The Organ Harvesting Scandal (Aug 2019)

"In her paper Dr Nguyen looks at the Harvard Report of 1968 which defined ‘Brain Death’ as the new criteria for establishing when the death of a patient has occurred, She writes:

“The language in the drafts of the Harvard Report and the memos between the Committee members constitute the clearest and most important evidence showing that the need for fresh and viable organs is the very cause to bring about the birth of ‘brain death.’ This evidence, accessible only to a few selected scholars and not to the public, reveals the centrality of organ transplantation as the true impetus for the Committee’s work. For instance, in one of his correspondences to Beecher in late 1967 regarding organs, Murray wrote: ‘The next question posed by your manuscript, namely, ‘Can society afford to lose organs that are now being buried?’ is the most important one of all. Patients are stacked up in every hospital in Boston and all over the world waiting for suitable donor kidneys. At the same time patients are being brought in dead to emergency wards and potentially useful kidneys are being discarded.’”

It is chilling to realise that the concept of death was re-defined in order to facilitate the ‘harvesting’ of organs from patients. Even the use of the term ‘organ harvesting’ shows that the patient is being treated as an object who can be dismembered in order to save the lives of others. These organs are being ‘harvested’ from patients who, according to the traditional definition of death, are still living. As David Daube, the law scholar noted, “Under the classical definition of death, which should not be lightly discarded, an irreversibly unconscious person whose life depends on a machine is still alive. The doctor may be right to stop the machine and let him die. But until death occurs, interference with his body is illicit: it is not a corpse.”

Dr Nguyen speaks of the unwritten ‘Dead Donor Rule’ which existed prior to the new definition concocted by the Harvard Report.

“The tacit, unwritten Dead Donor Rule stipulates that vital organs can only be taken from dead people and that “organ retrieval itself cannot cause death.” The only way to circumvent the Dead Donor Rule is to have a new criterion for determining death such that procurement of vital organs does not leave physicians open to the charge of murder.”

She also states “Put bluntly, redefining irreversible coma (the term) as death, and labelling it as ‘brain death’ does not change the reality of irreversible coma (the phenomenon), for indeed one can only be in a state of coma if one is still alive. What the severely brain-injured, deeply comatose patient needs and deserves is to be promptly given the state-of-the-art modalities of brain-targeted therapy necessary for the acute management of severe brain injury. Instead, more often than not, such patients (especially if they are young, and constitutionally healthy before the severe brain injury), are declared brain-dead within 24-48 hours of hospital admission and quickly sent to organ-removal surgery.”

Dr Nguyen also speaks about the lack of transparency and the obvious deceptions which take place regarding organ donation procedures.

“Since the introduction of the Harvard Report, “government and professional organizations and advocacy groups have mischaracterized organ donation as donation after death to make it palatable to the general public. “Normally, after a patient is declared dead in the intensive care unit, the customary procedure includes “turning off the machines, removing the various lines and tubes, and sending the [dead body] to the appropriate place in the hospital – the morgue.” In contrast, when a potential donor is declared dead according to the ‘brain death’ criterion, “Monitoring and intervention continue at maximal levels in order to protect and preserve organs. Health professionals must adhere to detailed instructions defining the specific physiologic and technical indexes for optimal organ perfusion, hydration, diuresis, and avoidance of infection. Should the ‘patient’ have a cardiac arrest, even resuscitation is considered essential.[...]

 Another speaker at the JAHLF conference in Rome was Dr Paul Byrne. Dr Byrne is a neonatologist and a Clinical Professor of Pediatrics. He is past President of the Catholic Medical Association. Dr Byrne is well known for his talks on brain death and his talks online give several examples of patients who were declared brain dead, but who have made complete or almost complete recoveries. One of those examples was of a young baby who was declared brain dead but who fully recovered and is now married with three children of his own. Dr Byrne notes that since the Harvard Report of 1968, many more criteria have been added to the ‘brain dead’ definition and that each subsequent addition makes it easier to declare a patient dead in order to remove their vital organs. ”

