Something is very wrong in the Land of Cotton



Dr. Robert Bullard
Environmental Justice Movement Founder

Friday, December 3, 2010

Feds Spending $1.5 Million on NY Pilot Program of "Body Snatching"

*Filed under Freaky Friday 
*Updated 12/4
If a reader had not alerted us to it, we would not have believed this story. It sounds more like Invasion of the Body Snatchers than it does reality and we can think of a lot of reasons it should not be happening. First and foremost, is that the government thinks it's a good idea. Second, any governmental sanctioned program that has it's fingers in the arena of life and death is way out of bounds.

We already have an organ donor system in this country and it's voluntary. Is there a shortage of organs for donation? Sure. But do we really want an Organ Preservation Unit in our faces at a time of tragedy pressuring us for an immediate decision on our loved ones organs? Probably not. Has checking a driver's license (where organ donor is indicated) become too much trouble now?
Families choosing whether to donate a loved one's organs usually have days to grapple with their decision, all while the patient lies hooked up to machines in a hospital bed.But they would have only about 20 minutes to make the choice in a new pilot program meant to recover organs from patients who die at home.
"Think about it," said Dr. Hasan Yersiz. "You have somebody dying and you have to make that decision very fast. It's not an easy situation."
That's an understatement Dr. Twenty minutes in the midst of immense grief and psychological stress. That makes sense? It does if you want to coerce someone to make a decision at a time of vulnerability.
Similar programs are already in place in France and Spain, where there are fewer barriers because people in those countries are considered organ donors unless they opt out, Goldfrank said.
France and Spain routinely harvest organs through presumed consent and do not require an organ donor registration or consent. If you don't want to be a donor, you must get on an opt-out list. Spain has one of the hardest opt-out programs, almost forcing donation. Is this we want in America?

We have huge issues with the OPU trailing behind rescue vehicles like predators after a wounded animal. This sounds more like a plot on a Fringe episode rather than real life and we wish it was fiction, but it isn't. Who made the decision to green light this program?
The project is "very, very modest but has the potential to prove a concept that could be revolutionary," said Dr. Lewis Goldfrank, director of emergency services at Bellevue Hospital Center and the leader of the pilot, which is being funded with a $1.5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Health Resources and Services Administration.
He's got the "Frank" in his name right. All that's missing if the "Stein" part. We're not even going to start on HHR Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, we'd be here all day and into the night.

Everyone in America should remember (thanks to the MSM harping on it constantly) that Sarah Palin took a lot of ridicule and heat for her warnings of death panels, if she had said this might happen instead, we wonder how the press would have responded to it.

But here's the former Senator Daschle-D in a very recent radio interview saying this:
During a recent radio interview, the former Senate Democrat admitted that if an elderly patient might need a heart transplant, that patient should be encouraged to seek options such as oral medication or “hospice.” For those unfamiliar with hospice, and as the radio host rightly points out, “hospice is where you go to die.”
*(Video included of the interview.) 

Where's the press pouncers on Daschle's comments? ***crickets***

This is absolutely chilling...

"Quit breathing already fella I got a quota to meet."
From Natural News Dec 3, 2010
The City of New York recently launched a new emergency services pilot program that seems more like something out of a science fiction movie than a real-life initiative. According to a recent New York Times report, the city has begun deploying two emergency ambulances in response to 911 calls -- one to try to save the lives of those involved, and the other to harvest their vital organs should the rescue efforts fail or be deemed likely to fail.
The city's new ambulances are emblazoned with the words "Organ Preservation Unit" (OPU), and they now trail behind primary rescue vehicles headed to situations where there could be valuable organs involved. And city officials insist that the whole procedure is perfectly ethical because the first rescue vehicle is unaware that the second one is there until a supervisor decides to stop the rescue efforts and make the announcement, which allegedly eliminates the possibility that rescuers will purposely allow a victim to die in order to gain access to the valuable organs.
The pilot program team has been told they have 50 minutes from the time a person's heart stops beating to the time his or her body must be placed in the ambulance and hooked up to a machine that creates blood circulation. Once at Bellevue, another machine will increase body oxygen.
Only residents of the island of Manhattan who are between 18 and 59 will be eligible for the pilot program.
The government has been after our parts for a long time. This is from the 1998 testimony of Claude Earl Fox, M.D. before the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, Subcommittee on Human Resources:
The Nation's failure to obtain optimal donation rates for transplantable organs is unquestionably the biggest problem facing the transplant community. Addressing the shortage of organs is a priority of this Administration. Last December, the *Vice President announced a nationwide initiative to increase organ donations. The initiative is focused on known barriers to donation by creating a national partnership of public, private and volunteer organizations. The partnership emphasizes the need to share personal decisions on organ donation with one's family. Even if an individual agrees during his or her lifetime to be an organ donor, the agreement is not always honored without family consent. As part of the initiative, HHS convened a conference on best practices last week, with experts from throughout the country discussing successful solutions for increasing organ donations.
*(Al Gore)
Such irony in these names...

Dr. Fox makes it sound so noble doesn't he? It will strike chords with the public because transplantation does save lives, but the government is not in the business of public service in our opinion, and they are no Marcus Welby's by a long shot.

They're in it for some backroom deal made with the transplant community that will do one of two things for them, if not both simultaneously:
1. Save them money (as Daschle's comments suggest)
2. Make them money (through a deal we have yet to be informed about)

"Some 911 calls in Manhattan will now bring out two ambulances, one hurrying to the scene and one lagging slightly behind.
patient's kidneys in case the first ambulance fails."

But it will be "ethical because the rescue unit won't know"...sure they will, this is in the press isn't it?

