Submit, that when a patient presents or is brought to emergency, the request for care should be presumed to be urgent. The most common components of the doctors duty of care to a patient are the duty to attend, diagnose, refer, treat and instruct. The duty to diagnose requires doctors to take a full history, use appropriate tests and consult or refer if necessary. They must take reasonable care to detect signs and symptoms and formulate a diagnosis using good judgement. They cannot act only on what they are told nor can they ignore what they are told. The court then looks for evidence of considered medical judgement reflected in planning for the particular patients care and safety . * taken from the text Legal Liability of Doctors and Hospitals in Canada, by Picarde & Robertson, 3rd ed., Carswell-1996.
“When dealing with truth, liars and suppression of truth, or where a crime involves a conspiracy, or conspiracy to cover-up, accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated”. – H.Michael Sweeney.
315. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel publishes defamatory matter in good faith for the purpose of seeking remedy or redress for a private or public wrong or grievance from a person who has, or who on reasonable grounds he believes has, the right or is under an obligation to remedy or redress the wrong or grievance, if
Powerful prejudice works against recognizing “iatrogenocide” (iatros in the greek for doctors) is the systematic destruction of a large group of people by doctors- meaning “iatrogenic” or physician induced injury and death deriving from professional negligence (a scatomatous state of ignorance associated with a dereliction of duty) and homicidal behavior consistent with psychopathic behaviour by casual healthcare providers and those who pull their strings as a widespread malaise. Paradoxically, many doctors and politicians have learned to hide their capacity for abhorrent deeds and scandalous behavior from themselves. This is especially true in Ontario where physicians are like stoics, trained to bear evils with indifference who never succumbed to honesty and integrity. They live in a cesspool of cultured unaccountability, conspicuously reprehensible, ignoble and sordid.
Preventable medical complications and adverse events associated with questionable clinical decisions can only lead to deadly medical practices, and catastrophe, the level of iatrogenic medical negligence and stupidity that triggers catastrophic decline in a patient as a consequence of that stupidity, willful blindness or outright carelessness.
What iatrogenic really means apart from the damaging impact of medical stupidity is carelessness, unaccountability, greed, including but not limited to wanton and reckless disregard for human life. Consequences of omission (failing to do the right thing) as well as commission (doing the wrong thing) are included. Civil liability implies criminal liability. A very good case could be made that far too many doctors and hospitals in Canada willfully and unlawfully cause bodily harm to thousands of Canadians annually.
Under Canadian law a physician may be subject to criminal as well as civil liability when causing death or bodily harm to another person.
Everyone who undertakes to administer surgical or medical treatment to another person or to do any other lawful act that may endanger the life of another person is, except in cases of necessity, under a legal duty to have and use reasonable knowledge, skill and care in so doing. Everyone who undertakes to do an act is under a legal duty to do it if an omission of the act is or may be dangerous to life (Canadian Encyclopedic Digest, 1994, Ref.106).
Under section 219 of the Canadian Criminal Code, “every one is criminally negligent who in doing anything or in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do shows wanton disregard for the lives or safety of other persons”. Medical negligence result in the sickness, disability, and death of thousands of Canadians every year. The medical establishment however, don’t seem to care about all this suffering and death. They are guilty of wanton and reckless disregard for the health of Canadians and are criminally negligent.
Under section 220 of the Canadian Criminal Code, “every person who by criminal negligence causes death to another person is guilty of an indictable offence”. There is no doubt that the criminal negligence referred to above results in the deaths of thousands of persons every year.
Under section 222 of the Canadian Criminal Code, “a person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being”. There is no doubt that far too many doctors and hospitals cause the deaths of thousands of human beings.
Under section 222(5) of the Canadian Criminal Code, a person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(a) by means of an unlawful act,
(b) by criminal negligence,
(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death, or
(d) by willfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.
The medical establishment is guilty of culpable homicide by reason of criminal negligence as explained above under Section 219. Under subsection (c) above, a case can be made that the medical establishment is guilty of culpable homicide by deception. The medical establishment have downplayed the threat of medical negligence, iatrogenic injury and death and concealed the evidence for years.