( Dr. Paul A. Byrne is a Board Certified Neonatologist and Pediatrician. He is the Founder of the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in St. Louis, MO. He is Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at University of Toledo, College of Medicine. He is a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics and Fellowship of Catholic Scholars -  Dr. Paul Byrne "Organ Harvesting & System of Death";  see also:   Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting - “Brain Death is Never Really Death)

Further essential arguments from dr. Byrne: 

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) states that a person who has sustained “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem,” is dead. While these words are found in most state statutes, the declaration of "brain death" is determined when the patient (1) cannot demonstrate consciousness; (2) does not have reflex response of cough, gag, eye and ear, which are all brain stem reflexes and 3) is unable to take in a breath when removed from the life supporting ventilator for 10 minutes. Yes, the ventilator is removed for 10 minutes during what is called the apnea test (not a test for sleep apnea), but a test to see if the patient will breathe on their own. The cruel apnea test, which suffocates the patient, is essential to the clinical declaration of “brain death.” Taking away a ventilator needed for life support is harmful to the patient and potentially lethal. 10 minutes without a breath greatly increases carbon dioxide and acids in the blood and tissues of the patient. This is associated with acidosis, which causes the brain to swell and can cause blood pressure to go down, the heart to stop and death of the patient. The apnea test proves only one thing: the patient needs the ventilator to breathe. It does not prove that the patient is dead.  (Apnea Test)

" MELBOURNE, Australia, October 21, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A prominent Melbourne doctor has written that, contrary to popular belief, most organ donations take place before the donor is actually dead.  He argues that the vague criterion of "brain death" has blinded potential donors to the fact that their organs are often harvested while they are still alive.

Pediatric intensive care specialist Dr. James Tibballs published his controversial views in the Journal of Law and Medicine earlier this month, calling upon medical institutions to review their organ harvesting guidelines to ensure that donors know that they may be volunteering to surrender their life on the operating table.

Tibballs points out that current medical practices usually contravene the law, which state that a donor must display irreversible cessation of all functions of their brain or of blood circulation in order to be eligible for the surgery."[...]  LifeSiteNews (LSN) has reported several recent cases in which patients deemed "brain dead" resuscitated only moments before their organs were to be removed.  Such cases have brought more evidence to the table showing that the highly contested definition of "brain death," and the later idea of "cardiac death," do not eliminate the possibility that donors may yet recover from seeming lifelessness.  [...]

In his article "Organ Donation: The Inconvenient Truth," LSN medical advisor Dr. John Shea reveals the disturbing similarity between these "miraculous" cases and other organ donors whose surgeries were successful:

"Some form of anesthesia is needed to prevent the donor from moving during removal of the organs. The donor’s blood pressure may rise during surgical removal. Similar changes take place during ordinary surgical procedures only if the depth of anesthesia is inadequate. Body movement and a rise in blood pressure are due to the skin incision and surgical procedure if the donor is not anesthetized.

"Is it not reasonable to consider that the donor may feel pain? In some cases, drugs to paralyze muscle contraction are given to prevent the donor from moving during removal of the organs. Yet, sometimes no anesthesia is administered to the donor. Movement by the donor is distressing to doctors and nurses. Perhaps this is another reason why anesthesia and drugs to paralyze the muscles are usually given."

Dr. Paul Byrne, an expert in organ donation and neonatologist, has continuously fought against policies and practices that put donors at extreme risk for being pronounced dead prematurely in order to lay hold of their organs.

"Brain death was concocted, it was made up in order to get organs. It was never based on science," Dr. Byrne told LSN. (  Melbourne Doctor: Most Donors Still Alive when Organs are Removed )

See also a summary description of  

"There aren't standard protocols and some transplant establishments will declare a cardiac arrest patient dead after two minutes to enable them to get useful livers. This contrasts with other hospitals where at this point they are still trying to revive the patient. The key is whether they want the patient “dead” for harvesting or alive. Protocols are based on how much hospitals want to increase organ transplanting rather than objective medical science.

