All Episodes
Previous Next
June 29, 2023 - Viva & Barnes
01:09:08
Taken Off Organ Transplant List Because She Refused Covid Jab - Iterview with Sheila Annette Lewis
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Exceptionally today, people, there is no intro video.
I could not find any intro video that would have been remotely relevant, appropriate.
I was going to start with Michael Rappaport, for those of you who don't know who he is, that raging lunatic.
I guess he might still be an actor, but the former actor.
Talking about Trump derangement syndrome, but it didn't seem relevant, appropriate for today's interview.
I talked about this yesterday.
I'll give the recap for the first five-minute intro while people trickle in.
I talked about this yesterday.
This is the story of Sheila Annette Lewis, Albertan, now Canadian citizen, who was taken off the organ recipient list, the program list, you know, people who need organs.
In 2018, she's going to explain this in greater detail.
Diagnosed with a degenerative condition.
I'm going to explain to you in a second why it is that I can't be more specific.
A, because I lack the specifics, because there's a publication ban on certain details of this case, which you'd know of if you were watching yesterday.
Sheila Gunn-Reed was, no, Sheila Gunn-Reed.
Sheila Annette Lewis was taken off the organ recipient list in Alberta because she refused to adhere to the criteria currently in effect in order to be an organ recipient, being jabbed with the...
COVID jab.
I'm not calling it a vaccine because I think some medical doctors have now admitted openly it's a therapeutic at best, a therapeutic that has a very interesting risk profile.
She refuses to get the COVID jab, and so these doctors who determine the criteria for eligibility for donor organ recipients took her off the list, which is a death sentence.
From what I understand, this is a degenerative condition diagnosed in 2018, leads to death.
I mean, in a way, all of life leads to death, except when you have a diagnosed condition that can put off the inevitable through an organ transplant.
She refuses to get the jab.
Hospital takes her off the list.
She sues on the basis of charter violations, among other issues.
The Alberta lower court dismisses her claim, and her lawyer, who's also going to be on the stream, Omar Sheikh, Omar Sheikh is how it's pronounced, is going to explain this in further detail.
The lower court says this is not a charter issue because it's medical opinions, medical guidance, by definition, par excellence.
The Alberta Court of Appeal says we affirm the lower court's decision.
This is not a government action.
This is medical opinion.
But even if it were a government action, charter rights would not be at play because this results from her own decision.
It doesn't imply religious beliefs.
It wouldn't be discrimination based on religious beliefs.
It's not an immutable or difficultly immutable characteristic.
They affirm the lower court's decision, effectively sealing the judicially imposed or judicially ratified death sentence for Sheila.
Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear it, and that's the end of it, although there are current proceedings that are currently pending.
There's a publication ban on certain aspects of this file.
You can't know the names of the doctors involved because apparently they had gotten more or less credible death threats, depending on who you ask.
You can't mention the hospital because that would allow people to determine who the doctors are.
And you can't mention the organ that Sheila needs because apparently the procedure is a certain specificity that that would allow people to determine the names of the doctors in the hospitals to carry out their, you know, ill intention, whatever.
Can't mention the organ, can't mention the doctors, can't mention the hospital.
This is a woman's life that has been basically given the harshest of sentences through judicial ratification of medical opinions, expertise, you know, who are we to question the experts?
That's the intro.
That's all I'm giving for now because we're going to have more to discuss as people come in.
Snip, clip, and share throughout this interview.
We are live on YouTube, Rumble, and Locals.
I might just stay live on all of these platforms.
For the sake of this particular interview.
Standard disclaimers.
No medical advice, no election fornication advice, no legal advice.
There will be a lawyer involved.
There will be no doctors involved, but there will be none of that advice.
There's a GoFundMe, which I believe is the pinned...
That's not GoFundMe.
It's a Give, Send, Go.
GoFundMe is terrible, and we don't use Give, Send, Go anymore.
GoFundMe.
We use Give, Send, Go.
The give, send, go to help Sheila is in the pinned comment on the YouTube chat.
And I'm going to pin it everywhere.
I think it's in the description.
That's the intro.
People have been trickled in.
We're going to hear from her lawyer, Omar.
So I'm going to bring in, in order, I'm going to bring in Omar.
I'm going to bring in Sheila.
And I'm going to put myself down on the bottom here.
So if I bring up comments, no GoFundMe, is it?
All right, Sheila, Omar, you can both hear me.
How is everything going?
All things considered?
Everything is not too bad.
Thank you.
Good morning.
Thank you for having us on.
Well, thank you for coming on.
And you know what, Sheila, if you're able to, do you know where there's a mute button on your computer?
Yeah.
Okay, so forget it.
We won't even do it.
Because I say maybe we can mute while Omar talks, but it doesn't matter.
We're going to live with it.
Okay, where do we start here?
Omar, I think I'm going to need you to...
Well, no.
Sheila, let's begin just with you.
Who are you?
And what is your 30,000-foot overview situation before we get into the legalities of this with your lawyer?
And then I'm going to have some more questions for you after that.
But who are you?
Well, my name is Sheila Annette Lewis.
I'm a mother of four boys.
I originally came from East Coast.
And before I got sick in 2019, I worked different jobs throughout my life to support my children, of course.
My children was the biggest thing in my life.
And it was the only thing that mattered, really, was their survival and Their upbringing and do the best I could as a mother for my children.
And I think I wasn't perfect by any means like nobody is.
I've made mistakes along the way.
Not huge ones, but little ones as every mother does.
But we learn from them.
And yeah, I raised my kids and they are the most important thing to me and they still are today.
May I ask?
Now, there's a publication ban in effect, and I don't know the details, so I'm not even able to subconsciously or unconsciously spill them.
I don't want to ask anything that I'm not allowed to ask you, but I can ask you your age, right?
My age?
Yeah.
Yes, I'm 58. 58. So, how long have you been in Alberta for?
How long have you been living in Alberta?
Since 2011.
2011.
All right.
And I guess...
That's enough of a backstory for we need to bring us to 2019.
Are you able to explain to us what happened, how you got diagnosed, how you found out you were ill without specifying the organ of your body that is the problem?
Yes.
I was short of breath for quite a while and it was kind of getting worse and then my kids told me, you know, mom, maybe you should go get it checked out because I wasn't working, whatever.