Under section 229 of the Canadian Criminal Code, Culpable homicide is murder
a) where the person who causes the death of a human being
i) means to cause his death, or
ii) means to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and is reckless whether death ensues or not;
b) where a person, meaning to cause death to a human being or meaning to cause him bodily harm that he knows is likely to cause his death, and being reckless whether death ensues or not, by accident or mistake causes death to another human being, notwithstanding that he does not mean to cause death or bodily harm to that human being; or
c) where a person, for an unlawful object, does anything that he knows or ought to know is likely to cause death, and thereby causes death to a human being, notwithstanding that he desires to effect his object without causing death or bodily harm to any human being.
The medical establishment know or ought to know that medical negligence and carelessness cause bodily harm and death. By allowing such negligence and carelessness to thrive one can only conclude that they are reckless and indifferent to the harm they do. If they did not mean to commit murder, they would not knowingly show such a wanton disregard for the health and safety of the general public. According to the Canadian Criminal Code, they are “murderers”.
Criminal negligence causing causing death, including related charges as enumerated or described hereinare are all indictable offences. Every superior court of criminal jurisdiction has jurisdiction to try any indictable offence.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, namely:
15. (1) “Every individual is equal before the law and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.”
24. (1) “Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.”
The Constitution of Canada gives us all the right to equality and with that the “right to justice”.
Genetically Engineered Stealth Virus.
Mayo Clinic Collaboration Invented the ‘Virus in Stealth’ to help kill cancer cells that was to have enabled it to sneak past the immune system. The work is still experimental. It presumably kills cancer cells without pharming healthy ones but stresses the immune system which can also trigger an autoimmune reaction by overstimulation. Secret experiments of this type suggest as a possible vector in the spread of West Nile Virus (WNV) via contaminated pharma products. WNV interferes with the innate immune system. Some experimental vaccines and certain pharma products may also be responsible for delivering cancer itself…
Further, the idea of using a genetically engineered parasite whose behavior mimics cancer may have some merit. However, a pitfall is that parasites can run rampant right in the centre of your immune system, resulting in widespread infection, further weakening the immune system, especially in an already run down and stressed out patient. Weakening of immunity leads to development of various diseases. Ordinarily, the thymus makes T blood cells that battle invaders. If there are not enough T cell fighters, or if the immune system is run down, overstimulated, or overwhelmed, the outcome could be catastrophic. Under normal conditions, the body is able to distinguish self from non-self antigens. Molecular mimicry may provoke an excessive immune reaction. There is also a risk that live vaccines may be contaminated with adventitious infectious particles.
“It has just recently been discovered that one test to discover if your body is under a viral attack (whether stealth or otherwise) is the c-reactive protein test. This test will tell you the coagulability state of your blood. A body under attack by a virus has hypercoagulable blood (clots easily). (Again, this is because viruses hide from the immune system by “cloaking” themselves in fibrin). Stealth viruses do the same. This is how some of the stealth viruses were initially found: the c-reactive protein test showed positive, yet the individual had no signs of a fever or viral infection.” – Stealth Viruses “Stealth viruses predominantly, but not always, affect the brain. They cause a wide array of progressively degenerative neurological, allergic, neoplastic, auto immune and psychiatric illnesses. Emerging Worlds.com reports that doctors believe stealth viruses may also be involved in the growth of cancer cells.” Read more: Stealth Virus Symptoms | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5527622_stealth-virus-symptoms.html#ixzz15WzvAKRh
R. V. MANJANATHA1995 — In January, anesthesiologist Channagirie Manjanatha pleaded guilty to criminal negligence in Regina, Saskatchewan, for leaving the room for 15 minutes during surgery to make a phone call, thus leaving an oxygen machine unmonitored, which resulted in brain damage to the patient.