Specialists are reluctant to share professional secrets like whether donors are conscious when life support is removed; whether donor hearts restart beating during cardiopulmonary resuscitation; how long before life support removal are organ preservation drugs administered? Another question arises when a patient doesn't die after life support removal and is then wheeled back into intensive care. How long before this patient is returned for another go and how many times will this be repeated?"

 Boy regains consciousness after doctors declare him ‘brain dead,’ prepare to remove his organs  (May 2018)

"  An Alabama child who suffered multiple skull fractures in an auto accident and was declared “brain dead” by doctors, regained consciousness only one day before the physicians planned to remove his organs, according to a report by Fox News in Mobile, Alabama.  "

The Disputed Death of an 8-Year-Old Whose Organs Were Donated (June 2017)

" This is the part everyone agrees on: A 8-year-old boy died at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in August 2013. His liver and kidneys were donated for transplant.  

The Los Angeles Times reports police are now investigating exactly how he died at the hospital. The boy—though not technically brain dead—had suffered so much brain damage after a near drowning that doctors determined he would never wake from a coma. So his family decided to take him off life support and to donate his organs.

A doctor gave him a dose of fentanyl after his ventilator was removed. She says it was to ease his suffering. But a county coroner who later examined the boy’s body says it was the fentanyl that killed him, raising the question of whether a fatal dose was meant to quicken his death and keep his organs more viable for donation. "

NY woman declared ‘brain dead’ woke up moments before organs harvested (July 2013)

 "A woman who was pronounced brain dead by doctors unexpectedly woke up just as her organs were about to be removed for transplant. 

Doctors at St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center were called on the carpet by the state Health Department for not properly determining if Colleen S. Burns was actually dead before they sought permission from her family to harvest her organs and scheduled the procedure. 

Burns, 41, of Syracuse, New York, was taken to hospital in October 2009 after a drug overdose. 

Doctors believed she had suffered irreversible brain damage and was on the point of death, but it later came to light that she was in fact in a deep drug-induced coma."

 Lawsuit Against Donor Network Alleges Organs Taken From Living Patients  (2011)

 A whistleblower has filed a lawsuit against The New York Organ Donor Network, claiming that they pressured hospital staffers to declare patients ‘brain dead’ so their body parts could be harvested while they are still alive. He says one in five patients is showing signs of brain activity when surgeons declare them dead and start hacking out their body parts… “They’re playing God,” said plaintiff Patrick McMahon, 50, an Air Force combat veteran and nurse practitioner who claims he was fired as a transplant coordinator after just four months for protesting the practice. McMahon’s suit cites four cases, in late 2011, of patients showing signs of brain activity, whom he says could have recovered, but whom doctors declared ‘brain dead’ so they could be dissected for their vital organs. He says transplant coordinators who collect the most organs can earn Christmas bonuses. 

 Poised to Donate Organs, 21-Year-Old Emerges From Coma  (2011)

 Phoenix, December 2011: Sam Schmid, an Arizona college student BELIEVED TO BE BRAIN DEAD and POISED TO BE AN ORGAN DONOR, has recovered just hours before doctors were considering taking him off life support. Schmid was critically wounded in a five-car accident in Tucson, Arizona (October 19). The 21-year-old’s brain injuries were so severe that the local hospital could not treat him. He was airlifted to the Barrow Neurological Institute at St. Joseph’s Medical Center in Phoenix, where specialists performed surgery for a life-threatening aneurysm. Doctors broached the subject of organ donation with his family, but his mother asked for Sam to be given another week. His surgeon, Dr. Robert Spetzler, recommended keeping him alive for one more week. On October 24 Schmid began to respond, holding up two fingers on command. Today, he is walking with the aid of a walker, and his speech, although slow, has improved. He went home on Christmas Day. ( Extract from ABC News article by Susan Donaldson James, Dec 22 2011: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/arizona-accident-victim-emerges-coma-poised-donate-organs/story?id=15208351 ) 

Young woman refused to die (2011)

" Carina Melchior suffered severe injuries after crashing her car in Denmark in October 2011. Doctors said that she was virtually “brain dead” and convinced her family to consent to organ donation. Today she is making a full recovery and is able to walk and talk and ride her pony" 

Lawyer Declared “Brain Dead” Revives (2009)

" Hong Kong lawyer, Suzanne Chin, suffered cardiac arrest one day in 2009 and lapsed into a coma. [...]  

