In a shocking expose, it’s clear that organ transplants, while a remarkable breakthrough in modern medicine, are also tainted by a corrupt and profit-driven system that prioritizes financial gain over human life. Behind the heartwarming stories of lives saved, a dark reality exists, where the pursuit of profit leads to unethical practices, putting vulnerable individuals at risk of exploitation. The organ donation system, a multibillion-dollar industry, is marred by a web of deceit, where the concept of “brain death” is often misused, and hospitals are accused of rushing to harvest organs from people who may still be clinging to life. Furthermore, grieving families are often coerced into giving consent, unaware of the true nature of the system. As we delve deeper into the underbelly of the organ donation system, it becomes clear that the very foundations of this life-saving practice are tainted by corruption, greed, and a blatant disregard for human life. The question remains, how can we trust a system that is driven by profit, rather than a genuine desire to save lives and improve the human condition?

The Harsh Reality of Organ Transplants

Federal investigators are blowing the lid off a shocking scandal, revealing that a staggering 30% of organ donors are still showing signs of life as surgeons prepare to harvest their organs. Nurses are coming forward to expose the disturbing truth that some donors are being sedated or paralyzed to make the process easier and more convenient for medical professionals. The alarming reality is that the definition of “death” was redefined decades ago, paving the way for this nightmare to unfold. While organ transplants do have the power to save lives, the system is undeniably corrupt, with patients being misdiagnosed as “brain dead” and displaying signs of life just as their organs are about to be harvested. The organ trade has ballooned into a billion-dollar industry, with transplants costing upwards of $2 million, creating a lucrative market that invites exploitation. Estimates suggest that a staggering 5-20% of kidney transplants are sourced from the black market, preying on the poor and imprisoned. Perhaps the most shocking truth of all is that the definition of death was deliberately redefined to facilitate easier organ harvesting. It was back in 1968 that Harvard introduced the concept of “brain death,” allowing for the legal harvesting of organs from individuals with beating hearts. Since then, numerous patients diagnosed as brain dead have miraculously revived, sometimes just moments before their organs were scheduled to be removed. This is not the stuff of conspiracy theories – it’s a harsh and disturbing reality that’s happening to real people who have lived to tell their stories. At the heart of the issue is a system that prioritizes profits over human lives, leaving countless individuals to suffer the consequences.

The Billion-Dollar Cash Cow: Profits Over Patients

The global organ transplantation market is set to explode from $19.21 billion in 2025 to a whopping $39.19 billion by 2034, with the US market alone expected to double from $4.18 billion in 2023 to $9.58 billion by 2032. This booming industry is fueled by the desperation of people who can’t afford life-saving transplants, leaving them with no choice but to rack up medical debt or rely on government programs like Medicare, which are funded by taxpayers. The cost of a single organ transplant is staggering, ranging from $2 million to over $3 million, with kidney transplants costing around $446,800, heart transplants reaching up to $1.66 million, liver transplants costing approximately $878,400, and double lung transplants hitting a staggering $1.3 million. And it’s not just a one-time payment – patients have to take expensive immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of their lives to prevent rejection, which are sold by pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Novartis at outrageous prices. The kidney transplant medicine market is projected to surge from $12.84 billion in 2025 to $19.09 billion by 2032, forcing patients to rely on these pricey medications forever.

From a financial standpoint, this is a clear case of cronyism, where a handful of organ procurement organizations and the United Network for Organ Sharing have been given a government-backed monopoly on coordinating donations, pocketing federal funds while lobbying against reforms that could bring in real competition and lower costs. This system is rigged against taxpayers, who are subsidizing the waste and inefficiencies of the system. Organ procurement organizations are paid per organ procured, creating incentives to cut corners and prioritize profits over people. Federal investigations have uncovered widespread fraud, with at least five states’ organizations under investigation for overbilling and intimidating whistleblowers. A shocking report from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2025 exposed a “systemic disregard for the sanctity of life,” with hospitals rushing to procure organs even when patients showed signs of life. Nearly 20% of transplants last year bypassed waiting lists altogether, with organs being handed to the well-connected instead of those in dire need. This is a clear example of a system that prioritizes profits over patients, with the organ transplantation market being a lucrative industry built on the desperation of individuals.