R. V. MANJANATHA
CA94154 Date of Judgment: November 4, 1994 (orally) THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN
DR. CHANNAGIRIE PUTTAPPA MANJANATHA APPLICANT
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
CORAM: The Honourable Mr. Justice Tallis in Chambers
COUNSEL: Mr. Neil G. Gabrielson, Q.C. and Mr. Graham Laschuk for the applicant Mr. Graeme Mitchell for the respondent Crown
DISPOSITION: Application for Stay Heard:November 3, 1994 Application Dismissed:November 4, 1994 (oral) Court of Appeal File: 6497
TALLIS J.A. (Oral)
This application for a stay of proceedings under an indictment in Queen’s Bench came before me on short notice late yesterday afternoon. After hearing argument I adjourned my decision until this morning so that I could consider the submissions and authorities put forward by counsel. Since I appreciate their need for an early decision I now deliver brief reasons. At the outset, I wish to express my appreciation to counsel for the manner in which they addressed this matter.
A brief word about the procedural history of this matter is in order. On March 23, 1993 Dr. Manjanatha was charged under s.221 of the Criminal Code. On April 27, 1993 he elected trial by judge without a jury in Queen’s Bench.
Following a preliminary hearing which concluded on October 22, 1993 he was committed for trial at the next non-jury sittings of the Court of Queen’s Bench at the Judicial Centre of Regina.
On September 26, 1994 an indictment dated September 20, 1994 was filed in Queen’s Bench with the Attorney General’s direction under s.568 of the Criminal Code that Dr. Manjanatha be tried by a Court composed of a judge and jury. With this turn of events, learned counsel for Dr. Manjanatha applied to the trial judge for an order quashing the Attorney General’s direction under s.568 and for a further declaration that Dr. Manjanatha’s “Charter” right to trial by judge without a jury was infringed. Accordingly he sought a declaration under s.24(1) of the Charter that he was entitled to trial by judge without a jury.
In written reasons filed on November 2, 1994 the learned trial judge dismissed this application for relief. He held that s.7 of the Charter did not grant Dr. Manjanatha the constitutional right to a non-jury trial. He also rejected Dr. Manjanatha’s contention that in the circumstances of this case the invocation of s.568 of the Criminal Code constituted an abuse of process.
Dr. Manjanatha immediately appealed this ruling on the following grounds: 1. That the learned Trial Judge failed to properly consider whether s.568 of the Criminal Code violates s.7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 2. That the learned Trial Judge failed to properly consider whether in the circumstances of the case the direction by the Attorney General constituted an abuse of authority. 3. That the learned Trial Judge failed to properly consider whether the Crown’s delay in the exercise of its direction constitutes an abuse of process.
On November 3, 1994 the learned trial judge rejected Dr. Manjanatha’s application for an adjournment of his jury trial set for November 7, 1994 pending the hearing and final disposition of his appeal.
This application was accordingly brought before me for an order staying all proceedings under the indictment in question pending the hearing and final disposition of the above “appeal”.
The learned trial judge rejected Dr. Manjanatha’s contention that the Attorney General’s direction under s.568 was constitutionally infirm. Accordingly I am asked to maintain the status quo by enjoining proceedings under the indictment which is now before the Court of Queen’s Bench. Since judicial intervention was denied in Queen’s Bench the order sought, if granted, will have the effect of altering the legal status quo. This factor is all the more significant where I am asked as a single judge of the Court to delay a scheduled criminal trial fixed for November 7, 1994 and in effect, fragment the proceedings on the footing that the Attorney General’s direction under s.568 raises an issue that should go through the appeal process at this stage of the trial.
Assuming, without deciding, that I have jurisdiction to make such an order, I decline to do so. As I see it, the relief sought from me as a single Chambers judge is somewhat extraordinary in that I am asked to suspend the operation of a presumptively valid indictment and override the discretionary order of the trial judge refusing to grant an adjournment of the trial in these circumstances. Since Dr. Manjanatha’s claim to relief is not indisputably clear, such a decision in this case is best left to the Court’s determination after the trial has been completed. Furthermore, it would be difficult for the Court to pass upon the abuse of process issue at this stage without the benefit of a full trial record.
