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

A few days ago, someone shared a short video, titled ‘It’s OK,’ and it is about 4 minutes long and worth watching. It is made by a group opposing abortion called Choice42. Of course, the abortion issue is heavily debated and often evokes emotions. But, what matters here is that the video is well researched, objective, and explains how the scientific cult has influenced perceptions on abortion. In particular, it details how scientists are paid to cut and disembowel live, little babies on laboratory benches under the guise of improving the futures of those who pay them, and the rest of the world.

This scientific cult has developed well-organised, methodical ways to do this, and prides itself in its cleverness. And so, the anti-abortion organisation made the video with the intent to expose this issue. And the video certainly is very moving – and is meant to be because pulling little people apart without anesthetic for the alleged benefit of others is something that, when removed from its veil of scientific progress, can be hard to think about.

THIS HAS NECESSITATED THE DEHUMANISATION OF A FOETUS

Of course, what we have seen is incredibly hard to watch – but it is fact. Aborted foetus tissue is used in the development of many vaccines. So, considering how utterly difficult it is to watch this, the question then becomes: how did the scientific cult nudge society to deem this acceptable? Well, on the one hand, society was not always this open to abortion (especially in the drastic applications it is advocated for today); and so, this was kept hidden from broader society for the longest part. It was in hearings that this information would come out.

For instance, you’d recall that we highlighted here on ‘The War Room’ that a lot of vaccines that are presented as simple clear solutions ACTUALLY contain fetal tissue that was taken from aborted babies. In fact, kindly have a listen to Stanley Plotkin’s contribution on this. By the way, Stanley Plotkin is widely regarded as a leading author and contributor to vaccinology. He has also been a consultant to Moderna, one of the main manufacturers of the Covid vaccine. But, it was under oath that he admitted to the use of fetal tissue from aborted babies in vaccines.

Then on the other hand, in recent times, there has been a campaign aimed at normalising the dehumanisation of unborn children, and making even late term abortion less taboo – and this has been through the corruption of language; and also a lobby for legislated murder. More specifically, there has been a debate on the definition of a baby, and contrasting that to a foetus. The purpose is to justify abortion at a certain stage, particularly the stage where the unborn baby is called a foetus and not a baby. Well, in this debate, one of the most famous (and concurrently one of the most ridiculed) arguments against the claimed inherent moral correctness of abortion is the argument on foetal potential. This argument maintains that the foetus’ potential to become a person and enjoy the valuable life common to persons entails that its destruction is prima facie morally impermissible.

Now, many who reject the argument do so because they believe that it results in what is often called the “sperm/ova problem”, which claims that if we regard the potential of a foetus to become a person as a morally relevant reason against killing a foetus, we must also hold the same of human gametes, who also possess the potential to become persons. For example, a Bonnie Steinbock claims that to say that abortion is morally wrong because a foetus has potential to become a person would mean that even abstinence would have to be considered morally wrong.

This is an obviously ridiculous argument and a strawman at best, because abstinence does not involve the killing of a fertilised egg where the likelihood of it developing into a person has commenced. There is simply no conception where abstinence is concerned. BUT, the argument of foetal potential is significant because it is one of the ways we explain the stewardship that adults have in regard to babies. Newborn infants lack the psychological maturity to possess goals, aims, beliefs, or purposes. And yet, this does NOT exclude them from moral consideration – which is to say, we still regard them as people capable of developing these conscious goals and beliefs, and adults thus take on the responsibility to care for them until the infants are grown and operate as adults with a stewardship capacity of their own.

But, when the strawmans are put aside: it is crucial to recognise that the capitalisation on the word foetus is about trying to reduce unborn babies to inanimate cells who do not possess the attributes of a human life and human potential  – in other words: dehumanisation! This is all an effort to normalise people lying to themselves, in effort to justify the killing of an unborn child. This attitude is seen in a number of abortion conglomerates. It is seen even in a number of practitioners. In fact, kindly recall what a Dr Cesare Santangelo said as he explained in detail how he lets babies die after they are born alive in botched abortions. This was 2012, and yet it is said that he still practises!

THEN AFTER DEHUMANISATION, IS THE OBJECTIFICATION OF FOETUSES

Then, after the dehumanisation of unborn babies or foetuses, follows the objectification of these babies. This is to say, that unborn babies are seen not as unborn babies but a collection of organs and cells that can be harvested for an intended use. So much so, that human fetal cell lines are used to culture a number of vaccines today. They are listed on the CDCs Vaccine Excipient list as WI-38, MRC-5, HEK293, PERC.6. In more detail, WI-38 is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of an aborted female fetus. And MRC-5 (also called Medical Research Council cell strain 5) is a diploid human cell culture line composed of fibroblasts derived from lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted male fetus.

In addition, Human Embryonic Kidney cells 293, also often referred to as HEK 293, are a specific cell line originally derived from human embryonic kidney cells grown in a tissue culture. And the PERC-6 cell line was derived from human embryonic retinal cells taken from an elective abortion. Now, the newest cell line created in 2015 for vaccines: WALVAX 2 is taken from the lung tissue of a 3-month gestation female who was ultimately selected from among 9 aborted babies. The scientists noted how they followed specific guidelines to mimic WI-38 and MRC-5 in selecting the aborted babies, ranging from 2-4 months gestation. They further noted how they induced labor using a “water bag” abortion to shorten the delivery time and prevent the death of the fetus to ensure live intact organs which were immediately sent to the labs for cell preparation.