So I said, well...
I get up one day and I just went.
And they ended up taking me for a stress test right away.
And they did a series of other tests.
And before the tests were over that day, they diagnosed me with the disease that I have today.
And again, this is like, it's Kafkaesque, Orwellian, Vonnegutian, Kurt Vonnegutian in the worst possible way.
Without getting into too much detail, it's a degenerative condition.
Did they give you a prognosis for survival with medical intervention versus without medical intervention in 2019?
They said approximately three to five years.
That's the most people live with the disease that I have.
They sent me home and set me up with oxygen.
The oxygen provider was to meet me at my home.
Within a couple hours after I get home to start the setup for the machines.
2019 diagnosis.
This is pre-COVID.
How does it work?
Do they tell you you need a certain organ transplant and we're going to start getting that procedure up and running?
Yeah.
Well, they sent me to a specialist, of course, in Grand Prairie here.
And he was a wonderful man.
I didn't have him long because they switched me over to...
Can't say the name of the city, but anyway, they switched me over eventually to another specialist.
So, yeah, and just went from there and they started a series of tests to see if I was a good candidate for a transplant.
Because, I mean, 58 is relatively young.
I mean, it's not like...
Relatively young and you're 50, you're going to be 54 at the time of the initial diagnosis.
Yeah.
So they say, okay, we're going to determine whether or not you're eligible for a, or eligible, or what's the word, no, rather, but amenable for an organ transplant, the organ, the organ that can't be named.
What does that procedure look like as just on paper?
Like, you have to go see a specialist, they do some tests, determine if you're eligible, and then you get a notification some months later, yay, you've been approved on the list, if and when an organ becomes available, you're going to be number X in line?
Well, it took a lot longer than that because the series of tests takes so long.
It took about a year for me to complete all the testing.
And then I had to go for all my childhood vaccinations again because they could not find the records for me as a child where I took all the vaccinations.
So they asked me to get them redone again, and I had to get them done in order to be transplanted.
This is very interesting.
You had to be revaccinated.
This is pre-COVID still, correct?
Or have we lapsed into COVID?
By this time, we're lapsed right into it.
We're 2020 by this time.
What month in 2019 were you diagnosed?
In June.
Okay, so halfway through June.
Nine months later, ten months later, COVID hits.
Okay, that's interesting.
That was before the rollout of the vaccine.
Yeah, and so they say now, as part of this...
Program.
You've got to be revaccinated for what?
Like measles, mumps, rubella, typhoon?
All of them.
All of them.
And there was a lot more added to the list since I was a kid.
Do you recall how many vaccines you had to get caught up on?
It was probably 12 anyway.
And over what period of time were you...
Took a year.
Took another year.
A year to get all of those vaccines administered?
Yeah, because some of them had to be three months apart.
Because of the strengths of the vaccine.
Like there was three for the hepatitis one.
There was three different needles I had to take for that one.
And they had to be three months apart.
So it took me right till December.
I got the very last one in December of that year.
They started in January.
December of 2020.
2021.
Okay.
By the time I was done.
Okay, and now the question I have is, when they first tell you, you got to get up to date with all of your vaccines, we don't have your records, go and do them all again, or do them for the first time if you've never done them.
Is this before?
Because I have trouble remembering when discussion of a COVID vaccine even arose.
I remember it being right from early on.
Was there discussion about a potential COVID vaccine at this time?
Or was this standard protocol that had already existed in place prior to COVID?
As part of the conditions of being a recipient?
It was prior to COVID.
It was one of the rules that if you didn't have all your vaccinations as a child, you would have to get them done.
And because they couldn't find the records that I was vaccinated, which I was as a child, they said I have to get them redone over again.
And you agree to it?
Yes.
I wanted my transplant.
Did the COVID jab requirement become an issue as a precondition for you being on the recipient list?
I think because they rolled in, I think it was 2021.
I think in March of 2021, I believe it was, when they first contacted me to tell me on Zoom that they were thinking about having a discussion at the transplant team with all the doctors.
In order to determine whether transplant recipients would have to take the vaccine, the COVID-19 vaccine.
So they said they would call me back when they made the decision.
And in about a couple of weeks, they called me back on the Zoom and they said yes, that they decided among themselves, the doctors, groupthink that I'll transplant it.
Recipients must take the COVID-19 vaccine prior to transplantation.
And Omar, by the way, if ever there's anything that you want to correct or get in, please do.
I'm just going to lay out Sheila's situation before getting to the absurdity of the legal situation.
You probably know the timeline very well as well, having been involved in the file.
Sometimes I'm wrong on dates.
Not that anyone should use that.
Not that I would anticipate anyone would use that against you, but I think it's useful for everybody to understand the timeline here.
And for anybody who's inclined to write you off as an anti-vaxxer, this lead-up is very relevant.
So they decide, it's like give or take March 2021, the doctors, they start issuing their guidance.
So they tell you to do this.
And what was your response?
They now say you're going to have to take the COVID jab and I'm still calling it that.
What's your response at that time?
I pretty much froze because it's one thing I didn't want to take.
I was praying, I really was, that they would not come back with the decision that these doctors made among themselves.
And I knew there was no policy.
There was no written policy on it at that time.
I knew that.
Because they had already told me, the doctors did, that they would have to sit around as a group and decide whether they were going to make the decision for all people that need to be transplanted to take this COVID-19 vaccine.
So there was no policy, and I didn't ask them right away, but in August, I believe, I retained a lawyer, Alison Pay a vote.
Pay a rich, sorry.
And by the JCCF.
And she asked me to write into them and ask them for the written policy, which I did.
All right.
Now, actually, a question I almost forgot to ask.
Leading up to all of this, every step of the way, your diagnosis, follow-ups, seeing the experts, the first round of 12 months of vaccines to get caught up, all of these visits are covered by Medicare?
Yes.
And now, so we're close to a year and a half in since your initial diagnosis, and you still, are you on the list now waiting, or you still haven't even gotten your name on the list?
No, by March, I didn't have my name on the list, March of 2021.
March of 2021.
My name didn't go on until, like, I believe it was July, maybe, of 2021.
Don't quote me on that date, but...
I believe it's when I got the call.
And it was a great day.
I was very excited.