I accordingly dismiss the within application, but emphasize that the points raised in the pending “appeal” are preserved for any future appeal that may arise after trial. In this way all matters or issues can be dealt with at the appellate level on the basis of the entire trial record in Queen’s Bench where all of the relevant issues will have been considered in one forum rather than litigated piecemeal. See, for example, Bank of Nova Scotia v. R., 24 Sask.R. 308 (C.A.). Furthermore, given the Crown’s position, an acquittal will likely render the issue moot in these proceedings.
In this application I have considered Dr. Manjanatha’s vigorous contention that a “jurisdictional” issue is raised and accordingly, this should be viewed as an exception to the general rule. In the circumstances of this case, these “jurisdictional” aspects of the argument have not persuaded me that proceedings under the indictment should be suspended. Accordingly, I have not found it necessary to pass upon the issue whether any right of appeal exists at this stage.
R. V. MANJANATHA
QB94426 Date of Judgment: November 1, 1994 Number of Pages: 4 Q.B.C.N.J. A.D. 1993 No. 148 J.C. R.
IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA
BETWEEN: DR. CHANNAGIRIE PUTTAPPA MANJANATHA APPLICANT
– and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
N.G. Gabrielson, Q.C. for the applicant G.G. Mitchell for the respondent
JUDGMENT MAURICE J. November 1, 1994
The accused was charged with causing bodily harm by criminal negligence contrary to s. 221 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. On April 27, 1993, he elected to be tried by judge without a jury. On October 22, 1993, after a preliminary inquiry the accused was committed to stand trial. On September 20, 1994, the Attorney General directed, pursuant to s. 568 of the Criminal Code, that the accused was to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury.
The accused alleges that this direction denied or infringed his rights under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11. He applies for a declaratory judgment, pursuant to ss. 24(1) that he is entitled to be tried by a judge without a jury.
Section 568 of the Criminal Code reads:
568. The Attorney General may, notwithstanding that an accused elects under section 536 or re-elects under section 561 to be tried by a judge or provincial court judge, as the case may be, require the accused to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury, unless the alleged offence is one that is punishable with imprisonment for five years or less, and where the Attorney General so requires, a judge or provincial court judge has no jurisdiction to try the accused under this Part and a preliminary inquiry shall be held before a justice unless a preliminary inquiry has been held prior to the requirement by the Attorney General that the accused be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury.
The accused argues that s. 568 denies his rights under s. 7, and if it does not, the Attorney General’s direction was exercised in a manner that infringed his rights under s. 7, and if the Attorney General’s direction was not exercised in a manner that infringed his rights under s. 7, the delay in directing trial by judge and jury infringed his rights under s. 7.
The accused bears the burden, on the balance of probabilities, of persuading the court that his Charter rights have been denied or infringed: R. v. Collins,  1 S.C.R. 265.
Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Section 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms reads:
24(1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
The accused states that s. 7 gives him the right to be tried by a judge without a jury, and s. 568 denies him that right. I cannot agree. “There is no constitutional right to a non-jury trial.”: R. v. Turpin,  1 S.C.R. 1296 at 1321 per Wilson J.
The accused states that the Attorney General exercised his discretion in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, contrary to s. 7. The accused did not adduce any evidence of improper motive or bad faith on the part of the Attorney General. Absent evidence of improper motive or bad faith, the court will not interfere with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion: R. v. Power (1994), 89 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (S.C.C.).
The accused states that the Attorney General’s delay in directing trial by judge with jury is an infringement of the right of due process guaranteed by s. 7. I agree that delay in making a direction, under s. 586, which results in an unfair trial for an accused can be addressed under s. 7: R. v. Potvin,  2 S.C.R. 880. However, the accused did not adduce any evidence showing that the Attorney General’s delay would result in an unfair trial.
The accused’s application is dismissed.