The Chilling Reality of “Brain Death” Misdiagnoses: Harvesting the Living?

The “Brain Death” Myth: Not Dead Yet, But Organs Up for Grabs

Let’s blow the lid off the myth that “brain death” is a hard medical fact. The truth is, a Harvard committee concocted this concept back in 1968, not to save lives, but to tackle the organ shortage that came after the first heart transplant. Before this, death was straightforward – it was when the heart stopped beating. But now, doctors are declaring patients “brain dead” even when their heart is still pumping, their body is warm, and their organs are fresh and ready for transplant. The real reason behind this is jaw-dropping: dead organs are useless for transplant, and a living body is needed to keep the organs alive and viable for a successful transplant.

This scandal is unfolding as patients declared “brain dead” reportedly astonishingly showing signs of life. In a chilling 2021 incident in Kentucky, Anthony Thomas “TJ” Hoover II was rushed into surgery to harvest his organs after a overdose – but he suddenly started thrashing, crying, and breathing on his own, forcing doctors to abruptly halt the operation. What’s even more disturbing is that TJ’s sister, Donna Rhorer, had already discovered he had regained consciousness during a heart test that morning, yet the organ procurement team still pushed forward with the surgery. A federal probe into this matter found some alarming stats – out of 351 cases reviewed, 103 raised serious concerns, including 73 instances where patients showed brain activity and at least 28 cases where patients may have been alive when the surgery started. Another jaw-dropping case is that of Misty Hawkins, a 42-year-old Alabama woman who fell into a coma after choking on her lunch. After being off the ventilator for 103 minutes, she was declared dead and surgeons began the operation – only to find her heart still beating, and she gasped and moved, raising serious questions about whether she was declared dead too soon. In California, a father’s desperate fight to save his daughter Brittany O’Connor from being declared “brain dead” was prolonged because the hospital was pushing for organ donation despite doubts about her condition. This is not just a case of careless medicine – it’s a deep-seated, systemic issue that’s putting lives at risk.

Nonprofit organ procurement groups, backed by federal contracts, are feeling the heat to hit their targets – and rural hospitals are the easiest targets due to their limited resources and vulnerability to manipulation. The pharmaceutical industry is cashing in big time on this system, as a steady supply of fresh organs means more transplants, higher success rates, and a constant need for immunosuppressant meds, generating a lifetime of revenue.

Hospitals are basically playing God, putting profits over people’s lives. RFK Jr., the new head of HHS, is calling out this disturbing trend: medical staff are inducing comas, intubating patients, letting infections take hold, and then giving up on them – all so they can harvest organs for cash. This is essentially a form of stealth euthanasia, masked as kindness. We can’t let the government and medical bigwigs get away with redefining death to line their pockets.

Written By Tatenda Belle Panashe

]]> https://ln24international.com/2025/10/22/the-truth-about-organ-donations-and-transplants/feed/ 0 https://ln24international.com/2025/08/27/the-war-against-the-brain-dead-scam/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-war-against-the-brain-dead-scam https://ln24international.com/2025/08/27/the-war-against-the-brain-dead-scam/#respond Wed, 27 Aug 2025 07:11:19 +0000 https://ln24international.com/?p=26983 Now, the concept of brain death was formulated in 1968 in the landmark report published by a Harvard Ad Hoc Committee; and the report was titled ‘A Definition of Irreversible Coma’. And in introducing the concept of brain death, it marked a shift from a fundamental focus on the heart to the brain, because in the past, the irreversible loss of heart and lung functions had signaled death; while (in contrast) the new definition of what signalled death was then based on the irreversible loss of brain functions. This transition from heart to brain grew out of several parallel developments that converged in 1968. It began in 1947 when Claude Beck performed the first successful defibrillation of a human heart, and thus suddenly, death was perceived as being reversible, as far as the heart was concerned.