Then you might ask, which vaccines utilised aborted fetal materials? There is a long list of them; and it includes: the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine/MMR. There is also the diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, and poliomyelitis vaccine (the DTaP/TdP). There is the varicella (or chickenpox) vaccine and the shingles (zoster) vaccine. The hepatitis A and hepatitis B vaccines; the rabies vaccine; and even some coronavirus vaccines! And so, this is clearly a long established practice in the vaccine industry.

Which also brings us to one of the enablers of this practice, being the ever notorious and ironically named “Planned Parenthood”. Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast ran the biggest abortion clinic in the western Hemisphere in Houston, Texas. This abortion clinic not only aborted babies up to 6 months, but they sold the aborted babies for experiments. Why is this important to note: first, it emphasises that they are not an entity advocating the safety or life of the mother, they function with a blatant disregard for the life of an unborn child. But to further appreciate the gravity of the truth that these people are controlled by demonic forces, kindly have a listen to how they speak about the bodies of the children that were aborted.

But, while the footage we just watched was recently released, it is not the first time that Planned Parenthood is implicated in an abortion scandal. More specifically, you’d recall that we recently discussed a judge ruling, on the 19th of June this year, from a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey accusing Planned Parenthood of transporting minors out of state for abortions will move forward. The lawsuit is based on conversations between Planned Parenthood staff and a man from a conservative activist group who secretly filmed the staff while inquiring about an abortion for his fake 13-year-old niece. The video, which was captured in December, was posted on social media by the conservative activist group and self-proclaimed right wing news organisation that often conducts undercover stings.

Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which runs the Kansas City area clinic where the video was taken, asked that the judge dismiss the lawsuit shortly after it was filed. Furthermore, at a hearing in early June, John Andrew Hirth, an attorney for Planned Parenthood, said there was no proof the Kansas City area clinic broke the law. However, the Boone County Judge, Brouck Jacobs, found merit for moving forward with the case.

THIS DEHUMANISATION OF FOETUSES ALSO HARMS FATHERS DISPROPORTIONATELY

It must be stated explicitly that this is nothing short of child sacrifices, and ironically, much like we saw from what were deemed backwards and pagan societies like the Aztecs and Norse civilisations. I say this because people who are not possessed by a spirit that disregards human life do not speak of killing children so casually and cavalier; they also do not formulate mechanism to enable abortions to take place at the expense of the law. They also do not set up shop outside a political convention so people can simply abort a child, as though it is a simple and inconsequential to-do item on their list for the day. THEREFORE, institutions like Planned Parenthood, who sensationalise abortion (beyond considerations about a mother’s life or rape cases) might well be a manifestation of demonic spirits that demanded child sacrifice. Their works, which we’ve just heard about, do not show an organisation that is providing a health service, they are providing an avenue to kill unborn babies. Today, groups like feminists and other liberals make the argument that abortion is permissible simply because women should get to make a choice about whether they want to carry a baby – for them it is an argument of the woman’s agency, and in no way about life.

But, as far as abortion is concerned, men are actually horribly affected by the disproportionate focus on women and their bodily autonomy when it comes to the Democrat’s federalised abortion plan. Women veto the decision on abortion, despite the father’s wishes and plea – and this is not in instances where the mother’s life is threatened by a health emergency or an case of rape – it is a generic practice that women (at any point and time) can choose to abort the baby.

He is right: it is an evil law that killed his daughter, which is why we must recognise the underlying spiritual war when it comes to abortion. But, in the status quo, this evil  is driven by two things: first is the third wave feminist principle, I mentioned earlier, that women’s choices supersede all other choices; and the second driver is that unborn babies are treated as non-living things in order to justify their guilt-free murder. You’d recall that we discussed this when refuting the alleged distinction between a foetus and a baby (despite the fact that the word foetus means offspring).

THE DOMINO EFFECT: ORGAN HARVESTING LAWS HAVE FUELED A DEVALUATION OF LIFE

Well, this has undoubtedly created a concerning domino effect, where organ harvesting is progressively being prioritised over the inherent value of human life. And this should surprise no one because laws are a socialisation agent; which is to say that when the government creates precedent that something is acceptable, this has the potential to influence society’s attitudes about that subject of interest. And to drive this further, let’s talk about this medical phenomenon called “brain death:”.

The term “brain death” was essentially created for organ harvesting. This is because there is big money in it for the hospitals. To appreciate this, you have to understand that a human body represents revenue and there are people who put systems in place to take lives for that revenue. In fact, one body can even generate as much as $11 million! Well, how this happened is that a government law in the US created precedent. In particular, the “Uniform Anatomical Gift Act” is legislation with a lot of slick language designed to get a person’s organs. The bill presumes that everyone is an organ donor. Here’s more on how the brain death phenomenon came about; and the assumptions embedded in the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act.

As you can imagine, hospitals have thus not been humane in their approach: it has become standard practice to rush to pull the plug on a patient said to be brain dead. As a result, loved ones of patients are having to battle hospitals to keep them from pulling the plug on a patient that they see as a means of getting money through organ harvesting.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso