Argentina Announces Withdrawal From WHO

By Owen Evens

The Argentine government has announced its decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to the “catastrophic” economic impact of the COVID-19 lockdowns.

In a statement shared on social media platform X on Feb. 5, the office of Argentine President Javier Milei [president's photo pictured here] stated that the COVID-19 lockdowns were one of the greatest economic catastrophes in world history, citing the severe and lasting impact on global economies as Argentina’s primary reason for pulling out.

“The WHO was established in 1948 to coordinate global health emergency responses, but it failed its most significant test: it promoted indefinite quarantines without scientific backing during the COVID-19 pandemic,” the statement reads in English translation.

“These quarantines caused one of the largest economic catastrophes in world history.”

Vaccines Were Supposed to End the Pandemic. Excess Death Figures Tell a Different Story.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/vaccines-supposed-end-pandemic-excess-death-figures-different-story/?utm_id=20250207

By Michael Tomlinson

In the ongoing struggle to write the history of the pandemic years, nothing is more important than mortality — did the world’s governments save us from mass mortality or not?

The grand strategy (which as I have said before was neither grand nor strategic) was to lock down the population of whole countries as an interim measure “until a vaccine becomes available.”

This was a novel (and completely unproven) strategy to defeat a supposedly completely novel virus, on the grounds that no human had ever encountered anything like SARS-CoV-2 before so no one would have any preexisting immunity to it.

But the clue is in the name — SARS-CoV-2 was named after SARS to which it was closely related, sharing approximately 79% of its genome sequence according to this paper in Nature.

Montana Senate Eliminates Legal Protections for Assisted Suicide

By Darrell Ehrlick

Currently, physician-assisted aid in dying in Montana occupies a legal gray area. A 2009 Montana Supreme Court ruling said a physician can raise a defense in a homicide case, saying that a patient consented and sought out the drugs, but the high court said that it was ultimately up to the Legislature to make the final decision on the legality of physician assistance in suicide.

On Friday, the Montana Senate passed Senate Bill 136, which would disallow patient consent as a defense to physician-assisted aid in dying [assisted suicide], effectively giving physicians no legal protection if they participated in administering drugs that would end a terminally ill patient's life.

The measure passed 29-20, with all Democrats voting against the measure.  Three Republicans joined the Democrats... 

Sen. Carl Glimm, R-Kila, has carried a similar bill in previous sessions, and pointed to physician assisted aid in dying, often referred to by opponents as "physician suicide," in other countries, such as Canada and European, calling them "slippery slopes."

"It will just keep growing and growing," Glimm said, citing cases where a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder "was talked into suicide."...

Bill Seeking to Prohibit Legal Assisted Suicide Faces Third and Final Reading

Senator Glimm

By Alex Schadenberg

Montanans have a confusing legal situation concerning assisted suicide. 

In 2009, [Montana's] Baxter court decision declared that Montanans have a right to assisted suicide. The Baxter decision was appealed to the Montana Supreme Court where it was decided that there is not a right to assisted suicide in Montana[.]  ... [The Baxter court also] found a "defense of consent" meaning a Montana physician who assists a suicide must prove that there was consent [to death by the person who died.]

Senate Bill 136 legislatively declares that there is no defense of consent. ...

Delaware Residents with Money Will Be Rendered Sitting Ducks to Their Heirs (HB 140)

By Margaret Dore, Esq., MBA

“Aid in Dying” has been a euphemism for physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia since at least 1992.

Per the American Medical Association, "physician-assisted suicide" occurs when a doctor facilitates a patient’s death by providing the means or information to enable a patient to perform the life-ending act. "Euthanasia" is the administration of a lethal agent to kill another person.

Persons assisting a suicide or euthanasia can have an agenda. Reported motives have included: the “thrill” of getting other people to kill themselves; and wanting to see another person die.

The proposed Delaware Act (HB 140) has a formal application process to obtain the lethal dose. Once the lethal dose is issued by the pharmacy, there is no required oversight. No witness, not even a doctor or other medical person is required to be present at a patient's death.

Vermont Study Group Rejects Call by Naturopaths to take part in Medical Aid in Dying

A legislative committee is recommending against allowing naturopathic physicians to play a greater role in the state’s medical aid in dying program [also known as physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia].

The Vermont Association of Naturopathic Physicians last year asked lawmakers to allow naturopaths to prescribe the medicine that hastens death.

The group also wants the state to allow its members to sign an advanced directive, and advise patients during the signing of do-not-resuscitate orders.

The Legislature put a study group together to consider the changes to Act 39, Vermont’s medical aid in dying law, and that group recently published its findings, which recommended against making major changes to the law at this time.