Well, this redefinition of irreversible coma by the Harvard Committee as a new standard for the determination of death represented a major paradigm shift since, according to medical dictionaries and encyclopedias prior to the Harvard Committee report in 1968: the medical definitions of death revolved around one central theme: and this was the cessation of ALL vital functions of the human body. In formulating the criteria for determining death, these traditional medical definitions did not isolate the function of any one organ; rather, they emphasise the total stoppage of all vital bodily functions, as evidenced by the absence of heartbeat and respiration, beyond the possibility of resuscitation. These classical medical definitions of death thus gave no special significance to the vital function of the brain; RATHER, they placed the definition of death on an integrated basis, stressing the idea of total stoppage of bodily functions.

In other words, that the traditional medical definition of death was not centered on any organ (or organ system) necessarily indicates that it was drawn from a holistic vision of human beings in which no organ, however “noble” an organ it might be, holds supreme control over other organs or organ systems. Therefore, in proposing a primary focus on the brain when in determining death, this approach introduced a paradigm shift where the Harvard report then set forth a new 5-fold diagnostic criteria of brain death, which was articulated as: (1) first “unreceptivity and unresponsivity, that is, complete unresponsiveness even to the most painful stimuli”; (2) second is “no spontaneous breathing as documented by the apnea test”; (3) third is “no spontaneous muscular movements”; (4) fourth is “no reflex, meaning that not only are brainstem reflexes absent, but also “as a rule the stretch tendon reflexes cannot be elicited”; and finally (5) is a flat ence-phalogram (or EEG).

Then, following the Harvard Committee’ report, their criteria of brain death were endorsed by the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research in 1981. The Commission advanced a philosophical justification for brain death by adopting Bernat’s thesis of the brain as the supreme master and central integrator of the body and promulgated the Uniform Determination of Death Act which states that (quote): “An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead.” Here’s more regarding the historical context behind the concept of brain death.

Now, here’s an interesting piece of historical context: this report by the Harvard Ad Hoc committee obviously had a big impact in the introduction of brain death. BUT… there was a reason this Harvard Committee embarked on this project of redefining death from the heart and lung-centric view; and it all began with a highly illegal heart transplant that took place in Brooklyn, New York – which was the second ever to take place after the first by Dr Christiaan Barnard in South Africa, in 1967. So, with the illegal second transplant in New York, it was between 2 infants, which resulted in both of them dying. That action was highly illegal, and so to make it legal, the Harvard ad hoc committee was then set up to formulate a legal basis for moving the focus away from the heart to the brain. And these findings from the Harvard Committee that we have just discussed, were not even based on scientific studies.

THE BRAIN DEATH DEFINITION EVOLVED, BUT IT STILL OVERLOOK IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS

Following the promulgation of the Uniform Determination of Death Act, there followed an evolution of the criteria of brain death, and this took place parallel to the rise in critiques offered to the definition. For instance, subsequent to the 1981 publication of the President’s Commission report, it came to light that many patients, who met all the clinical test criteria of brain death, still demonstrated persistent brain functions or even spontaneous movements and elicitable reflexes.

As mentioned earlier, given that brain death was said to define death, there should be complete unresponsivity, that is, complete silence of the whole central nervous system, such that there should be no reflex of any sort and no spontaneous movements. However, there have been reports of reflex-reactions in brain-dead organ donors who, in response to surgical incision and sternotomy at the time of surgery for organ removal, manifested “dramatic increases in blood pressure and heart rate”, “sweating and lacrimation” as well as contraction of abdominal muscles upon incision of the parietal peritoneum, such that neuromuscular blocking agents or anesthesia had to be administered.

In addition, there have been many reports of a wide range of stretch tendon reflexes and spontaneous movements including twitching of facial muscles, periodic leg movements similar to those occurring during sleep, respiratory-like movements, plantar withdrawal reflex, triple flexion reflex (in which tactile or noxious plantar stimuli trigger the flexion of the thigh, leg, and foot), among others. Most dramatic is what is called the classic Lazarus sign, which is “a complex sequence of movements characterized by bilateral arm flexion, shoulder adduction, and hand raising to the chest or neck”, which can be spontaneous or triggered by noxious stimuli such as the removal of the ventilator during apnea testing. According to the published literature, reflexes and spontaneous movements “are present in approximately 80% of patients up to 200 hours from brain death diagnosis”.

In light of this, brain death proponents have repeatedly asserted that the myriad of reflexes (both autonomic and motor) and spontaneous movements in said-to-be brain-dead patients are of spinal cord origin. As such, they are deemed insignificant; and can be accepted without invalidating the brain death diagnosis and, therefore, justifying organ procurement for transplantation. Hand-in-hand with this assertion is the claim that the integrative functions of the spinal cord are not critical! Such arguments raise difficulty, however, especially since the patho-physiological basis to account for movements in brain death has remained speculative, and there has been “no definitive empirical evidence to prove that the spinal cord is the sole source of sensori-motor reflexes and complex movements in ‘brain death’. Moreover, not a few of these alleged spinal reflex movements “are very similar to some stereotyped movements mediated by the brain stem,” which implies that some areas of the brain stem may actually still be viable and functioning.

BUT, even if reflexes and spontaneous movements in brain death were to be entirely from the spinal cord, the question still remains: on which basis can it be claimed that the integrative function of the spinal cord is noncritical? And this is considering that anatomically, the spinal cord is an integral part of the central nervous system, in full continuity with the brain as there are neural tracts running in both directions. Therefore, if no dividing line exists (whether macro or microscopically) then why do the reflexes above the foramen magnum (or brainstem reflexes) qualify as critical and clinical functions, while those below it (being the spinal reflexes) are dismissed as irrelevant? And, evidently, it is rather difficult to assert that “brain stem reflexes are more integrative of bodily functions,” when several of the spinal reflexes involve movements that are more complex than those of brainstem reflexes.

Nevertheless, the definition of brain death evolved since the mid-20th century, and this was driven by two things. First was technological advances in critical care and second was also the need for organ transplantation, thus moving from a cardiopulmonary-centric view of death (which is one that focuses on the heart and lungs) to one based on the irreversible cessation of the entire brain’s function, as first formally proposed in the 1968 Harvard criteria and later codified in the US Uniform Determination of Death Act in 1981. This evolving standard was premised on the idea that the brain, not just the heart and lungs, was vital for life and that its total and irreversible loss constituted death, allowing for a legal basis to declare death even when artificial support systems maintained cardiopulmonary function.

But, here’s more from Dr Paul Byrne concerning the manipulation of the understanding of body flexes, consciousness and pain in the brain death definition. In particular, he makes a very interesting point on how consciousness is subjectively understood in the world of medicine and so just because a person lacks observable consciousness does not mean that they are dead. And regarding pain, he adds that lacking the ability to experience pain is also not indicative of death, especially since those whom organs are harvested from are also given paralysing agents.

UNPACKING DR PAUL BYRNE’S REMARKS ON CONSCIOUSNESS AND PAIN 

Here’s why I think Dr Paul Byrne’s notes on consciousness and pain are crucial, and even complement certain things we’ve observed and learned in the status quo. First, I think there is credence to the fact that consciousness is not something that can be objectively observed with physical instruments or senses; and I say this because scientists and medical practitioners generally struggle with separating the brain from the mind in discussions on consciousness. For example, the American Heritage Stedman’s Medical dictionary gives a definition of the brain that includes the statement that (quote) “the brain is also the seat of consciousness, thought, memory, and emotion.”

However, if you read the book ‘The Power of Your Mind’ by Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD., in the second chapter, titled, “Understanding the Human Mind”, he gives a crucial explanation. He states that the seat of consciousness, thought, and emotion cannot reside in the brain. In addition, even memory cannot be said to reside in the brain because true memory goes beyond recording information  to processing it; and such processing of information – usually for interpretation, meaning, language, and expression – is not in the power of the brain but the power of the mind. Not only this, but Rev Dr Chris Oyakhilome DSc. DSc. DD. emphasises that the brain is neither the mind nor the soul; and is rather a physical organ of the body, while the soul and mind are intangible. THEREFORE, this means that doctors cannot use the physical brain or physical instruments that measure the brain’s activity to measure an intangible mind and the intangible functions of the mind. Hence, I agree that doctors (at best) have been measuring consciousness subjectively, or at worst INCORRECTLY, especially if their measurements are based on brain activity.

