August 01, 2015

Doctor: Ontario's new sex-ed curriculum presents false "facts," omits key information

Ezra LevantRebel Commander

School is almost a month away, and when it begins, the new Ontario sex-ed curriculum will be rolled out to students as early as Grade One.

Dr. Nadine Nyhus, a medical doctor and psychiatrist from Brampton, Ontario, has many grave concerns about the curriculum.

She says much of the program's "facts" are false and unscientific, while important issues about sexuality are left out.

For example, students aren't told that you can still contract while using a condom, that the new HPV vaccine only prevents 30% of cervical cancers, and that HPV is still the main cause of cervical, anal and oropharyngeal cancers.

As well, the curriculum insists that if you contract HIV/AIDS, you can live a "near to normal" lifespan and that symptoms can be controlled with drugs.

Dr. Nyhus says this isn't exactly true: Having HIV/AIDS forces patients to live "a regimented" life.

While designed to reduced the "stigma" surrounding the disease, Dr. Nyhus argues that this trendy politically correct tone about AIDS is the reason condom use is down and infection is up.

Dr. Nyhus says that young people aren't informed that early sexual activity is correlated with suicide and other negative outcomes.

Overall, Ontario's new sex-ed curriculum is more about politics than science.


Ontario’s sex-ed curriculum sexualizes young children, undermines parental authority and imposes the government's morality on every Ontario family.

JOIN for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

READ The Enemy Within: Terror, Lies, and the Whitewashing of Omar Khadr, Ezra Levant’s new book about domestic terrorism and radicalization.

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-08-04 22:36:04 -0400
One of the problems of the homosexual lifestyle is that it gets lonely when you get older. Our premier is an aging homosexual. It looks like the new curriculum is intended to lure children into the homosexual lifestyle. Why else would we have a sex ed curriculum with states that there are six genders? Get kids confused about what sex they are and you are only a short step away from luring them into the homosexual lifestyle. The homosexual lifestyle may be called “gay” but it is not happy. Homosexuals have a lot of health problems. Anal sex particularly dangerous and often leads to colon-rectal cancer. Ottawa media personality Max Keeping died when his colon rectal-cancer spread to his lungs.

According to the Bible, homosexuality is a no no! In a Christian country this is a good reason not to do it.
The writers of the Bible lived in a world that was dominated by ancient Greece. It was a world in which homosexuality
was considered normal. Alexander the Great has a gay lover just like his hero Achilles. He also had a very active heterosexual side to him. The religious community at that time was not separate from the medical community. Remember all the times that Jesus was called upon to heal people? The disease ridden nature of homosexuality must have been known to them. As a result they added prohibitions against homosexuality into the Bible to steer followers of the new religion away from it. As a result the Bible was saved countless thousands from colon-rectal cancers and other diseases over the centuries.
This is what Kathleen Wynne and her cohorts are striving to undo.
commented 2015-08-03 17:46:50 -0400
Anne Smyth – No, I did not.

Sex-ed has been taught in Ontario schools since the 1950s. The amount of time spent on it has not changed since then. If the current changes are scrapped, our children will suffer.

Have you met with your trustee, your board, your principal, to voice your concerns? Have you told them you want more details taught about oral and anal sex as Nyhus recommends?