So July 2021, you get the call.
You're on the list, not you're going to be.
You're on the list.
I made it to the transplant list.
For those of us who have no idea what that next entails, like myself, does that mean you're next up?
Like the second this organ comes up, you're the first person to get it?
No.
It just means that I made it.
To the donor list to get a transplant, a possible transplant.
And it depends on eligibility, like where you're at in the list.
So that means if, say, two people, for example, need the exact same match as I need, and if that person is worse off, that person, of course, is going to be ahead of me.
Worse off or, and I think we're going to get into this, more susceptible for a positive outcome if they were to benefit from the organ.
Probably.
But the way they explained it to me is if one person was worse off than the other, then the person worse off would get the organ.
Okay, so now it was July 2019 diagnosis.
You go through a whole year-plus expert visits, catching up on your vaccines.
March 2021 becomes the issue about the COVID jab.
July 2021, nearly two years in.
In fact, it's two years.
You get approved for the list.
Explain what happens after that.
That means you're just on the list.
You hit status one.
Status one is where you just made it to the list.
The next step after that is status two.
It's the highest one you go to because there's only two statuses.
Status two, they bumped me up.
I'm not quite sure of the date when they bumped me up.
I was so excited, but I forgot.
Status 2 means you're at the top of the list and it's urgent.
You need a transplant sooner than later.
All right.
And then when does it come to be that you're notified that they're taking your name off the list?
Well, that came when I started court proceedings to ask the courts to overturn the decision of the doctors.
All right.
Omar, this might be a good time now.
I'm going to loop this into you.
When do you get involved in the file as an attorney?
So I took over for Sheila's case only a few months ago.
Her original attorneys who did everything they could were Alison Piavik at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.
They brought a charter challenge alleging that Sheila's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the Canadian Constitution, had been violated.
The court disagreed.
The court said that it was a quintessential medical decision.
While those proceedings were going on, there was a consent between the parties that Sheila would remain on the transplant list.
When it got to the Court of Appeals, the Court of Appeals in Alberta affirmed the lower court's decision.
And said that they were not going to interfere with medical judgment.
They said that if they did that, it would open up a larger can of worms.
And they also went into a large analysis where they said the charter did not apply to Sheila.
And we're talking about rights such as the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
That didn't apply.
Equal protection of the law didn't apply.
Freedom of conscience didn't apply.
And so the court upheld that.
The Supreme Court of Canada about two weeks ago refused to hear Sheila's appeal, and following that, Sheila was removed from the transplant list.
To add insult to injury, not only did the Supreme Court refuse to hear Sheila's appeal, they also assessed costs against her, which means she's got to pay the legal costs for the other side as a result of trying to fight for her life and bring this challenge.
So following that, we went forward and proceeded with a negligence claim against the doctors for medical malpractice.
We're in that process now that's ongoing.
We're going to be fighting for an injunction to try and put Sheila back on the list.
It is a significant uphill battle when it comes to Canadian jurisprudence and how these things work, but that's where we're at currently.
Okay.
And just back this up all the way, actually, to July 2021.
I understand you weren't involved or you weren't in the file at that time, but just so I can get the timeline in my head.
She gets approved and put on the list in 2021.
What is the incident or the act or the notification that instigates or initiates the court proceedings?
Because if she was only removed from the list recently, in theory, she would have been on the list.
Was she told you're not getting the organ despite being on the list until you get jabbed?
Yeah, essentially.
So the way the list works is that there's status zero, which is a status quo.
You're not really getting an organ.
Status one means you somewhat need it and we're going to move you up on that list.
And then status two is an urgency that you need the organ.
Sheila was already at status two.
She was moved down to status zero.
And the threat at the time was we're going to take you off the transplant list entirely.
Now, you heard Sheila talk about the one year.
of effort that she had to put in to get on that list and so being taken off the list is a significant issue when you have to then go back redo the testing possibly just to get back on that list even at status zero.
So at the time that the physicians and Alberta Health Services came back and said that that they're going to be removing her from the list.
This led to the the constitutional challenge which played out in the courts that we went through.
Which, unfortunately, wasn't successful.
All right.
So that, I think, sorry, as a Canadian, I'm appalled and embarrassed.
I'm so sorry.
This is from Brody Dover.
I didn't mean to bring that up.
I just wanted to highlight it for now.
So the way it works is she's at number two, and then they say, we're bumping you back down to number zero until you get jabbed.
And I guess, Sheila, when they tell you that, well, people are going to ask, why don't you just do it?
I've flagged that comment, but I don't think many people really need to hear the answer to that.
But when they tell you that, what do you say?
You say, I'm not doing it?
Bump me down to zero?
Or what's your reaction when they tell you, you're going from two to zero until you comply with us?
Well, they told me that you would give me a little bit of time to decide what I wanted to do, to think about it like.
So I said, well, that's great.
I definitely need that.
So I hummed in hard and kind of...
Stalled because I didn't trust anything about the vaccine because it was experimental.
There was no data on this vaccine and there was no science out.
Very little at this time.
And there was something that just told me not to trust it.
It was a gut feeling.
Usually when I get a gut feeling, it's not very often I do, but when I do get it, I tend to listen to it.
Because I didn't hesitate at all for any of the vaccines from my childhood that I had to re-get again.
And I just jumped on it.
I said, yeah, that's what it takes.
But there was something about this vaccine.
And it was also because they didn't do a study on anybody with an immunocompromised immune system or pregnant women.
They didn't do the studies on them.
So it's like, why was there no studies done on that?
It's like a red flag that went up.
And they were doing all sorts of lotteries on these vaccines, if you get it.
Like, if Jason Kenney was a million-dollar lottery, and there was just red flags all over the place.
I'm going to ask this question.
I don't know who's best to answer it, Annette or Omar.
Is Annette at, and again, no medical advice.
Did you have any experts in your file that presented the argument, if it were in fact presented, that you might be at greater risk for adverse effects due to poor health?
Had that been...
Any of the evidence adjuiced?
Go ahead, Omar.
Yeah, actually, absolutely.
So there's a number of experts that are involved in this case that have presented clear data on the side effects from the COVID-19 vaccination and the impacts on health.
You know, there's never been a double-blind study which looks into organ transplant recipients such as Sheila.