The head of ICU, two neurologists and a cardiologist said she was brain-dead with no hope of recovery. They pressured her husband to “put Suzanne – and ourselves – out of our misery by switching off machines that were keeping her alive.”

Three days later she revived spontaneously… Today she is alive and well and continues to practise law"

Doctors Who Almost Dissected Living Patient Confess Ignorance about Actual Moment of Death (June 2008)

"  A Parisian whose organs were about to be removed by doctors after he had "died" of a heart attack, revived on the operating table only minutes before doctors began to harvest his organs.  "

Doctor Says about “Brain Dead” Man Saved from Organ Harvesting - “Brain Death is Never Really Death” (Mar 2008)

" 21-year-old Zack Dunlap, a man who was diagnosed as "brain dead" and who was mere minutes away from having his organs harvested, now says, four months after the accident that brought him to the brink of death, that he feels "pretty good." 

Denver Coroner Rules “Homicide” in Organ-Donor Case (Oct 2004) 

"Mark Young, the coroner of Montrose County, Colorado, said that two hospitals—Montrose Memorial and St. Mary’s—failed to follow “accepted medical standards” to determine that William Rardin was actually dead.  Rardin, who had been declared “brain dead” after he shot himself in September, was a registered organ donor. His liver, kidneys, and pancreas were removed surgically from his body for transplantation.  But Young, said that Rardin was still alive when the organs were removed."

 "A recent disturbing report in the British Medical Journal indicates that 43% of patients in one rehabilitation unit who were diagnosed as suffering from persistent vegetative states were, in fact, aware of their surroundings, and some were capable of communication under appropriate conditions. [67] This study underscores the uncertainties of predicting whether patients with profound neurologic injuries will recover function and whether patients who seem to be comatose might, in fact, be aware of what is happening to them. These cases demonstrate some of the difficulties posed by definitions of death that include a "loss of personhood." Criteria for loss of personhood are vague and probably cannot be separated from the personal values, experiences, and biases of the people who formulate the criteria. [68] Furthermore, loss of personhood carries an uncertain prognosis, as opposed to the strict criteria for brain death. As Dagi [69] noted, "there is a critical difference between changing brain-based criteria for death because technological advances confer analogous certainty with less complicated tests, and changing the degree of certainty required for diagnosis." If the diagnosis of death by "loss of personhood" is not 100% reliable, then how could we convince the public that fears of being alive during organ collection, or worse, fears of knowingly being killed for vital organs, are unfounded?" (A Matter of Life and Death : What Every Anesthesiologist Should Know about the Medical, Legal, and Ethical Aspects of Declaring Brain Death , July 1999)

..............................

67.Andrews K, Murphy L, Munday R, Littlewood C: Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: Retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit. BMJ 1996; 313:13-6

68.Hauerwas S:. Must a person be a "person" to be a patient? Or my uncle Charlie is not much of a person, but he is still my uncle Charlie. Conn Med 1975; 39:815-7

69.Dagi TF: Commentary on "How much of the brain must die in brain death." J Clin Ethics 1992; 3:27-8

Watch the video:  Meet The Woman Who Was ‘Locked In’ Her Own Body For 4 Years | Megyn Kelly TODAY

 " The human body experiences a transplanted organ as a malignant tumour that it tries to kill.

The immune system attacks this alien organ with B cell anti-bodies, sometimes within minutes, and may turn the organ black and blotchy even before surgeons have sewn up the wound. Most patients survive this initial immune attack and there is a brief “honeymoon period”. Government public relations consultants may parade the person in front of the media to thank the doctors, nurses and donor family, and say how fresh the air smells and that organ transplantation is a glorious experience.

The immune system ends this “honeymoon” when the T cell lymphocytes or killer T cells fully mobilise and attack the alien organ. Transplant coordinators discourage further media reporting because the patient no longer feels well or grateful for the organ."[...]  