Concerned parents need to focus their energy not on trying to bring down a democratically elected majority Liberal government by harming their children with ignorance, but on using their influence with trustees, boards, principals and teachers to demand their children get the education they need.
commented 2015-08-03 17:39:17 -0400
Terry – of course, I agree.
commented 2015-08-03 15:41:34 -0400
Joan, " Education is not medicine nor do medical degrees qualify their holders in psychology or, especially, in educational psychology. The sex-ed program is only a very small part of the very minor PE phys ed and Health courses. There is no time for the in-depth analyses Nyhus proposes. Teaching what Nyhus wants would require deep cuts to time spent on math, science, history, etc. and no sane parent wants that".
You just made the argument for those of us who oppose the sexual indoctrination curriculum. Exactly why it shouldn’t be in schools. Rather a special course in a health facility that would take the time to explain and present all the cons which this curriculum does not do. And Yes, that is exactly what sane parents or any adult would want.
commented 2015-08-03 15:17:09 -0400
No matter what anyone else says this is a disturbing sex ed agenda as the doctor points out and even posted on here more information. Anyone promoting the sex ed seems to have an agenda and is probably on Wynne’s list to help get this thing out into the schools. These posters can scream till their blue in the face but it will never change anyone’s opinion. Even when a doctor comes on with medical information to disapprove it, these people are pushing this sex ed agenda as though it is their job which it probably is. And we all know who the one educational expert who wrote this was, the child porn former educational administrator or whatever the hell it was, Ben Levin. Yes we need to put our children’s future sexuality in the likes of these perverted, mentally imbalanced hands don’t we. It’s all going to backfire because all parents that I know with young children are pulling their kids out of it. And I am waiting to see all the law suits that will be slapped on Wynne and the Liberals for pushing this garbage regarding children who will be harmed by it in one way or another.
commented 2015-08-03 11:36:54 -0400
Joan: Maybe. But argument from authority is one of the first fallacies they cover in Phi 101. And with all due respect to Dr. Nyhous, the one “scientific” finding her medical degree qualifies her to comment on turns out to be erroneous. The rest is opinion, speculation, or ideology.
Dr. John Mack of Harvard University holds a degree in psychology. He is also one of the fervent proponents of UFO abductions in the USA. His credentials imply no particular expertise in the domains of xenobiology or astronomy, but of course UFOlogists delight in the authority of “HARVARD PROFESSOR”s endorsement.
commented 2015-08-03 11:07:54 -0400
Terry – Maybe she meant a Skype interview or maybe simply an Ezra interview.
commented 2015-08-03 10:59:48 -0400
Nadine Nyhus – Instead of using your qualifications as a club to demand the government withdraw its changes to the sex-ed curriculum so children currently at risk of death from ignorance continue to die, why not offer your ideas, those outlined in your article in the Waterloo Record, as a resource?

That way, boards could choose to teach it starting in September.

Surely you know the sex-ed curriculum is a sort of umbrella guide, that it is the boards and teachers who decide what resources to use as aids in teaching the modules. That is necessary to accommodate the diverse needs of Ontario students – and their parents. Some parents, like Ezra Levant, oppose teaching children the anatomically correct words for penis and vagina while other parents sell his children’s peers for drug money.

I have repeatedly linked this story to rebel readers: Ms Scott is my MPP. She does not oppose the sex-ed curriculum because she knows the human trafficking of Canadian-born girls is on the rise and she wants the teachers of children at risk to have the curriculum guide available so they can educate those children using resources like your ideas.

Many readers on this site deny the facts relied on by Ms. Scott. They accuse me of being a pedophile for talking about it and for linking stories to back up my claims. They don’t want their children to be taught anything but the Disney princess version of human relations.

Many, many parents would object to your proposed ideas being introduced to the core document based on the fact they require far more discussion of sex play than they are comfortable with. Many readers at don’t want their children to be taught oral and anal sex even exist.

The core sex-ed curriculum does not, despite the hysterical beliefs of some, require teachers to teach children the practice, the how-to, of sexual relation. It allows boards and teachers to discuss it with students if it is appropriate. For example, if a student says anal sex is a safe way to enjoy intimacy without getting pregnant, the curriculum allows the teacher to disabuse the students of that belief.

The oxytocin data has been around for a long, long time but rarely do we hear anyone so much as mention it. That is a shame. But we live in a broken world where far too many children never have a chance to develop a deep lasting bond with anyone because they learn, far too young and in their families, that there is money to be made and influence to be wrought with the wielding of sexual power abuses. Many abused children don’t even know it is not their fault.

It will harm children to continue to keep them in ignorance by scrapping the current changes to the sex-ed curriculum. Sell your ideas to boards and teachers without condemning education.