And as to whether there's any efficacy or value in getting this, there is a consensus guideline in Canada that says that you should get it.
But ultimately, there were no studies.
The studies that were reduced into evidence all did show that vaccine injuries do occur.
She may very well get injured from the vaccination, and so certainly there were greater risks to her health at the time.
Now, we're still presenting that argument in court.
And so, you know, you'll notice my hesitation into going into too much detail about what those experts are going to say.
But we do have, for example, the doctor who created and brought that transplant program to Western Canada and ran it for the last 30 years is testifying and providing an expert report for Sheila in favor of her receiving the organ transplant.
And so we're working through that now.
Sheila, this is going to be a very tough question because I know that you've wrestled with it and have been asked it multiple times.
Some people are going to say, I brought up a comment, this is crazy.
You're dealing with virtual certainty of demise if you don't get this jab.
You have to, you know, delays court cases and raise money to do the procedure elsewhere.
You know, so it's like definitive outcome one way versus a potential risk.
Just take it and get back on the list.
I mean, I can't anticipate the answer, but what is your response to that?
No, because outside doctors and specialists have voiced to me the risk that's involved in taking this COVID vaccine, even though I don't believe it's a vaccine.
The risks that are involved are far greater.
Then there's going to be a lot more damage, yeah.
I know I'm going to have an adverse effect, a very serious one.
And for one thing, there's a lot of nanoparticles.
There's millions and millions and millions of nanoparticles in that vaccine that will enter my cells and do a lot of damage.
Now, that's from an expert that told me this.
He's actually the one that did the...
The testing for Kinex for the natural immunity.
And he said it would be very dangerous for me to get any vaccine at this point because of my natural immunity, for one thing.
I have such a high natural immunity.
He said more than most people have.
And he said for me to get this vaccine would be very dangerous.
And he's not the only one that told me that.
And it's a question I had asked, I forget which doctor, if it was Francis Christian or Harvey Reich, about, you know, if someone has actual natural immunity because of prior infection, might there actually be risks to getting, you know, when they say, well, if you've already gotten it, it doesn't matter, go get boosted or jabbed or whatever.
And I asked the question, like, that seems illogical to me, like there might be enhanced risk if you already are, your body's already responded to go trigger another response.
And without getting into that, because it's medical advice and doctors and doctors.
When they tell you that they're bumping you from two to zero, what do you do as a human?
What do you do as an individual?
What does your family say and what do you do going forward?
When they told me that, I was angry because of different reasons.
I worked hard.
I went through the physio programs.
Through all the vaccines that they asked me to.
I did the years work for all the testing.
Like, I went through a lot.
And when they told me I was a perfect candidate, they told me that.
And they said they couldn't wait to transplant me.
They said I was a perfect candidate.
And they hit me really up.
But then when they told me that I would have to take it or be taken right off of the transplant list altogether, the donor's list, I was devastated.
I just, I couldn't believe that an experimental vaccine was going to take me off of that donor list.
There was, like I said, there was no data, there was no science, there was no, nothing was just rolled out.
And it wasn't tested, it wasn't even tested on humans.
Let me ask, let me ask you this now, because it was, it's in the court proceedings and you mentioned it, you have robust immunity.
That says that you had had a prior infection or was that, I don't know.
So you had been infected with COVID.
Do you remember?
Twice.
When was the first and when was the second time?
I believe it was November or no, September of 2021, I believe it was.
I got quite sick.
I got, it was more chills.
I had really, really bad body chills for a few days.
And then the very next weekend, I got the exact same thing again, all over again.
And it was bad.
But I got over it.
But I didn't have a cold or anything.
But then the second time I had it, I really, to be honest with you, I didn't even know I had it.
It was very mild.
Okay, so then they say, get the jab or we're going to bump you down.
Omar, I'm going to come back to you now, actually, as to the procedure.
So maybe, Sheila, you could put it on mute again and it'll cut off the noise.
Good.
When does the...
Okay, Omar, back it up all the way to the beginning.
What's the first, not necessarily court proceeding, but the first procedure instituted by Sheila?
I presume it's an appeal of the internal decision at the hospital?
Yeah, it was an application to the court to overrule the decision of the physicians.
But just before I get into that, I want to back up just on two points.
Sheila has been tested for natural immunity, so she's actually gone through an accredited lab.
Had her T cells and B cells tested.
It was a long process.
And she has extremely high antibodies.
And so when you say, well, what's the risk when you have those antibodies and get the vaccination?
There's more harm than there is anything else.
When you're getting a procedure that has known or could have known side effects versus not having to get it at all because you already possess the antibodies, there's only risk.
There's no upside to continuing to get those COVID vaccinations.
And the other thing that I would mention is that this transplant program, as with most, if not all other transplant programs, we're running full tilt.
During COVID-19 and the lockdowns.
And so the virus was very much around.
People had contracted COVID-19, and yet they were still getting transplants.
So the vaccine requirement, we argue, it's not indispensable.
You were doing these operations and these surgeries far before.
When COVID was rampant, when you said your hospitals were full, all of that didn't lead you to stop doing these surgeries.
You didn't say, well, people have COVID-19, we can no longer give them a transplant.
You didn't do that.
What you did was you waited and said, well, now there's a vaccine, and if you don't get that, we can no longer give you a transplant.
We don't think that makes very much sense.
But back to the court proceedings, yeah, it was originally an application to the court to...
To overturn that decision.
And then that led to a hearing at the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench at the time, but King's Bench now, as they call it.
And then, of course, an appeal and then off to the Supreme Court.
All right.
Now, this is a provincial health care facility.
So people are having difficulty understanding how the charter could not apply to what is fundamentally a government institution, this being a provincial hospital.
Omar, I'll explain it like it's five to somebody in the chat who's asking.
The bottom line is this is a hospital administering this, but what the lower court determined is that it's not a charter issue because the decision is not a government decision.
It's not a government directive.
It's not the government stipulating to a government institution this is how you have to do it.
This is the medical professionals who determine their own procedural requirements specifically for donations.
And they've come to, in their professional opinion, this is the criteria.
So it's not a government action that would invoke the charter for charter protections.
Yeah, essentially the court, and this was more than the court of appeal, but essentially the court of appeal said that...
We don't interfere with individualized medical decisions.
