My years of researching and trying to understand the system has been most helpful for saving the lives of my family members when forced to use this failing government social program known as Medicare. Under this dysfunctional and oppressive program those who’ve learned to navigate it have the best chance of survival. Most patients are too trusting until they find themselves in the middle of a situation and their eyes are opened to the the realities of our health care system. Truth be told the medical colleges are corrupt, medical education is a mess, doctors are leaving family medicine, and hospitals are always operating at overcapacity. In short, socialized medicine is evil. The sooner you accept this reality the better prepared you will be to help change it. We’re told over and over again how we have “free health care” provided by our provincial government insurance. It’s not really insurance, it doesn’t operate like it at all. What it does is ruin the doctor/patient relationship. What it does is jeopardize your access to good medical care and impact your health journey in ways you could never have imagined.

My latest round with the health care system opened my eyes to some serious medical malfeasance. That’s right, I’ve been busy fighting evil! There is no other term that suits it better. Someone more talented than I, will be telling you all about it in the near future. For now, I wanted to tell you that I’m back! I have much more to say and do to help patients. Each of us is a “unique, unrepeatable being” and your voice in this crazy health care equation matters. Remember, YOU are the Patient Factor!

In the meantime, I’ll leave you with these quotes:

“Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”
– Romans 12:21

“The sane would do no good if they made themselves mad to help madmen.”
– C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

Life is full of risks and uncertainty about the future. It’s impossible to prevent your child from being infected by every known pathogen out there and those yet to be discovered or synthetically created. The stories of children suffering harm or dying from infectious diseases or the vaccines meant to prevent them are equally heartbreaking. Weighing the individual risks/benefits of the numerous biological products used as a preventative measure for population health is not an easy task.

When it comes to vaccines we are told the science-based evidence speaks for itself but does it? History is replete with examples of the dire consequences that can come from a blind faith in scientific credibility and a blind obedience to scientific authority. A combined dose of politics and science once helped the eugenics movement bring in forced sterilization. Today this same combination is being used to develop public policy and legislation for mandatory vaccination and presumed consent for organ donation. If parents are going to look to science for some direction then we better also take a closer look at who’s interpreting the science for us.

There are some in the scientific and medical communities who believe universal immunization with vaccinations from cradle to grave is the best means for ridding mankind of diseases, ending poverty, or promoting world peace. These global health goals sound noble until you think about the complexity of the immune system itself, let alone trying to perfect humanity. As a parent my goal is not a global one it’s a family one; I just want to protect my child from harm.

Today the multi-billion dollar vaccine industry is one of the biggest public/private partnerships worldwide with governments and international corporations involved in vaccine research and development, marketing, purchasing, and public policymaking. Research and development efforts now include vaccines for the prevention and cure of every type of human disease and societal ill including cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, obesity, anxiety, depression, smoking, alcoholism, and drug addiction. For those looking for a return on investment, science means business. My child’s health is my business and my only motive is parental love.

Under a universal health care system like we have in Canada, the government is always looking for ways of cutting health care costs. Public Health immunization programs focusing on prevention can be cheaper than individualized medical treatments. Just like it’s cheaper for Public Health to use so-called harm reduction programs to help reduce the spread of disease rather than treatment to help cure individuals of alcoholism and drug addiction. These programs may be viewed as cost-effective for governments using a population health-based approach, but my concern lies with the real not “statistical” life of my child.

The mantra of Public Health is that population health benefits outweigh the individual risks for vaccines. The theory of herd immunity is often used as a booster dose of persuasion for making parents believe that vaccinating their child results in “herd immunity” for others. We are told that by vaccinating the elderly we can protect our children, by vaccinating children we are protecting pregnant women and the immunocompromised, by vaccinating pregnant women we are protecting the unborn and by vaccinating infants we are protecting the elderly. If this constant revaccination regime doesn’t really make sense to you that’s because in both the theoretical and real-world herd immunity is lacking. It might be more believable if not for complicating factors like different strains of pathogens circulating throughout the world, the cyclic and seasonal nature of diseases, symptomless carriers, non-responders to vaccines, and protection that wanes over time. Individual immunity and disease transmission involve many different variables within the changing context of time and place. How is herd immunity defined and measured? Which pathogen are we talking about? Which vaccines? Which herd are we talking about? Are we talking about my family, community, province, country, or the world? In reality, wouldn’t all have to be vaccinated for the benefit of all?