Which then brings us to the second point raised by Dr Paul Byrne concerning pain. Once again, regarding this, he states that lacking the ability to experience pain is also not indicative of death, especially since those whom organs are harvested from are also given paralysing agents. Well, here’s what we’ve learned about paralysing agents. These agents are used in euthanasia and death row cases, and have actually been found to amount to a practice of prolonged torture!

This is to say that most people actually have no idea how agonising these lethal injection or drug-induced deaths are because (once again) the victim is paralysed. And yet research has proven, however, that DESPITE BEING PARALYSED, the person who has been given the lethal injection or drug concoction suffers great pain, all while being aware of everything that’s happening – so much so that death by lethal injection is deemed highly tortuous and violating of the most basic human rights of an individual.

THE UNDERLYING REASON BEHIND THE USE OF A PARALYTIC IN ORGAN HARVESTING

So, I think that what we’ve come to learn about euthanasia and the death penalty and the drugs administered especially as a paralytic is that people are experiencing pain, they are just paralysed and cannot show it. Therefore, just because we cannot see the pain does not mean it is not being experienced by a person who is categorically and biologically alive – all it proves is that the paralytic substance is effective. And we’ve come to learn this in painful cases, such as a death row case in Arkansas, which was also influenced by a death row case in Oklahoma. In essence, in the state of Arkansas in the US, the lethal injection comprises three chemicals: midazolam, to sedate; vecuro-nium bromide, to paralyse the muscles; and potassium chloride, to stop the heart.

Each of these is delivered at a dose that could theoretically kill the inmate; however, each drug has drawbacks. A cocktail of all three is apparently used to mitigate the other drugs’ disadvantages. At the time of execution, the inmate is strapped to a gurney, and IV tubes are inserted into both arms. Notable is that the Arkansas procedure uses two IV sites. This is allegedly partly to protect against ‘vein failure’. Vein failure was cited as the reason behind the ‘botched’ execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma in 2014, which reportedly took 43 minutes as Lockett ‘thrashed on the gurney, writhing and groaning in pain’. And so, that case enabled the world to see the physical manifestation of pain that otherwise would have not been visible if the paralytic substance had worked. And so, once again, this gives credence to what Dr Paul Byrne said – which is that just because we do not see pain does not mean it is not being experienced – especially where a paralytic has been administered to a patient.

But, even the administering of a paralytic comes with a concerning concession. In essence, the need for a paralytic is because the person keeps moving, meaning that their spinal reflexes are functioning (which should show life since the spine is connected to the brain and central nervous system)! And so, administering a paralytic is how hospitals bypass having to deal with the reality that the person they are about to cut into is actually alive. In fact, one of the most notable cases concerning this pertained to nurses having reported organ donors squirming or grimacing when the first incision was made. In addition, the US Department of Health and Human Services reported that hospitals have been allowed to begin the organ procurement process while the so-called organ donors were still showing signs of life! And so, that is why they need to administer a paralytic – it is because the person they are trying to take organs from is alive.

THE HHS EXPOSES CONCERNS IN AMERICA’S ORGAN PROCUREMENT SYSTEM

Here are the additional details on what was uncovered by the US Department of HHS. So, the Department’s investigation has exposed systemic, life-threatening failures in America’s organ procurement system in general (beyond hospitals themselves), and this includes cases where patients were NOT even dead when doctors began harvesting their organs, like we;ve just heard.

Well, in addition, the Department of HHS’s independent review found 29% of 351 cases had “concerning features,” including 73 patients with neurological activity and at least 28 who may have still been alive when organ procurement began. And the cause of all of this is shoddy death certifications, pressure to secure organs, and misclassification of overdose cases as “brain death.”