This decision is made by a panel, let's call it a transplant committee, which is comprised of physicians, psychiatrists, occupational therapists, general practitioners, and others who all come together and decide on the criteria.
Now, what they are basing their criteria on is something called the Canadian National Guidance.
And so that's a guideline document that's essentially a consensus amongst the transplant community that says, oh, you should have this vaccination.
That guideline document is not always followed.
In fact, in Alberta, they were the pioneers of setting different standards outside of those guidelines.
For example, The guidelines at one point said that you wouldn't transplant anybody over the age of 65. Alberta had a patient that was 71 who needed a heart transplant, who was otherwise extremely healthy.
Alberta pushed back on those guidelines and was able to do that transplant.
That gentleman lived till 91 years old.
And Alberta was successful in changing the standard, not only in Canada, but in the US.
Same thing with, at one point, the guidelines said that you don't do transplants on people with cognitive disabilities.
You know, so people with severe mental disabilities because they won't show up to follow-up appointments or they won't take their medication on time.
Alberta pushed back on that.
Alberta then put in a new standard that said your caregiver can provide that care, your primary caregiver.
And so they went outside the guidelines.
Ultimately, they're just guidelines and everything really comes down to individual patient care.
So, you know, when we talk about even the side effects of vaccination, one of the known side effects, for example, is anaphylactic shock.
And if you're going to go into anaphylactic shock post-vaccination, it's going to happen fairly quickly.
Most people who have had vaccinations, remember, they take place in these large rooms.
There's nurses there.
There might be a doctor there.
But if you go into anaphylactic shock and someone is there in the medical profession, it's quite treatable.
It's very unlikely that you will die.
However, we're allowing medical exemptions for people.
To this requirement, even people who need a transplant, we're giving them an exemption if they might go into anaphylactic shock, which is a treatable condition.
However, in Sheila's case, she is going to die.
Imminently, it is going to occur without a transplant.
And yet, not only is there not a medical exemption, there's a consensus view that, well, that was her decision to die and she should move on.
Our first obligation here, as Canadians and especially as doctors, is to do no harm.
And so if there's a possibility to save Sheila's life here, I think that those are the avenues that should be being taken.
Second set of proceedings was review of the hospital decision.
The second one is an appeal of the lower court's ruling, which affirmed or which deferred to the expertise of the doctors.
And the answer to the question, it's medical opinions, medical, what do they call it?
Quintessential medical decisions.
So this is what the experts say.
The government's not in there to say, well, this is what we think, and it's better than what you think.
Hold on now.
I think I just forgot my question.
Oh, exemptions.
Who, practically speaking, has the authority to issue the exemption if they were to determine that Sheila benefits from an exemption?
It would be the physicians on the transplant team.
And now, when you hear Sheila talk about the vaccine and her fears of it, and there was literally an article at one point where they were talking about guidance to say if people are mentally...
have a fear of needles, medicate them so they can get jabbed.
I think it was out of Ontario and the wording was a little misrepresented, but did, did Sheila testify in the, in the fair, Yeah, so that proceeding went forward through affidavit and cross-examination evidence.
So it wasn't a typical trial that your audience would probably be used to seeing.
It wasn't like that.
There was no jury.
There was a judge and there was an application that they had to get through.
There was cross-examinations that took place of the experts.
But Sheila did provide evidence in there.
The key part of Sheila's evidence was that she complied with everything they told her to do, right?
All the way up until...
COVID-19 vaccinations became available.
Remember, Sheila was diagnosed pre-COVID, went through a year of testing, a year of vaccinations for childhood diseases.
She took all the medications, all the drugs that were prescribed to her, all the vitamins, all the nutrition, everything that she had to do, she performed on.
She held her part of the bargain.
It wasn't like an organ transplant where someone continues to drink or someone continues to smoke after they need whatever organ they might need.
She complied, and she was ready, and they were ready to provide her with the organ.
The issue then became, well, now we have one more requirement, which is this COVID-19 vaccination.
Sheila wasn't comfortable getting it, did not want to get it, thought she would have adverse side effects.
It was like all of us watching and waiting to see what was happening.
It was significant.
You know, 30% of Canadians, and I know your audience is of North America and worldwide, but 30% of Canadians did not get their third dose of vaccination.
What does that tell you?
People have, for the large part, started to wise up as to whether or not this is effective and this is worth the potential risk that comes with that type of vaccination.
In Sheila's case, she made a conscious decision not to get it.
And then we ended up in this situation where she's off the list.
And I want to plug this because it's really important.
I know you said it in the beginning.
We are fighting still.
We are in the courts currently.
We have cases that are moving through the system as slow or as fast as possible.
However, the give-send-go for Sheila is her best option at this point.
In the U.S. and Texas, they don't require vaccination as a prerequisite.
And so if we can get the money together to save her life, that's our primary concern in everything that we're doing.
Now, you refreshed my memory on one point.
I'm going to read this chat.
I brought it up earlier.
You have to be absolutely compliant to stay on the transplant list in Canada.
And I don't think this person is saying it as affirmation.
And so I'm going to steel man the hospital's position.
Again, not because I believe in it.
I think this is an egregious injustice is an understatement.
The idea is, though...
You know, someone's on the list and they determine you're on the list for a heart, well, let's say a liver transplant, and they find out you've been drinking on the weekends.
Or you're on the list for a lung transplant, they find out you've been smoking, they say, well, look, be compliant, you're not being compliant, so we're going to bump you down until you learn your lesson.
To have added the COVID jab as a requirement, did they do that pre or post Alberta jab mandates, if you know offhand, Omar?
Well, let's be clear.
The Alberta Health Services, Policy did not mandate COVID-19 vaccination.
There were certainly mandates in Alberta, like everywhere else in Canada.
But the actual policy that we have reviewed from Alberta Health Services didn't say she had to get it.
They said she may get a COVID-19 vaccination.
It was the decision of the physicians to implement that actual vaccine requirement.
And we've talked a bit about what that was based on.
But remember, ultimately, this is not a question of somebody who's doing something wrong, like drinking or smoking or whatever kind of self-destructive behaviors that would get somebody off of a list.
These transplants are occurring during COVID-19.
They are occurring on patients who contracted COVID-19.
They're already happening.
And so she's well into that stream before the vaccination comes out and all of a sudden becomes a requirement.
This is an additional requirement above what she agreed to, above what she already did to get and stay on that list.
And we argue it's a completely unreasonable requirement.
And we argue it breaches the standard of care.
You know, Alberta has led the way in changing transplants in North America for people who are older than 65, for people with cognitive disabilities.
We know these exemptions can be made.
We know the different decisions can be made.
We know that this is perhaps an excellent opportunity for Alberta to say, let's run a trial.
We'll do a transplant on Sheila.
We'll do a transplant on someone with COVID-19 vaccination.
We can publish those results and actually have some data.
Yeah, but you know what, Omar?
They're going to say it would be immoral of us to not compel her to take the vaccine because it's so damn safe and effective.
It exists.
And we can't do that because it's an immoral medical experiment.
It's crazy.
There's no other word for it.
We're going to get to the aftermath later.
So doctors come up with their recommendation.
Lower court says we're not interfering.
We're not deferring to it.
Court of Appeals says...
We're not deferring to it.
Charter does not apply.
And even if it did, here's why it would not be a violation of the right to life, right to liberty, etc., etc.
Supreme Court declines to hear it.
So you petition the Supreme Court and they say, no mas?
Do they explain why they don't hear it?
Yeah, so again, Alison Pavek and a Justice Center petitioned the Supreme Court as her counsel.
But no, they didn't provide reasons for why not.
They declined to hear it.
They didn't have to hear it based on the way our appeal system works.
There was a unanimous decision by the Court of Appeal, and so they had to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court denied it, said we're not going to hear it, and assessed costs against Sheila.
What were the costs, if I may ask?
I mean, costs are court costs, stenographers, but they add up.
I mean, are they in the 20s, 30,000?
They will be, yeah.
We haven't seen them yet.
They still have to put in all of those costs and their tariff costs, but they're also legal fees.
And they will be significant.
And certainly, you know, it's a large blow to Sheila.
People have to understand this who might be listening from America, or I don't even know what provinces.
Routinely award legal fees, but the costs, they include court costs, stenographers, experts.
You have to pay your experts throughout this case?
Yeah.
Well, their experts would be included.
Their lawyer's time would be included.
Whatever artillery fees that you see on a legal bill would be included.
However, they're not the full measure of what those legal costs are.
They are somewhat discounted based on court tariff rates.
But it's the other side's legal costs.
You know, the Justice Center, when they took this case, I think magnanimously they funded it themselves, which was amazing of them.
And Alison Pavick's time was covered.
Through that.
And so, you know, it wasn't cost to Sheila for us lawyers bringing the case.
It was the other side's lawyers.
It's outrageous because although the courts determined that the charter doesn't apply, it wasn't because the defendants are not government entities.
It's just because they were not making a government decision.
So basically, Sheila, who's paid her whole life into the health care system, gets refused health care treatment and now has to pay the government's side of experts legal.
To have fought her to get the health care that she's paid into a system for her entire frickin' life to get.
Okay, now the Supreme Court says no, and that's really, I don't want to be crass in the hyperbolic analogy.
That's the nail in the proverbial cough.
I mean, that's a death sentence to Sheila.
What legal recourse does she have before we get back into...
The alternative recourse, which we're going to discuss and make sure everyone is aware of, what remaining legal recourse do you have?
Can you petition for an emergency injunction on the basis that the situation has changed?
What other legal recourse do you have now?
Yeah, so that, as you pointed out, that was the case on the charter, on constitutional grounds.
The case that is currently proceeding through the system...
Is one of negligence and medical malpractice.
And so there we would argue that the physicians have departed from the standard of care that is owed to Sheila or to any other individual in this circumstance.
As part of that case, we'll be seeking an injunction.
It is an emergency injunction of sorts.
However, it likely won't occur until the fall.
Just based on scheduling and timelines.
And so we will be seeking an injunction.
We have a number of experts that we'll be using to try and convince the court that essentially on the balance of convenience here, putting Sheila back on the list is the right thing to do while we litigate the negligence action and see if the court agrees that negligence did in fact occur on part of the doctors.
But that's our only left legal recourse that we're proceeding on.
Well, Omar, not to be the wet blanket, but for a court system that at all levels basically said we're deferring to the expertise of the doctors in their recommendations, there's a snowball chance in hell that you're going to get through and cause a court, maybe, I don't know, if public opinion changes, maybe the science changes, is hell or, you know, snowball's chance in summer you're going to get another court to say...
Now we're going to basically say that what we had hitherto said was their expert opinion that we're not going to challenge.
We're going to override it now by way of injunction.
No.
Well, no.
I mean, look, if...
And as the court says, it's a quintessential medical decision.
So if we operate from that basis, medical decisions can be negligent.
They can lead to malpractice.
This happens in the case of maternity care and births and different types of surgeries that people get.
A wrong medical decision will lead to a medical malpractice action anywhere in North America or the world.
And so we say, okay, fine.
If it's a medical decision, let's challenge that and see.
The original court was looking at whether or not the charter applied to overrule.
That medical decision.
In this case, we're actually challenging the medical decision itself.
And so when we talk about the experts that we're bringing, whether they be people who have been doing this particular procedure for 30 years, whether it be the experts who did the natural immunity testing on Sheila or other experts in this field.
You know, we're presenting, you know, uncontroverted evidence that Sheila should have absolutely gotten that transplant, that the team was wrong for denying her that transplant, and perhaps we'll get a court to agree with us.
Ultimately, you know, it comes down to can we actually get our argument heard?
Much of the arguments that were made in the charter case were never actually addressed.
They were just simply dismissed.
And so, you know, what we want the judge to do is listen to our experts.
Help them understand that there is a reasonable alternative here to provide Sheila with the urgent transplant surgery she needs rather than to allow her to die based on what we say is an ineffective vaccination to begin with.
If I continue after the stream, I'm going to address an article about the potential...
The political bias of the court system, or at least of the Supreme Court justice, one of them.
Sheila, this question's for you now.
Just so people understand this, as lawyers, I once upon a time practice, and you get a judgment, you're invested in it as a lawyer, you flip to the end and you see that you lost, and your stomach sinks as a lawyer, you're frustrated, you want to cry.
This is literal life and death.
When you get the Supreme Court saying, we're not taking up your case, What goes through your mind, and what do you do after that?
I'm doomed.
Exactly what I thought, I'm doomed.
It wasn't...
I think I expected it in one sense.
I didn't have much faith in them.
Only because I lost in the first two, so I kind of lost my faith in the justice system, in the courts.
So when they ruled, I don't think it was so much...
That the ruling they made, that they didn't want to hear it, it was the fact that they put the cost on me that was more unbelievable.
It's like, how much more do you think you can do to me?
You've already given me a death sentence, the court systems did, and the doctors, and AHS.
And it's like, I never ever thought in Canada, They would bring in a death sentence for any kind of harsh or horrific crime.
But I'll just use an example of late that I heard of.
They can take a case like Paul Bernardo and the horrific crimes that that man have done and they can move the justice system where they can downgrade him from One penitentiary to, you know, from max to medium and, you know, and give him a little leisure and breathing room to that horrific, horrific man that done the crimes that he has done to the families.
But yet all I did, I just didn't take a vaccine, experimental vaccine, and they can give me a death sentence.
So to me...
That's what I think about sometimes.
Where is the justice at?
Let me ask you this.
You're on oxygen 24-7?
Yeah.
And I presume as a result of that, mobility is very difficult?
Very.
Have you been in direct contact with...
Danielle Smith, the new Prime Minister, to see if...
Sorry, not the new Prime Minister, the new Premier.
Have you been in touch with her or the prior administration to see if there's some political intervention that the higher-ups who support freedom of choice would have gotten involved in?
We've emailed them and we've begged.
We've sent letters, a lot of them.
A lot of the public got involved, a lot.
And sent letters every day, every day.
I got inboxes, you know, letters in my inbox saying they're going to email Jason Kenney or Danielle Smith, which they have done.
People sent me copies of the letters, and it's unbelievable, but the movement behind it and the compassion and the fight behind this.
But, yeah, we contacted them many, many times.
Actually, a week ago, a little over a week ago now, I emailed Danielle Smith's office again, and I called them first, and her secretary answered, promised that she would send off my email to Danielle Smith directly, and Danielle Smith, I will be hearing from her, more than likely, but of course I never did, and I never heard from any of them.
Now, one more question for Omar before we get into the next step here, which is what's being explored in Texas.
Omar, the costs.
Just clarify, was there any discretion to the costs?
I mean, from my understanding, and I don't want to say what I don't know about the Alberta court system, costs, even when they are mandatory, the court still has discretion.
Were these discretionary costs or could they have not been ordered against Sheila?
And to the extent that they were, Do you get the impression that this is like the insult to the injury?
Like, we're going to punish you for your wrong thing?
Or was it totally beyond the court's control?
She lost.
They had to issue the costs.
Well, the costs are always in the discretion of the court, and usually there's hearings on costs to determine what costs are reasonable.
In this case, when the Supreme Court applications went in, the other side was seeking costs.
It is quite a matter of course that each side seeks costs for the action in case you win or lose.
Did they have to award costs?
No, they didn't.
So I hope that piece answers your question.
Ultimately, they did.
And we'll wait to hear what those costs are in the coming months here.
But, you know, it's insult to injury for Sheila.
I don't have any opinion on the court, especially the Supreme Court of Canada.
But for someone in Sheila's position who has put everything and every last dime she has in fighting this, in fighting for her health and her family, you know, Sheila has kids, Sheila has family.
Sheila has a large support circle, a lot of people that need her and want her around.
Ultimately, this is the fight of her life.
I think it's difficult when you're faced with those costs of war, but it's something that I know she'll overcome as she's overcome everything else that's been put in front of her thus far.
I gotta tell you, as a lawyer dealing with clients, I've never had a client like this.
She's my personal hero in terms of everything that she's gone through.
She's a person that sticks to her convictions and her principles and morals and is the nicest person that you'll ever meet.
And so, you know, we really, really ask that your supporters and your viewers out there and people who are watching this go to the GiveSendGo and try and help get Sheila that operation.
We'll do everything legally.
And just on that, I do want to really quickly mention, you know, two of our key supporters are Brian Heck and his wife, Camilla, who are doing fantastic work to get all of this surgery and work done.
Yeah, it's, you know, so the give, send, go is there.
And even if you can't, I mean, I'm going to snip and clip and put this to social media because I don't think people know about this.
I mean, I'm immersed in this world and I didn't know about Sheila's story until relatively recently and had trouble accepting that what I was basically superficially understanding was accurate and then some.
So snip, clip and share around and the best...
Thing is awareness given time frame.
So you're going to go through what's left of the litigation process or the lawfare.
The practical reality is Sheila can go elsewhere to get this done.
And that's where, I don't know who's best to talk about this, Sheila or you, Omar.
Can't mention the organ.
Can't mention, I guess, the institution.
But we can mention Texas.
I think we've already discussed that.
So what is the...
The alternative to getting this done is to go to the states and get it where they don't have these idiotic, draconian, illogical, unscientific requirements in effect.
Sheila, go for it.
Go ahead, Omer.
Okay, yeah, absolutely.
So that particular hospital in Texas does not require it.
The cost of getting the testing done for Sheila, just all of that testing that we talked about earlier is probably close to $100,000.
Plus all the costs to get her down there.
And then the actual cost of the surgery and the post-op procedures and everything she would need is probably closer to a million dollars.
So that's certainly the goal, is to raise that amount of money so Sheila can get this life-saving operation and hopefully stay with us for a very long time.
Clarify that for me as well.
There's the preliminary tests, which I guess are what she's already done in Canada, but they have to be done again in the States to make sure that...
I mean, also, it's been two and a half...
No, geez, Louise, it's four years later now that she's still a prime candidate or whatever else would have to be done.
So like 75,000 to 100,000 Canadian for these preliminary tests?
Yeah, 100,000 Canadian.
And then set that aside, the procedure itself would be another cold million Canadian.
Give or talk.
Approximately, yeah.
With the anti-rejection meds and everything else, it would be close to that, yeah.
And that timeframe is literally a ticking clock if the prognosis, Sheila, you remind us, was three to five years from diagnosis in 2019.
Have you noticed a deterioration in your physical condition since this all started?
Oh, yes.
Big time.
Huge.
Because when I first started...
When I was diagnosed in 2019, I started off on liters per minute, which was three liters per minute of oxygen when I needed it.
Just when I needed it.
And then today, four years down the road, when I get up to go, you know, to do whatever, just to walk, I'm on 26 liters per minute.
That's 24-7.
That's 24-7.
And your resting blood oxygen level is at what?
Is that to get you to 96 to 100?
That's to put me above 90. Put you above 90. And for those who don't know, I only know this because we have asthma in the family.
If you're under 90, you're hospitalized until they get you.
And typically, they don't let you out until you're like 95, 94. All right.
So hypothetically, You know, the Give, Send, Go campaign raises the money.
Like, let's say you get enough for the preliminary tests.
Is that lined up in the immediate future to get it done as soon as you have the funds ready?
No, as soon as they give us a date, as Texas gives us a date.
I was talking to Texas on a Zoom call on Tuesday, I believe it was, on year Tuesday, and they had, the doctor I was speaking to said they have Meetings every Thursday, the board does.
So on Thursday, which is today, they were going to bring up my file, and they were going to discuss and go over certain aspects of it, and hopefully get back to me with a date.
Because he said, like, it's a much smaller facility, Texas is.
They only do 20 to 30 transplants a year.
He said, and he would feel much better if I had a bigger facility.
Helping me.
Because they do more transplants.
And, of course, it might be cheaper.
A bigger facility.
Where, because they're smaller, their fees are quite substantial.
So, we're looking into that now.
So, yeah.
So, we're just waiting on word from Texas.
And now, for those, like I say, for transparency, for those who are concerned, the give, send, go is for the procedure.
Is it for the procedure and for the legal costs?
Or for the litigation costs?
Omar, you're shaking your head?
Yeah, no. 100% of all donations are for her medical care only.
None of it is for legal or anything else.
No.
Unless I've forgotten something or there's something you want to say, I think what we'll do is we'll end this all together and we'll talk off air just to let everybody know.
But is there anything that I have forgotten to ask you or that you want to mention before we end this?
And then I'm going to have a question for Sheila, a question to which I might know the answer, but I need to hear it nonetheless.
Omar, is there anything that I forgot to ask that you absolutely think should be specified right now?
No, I just want to reiterate our thanks for having us on and for helping us promote the fundraising.
It's measurably helpful, so thank you.
My pleasure.
It's an obligation.
Sheila, this is the question, and it's a tough one.
I struggle with this, having seen Canada degenerate, not just over the last decade, but, you know, acutely over the last three years.
How do you retain optimism?
How do you retain, I don't know, do you have a sense of shame in the country and what the country that you were brought up in has turned into?
Well, it's definitely not the country I was raised in.
That's for sure.
It was quite a difference.
It was quite a different country back in 1970.
I was born in '64, so it was quite a different country being raised.
And I was raised in the country, and it was a beautiful time.
I remember back, well, I didn't think so much as a kid.
I mean, most kids don't, right?
But I did have a good life with my parents.
My father was an exceptional man.
He was a coal miner and a farmer.
He was exceptional.
He was the Prince of Prince for me.
But life in general, growing up on the farm, it was great.
We had a good life, a good childhood coming up on the East Coast.
And we had a big family.
My mother and father had a family of eight.
But what Canada is today, it's definitely quite a different Canada altogether.
Myself, I would rather do without the technology part.
Well, on the most part, I would like to go back to the phones on the wall.
No internet, if anything, just, you know, just not high speed.
We didn't have high speed.
It was dial-up, but it was okay.
But I much rather, I'm not a tech person.
I find life was better before 2000, while the technology hit.
It was a pretty good life.
I didn't ask you if you were religious, but I will ask you how you get the courage, the strength to actually push through with this where others might, I don't know, might have just given up.
Is it a choice?
Are you a religious, spiritual person?
And how do you find the strength to push forward every day?
Yeah, I was raised in the church from very early childhood on.
I never gave it up.
My family, different members of my family, one's a minister, and my other brother.
He is a very man of the clock.
Big time.
Swears by his Bible and preaches it constantly.
He's a great man, but what pushes me forward is faith and hope.
And yes, religion.
The belief in God, but it's just who I am.
It's the way I was built, I guess.
Some people have They call it a thicker skin and other people have a tougher backbone or whatever, I don't know, but it's just, I was taught never to give up.
My father always said, put one foot in front of the other and don't ever give up.
If you fall, get back up.
And I'm a huge believer in Denzel Washington where he said, fall eight times, seven times and get up eight.
And just keep going.
Don't let nobody knock you down.
And if they do, push forward.
It's a sunny day tomorrow.
We'll end it on your optimism.
With a touch of my cynicism, I get the impression the Canadian system is trying to make an example out of people like you.
And the costs, in addition to everything else, is the clincher for me.
Sheila, we will be in touch.
We're going to end this live and we're going to continue talking afterwards.
Everybody, I'll be live again.
Maybe I'll go live tomorrow or this afternoon.
I think we're going to end this as a block.
People are wishing you well.
People who want to help and support.
If you can give to the Give, Send, Go, the link is there.
Share it around if you can't.
But more importantly, snip, clip, and share on social media.
I have found, Sheila, Omar, I think you know this as well.
The legal system works very slowly and it works apart from the court of public opinion.
The court of public opinion sways.
It has a way of swaying politics and Morality.
So make this a war in the form of public opinion.
Share it around so that bigger voices hear this, so they can make known the absolute insanity of what's going on in Canada.
They will euthanize people or medical assistants in dying, and they'll talk about harvesting organs without consent.
They'll do everything that they can to...
Demean individuality except respect personal opinion, personal choices such as this.
I'm at a loss for it because it's absolutely insane.
It's immoral, it's unjust, and it's disgusting, and people should know about what's going on in Canada.
So, Sheila, thank you for sharing your story.
Omar, thank you for doing what you're doing.
I wish you luck, but I'm not holding my breath for that.
We're going to try to work in the court of public opinion and get what Sheila needs that the Canadian system has not given her.
Thank you all for being here.
Stick around.
We'll see our property.
Guys, everyone in the chat, you know what to do.
Snip, clip, share, wave.
And I'll see you all sooner than later.
▲
Export Selection