R. V. MANJANATHA
CA95081 Date of Judgment: June 21, 1995 Number of Pages: 6
THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
DR. CHANNAGIRIE P. MANJANATHA
The Honourable Chief Justice Bayda The Honourable Mr. Justice Wakeling The Honourable Mr. Justice Sherstobitoff
Mr. N. Gabrielson Q.C., and Mr. J. Sproule for the appellant Ms. C. Snell, Q.C. for the Crown
Appeal Heard: May 4, 1995 Appeal Dismissed: June 21, 1995 On Appeal From: QBCNJ 148/93 J.C. Regina Appeal File: 6579 Reasons by: The Honourable Mr. Justice Wakeling In concurrence: The Honourable Chief Justice Bayda and The Honourable Mr. Justice Sherstobitoff
This appeal calls for a determination of the proper sentence to be imposed upon the appellant, an anaesthetist who has pleaded guilty to criminal negligence under s. 221 of the Criminal Code.
Both the Crown’s counsel and appellant’s counsel concede that this Court has not adopted the laissez-faire or negative approach to the review of sentences and does not subscribe to the “rubber stamp” theory. Therefore no high degree of deference is required to be given the sentence of six months imposed by the trial judge. This Court must therefore while having regard for the sentence imposed by a trial judge review the facts and relevant considerations to determine what constitutes a fit sentence. (see R. v. Morrissette (1970), 75 W.W.R. 644; R. v. Wenarchuk (1982), 67 C.C.C. (2d) 19 at 174 and R. v. Dunn (1995), 95 C.C.C. (3d) 289 at 297 (S.C.C.)).
The factual background discloses a very tragic result to a fairly routine surgical procedure. On February 23, 1991, Ryan Braumberger was being operated on as a consequence of a broken leg and the appellant was the anaesthetist. The anaesthetic equipment being utilized had four safety systems built into it. Two of these systems were not in operation, one of which a nurse had suggested should be utilized but the appellant did not think it was necessary and it was never hooked up. One of the two safety systems which was in use was designed to give a high pitched warning sound when it was not operating properly and the other a warning that was rather less noticeable.
Shortly after the youth had been anaesthetized, the appellant left the operating room to place a phone call and said to the circulating nurse “I am leaving” without any further instruction. While he was away, the circuitry became disconnected and the high pitched warning system failed to function while the other system went unnoticed by those involved in the surgery. When the failure was noticed by the circulating nurse, the appellant was quickly summoned but the oxygen deprivation had existed for a sufficient period of time to create irreversible brain damage to the patient. The result is the youth never regained consciousness and in all probability will remain in a vegetative state for the balance of his life. The appellant, when making out his medical report, falsely indicated he had been out of the operating room but in sight of the patient at all times. He made the same false statement to Ryan’s family following the surgery.
The College of Physicians and Surgeons conducted an inquiry and as a consequence the appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of conduct unbecoming a member of the profession, and was suspended from practice for six months and required to upgrade his skills. This he did and was subsequently reinstated by the College and is now practising his speciality in the Lethbridge area. A civil action was taken on behalf of the youth and a settlement reached involving payment of damages by or on behalf of the appellant and the hospital.
The police also conducted an inquiry and as a consequence a charge of criminal negligence was laid under s. 221 of the Code. The appellant at first pleaded not guilty and the above facts were those as presented at the preliminary hearing at which he was committed for trial. At trial, the appellant changed his plea and the focus turned to what constituted a fit sentence. The trial judge rendered a carefully considered judgment indicating the nature of the offence called for a period of incarceration and imposed a sentence of six months. The appellant contends that the sentence is too severe.
Decisions of this Court, at least since R. v. Morrissette (1970), 75 W.W.R. 644, have accepted there are four paramount factors to be considered in determining a fit sentence. They are: (1) punishment; (2) deterrence; (3) removal of the offender from the public for the latter’s protection; and (4) reformation and rehabilitation of the offender. Without repeating the full scope of the appellant’s submission, it was contended society gained no advantage from requiring more punishment than the circumstances had imposed upon the appellant apart from any sentence; deterrence had made its full impact not only on the appellant but the entire profession; imprisonment was not needed to protect the public; and all had been done that was needed to reform and rehabilitate the offender. That being so, to now impose imprisonment serves no societal advantage nor does it provide anything of a positive nature for the appellant. It can therefore only be described as societal vengeance, which is made even more unacceptable by the appellant’s current state of ill health.