Vaccines can’t guarantee protection from infectious diseases nor can they guarantee the prevention of transmission, they only have the potential to reduce risk not eliminate it. The theory of herd immunity uses mathematical models full of assumptions and estimates and predictions. Its most egregious assumption is treating your child’s health as a public good. A parent’s conscientious choice regarding a medical intervention for their healthy child is not a public matter; it’s a personal matter. My child’s health does not belong to the members of the society in which I live.

A national advisory committee reviews both published and unpublished data before voting on the recommendations to be adopted as standard practice into school-based immunization programs. Their opinions take into consideration the best available scientific knowledge at the time. New information is reflected in changes made to doses, schedules, vaccine strains, ingredients, and manufacturing processes. As parents, we need to continually reassess the risks/benefits of each product recommended for our children. As individuals, we don’t all carry the same risk factors for infectious diseases or biological products and therefore can’t possibly share the same benefits. Each of us is unique, our immune system is complex, and the science evolves as new information comes to light. While these expert panels can claim to be authorities on vaccines, they can’t claim to be authorities on the health of my child.

My decision to opt out of the school-based immunization program was not based on the mathematical modeling of population health and the theory of herd immunity. It was made in the best interests of my child a unique individual whose health and life are invaluable to me. My child is a person, not a number.

In the final analysis, the choices you make as to whether or not to vaccinate your healthy child and which products to use involve more than just reviewing the latest data; they involve judgment. Who’s to say where the just balance lies when the weights and measures of population health are applied? When it’s your child’s life and health hanging in the balance – you must be the judge.

The first thing to catch my eye on the attached consent form was the signature area for the vaccines. Beside each listed vaccine was a big green checkbox with the word “Yes” printed in bold green letters followed by a smaller black checkbox with the word “No” in smaller, thin black letters. It reminded me of the marketing tactics used by the sales flyers often referred to as junk mail.

I called public health to ask for the brand names of the products and was directed to more detailed fact sheets on the provincial government’s website. These ones listed the brand names and ingredients for the vaccines. They also contained a paragraph on mature minor consent that made the needle on my mom radar do a full revolution. Did you know that once your child is 13 years of age public health can approach them directly for consent? It’s one way of getting around so-called “vaccine-hesitant” parents. This is the label the vaccine industry applies to parents who question their products. Professional medical societies are enlisted to help handle these parents. Social science and humanities researchers with the Canadian Immunization Research Network (CIRN) are conducting studies to help the industry develop strategies to prevent these parents from progressing to so-called “anti-vaccinators”. What type of science-based evidence will these studies provide? As of March 2017, CIRN had received $30 million from the Canadian Government and vaccine manufacturers. This past June the Canadian Government allocated CIRN another $10 million until 2022.

Name-calling aside, how can parents give informed consent for these vaccines with incomplete information? I started asking my friends and neighbours about their experience with vaccines. I learned about a brother who got polio from the live polio vaccine, a son who suffered a serious adverse reaction from a vaccine through the school-based immunization program and can no longer be vaccinated, a mother whose adverse reaction to a flu vaccine means she can never have them again, a brother who developed H1N1 following vaccination for it, and a daughter who was given a double dose of the HPV vaccine because public health didn’t believe her when she told them that she had already been given a dose.

The deadline for parental consent forms had come, but I like to err on the side of caution and needed more time to review these products. I ended up making a trip to the public health office to deliver my consent form along with a letter indicating my decision to opt out of the school-based immunization program. I asked the public health nurse some questions about their fact sheets. Why are the serious risks of the vaccines not listed in the immunization package? Why are they administering them all at the same time? Where is the research showing this combination is safe? When would public health directly approach a child for consent? Is this a research study?

The public health nurse summoned an immunologist to help answer my questions. They informed me that the serious risks are not listed in the immunization package sent home because they are considered rare. All risks including rare ones should be disclosed to parents otherwise it’s not really informed consent. Vaccine combinations are given to increase coverage and reduce costs. Administering combinations of vaccines may be cheaper for the government, but is it safe for my child? An example of when public health would directly approach a child for consent is when they are not living with their parents. What information is provided to these children? There are no research studies on this specific combination of vaccines being given at one time. I think this is important information to consider in my risks/benefits analysis of these products. The school-based immunization program is not a research study. The immunization package contains a description of the provincial government’s electronic health record system for storing all of the data associated with their immunization program. Surely, this data must be used for post-marketing surveillance of these vaccines. Before I left, the immunologist recommended looking up Dr. Paul Offit, a well-known physician/scientist.

As I walked to my car I realized the risks/benefits analysis for a vaccine will be very different depending on which side of the needle you sit. My decision was not based on the mathematical modeling of population health and the theory of herd immunity or the cost-effectiveness of the immunization program; it was made in the best interest of my child, a unique individual whose health and life are invaluable to me. My child is a person, not a number. Who’s to say where the just balance lies when the weights and measures of population health are applied?

I was about to find out.

To be continued…

1) Who wrote this report?

The report was produced by Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) and the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). One is a rationing program and the other a data collection and reporting agency. The Choosing Wisely® program was spearheaded by the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) in 2012 to help contain spiraling Medicare costs in the United States. It’s now a global movement for cost containment also referred to as health care resource stewardship.

The CWC marketing campaign is impressive. It has a catchy tagline, “More is not always better”, and it’s presented as a conversation starter for doctors and patients to discuss unnecessary care and make wiser choices for reducing it. Partnering with medical associations and specialty societies in developing their lists of recommendations helps lend an air of public trust. It also makes it more difficult for frontline providers to criticize government cutbacks when they’re actively engaged in the process of expanding their role as rationing agents. Language is a very important tool in the campaign. Using terms like patient safety, quality improvement, harm reduction, and evidence-based are an easier sell than cost containment and rationing.

2) What is unnecessary or low-value care?

If mainstream media coverage around this report is leading you to believe that 30{590a4c0e295c39ab030a5b07b13f1fc099430ba01c5342b75da9cd83d5c77913} of medical care in Canada is potentially unnecessary, then you need to actually read the report. It only looked at data concerning eight CWC recommendations. The word “potentially” appears before the word “unnecessary” often in the report. Why? Because reviewing electronic administrative data and survey responses to assess the so-called appropriateness of care for a patient provides an incomplete picture. Patients are persons, not numbers. Making sure patients get necessary and appropriate care sounds good, right? But what is “appropriate” care? Who is deciding the “appropriateness” of your care?

Diagnostic tests assist doctors in making a diagnosis. You suffer a head injury and a brain hemorrhage has now been ruled out for you. Does that mean the CT scan or MRI of your head was medically unnecessary? Is your doctor going to be audited for inappropriate care? Is it considered low-value care because the test cost the system money and it turns out you don’t have any bleeding in your brain?

What third parties deem as “low-value” care in terms of utilization and cost, a doctor and patient can deem as “high-value” care when it comes to clinical decisions for diagnosis and treatment and the survival and quality of life of the patient.

3) Are patients in agreement with the government and doctors when it comes to unnecessary care?

According to the report, “The Choosing Wisely Canada campaign marks a point where physicians, patients and government all agree on unnecessary care.” It provides some statistics regarding patient views on unnecessary care and cites a 2015 Ipsos Reid survey conducted for its partner the Canadian Medical Association (CMA). I wanted to see a copy of the survey questions so I contacted the CMA through the information listed on the bottom of page 12. My request was passed along to Choosing Wisely Canada. They informed me that the online survey contained seven related questions, but they can’t share them because they want to publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal. I’d like to see the wording of the survey questions. I’d also like to know more about the online participants. Without additional information the numbers are suspect. Clearly, we’re not all in agreement when it comes to unnecessary care.

4) Is CWC creating evidence-based or agenda-based medicine?

A favourite buzz word of CWC is “evidence-based” which assumes the authority of organized science and leaves little room for the art of medicine. The amount of data being collected and the number of evidence-based recommendations continue to grow. Many factors can influence the evidence for these recommendations including the aim and design of the research and the data and methodology employed.