The open secret of the transplant industry, and one they choose not to share with the public, is that recipients suffer AIDS-like diseases. These immune-failure diseases are as likely to cause death as actual organ failure.

The immune system is not an optional extra and by weakening its ability to kill the transplanted organ it also becomes too weak to kill anything else. The patient becomes vulnerable to the same illnesses that kill HIV-AIDS sufferers.[...]

 Transplant recipients are never cured. Their lives resemble walking a tightrope between organ rejection and deadly disease. Getting a transplant is exchanging one deadly medical condition for another. Inga Clendinnen says of her transplant that,

“We know that for us health is an artificial condition. We will remain guinea pigs, experimental animals for as long as we live or, if you prefer, angels borne on the wings of our drugs, dancing on the pin of mortality. We know that today is as contingent as tomorrow”.[36] (Organ Rejection - Organ Facts Freebook)

[36] Clendinnen, Inga; Tiger’s Eye – A Memoir, The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne, Australia, 2000 p281 

Heart surgeons face similar problems and can re-connect the major blood vessels and nerve endings only. The loss of these subtle nerve attachments mean the transplanted heart won’t initially beat at appropriate speeds and the patient may require a pacemaker.

A normal heart increases beats to meet higher energy demands but when an organ recipient stands up the transplanted heart fails to speed up resulting in fainting spells. This is why new recipients appear so fragile and walk in slow motion. The situation improves as the human body rewires its nerve routes from the brain to the transplanted lungs and heart though this explanation remains a theory.

A second theory is that new connections are hormonally mediated rather than rewired, a stronger view, perhaps, since heart recipients don’t feel the usual pain associated with angina because certain nerve connections are never re-routed.

Like reconditioned engines another problem with pre-owned hearts is their rapid deterioration. Coronary arteriosclerosis appears in 90% of transplanted hearts within five years. Those with their own original hearts receive by-pass surgery to remedy this problem but those with transplanted hearts can't get this procedure. They may even require another heart, if one is available. This is called a re-transplant and the survival rate is lower than for the first transplant.[119]

Neurotics and hypochondriacs may find their transplant a dream come true. Illnesses and deadly diseases will spring up like mushrooms after a warm damp night. They will require a constant series of antibiotics and other drugs to fight germs the suppressed immune system can no longer battle. The patient’s infection fighting capabilities will be too compromised to share coffee cups and it will be wise to avoid public toilets or those with colds. The organ recipient should not eat raw eggs, uncooked dough or lightly cooked meat. A scratch from working in the garden might easily turn into the patient’s last infection on this earth. But at least doctors and friends will no longer deride the patient or laugh at new ailments because they'll be real and hypochondria a survival tool keeping the person alive.

Organ recipients can expect new illnesses like high blood pressure, diabetes and even cancer that will pop up from nowhere. Rejection will be a huge worry and the whole family can spend hours playing ’spot the rejection symptom' before it becomes overt and it’s too late to save the organ. The recipient should also like pain as there will be considerable physical and mental anguish. ( Getting a Transplant - Organ Fact - FREE EBOOK)

 "With most illnesses a five-year survival rate after initial recovery is considered a permanent cure. This differs with organ recipients because the patient never fully recovers. The immune system rarely relents and slowly kills the organ or the person dies from immune deficiency diseases caused by the anti-rejection drugs. These eventually defeat 95% of transplanted organs. [...]

 In a landmark study, a team headed by associate Professor Mario C. Deng of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, showed that many heart transplant recipients don't survive longer than those who were left on the waiting list. In the study, "Effect of receiving a heart transplant: Analysis of a national cohort entered on to a waiting list, stratified by heart failure severity,” the survival outcomes for all 889 adult patients waiting for a first heart transplant in 1997, in Germany, were measured over a three year period.[65]

Waiting patients were listed into three categories – those with a high, medium and low risk of dying while waiting for the procedure. Transplanted hearts go to patients with a high risk of dying while on the waiting list, but also to medium and low risk because these latter patients, with slightly less desperate heart problems, have a generally better chance of surviving the surgery and immune-suppressant diseases that follow.

Professor Deng’s results showed that those with a high risk of death had a better survival rate than those of a similar illness level left on the waiting list, indicating the transplants extended their lives. But, surprisingly, those of medium and low risk who got transplanted hearts had a lower survival rate than those of a similar illness level who missed out on this supposedly lifesaving treatment. The conclusion of this study was that many patients lived longer with their bad hearts than those who got transplants. Mario Deng said in a British Broadcasting Corporation interview in 2000 that, “More than eighty percent of hearts in Germany are not allocated to those who can be expected to have a survival benefit from cardiac transplantation.”[66]

Mario Deng’s study conclusion has rocked the heart transplant industry suggesting that waiting lists are crowded with those who could do better with other treatments.

Deng’s distressing results corroborated an earlier United Kingdom transplant audit that indicated the optimism surrounding heart transplanting was not based in fact.[67]

But long before Deng’s study and the United Kingdom audit astute observers like David W Evans were observing in 1982 that patients requiring life-saving open-heart surgery were being left to die at Papworth Hospital while heart transplant patients took up the intensive care beds. Dr Evans said they lost 14 patients in an eighteen-month period this way.[68]It is notable that the transplant industry has been unable to produce a study disputing Deng’s study results. Anyone doubting the above might challenge an organ donation promoter to provide a statistical study that indicates those receiving heart transplants live longer than those of similar need who miss out. (Futile transplants and flexible survival statistics - ORGAN FACT FREEBOOK)

.............................................................................. 

[65] Deng, Mario C., Effect of receiving a heart transplant: analysis of a national cohort entered on to a waiting list, stratified by heart failure severity BMJ 2000;321:540-545 ( 2 September,2000 ), Available at British Medical Journal web site at www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7260/540

Accessed 30 April 2007

[66] Deng, Mario, C. BBC interview. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/904627.stm

Accessed 30 April 2007

[67] Intrathoracic organ transplantation in the United Kingdom 1995-99: results from the UK cardiothoracic transplant audit. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11997419&dopt=Abstract

Accessed 30 April 2007

The report Abstract concludes that: “This validated database defines the current state of thoracic transplantation in the United Kingdom and is a useful source of data for workers involved in the field. Thoracic transplantation is still limited by donor scarcity and high mortality. Overoptimistic reports may reflect publication bias and are not supported by data from this national cohort."

[68] Dr David Wainwright Evans, former Cardiologist, Papworth Hospital, United Kingdom, Personal correspondence with the author. Dr Evans says,

“The “hunger for scarce resources” has, indeed, deprived many worthy citizens of the chance of useful extension of life via the tried and tested surgical procedures - valve replacements, coronary bypass grafts etc. - which units like ours at Papworth were set up to provide. Three such patients died in one month for lack of operations which, but for heart transplants, they would have received while with us; as it was, they were sent out to await the availability of facilities (particularly ITU beds) and perished ere they could be re-admitted. In one 18-month period we lost 14 patients similarly.”

  UK Government Alleged to Have Asked BBC Not to Air Segment on Organ Harvesting in China (Nov 2020)  “There may have been several reasons why that film was not shown, and has never been shown, but a component part was the British government, walked into the BBC and asked them not to show it.”  ( Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, chair of the China Tribunal )

[...]"Several parliamentarians have brought up the findings of the China Tribunal in Parliament since it was published last year.

Baroness Northover on July 9 asked the government when it would sanction Chinese human rights violators, citing the oppression of the Uighurs, the destruction of human rights in Hong Kong, and the China Tribunal’s conclusion.

Most recently, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath mentioned the issue in the House of Lords on Oct. 28.

“Although Ministers have been personally sympathetic, so far the Government have relied on the World Health Organization’s view that China is implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system,” he said in Parliament.

“I am afraid this is simply not credible; the fact is that it is based on a self-assessment by China, as became clear during my noble friend Lord Collins’s PQ on 29 June 2020,” he added. “The WHO has not carried out its own expert assessment of ​China’s organ transplant system, so I am afraid that the WHO cannot be considered reliable in this area. For me, the China Tribunal is persuasive on this point.”"