The Liberal Party of Ontario needs defeat but not by using children’s sexual safety as a political weapon. Give teachers and boards the tools they need to give our children the facts they require to stay as safe as possible in a constantly evolving sexually-charged social environment.
commented 2015-08-03 10:48:15 -0400
Dr. Nyhus says: “I wanted to apologize that, having never done an interview like this before.”
Ah. So that was a different Dr. Nadine Nyhus who was interviewed by LifeSite News? And a different Dr. Nadine Nyhus who delivered a public statement to the Waterloo Region District School Board ?
commented 2015-08-03 10:29:49 -0400
Ezra says: "Dr. Nadine Nyhus, a medical doctor and psychiatrist from Brampton, Ontario, has many grave concerns about the curriculum.She says much of the program’s “facts” are false and unscientific, while important issues about sexuality are left out."
Dr. Nadine Nyhus says: " I made a mistake and flipped the numbers on the HPV vaccine."
Case closed.
Argue ideology all you want, Ezra. Stop lying about the science, and stop lying about what’s in the curriculum.
commented 2015-08-03 10:11:44 -0400
Ann SMYTH – provide a link if you expect me to believe anything you say. Levin was involved in writing the scrapped McGuinty sex-ed curriculum with Wynne before she became premier but he had absolutely nothing to do with writing the current sex-ed program. That is a fact, Ann.
commented 2015-08-03 10:08:48 -0400
Cathy Rochford – Educational experts – PhD psychologists with specialties in education – were on the committee that wrote the curriculum. Education is not medicine nor do medical degrees qualify their holders in psychology or, especially, in educational psychology. The sex-ed program is only a very small part of the very minor PE phys ed and Health courses. There is no time for the in-depth analyses Nyhus proposes. Teaching what Nyhus wants would require deep cuts to time spent on math, science, history, etc. and no sane parent wants that.
commented 2015-08-03 09:49:41 -0400
If you folks do not like profanity stop reading.

It is time some profanity was used.

I just wish everyone – politicians, and effing doctors and so called leaders – would stay the fuck out of my kids lives – they all need a kick in the fucking nuts or female equivalent – I want the state out of my life and my kids lives – the state is evil and has dishonorable intentions.
commented 2015-08-02 22:26:14 -0400
I wanted to apologize that, having never done an interview like this before and being quite nervous, I made a mistake and flipped the numbers on the HPV vaccine — it prevents 70% of cervical cancers and doesn’t protect against 30%. My concern is that teens may assume the HPV vaccine is like polio or measles, that once you get it you are “safe” and this is not the case. All of my comments are regarding the Grade 7 and 8 curriculum – age 12-14. The real risks of sexual activity can be explained to this age group in a developmentally appropriate way. If the schools are going to talk about teens making “informed decisions” about sex they need to present the risks, otherwise there can be no “informed” decisions. The government states in the Myth vs Fact letter, “Kids today are bombarded with sexual images every moment through TV, books, and online. The curriculum presents them with facts and accurate information to help them filter and understand what the are seeing on a daily basis.” I wish the curriculum did this. For example, Planned Parenthood Toronto has an online “Teen Resource” which says, “… No matter what you call it, anal play is healthy and normal. It’s a good way to share pleasure and avoid pregnancy…” When anal intercourse is being promoted through online teen resources like this as a way to avoid pregnancy I think it is imperative that the curriculum is honest about the comparative risks of anal and vaginal intercourse. Anal intercourse is approx 20x riskier than vaginal intercourse when it comes to contracting STIs. (This risk is taken from CATIE, a resource also quoted in the government’s Myth vs Fact letter.) This curriculum gives no hint that anal intercourse is any riskier than vaginal intercourse. It speaks of them repeatedly as if they are of equal risk, eg “To prevent the transmission of HIV, avoid behaviours associated with greater risks of HIV transmission, like vaginal or anal intercourse without a condom and injection drug use.” (pg. 197) How does this empower our teens to make informed choices, especially when pornography is also influencing more people to try anal intercourse? Here is a link to the guest column in The Record referred to in the interview for more information
commented 2015-08-02 20:47:51 -0400
Joan, as I said, Ben Levin is the one who said, he, together with Kathleen Wynne were the architects of the sex ed curriculum so if you want to contradict him…. At the same time children are getting the same garbage fed to them in the U.S. but that doesn’t exclude Wynne and Levin. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the “research” they did was straight from the infamous Kinsey report. Grade 1 is when they learn the names of body parts. Grade 4, age 9, romantic dating. Grade 6, age 12, masturbation. Grade 7, age 13, anal and oral sex and sexual pleasure. According to you, you know more than doctors, psychiatrists or any medical professional. Now let me see, whom shall I listen to? Not you.
commented 2015-08-02 20:35:50 -0400
So there you have it. A doctor/psychiatrist, someone with more knowledge than whoever wrote this sex ed, is saying this curriculum is not right and makes light of diseases while promoting younger and younger sexual activity. More doctors need to come forward and stop this sexualisation program of young children before it hits the schools in the fall. Mr. Wynne needs to get out of the business of pretending to be an expert in sex education and out of politics period. What childhood/psychological expertise did anyone have who made up this perverted program for innocent children? This needs to be thoroughly investigated.
commented 2015-08-02 19:37:11 -0400
Rick – Thanks. I enjoyed that. I messed with the words to make my point but I hope I got the sentiment right.