The term evidence-based can mean different things to doctors and patients weighing the risks and benefits of tests and treatments and to payers trying to reduce costs. For example, if my child has strep throat then timely access to a doctor and antibiotics are medically necessary. Let’s take a look at CWC’s Recommendation 8 backed by the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians which states “Don’t use antibiotics in adults and children with uncomplicated sore throats.” Recommendation 4 on another list backed by the Canadian Paediatric Society states “Don’t routinely do a throat swab when children present with a sore throat if they have a cough, rhinitis, or hoarseness as they almost certainly have viral pharyngitis.” Are these recommendations an appropriate way of containing costs? When does the risk of harm from untreated strep throat outweigh the potential cost savings on a prescription for antibiotics? How many of these recommendations are causing unnecessary adverse events for patients?

For a better understanding of the evidence in CWC’s report, it’s worth reading the accompanying Technical Report by CIHI. It provides some additional information on data collection and analysis. Does the data really support their findings of unnecessary care in Canada? Putting all the fancy infographics aside, I’m not convinced that it does. The report can tell us about the utilization of publicly funded services. It can tell us about compliance with certain CWC recommendations in certain provinces. What the report can’t tell us is whether or not the medical care of individual patients was unnecessary and inappropriate.

Evidence-based medicine is more about the numbers and less about the persons behind them.

5) Does CWC promote patient-centered or system-centered care?

Health care is not free and there are limited health care resources. The CWC program is less about doctor/patient conversations and more about interventions for saving Medicare money. It’s using electronic data and algorithms to form policies and practice guidelines in hospitals. It’s performing utilization audits on doctors. It’s altering order forms and embedding prompts in electronic programs and health records to ration diagnostic imaging, lab tests, antibiotics, drugs, surgeries, Cancer treatments and life support in publicly funded health care systems throughout the world. It’s changing medical education and training by teaching future medical doctors, nurses, and pharmacists to be public health care protectionists who advocate for system sustainability and value population health over individualized patient care.

Your tax dollars are paying for Medicare. Your tax dollars are also paying for programs that are deceptively denying you access to care. When it comes to Choosing Wisely Canada, the best conversation starter for doctors and patients is this:

Are you going to treat me as a person or as a number?

When the federal government passed legislation making it legal for doctors to intentionally kill their patients, I thought for sure there would be a rallying cry and the medical profession would rise up to save its soul. In response, the medical colleges and the Canadian Medical Association retreated from their position against euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide and instead came up with a revised policy for doctors to follow. It’s a fatal wound to the morality of the profession and the sacred trust that is the very lifeblood of the doctor/patient relationship.

Today professional associations, public service unions, and patient groups continue to accept and promote the false premise of socialized medicine – access is based on need and not the ability to pay. From this so-called “health for all” philosophy stems other collectivist notions such as health care is a human right, population health supersedes that of the individual patient, government is responsible for the health and health care of its citizens, and coercion through Medicare can supplant freedom and charity.

The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) is fighting for increased Medicare funding and permanent binding arbitration in future contract negotiations. Are the legal ties of Medicare not binding enough? A group called Coalition of Ontario Doctors, although critical of the bargaining tactics employed by the OMA and the government, fights for the very same goals.

At the other end of the country in British Columbia Dr. Brian Day, like Dr. Jacques Chaoulli before him, is fighting in court for personal and professional liberty. Patients who have suffered needlessly under Medicare are fighting alongside him. Forcing citizens to sacrifice their health, and in many cases their lives, to a public health care system is unconstitutional. It’s also unjust and immoral. We must fight to repeal legislation that infringes on our individual rights and freedoms by allowing government total economic and political control over the doctor/patient relationship.

Health is neither a right nor a privilege; it’s a condition of life. Need is not a right. Health care is not a right. We must fight to repeal legislation that infringes on our individual rights and freedoms under the camouflage of human rights.