The appellant’s position is supported by the fact that almost every precedent authority that exits in either Canada or England relating to a medical’s doctor negligence does not involve a sentence of incarceration. In England it appears that at least until recently, medical doctors have been sentenced to up to six months in prison with the sentence suspended for a period of one year so that no time is served if they continue good behaviour. The only similar decision in Canada was said to be R. v. Lockyer (1980), 13 C.R. (3d) 185 in which a nurse in Newfoundland was granted a suspended sentence for failing to check blood types before a surgical blood transfusion which resulted in the death of the patient.
Obviously, there exists a judicial viewpoint that a medical doctor who falls to be convicted of an offence of criminal negligence need not be imprisoned as that can be nothing more than societal vengeance given the nature of the severe consequences that flow from a conviction of such an offence, quite aside from any sentence judicially imposed.
All of this represents a compelling argument, for it is hard to fashion a reason to support a sentence of imprisonment which serves neither the interest of society, in the sense it is then deprived of the use of the skills of a professionally trained person; nor the interests of the guilty person, in the sense the person has already suffered extensively and is not at risk of reoffending. Nonetheless, the offence of criminal negligence is one of those that frequently involves members of society who do not have a previous criminal record. The offence deals with situations in which the accused has, sometimes by momentary error or misjudgment acted so negligently that criminal consequences are involved. None of us can be certain we shall never face such a charge. It is not unusual that these situations have involved those who by virtue of their position or professional skills are devastated by the event quite aside from any criminal sentence that is imposed. That situation should properly be factored into the sentence, but it only carries the offender so far. It cannot be accepted so completely as to create one penalty for the more highly trained or successful who suffer more extensively as a result of the conviction and another for those who have less to lose. This factor cannot be accepted as sufficient to avoid imprisonment where the negligence is viewed as extreme and the consequences severe. Indeed the cases are peppered with instances where professional people have been called upon to endure the consequences of their crime.
This then calls for a review of the nature of the appellant’s conduct which constituted the offence. The operation on the youth was not going to be lengthy; the youth had just been anaesthetized and his condition hardly even stabilized when the appellant left to make a purely personal telephone call; virtually no arrangements were made to alert other staff of his absence or the concerns that his absence represented; he was absent for longer than was reasonable and to some degree falsified his report to protect himself at the conclusion of this surgery. All of this places his conduct much beyond the range of pure mischance, or, as the trial judge expressed it, “as being explained away by a combination of unfortunate circumstances”.
There is no denying that professionals of this nature suffer very significantly quite beyond anything the sentencing process may impose. That may well be good reason to impose a lesser criminal sanction, but for other professions, of which the legal profession is an example, it has not been seen as a sufficient justification to warrant the failure to impose penal sanctions, particularly when the conduct is at the more serious end of the range. Nor is this the first occasion in which it has been apparent that the sentence of incarceration has significant side effects and tragic consequences upon the family. That seems to be an inevitable byproduct of almost all sentences which society has not yet found the means to eliminate. Finally, when considering the degree of negligence and the resultant consequences, it is difficult to believe that the public’s respect for the administration of justice can be enhanced or even maintained by imposing a fine or probation in this case.
Having considered the well reasoned presentation made by the appellant’s counsel, we are nonetheless of the opinion the trial judge was correct in assessing a limited period of imprisonment as a fit sentence. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
DATED at the City of Regina, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 21st day of June , A.D. 1995.
