least the first dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine, a third dose may be needed to prevent the spread of new variants of the disease, Bill Gates told CBS News Tuesday.

Gates’ comments come amid growing concern that the current vaccines are not effective against the more contagious Brazilian and South African variants.

Pfizer and Moderna have stated that their vaccines are 95% and 99% effective, respectively, against the initial strain of COVID. However, some scientists have questioned those statements. Additionally, the World Health Organization and vaccine companies have conceded that the vaccines do not prevent people from being infected with COVID or from transmitting it, but are only effective at reducing symptoms.

Gates told CBS Evening News:

“The discussion now is do we just need to get a super high coverage of the current vaccine, or do we need a third dose that’s just the same, or do we need a modified vaccine?”

U.S. vaccine companies are looking at making modifications, which Gates refers to as “tuning.”

People who have had two shots may need to get a third shot and people who have not yet been vaccinated would need the modified vaccine, explained Gates. When asked whether the coronavirus vaccine would be similar to the flu vaccine, which requires yearly boosters, Gates couldn’t rule that out. Until the virus is eradicated from all humans, Gates said, additional shots may be needed in the future.

AstraZeneca in particular has a challenge with the variant,” Gates explained. “And the other two, Johnson & Johnson and Novavax, are slightly less effective, but still effective enough that we absolutely should get them out as fast as we can while we study this idea of tuning the vaccine.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is funding the studies being conducted in Brazil and South Africa, CBS News said. The foundation has also invested in the AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson and the Novavax vaccines, which are being tested against new variants. Once the AstraZeneca vaccine is approved, the Global Alliance for Vaccine Initiative or GAVI, founded by Gates, will distribute it globally.

“Gates continues to move the goalposts,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., chairman and chief legal counsel of Children’s Health Defense. “Meanwhile the strategies he and others have promoted are obliterating the global economy, demolishing the middle class, making the rich richer and censoring vaccine safety advocates, like me.”

Kennedy said that the exclusive focus on vaccines has prevented the kind of progress required to actually address and recover from the pandemic:

“From the pandemic’s outset, clear-headed people familiar with the challenges inherent in the vaccine model have understood that the path out of crisis would require multiple steps. Those steps would need to include the development and/or identification of therapeutic drugs, the sharing of information among doctors to hone improved treatment models that reduce infection mortality rates below those for flu, and the kind of broad-spectrum long-term herd immunity that protects against mutant strains and that only derives from natural infection.”

Instead, Gates and vaccine makers are proposing a lifetime of boosters, supporting insufficient testing to determine safety and failing to address the inadequate monitoring of vaccine injuries, Kennedy said.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.

Continue Reading


Young nurse suffers from hemorrhage and brain swelling after second dose of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine





(Natural News) A 28-year-old healthcare worker from the Swedish American Hospital, in Beloit, Wisconsin was recently admitted to the ICU just five days after receiving a second dose of Pfizer’s experimental mRNA vaccine. The previously healthy young woman was pronounced brain dead after cerebral angiography confirmed a severe hemorrhage stroke in her brain stem.

Her family members confirmed that she was “breaking out in rashes” after the vaccine. She also suffered from sudden migraine headaches, and got “sick” after taking the second dose of the vaccine. At the very end, she lost the ability to speak and went unconscious. The migraines, nausea, and loss of speech were all symptoms of a brain bleed and brain swelling, something her family did not understand at the time, and something nobody would expect after vaccination.

While on life support, neurologists used angiography to image the damage inside the brain. They found a subarachnoid hemorrhage, whereas a bulging blood vessel burst in the brain, bleeding out in the space between the brain and the tissue covering the brain. The ensuing swelling cut off oxygen to the brain and caused brain death. On February 10, 2021, Sarah reportedly had “no brain activity.” Some of the woman’s organs are now being procured, so they can be donated to other people around the world.