Medicare is not free. Patients without access to medical services bear witness to the truth about this oppressive social program. The truth being that medical services are not allocated on the basis of need, but by the government spending our health care dollars. Patients unable to afford to leave the country to access care directly are left abandoned in a field of misery. We must stand up for the freedom to pursue our individual health interests. We must stand up for the freedom to purchase our own medical services within our country. Surviving the life and death battles of this political war means patients must fight for freedom, not funding.

You won’t hear about the child who needs surgery waking to excruciating pain in the middle of the night and asking his mother if he is going to die. You won’t hear about the man in the ER whose heart stopped beating before he could get medical attention. You won’t hear about the woman fighting cancer who unbeknownst to her is designated as low priority. You don’t hear about patients without access to medical services dying on the streets in Canada because waiting lists effectively silence government rationing of care. We the patients are the numbers on lists waiting for access to family doctors and specialists. We are the numbers on lists waiting in hospitals with overflowing emergency departments. We are the numbers on lists waiting for diagnostic tests, surgeries, and cancer treatments. While politicians claim to want to help the most vulnerable among us, this oppressive system makes us all more vulnerable.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not guarantee a right to benefits from a government program like Medicare – nor should it. What is unjust in a free and democratic society is a government monopoly that not only infringes on our legal “…right to life, liberty and security of the person…” but leaves us no option for escaping the harms caused by this infringement. Every individual regardless of their material wealth should be free to pursue their own health care interests. Any government depriving its citizens of self-reliance in the name of equality seeks to be a master of all and a servant to none. The personal medical needs and interests of the people are best served not by arbitrary decisions made by politicians and bureaucrats, but by the people themselves.

It’s time for politicians to acknowledge these simple truths about universal health care:

• Access is based on need and ability to pay.
• Legislation enforcing a government monopoly on medically necessary services infringes on individual rights and freedoms.
• Government price controls and rationing create a false economy for health care which results in increasing costs, decreasing quality, and reduced access.

It’s time for us to elect politicians who will serve the common good by defending the individual rights and freedoms of all citizens. Politicians must remember that behind each number on every waiting list is a real person and who better to remind them than we the patients.

Let’s use food, some of which actually does grow on trees, as an analogy. We need food for our survival and it’s a contributing factor to one’s overall health. Those of us who don’t farm and hunt can choose to buy directly from farmers, co-operatives, small independent grocers or large grocery chains. There is a plethora of goods to satisfy our diverse individual needs and wants. We buy what we need based on our ability to pay. Those who can’t afford to pay receive a helping hand through the charity of others. Note that Medicare not only prohibits us from directly paying for our own medical services, but also for those of family or friends in need.

Now, imagine if government promised “food security” for all by mandating that access to food be based on need without any regard for an individual’s ability to pay. Government would tax individuals and become the single-payer for all food. Supply and demand would be centrally controlled by government. Legislation would prohibit us from buying food directly from persons or places of our choosing thereby forcing us to buy from state-owned facilities at set prices. Politicians and bureaucrats would determine the quality and quantity of food available to us. Shortages and rationing would follow. The government would end up contributing to and perpetuating the very problem it claimed to be solving. Does this seem preposterous? We can look at old photos of Soviet Union-era citizens waiting in lines for bread and shake our heads in disgust, yet we wait on government-mandated lists for health care in Canada.

Forcing citizens with the ability to pay for their own medical needs to depend on socialized medicine is unjust. We would never allow government to prohibit us from spending our own money on food. Why are we allowing them to do it with health care when it’s just as vital to our survival?

Saskatchewan was the first province to provide fertile ground for socialized medicine. It’s where the roots of Medicare took firm hold before branching out across the rest of Canada. There are 5,000 patients in Saskatchewan currently waiting on a list for Medical Resonance Imaging (MRI), one of many valuable tools for helping doctors confirm a diagnosis. Another 20,000 are waiting on a list for surgery. Last month the Minister of Health introduced The MRI Facilities Licensing Act in the Saskatchewan Legislature. This legislation would allow patients to buy MRIs directly from government-controlled private facilities where the prices are marked up high enough to cover the cost of additional MRIs under Medicare. It’s really a “buy two, get one” deal that financially punishes entrepreneurial doctors and self-paying patients. With Medicare consuming nearly half the provincial budget and tens of thousands of people on waiting lists, the Government of Saskatchewan should be encouraging self-reliance not prohibiting or punishing it.