R. v. Manjanatha, 1994 CarswellSask 636 (Sask. Q.B)
WVN is a cause of aseptic meningitis that has recently spread across the U.S. to Canada. Usually, west nile virus causes a self-limited (gets better on its own, without treatment) meningitis. Infrequently, it causes a more severe illness, which may include encephalitis (inflammation in the actual brain tissue) or paralysis similar to that seen in polio. Guillain Barre syndrome (GBS) and its variants can present similarly. These severe forms usually occur in elderly people or people with lowered immunity. In this case, the meningitis may mimic the signs and symptoms of hepatic encephalopathy, or hepatic coma. Predisposing factors in hepatic encephalopathy include a history of blood in urine or stool, opiate use, infection, GI bleeding, dehydration or electrolyte abnormalities. Additionally, hepatic encephalopathy can also occur with non-cirrhotic forms of portal hypertension. – hepatic encephalopathy – docstoc
Classically, West Nile virus infection is suspected in persons with unexplained encephalitis and meningitis. Brainstem encephalitis, cerebellitis, movement disorders, cranial neuropathies, polyneuropathy/radiculopathy, chorioretinitis and optic neuritis are also recognized WNV neurological presentations. Disease attributed to WNV presents in one of four clinical fashions: West Nile fever, meningoencephalitis, a flaccid paralysis (polio-like syndrome), and a Parkinson-like syndrome.
West Nile virus transmission occurs mostly during warm weather, when mosquito populations are active. Peak transmission of the WNV occurs between July and October, but cases have occurred as early as April. Further, numerous cases of WNV infection via transfusion of blood products (from asymptomatic, viremic donors) have been reported. Most people infected by West Nile Virus do not get sick. A small number of people may experience mild fever, headaches, muscle weakness and a stiff neck. In rare cases, the symptoms may progress to serious illness involving inflammation of the brain (encephalitis) or the lining of the brain and spinal cord (meningitis).
WNV has been associated with severe cerebral abnormalities and intracranial calcifications. Treatment is mainly supportive, and no antiviral medications have any proven benefit in the management of WNV. Severe WNV infection can mimic GBS but is differentiated by fever; encephalopathy; predominantly proximal, asymmetric weakness; axonal pathology on nerve conduction studies and cerebrospinal fluid variables.
West Nile virus encephalitis mimicking central nervous system metastases from small cell lung cancer is reported in the literature. The American Journal of Medicine , Volume 115 , Issue 7, Pages 594 – 595 A . Jeyakumar.
During the 1999 New York City West Nile virus (WNV) outbreak, 4 patients with profound muscle weakness, attributed to Guillain-Barre syndrome, were autopsied. These cases were the first deaths caused by WNV.
GBS can also be mistaken for botulism, lyme disease, poisonous shellfish, diptheria, sarcoidosis, even rabies. Disorders that can mimic Guillain-Barre syndrome include tick paralysis, toxic neuropathies, porphyria, transverse myelitis, acute spinal cord compression and poliomyelitis. Infection can even mimic Guillain-Barré syndrome. Even MS is related in a fashion similar to axonal and demyelinating Guillain-Barré syndrome. MS and GBS are autoimmune inflammatory diseases. These and other conditions that may mimic the Guillain-Barre syndrome need to be ruled out. The clinical diagnosis of GBS needs to be confirmed by cerebrospinal fluid analysis and nerve conduction studies. Lumbar puncture is indicated in every case of suspected GBS.
CAVEAT: West Nile virus (WNV) infection is a potentially fatal disease, with meningoencephalitis being its most common neurological manifestation.
Evidence of West Nile encephalitis virus (polio-like) infection has been documented in most states of the continental U.S. and Canada within a short period of its first introduction in 1999. Health care providers are mostly aware of the usual presentations of this disease, eg, “aseptic meningitis, encephalitis and Guillain-Barre syndrome”, suggesting a shared mechanism.
For the record, West Nile virus (WNV) can cause severe, potentially fatal neurological illnesses, which include encephalitis, meningitis, Guillain Barre syndrome, and anterior myelitis. WNV season: May through October.