Meanwhile, all of this had been covered up for a long time because the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, which is the self-regulating body overseeing transplants, ignored red flags and dismissed concerns as “misinformation.” And when the Department of HHS ordered an investigation, an industry trade group (being the Association of Organ Procurement Organisations) publicly attacked the probe as a “conspiracy campaign” – which tells you where their priorities lie, considering the findings of the investigation.

Now, we alluded to the fact that the definition of brain death evolved in the mid-20th century due to technological advances in critical care and the need for organ transplantation – and we actually ought to look further into this intersection between brain death and organ donation and transplantation. So, organ donation and transplantation is a weirdly propagandised phenomenon. How it is spoken about in mainstream platforms is often with respect to its alleged inherent plausibility. You often hear or read the same old report that seeks to emphasise how the selfless deed of one person saved many more others – it is a very consequentialist “one life for many argument”, which is meant to emphasise some sort of utilitarian appreciation for organ donation.

But, beneath the propaganda lies a very dark fact, which is that organ donation or procurement relies on the donor’s organs being viable, which means they must still be oxygenated and functioning at the time of removal. Therefore, this requires the donor to be biologically alive—despite being labeled “brain dead.” And so, organ donation seems less like a self-less consequentialist deed, but a trojan horse that introduces an incentive to kill people who are otherwise alive. As a result, the term “brain death” is highly controversial, as it literally allows organ removal from patients whose hearts are still beating. In effect, the act of organ removal becomes the cause of true biological death, because the person would otherwise be alive if their organs were left intact. And so, in light of this controversy, many are calling organ harvesting a ritual: a ceremonial determination of death preceding a sacrificial extraction, all under the guise of medical necessity.

HOW BRIAN DEATH INFLUENCED THE COMMODIFICATION OF ORGANS

So, let’s also follow the money. In essence, given how limited viable donor organs are, transplants rapidly became an incredibly valuable commodity (e.g., the cost of a transplant ranges from over $400,000 to just under $2 million, depending on the organ—and with the heart being the most expensive). As such, given how desperate many are for the organs, and how much money is at stake, it seems reasonable to deduce that some degree of illegal organ harvesting would occur given that people are routinely killed in other contexts for profit (for example, in overseas wars, or with a pharmaceutical company pushing a lucrative drug they know can kill). And unfortunately, this is the case – which is to say that the brain death phenomenon, coupled with a need for viable organs, has fueled a commodification of organs that has in turn created human rights abuses – and all for money.

For instance, individuals being tricked into selling a kidney. For example, in 2011, a viral story discussed a Chinese teenager who did so for an iPhone 4 – which is approximately 0.0125% of the black market rate for a kidney, after which he became septic and his other kidney failed leaving him permanently bedridden

Similarly, a 2009 and 2024 Newsweek investigation and a 2025 paper highlighted the extensive illegal organ trade, estimating that 5% of global organ transplants involve black market purchases (totaling $600 million to $1.7 billion annually), with kidneys comprising 75% of these due to high demand for kidney failure treatments. As such, approximately 10-20% of kidney transplants from living donors are illegal, with British buyers paying $50,000–$60,000, while desperate impoverished donors (e.g., from refugee camps or countries like Pakistan, India, China and Africa), receive minimal payment and are abandoned when medical complications arise, despite promises of care.

So, these are clearly all concerning cases that show the propensity for abuse that is built on the foundation of the brain death definition. But, here is what I think this subject also exposes, and what I hope many to be increasingly curious about. The subject of brain death is demonstrating that humans are first and foremost spiritual beings, and that the spiritual transcends the physical – because now, when having discussions about consciousness and life vs death, many are realising that the brain is neither the mind nor the soul; and is rather a physical organ while the mind and soul are intangible, thus bringing them closer to the revelation that life is (in fact spiritual) and that man is ultimately created in God’s image and likeness, God who is Himself Spirit. And the following excerpt, I believe, exemplifies this progression in discourse around the world.

Written by Lindokuhle Mabaso