Socialized medicine won’t be uprooted until patients and doctors acknowledge this simple truth – access to health care, like other goods and services we buy in life, is based on need AND ability to pay. Do I want politicians and bureaucrats determining what is medically necessary for me? Do I want them basing their decisions on the government’s ability to pay?

No, not even if health care could grow on trees.

“This is a great example of the community coming together to ensure the animals at the Toronto Zoo receive the best possible medical care. We are grateful to The Scarborough Hospital and hospital staff who provided their expertise on a voluntary basis for Sadiki,” said Dr. Simon Hollamby, Toronto Zoo veterinarian.

Humans are waiting up to 300 days for foot surgery at The Scarborough Hospital. With shorter wait times at the zoo and plans for a new state-of-the-art Wildlife Health Centre, endangered patients might want to consider adding a veterinarian to their health care team.

This political circus has been going on for years with the same old acts appearing over and over again. Politicians shoot cannons stuffed with public money that falls from the air like confetti. The regional health authorities juggle consulting contracts and so-called health care improvement programs while running million dollar deficits. Bureaucrats manipulate supply and demand by opening and closing hospital beds, limiting operating room hours, cancelling surgeries, and extending wait lists. Academics collect data and systematize the practice of medicine while spinning its culture upside down. Unions train their members to perform on demand for various treats. Patients walk tightropes and make death-defying leaps high above the center ring.

The Only Show in Town

Provincial legislation prohibiting doctors from charging fees above or below the prices set under Medicare effectively squashes entrepreneurial opportunities for doctors wanting to run their own show. Likewise, patients are legally prohibited from paying directly for any publicly-insured services which means even those willing and able to pay for their own health care are forced to depend on government for access and payment. This sets the stage for vote-seeking politicians and ravenous bureaucrats to take full advantage of what has become a very lucrative public health care industry.

The Price of Admission

Public hospitals consume the lion’s share of health spending in Canada devouring an estimated $63.5 billion in 2014. Efforts to contain these costs aim to align government regulation and price controls with hospital policies and procedures. This can be seen in ever-expanding scopes of practice for various health professionals and the use of hospital-owned group purchasing organizations (GPOs).

Hospitals claim their GPOs save money by negotiating volume purchases and long-term single source contracts on pharmaceuticals and other medical supplies. They receive millions of dollars in rebates for providing corporations with access to these exclusive hospital contracts. Even politicians admit to getting lost when trying to follow the public money flowing back and forth through these GPOs.

Another cost-containment measure is service alignment or cuts whereby hospitals are designated to provide certain services. Patients and ambulances can no longer choose the nearest hospital expecting to find a full range of services, nor can they choose one with a reputation for better care but must travel to a designated hospital.

Do these cost-containment measures really benefit patient care or do they just add another layer of complexity to it? Politicians tell us it’s about getting value for money. How can patients judge whether or not they’re getting value for their money when they’re not the ones spending it? The ability of hospitals to cover their losses with public money is made easier by the fact that patients receive no information on the costs of their individual care, nor do they have any alternative options for accessing it.

Complaints about the quality of hospital care are handled by their risk management department. Information obtained during investigations of complaints by quality assurance committees is privileged and therefore exempt from legal proceedings. The Healthcare Insurance Reciprocal of Canada (HIROC) is one of the leading hospital-owned insurance companies providing liability coverage for hospitals. It has amassed over $1 billion in assets with premiums and investments from public money. In addition to their liability insurance, hospitals also retain the top legal firms in every province. Risk management for hospitals has become big business for the network of publicly-funded corporations and organizations tasked with improving quality of care and patient safety.

Despite continuous cutbacks, the shifting of care to out-patient facilities, and millions of dollars injected annually by public hospital foundations, Canadian hospitals are still failing to provide patients with timely access to high quality care.

It’s time to let politicians know that patients will no longer be putting their lives on the line for this political circus. The show is over.

Melina Perron in 2008 and 2014 as Canadian Women’s Lightweight Bodybuilding Champion.