Doctors warn FDA about COVID vaccines causing autoimmune attacks in the heart and brain

Experimental COVID-19 vaccines may cause inflammation along the cardiovascular system, leading to heart attack and/or stroke. This serious issue was brought forth to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by Dr. J. Patrick Whelan, M.D., Ph.D. and further confirmed by cardiothoracic surgeon, Dr. Hooman Noorchashm, M.D., Ph.D. The two doctors warned that a recently-infected patient who is subject to COVID-19 vaccination is likely to suffer from autoimmune attacks along the ACE-2 receptors present in the heart, and in the microvasculature of the brain, liver and kidney. If viral antigens are present in the tissues of recipients at the time of vaccination, the vaccine-augmented immune response will turn the immune system against those tissues, causing inflammation that can lead to blood clot formation.

This severe adverse event is likely cause of death for the elderly who are vaccinated despite recently being infected. There is no adequate screening process to ensure that this autoimmune attack doesn’t occur. The elderly are not the only people vulnerable to vaccine injury and death. Pfizer’s experimental COVID-19 vaccine could be the main cause behind the sudden death of Sarah Sickles, a 28-year-old nurse from Wisconsin. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System has captured five permanent disabilities in Wisconsin, 58 ER visits, and eleven deaths in just one month. This is the first case in Wisconsin of someone under 44 years of age suffering from severe COVID-19 vaccine side effects and death. There are now more than 1,170 deaths recorded in the U.S. related to the experimental mRNA vaccines, a reality that the FDA and CDC continue to ignore.

Continue Reading


Powering hypersonic weapons: US armed forces eyeing dangerous 5G tech





(Natural News) Much of the conversation surrounding the benefits of 5G is geared toward the consumer side of the technology. People will be able to download videos at lightning speed and will be more connected than ever, proponents claim, although there are serious questions regarding its safety. However, some of the most important 5G applications are not civil at all – the technology will be used extensively in the military domain.

Some of its military uses are outlined in the Defense Applications of 5G Network Technology report, which was published by the Defense Science Board. This federal committee gives scientific advice to the Pentagon. Their report states: “The emergence of 5G technology, now commercially available, offers the Department of Defense the opportunity to take advantage, at minimal cost, of the benefits of this system for its own operational requirements.”

The 5G commercial network that is being built by private companies right now can be used by the American military for a much lower cost than if the network had been set up exclusively for military purposes.

Military experts expect the 5G system to play a pivotal role in using hypersonic weapons. For example, it can be used for new missiles that bear nuclear warheads and travel at speeds superior to Mach 5. These hypersonic weapons, which travel at five times the speed of sound and move a mile per second, will be flying at high altitudes on unpredictable flight paths, making them as hard to guide as they will be to intercept.

Huge quantities of data need to be gathered and transmitted in a very short period in order to maneuver these warheads on variable trajectories and allow them to change direction in milliseconds to avoid interceptor missiles.

5G for defense

This type of technology is also needed to activate defenses should we be attacked by a weapon of this type; 5G automatic systems could theoretically handle decisions that humans won’t have enough time to make on their own. Military bases and even cities will have less than a minute to react to incoming hypersonic missiles, and 5G will make it easier to process real time data on trajectories for decision-making.

There are also important uses of this technology in combat. 5G’s ability to simultaneously link millions of transceivers will undoubtedly facilitate communication among military personnel and allow them to transmit photos, maps and other vital information about operations in progress at dizzying speeds to improve situational awareness.

The military can also take advantage of the high-frequency and short-wavelength millimeter wave spectrum used by 5G. Its short range means that it is well suited for smart military bases and command posts because the signal will not propagate too far, making it less likely that enemies will be able to detect it.

When it comes to special forces and secret services, the benefits of 5G are numerous. Its speed and connectivity will allow espionage systems to reach unprecedented levels of efficiency. It will also make drones more dangerous by allowing them to identify and target people using facial recognition and other methods.

Like all technology, 5G will also make us highly vulnerable. The network itself could become an attractive target for cyber-attacks and other acts of war being carried out with cutting-edge weaponry. In fact, the 5G network is already viewed as critical infrastructure and is being carefully protected before it is even fully built.

While the focus on 5G’s dangers to human health and the environment is absolutely warranted, it is also important not to lose sight of the military implications of 5G. After all, it is not just the United States that is developing this technology for military purposes; our enemies, like China and other countries, are also making great strides in this realm.

Continue Reading