I live in a town near Omemee where Young grew up, so we have a Youngtown exhibit at our local museum with original artifacts including school photos, guitars, etc.
commented 2015-08-02 19:22:17 -0400
Jason – He said, “I don’t give a damn what Joan has to say” – that was an entirely unprovoked, dirty, hateful personal attack. So, no, my mind is not slipping at all. As your misogyny is not either.
commented 2015-08-02 19:04:21 -0400
I looked through every word Maurice said in his latest post. No profanity. Mind slipping a bit Joan?
commented 2015-08-02 14:54:24 -0400
Liza Rosie – We elect government to write education curricula. If we, the collective voters, let parents dictate what is taught in schools we all pay for, you and I will be paying for kids to learn the Quran by rote. Part of democratic rule is the teaching of all children in core knowledge. Parents remain the primary educators, just as the Ontario sex-ed curriculum repeatedly confirms.

“Teach your children well, (so) their parents’ hell they don’t have to live through”. Good advice.

Sadly, Ontario elected a Liberal government. But I will not, therefore, turn my back on democracy.
commented 2015-08-02 14:43:10 -0400
Ann Smyth – the curriculum does not disallow input from self-proclaimed experts like Nyhus. I am sure Nadine Nyhus would be happy to take your money to teach your children her opinions.
commented 2015-08-02 14:39:17 -0400
Maurice, what a dirty mouth you have. Go give it a wash with soap!
commented 2015-08-02 14:35:35 -0400
Peter Netterville, for the umpteenth time, read the original document yourself. It does not teach oral and anal sex. It does not teach children that an erect penis is sometimes used to murder, that they can make money with their throats, that too much anal sex can cause incontinence. It teaches abstienence is the safest strategy.

And for those children already being fucked by their parents, coaches, priests and friends, it teaches that there are laws and other.aids, like condoms, to help them survive.

I know, I know. You want those children kept ignorant of the fact that child abuse is a crime. Fine. Go to your board and make your case. The curriculum is a guide made vague enough that it can be taught to suit the needs of an extremely diverse Ontario student populaion. Parents who can’t afford to move from gang-controlled neighbourhoods can go to their board and request the Nyhus-enhanced version of sex-ed that includes lessons on how to get your sister’s girl out of prostitution and how to best protect yourself from HPV infection while deepthroating your john for food.
commented 2015-08-02 14:21:59 -0400
Gail Dyer – Nyhus has an opinion, that’s all. It is no better than my opinion or yours. She has a bias, like you and I do. An equal one.