Looking at her chiseled body it’s hard to believe that Melina Perron was once obese. Seven years ago she was a freelance photographer running a home-based business while raising two kids. She enjoyed cooking big meals for her family and spent most of her evenings working on the computer. At the time her 5-foot-2 frame was carrying almost 250 pounds of body weight. Today she holds the title of Canadian Women’s Lightweight Bodybuilding Champion.

When she’s not busy training for competition she’s helping others achieve their own personal health and fitness goals. “I am the new health care system. I’m cheaper,” she jokes. We may not all become bodybuilding champions, but Melina believes each of us can practice preventative health care. “When someone says to me I don’t have time to work out, my reply is if you’re too ill to do anything then how are you going to work or do the things you enjoy?” A winter outing with her kids really drove this point home for her. “I recall taking my kids tobogganing and being unable to climb the hill more than a few times. I told the kids that I was too tired to go anymore and I promised to make them hot chocolate if we went home. My son Ethan who was 4 years old at the time said to me, ‘Mom you are always tired. Maybe you are just fat.’ We went home, but later that night I kept thinking about what he had said.”

Having tried weight loss programs in the past without much success Melina was skeptical about trying yet another one. A visit to a local weight loss clinic changed her mind. “This program appealed to me because it used real food, provided recipes and meal plans, and required personal coaching and journaling.” Motivation can be a major factor for people struggling with weight loss. Melina found the first week challenging. “The personal coaching made all the difference,” she says. As she began losing weight she started to feel better and continued educating herself on ways to adopt a healthier lifestyle. She got rid of her deep fryer, cleaned out the pantry, and started walking in the evenings. Within a year Melina dropped 100 pounds.

Some of the strategies she learned through the weight loss program are now part of her lifestyle including balancing her intake of proteins, carbohydrates, and fats, structured eating with portion control, and personal journaling. On a typcial day she eats six meals and drinks up to four litres of water. Everything that goes into her body is recorded in a personal journal. She has developed the self-discipline and dedication required to be a champ, but is quick to point out how we can all benefit from a better diet. “I spend more on healthy foods, but I don’t pay anything for medications,” she says.

In 2009 she decided to take a break from her photography business. A newspaper ad for a sales and customer relations position at a new fitness club caught her eye. It was here that she would first learn about bodybuilding. One of the members made a comment that piqued her curiosity, “He told me that I had the body type to be a builder,” she says. “I started watching him workout, then we started training together and he made me a diet.” She continued to challenge herself through weightlifting and cardio workouts aimed at increasing muscle mass to make her leaner and stronger. Bodybuilding not only fueled her fiery passion for nutrition and fitness, it also transformed her entire body.

Melina knew if she really wanted to become a competitive bodybuilder the loose skin from her big weight loss would need to be removed. Over the next couple of years she saved up money and in May 2012 made arrangements through a local company to leave Saskatchewan and access the surgery at a private hospital in Mexico. She quickly recovered from surgery and with the encouragement of a friend decided to enter her first provincial bodybuilding competition. Training was going well until later in the year when she injured her knee and required surgery. The competition was less than six months away. She asked to be put on the surgical cancellation waitlist. “They called me up and it was short notice but I got in for surgery due to a cancellation,” Melina says. Many doubted whether she would be ready to compete as she was still using a knee brace in the weeks leading up to the event.

In April 2013 she captured first place in Women’s Bodybuilding at the IFBB Saskatchewan Mutant Provincial Championships held in Saskatoon. “I was so nervous I dropped my trophy,” she says with a laugh. Always one to push the bar higher, Melina became a national champion in September 2014 by winning the Canadian Women’s Lightweight Bodybuilding title at the CBBF Bodybuilding Championships in Laval, Quebec. She is now busy training for the 2015 Canadian National Bodybuilding Championships to be held in Edmonton, Alberta.

Melina enjoys educating and inspiring others to adopt a healthy lifestyle whether it’s by helping them improve their diet, transform their body, or discover their inner champion. As a personal trainer she works one-on-one with clients to build a personalized nutrition and exercise program because she knows firsthand that taking responsibility for your health can change your life.