The UK Government is not uninformed concerning the Chinese crimes against humanity. Consider that in 2019,  LONDON—A group of British lawmakers is urging the UK government to hold China accountable for an alleged crime that some might find too disturbing to believe: the practice of forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience.  ( ‘Barbaric’ Organ Harvesting in China Must End, MPs Say)

" A November 2019 study published in BMC Medical Ethics found that China’s organ donation data conformed “almost precisely to a mathematical formula,” concluding that authorities likely falsified the data. Another, published in February in the medical journal BMJ, identified 440 out of 445 Chinese medical papers that failed to clarify whether individuals had given consent to donate their body parts.

During a recent undercover investigation by WOIPFG, a military doctor also admitted they were sourcing “high quality” organs from young living persons and even offered investigators a chance to see the organ source if they wish to" ( 4 Hearts in 10 Days: China’s ‘On Demand’ Organ Bank Raises Concerns of Forced Harvesting - Aug 2020)

 Shockingly, the NHS itself was involved in secretely harvesting organs of deceased children and even thymus glands from living children (during surgeries) without the consent of their families more than 2 decades ago.... "Former health secretary Frank Dobson launched the inquiry in October 1999 following revelations that three children's hospitals had been harvesting hearts, lungs, brains and other organs from dead babies without their parents' informed consent. Parents were distraught to find that thousands of body parts had been removed and kept in hospital storage.The inquiry, led by the chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, has looked at what information parents are given and what they understand by "consent" and recommended future practice across the NHS. The census coincided with the publication of the report on Liverpool's Alder Hey children's hospital, where 2,080 organs were removed from 800 children.The Donaldson report found that 105,000 organs are retained at hospitals and medical schools across England. The scandal first broke in 1999 when it emerged that the hearts and other organs of 170 children who died at Bristol Royal Infirmary had been kept without their consent. The scandal at Alder Hey emerged soon after. It became clear that organ harvesting at the hospital went back decades.It also emerged that the Birmingham and Liverpool hospitals had also given thymus glands, removed during heart surgery from live children, to a pharmaceutical company for research in return for financial donations. Alder Hey also stored 1,500 foetuses that were miscarried, stillborn or aborted without consent. ( Alder Hey organs scandal: the issue explained - April 2001) 

Not only care homes elderly residents, but also people with disabilities and various hospital patients have received DNR orders since the pandemic began in the UK. This continued despite public exposure and outcry.

-  Fury at ‘do not resuscitate’ notices given to Covid patients with learning disabilities (theguardian.com, 13 Feb 2021) 

"People with learning disabilities have been given do not resuscitate orders during the second wave of the pandemic, in spite of widespread condemnation of the practice last year and an urgent investigation by the care watchdog.

Mencap said it had received reports in January from people with learning disabilities that they had been told they would not be resuscitated if they were taken ill with Covid-19.The Care Quality Commission said in December that inappropriate Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) notices had caused potentially avoidable deaths last year."  

  Coronavirus: Unlawful do not resuscitate orders imposed on people with learning disabilities (Independent.co.uk, June 13, 2020)" Unlawful 'do not resuscitate' orders are being placed on patients with a learning disability during the coronavirus pandemic without families being consulted.National charities have successfully challenged more than a dozen unlawful do not resuscitate orders (DNRs) that were put in place because of the patient’s disability rather than due to any serious underlying health risk." More than HALF of adult coronavirus patients at a leading hospital were given 'do not resuscitate' orders or barred from treatment in intensive care, study reveals (dailymail.co.uk, 28 July, 2020)"More than half of all adult patients treated for coronavirus at a leading hospital were given ‘do not resuscitate’ orders or barred from treatment in intensive care, a study has revealed.Less than one in five patients – 18 per cent – was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).A total of 61 per cent of Covid-19 patients had treatment limitations placed on them on admission to King’s College Hospital in London at the peak of the crisis."  

 34% Of NHS Staff Pressurised To Place DNR Orders On Disabled Covid Patients (video)