Nyhus wants elementary school children taught medical research about throat and anal cancer. That would require a) a much more in-depth discussion of oral and anal sex than the current curriculum is designed to teach and than many parents are comfortable with, and b) much more time spent on topics designed to merely be touched on, not demonstrated in detail with graphic descriptions of the various types of oral and anal sex.

Parents like you who want your elementary school children to learn details of medical research can home school them on the subject and/or hire a private tutor. Maybe Nadine is free.

The same goes for Nadine’s other ideas. The details of human trafficking in Canada are subjects parents are uncomfortable with too. Whenever I have linked to those facts as related to the sex-ed curriculum, I have been pilloried with verbal abuse comparng me to Ben Levin.

The curriculum is not perfect. But it is not designed to cover the facts of the HPV virus or vaccine in detail. Many, many folks disagree with Nyhus that the vaccine is great. Many oppose it fiercely.

What I object to is anyone believing that because Nyhus has a medical degree that she is therfore some kind of expert in education. She isn’t.

If I had to say, I would wager a guess, from her very dry moith, that she self prescribes. Meoww.
commented 2015-08-02 14:10:45 -0400
Daniel – and my point about Nyhus not being qualified to write education curricula is true. She has no degree in education. Educational professionals write education curricula not MDs.
commented 2015-08-02 14:08:36 -0400
Daniel Hunt – no, you are wrong. Nyhus is not more knowledgeable about education than I am. I don’t know about you. She has an MD. Like any walk-in clinic family practitioner. And a social science undergraduate degree in psychological principles and in pharmacology. Psychiatrists make the big bucks not because they have graduate degrees in human behaviour like so many of the rest of us do, but because their medical degree allows them to write prescriptions for drugs that affect the brain, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping pills, anti-psychotics, morphine, heroin, marijuana …

Do you know how many psychiatrists failed organic chemistry three or four times before squeaking through with a bare pass but who now rake in close to$1 million a year for irresponsibly over-prescribing drugs that are known to contribute to premature deaths? More than is decent.

The DSM V has triggered an anti-psychiatry movement world-wide because it just goes too far, categorizing grief as a mental illness, for example. Shrinks advertise in schools for parents to put their kids on drugs. They say 20% of all kids have mental illness that needs their drugs. It’s an exploitive profession. No way 20% of kids are mentally diseased. Family problems? Sure. But drugs and a mental illness stigma won’t fix family problems. It will, however, guarantee psychiatrists monthly OHIP fees for the life of those kids they hook on drugs and self-blame.

There is no such thing as a personality disorder nor is there any biological underpinning for the diagnosis of most psychoses. Those there are are treated by neurologists who know, more or less, what they are doing. Schizophrenia merely describes a pattern of behaviour and politicans and corrupt systems, in today’s world including some cases in Canada, use psychiatric misdiagnosis to discredit and even indefinitely incarcerate political opponents. (See Van Voren’s work.)

Most behaviours psychiatrists “treat”, most of those they drug, suffer from conditions caused by social and family dysfunction not from chemical or biological disease. The fix is not drugs but social justice.
commented 2015-08-02 13:48:51 -0400
Rick – A curriculum committee of senior educational professionals wrote the curriculum. They consulted research some of which was medical.

The program is not perfect; no program is. But this one does recognize parents as first educators and it does so repeatedly. And parents who know they play the major role in teaching their children but who don’t want their kids to learn the word “penis” or that abstinence is the safest sexual strategy can exempt their kids from sex-ed classes or home school them.

Of course Nyhus is free to her opinion but just because she has an MD gives her opinion no more validity than yours or mine and she has certainly no authority to demand it be scrapped.
commented 2015-08-02 12:04:28 -0400
Terry you are right the evidence does not exist. It is still fair to wonder if he had a part to play, since the curriculum does sexualize children. People are funny though, asking a question on whether he did or didn’t seems to translate into a fact that he did for some people eager to believe anything that demonizes Wynne. Public opinion does not have a law degree.
commented 2015-08-02 10:53:43 -0400
Thanks Ron Voss. I hadn’t seen Barbara Kay’s article.
<-- /_page_stream.html -->