Know that polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like WNV, viral or aseptic meningitis, and Guillain Barre Syndrome. – Hiding Polio
The signs and symptoms of Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS) are almost indistinguishable from that of the West Nile Virus (WNV) and visa-versa, as both share a propensity for presenting similarly with muscle weakness and flaccid paralysis. In fact, GBS and WNV ofter mimic each other. West Nile Virus begins like the flu, and so does GBS.
Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS): Killer Nerve Disease Risk with Swine Flu Vaccine Discussed Among UK Experts
A confidential letter sent by the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency to about 600 senior neurologists on July 29, 2009 warns that the latest Swine Flu Vaccination is linked to the deadly nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS).
The letter advises doctors that they must be alert for an increase in Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), an autoimmune disease that involves an acute inflammatory demyelenating polyneuropathy (AIDP) of the peripheral nervous system. The disease is frequently severe with an ascending paralysis starting with weakness in the legs, then affects the arms, face and deep tendon reflexes. Frequently, the lower cranial nerves may be affected, leading to bulbar weakness, (oropharyngeal dysphagia, that is difficulty with swallowing, drooling, and/or maintaining an open airway) and respiratory difficulties.
Prompt treatment by removing blood and plasma, separating blood cells from the plasma, treating the plasma by removing disease-causing antibodies, and then returning plasma and blood cells to the patient. In some cases, the plasma is returned from a donor (plasma exchange). The treatment is accompanied by medical and immunosuppressive therapy for long term management to prevent target host nerve tissue from being attacked by antibodies.
The disease process is initiated by foreign antigens from an infectious disease, contaminated vaccine, or possibly the vaccine itself. GBS is a form of autoimmune disorder with a delayed hypersensitivity reaction, or a rare manifestation of serum sickness, or transient syndrome resembling serum sickness with loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain accompanied by weakness (tired feeling), chills, and low grade fever. There is also possible evidence of brain involvement, indicated by lethargy and migraine headaches, although one theory of the cause of migraine is a central nervous system (CNS) disorder, or Bickerstaff’s brain stem encephalitis, a regional variant of GBS.
Typical pain is occipital or in the back of the head. Alterations of consciousness accompany this headache type. The brainstem is affected and implicated in the maintenance of arousal, but is a worrisome feature with this type of headache, which is called a Bickerstaff migraine. Altered brainstem functions result in clumsiness and gait unsteadiness, such as “pulling to the right” and are associated with Bickerstaff migraine, a variant of GBS.
Usually recovery starts after 4th week from the onset of the disorder. Approximately 80% of patients have a complete recovery within a few months to a year, although minor findings may persist, such as areflexia. About 5–10% recover with severe disability, with most of such cases involving severe proximal motor and sensory axonal nerve damage with inability of axonal regeneration.
FLASHBACK TO 1976
The United Kingdom Health Protection Agency letter to neurologists refers to a vaccine in the United States in 1976 when more people died (25) from GBS respiratory paralysis than from the flu itself, when about 500 cases of GBS were diagnosed, when symptoms appeared within days of the vaccination, when the vaccine was thought to increase the risk of GBS up to eight times, and when the vaccine was withdrawn in ten weeks after the connection of the vaccine to GBS was recognized.
Related links …
The most severe and obvious complication of Serum sickness is Guillain Barre Syndrome. Serum sickness is a type III hypersensitivity reaction that results from the injection of heterologous or foreign protein or serum. The most serious complications of serum sickness are nerve conditions such as Guillain-Barre syndrome and peripheral neuritis.
Serum sickness is a reaction to an antiserum derived from an animal source. It is a type of hypersensitivity, specifically immune complex (type 3) hypersensitivity. Serum sickness typically develops up to ten days after exposure to the antiserum, and symptoms are similar to an allergic reaction. However, it is different from anaphylaxis, since the symptoms are not instantaneous (onset is typically 2-4 weeks after exposure).
New variants of the polio virus have actually come from the vaccine.[Whale, June 2002] To read only the polio sections see Hidden Dangers in Polio Vaccine by Eleanor McBean: http://www.whale.to/a/mcbean5.html