How did the NY Times writer keep a straight face when writing this? It's absurd beyond belief and no different than they way the ambulance services used to function in the first half of the twentieth century. We've been down this strange road before: up until the 1960's it was not uncommon to have ambulance services operating out of funeral homes and mortuaries. It was a serious conflict of interest, but it was the way things were before we knew better.

Obviously there is regression afoot with this ghoulish proposal.

*Update Fri pm--a link to a previous writer on this subject thanks to the commenter hoagy62. Complete lives systems & Meat for the state.
Serious dark stuff going on here...

Then there's this story from July 2010 of a murderer that sparked outrage for his crimes and according to the thinking of the author, should have received a transplant after attempting suicide from rat poison, when he was captured for committing the gruesome murder of an innocent woman:
"Let it stand as a beacon to all that is good and wise inside us that a man who took the life of a loving mother of three was himself saved from certain death by highly trained surgeons and an anonymous organ donor, none of whom would hazard playing judge and jury."
*(This is a "what if" situation, the man did not get the transplant and the original story was retracted that reported that he did. This article is arguing, after the fact, that he should have been a candidate despite his heinous crime.)

Does the word experimentation start to sound just a little bit plausible? Big Pharma uses organs not going to transplants for medical studies and we'll agree those studies can result in medical breakthroughs, but the question of who determines which "life (is) unworthy of life" merits some consideration. There will be a progression, an expansion into other areas of what they are trying in NY, eventually. Particularly if they claim it "successful" and all it will take is one life saved. One high profile, tug at your heart strings America for maximum effect, life.

That, in our opinions, is what will lead to societal acceptance of getting the organs by any government defined acceptable means possible for the "greater good."

*Update--The following is important to consider as things that are out of the norm to the human psyche are usually introduced in increments to desensitize their effects and bring about an acceptance--like the limited area of this "pilot program" in NY. If this is hailed a "success" where will we go next and what pitfalls (to put it mildly) are we heading for?

Tom Treasure 
“The Falun Gong, organ transplantation, the Holocaust and ourselves”
How have we arrived at this point? Medical ethics are neither absolute nor static. In the West we have repeatedly challenged prior beliefs and stretched the norms of behavior in the last few decades. For example, termination of pregnancy and manipulation of fertility (in both directions) have attracted extensive negotiation and there is still no unanimity on many points. The distinction between life and death has been redefined, specifically for the benefit of transplantation.

In the 1930s the first steps on the road to the holocaust were taken—and they were taken with the complicity of doctors. How this came about merits attention for, if we do not recognize the facts and understand how it happened, how can we guard against it happening again? 

In Germany, as everywhere, there were people in long-term institutional care. Such patients vary in their capacity for interaction with their careers: at one end of the spectrum there is no evidence of awareness or any capacity for sensate being.

The view arose, as it inevitably does, that if their lives were to slip quietly away it would be no loss. Perhaps it would be a blessing. It would surely be a relief for their families. And then there were the saved resources of time, money and love and devotion from parents and nurses that could be released for a better purpose. Their state was captured in the German phrase lebensunwertes Leben meaning ‘life unworthy of life’.

The ethical question was whether it was permissible to take any active steps to bring about their end; in parallel, the medical question that arose was how it might be done. This in itself is important because, if the stark truth of what we are doing can be masked by the argument of secondary intent, it may be found permissible to bring about the end of life.
Read more here and the serious transplant issues in the US only a few years ago with Kaiser Permanente in California.

Big Pharma is an integral part of the global transplant push: Wyeth, Roche, Genzyme, Astellas Pharma, Inc., Novartis. That should be a huge red flag to all of us because NY admits they are following the European models. 
*Presumed consent for organ donation in uncontrolled donation after cardiac death: a public policy with serious consequences 2009
Bookmark and Share


  1. Agree.
    Government has no place in this. Even good intentions with them always turn out horribly bad.
    It is quite troubling they're having these OPU's with the medics on calls. That really bothers me.

  2. Government ghouls in it for profit preying on the public's blissful ignorance of the ramifications of Big Brother playing God.
    I'm for transplantation, but NOT THIS WAY!

  3. This is way beyond these people's expertise. I can see it now....'Looks like he might lose his right leg.... hmmmm.... he might not want to live with just one leg....hey! and it's his right leg, too! Why don't we just pull the plug Bubba? Yuck, yuck, yuck. We done good today! Look at all these parts!'
    The morons who are in control of the cities, counties, states and the nation are loons. Just look at the condition of the nation. And it seems to me, it just got worse.
    When is the last time you can recall something they got right? Just name ONE thing. Just ONE thing. Having trouble? You bet.
    If they want to give up some parts, let them donate their own.

  4. They picked weird hours for this program..like waiting for the sun to go down.

  5. Something is not adding up here. Transplant surgery is horrendously expensive, is the federal government now willing to increase their proposed socialized medicine health care costs by paying for this? I think not.
    I smell a very sinister plot brewing.

  6. OMG
    Robin Cook novel stuff..too weird.

  7. Seems to me, this is how they plan to pay for the Health Reform Bill, which is not health care.
    And you can bet there were some corporate back room deals made in advance of the passage of this bill for some tidy profits.
    Free insurance anyone?

  8. The organ market is very, very lucrative and Count Blacula in the WH has figured that out.

  9. Spur, my man, I think you got it!

  10. The snatchers have been gathering in earnest since 2008:
    The problem is that our current organ procurement system is restricted to free donations.
    Such donations are wonderful. But while we wait for more of them, hundreds of thousands of patients have died. It is time to free up the system with the motivating power of incentives.
    One possibility is a "gift for the gift of life" that would go to the estate of deceased organ donors. Such a gift could be used to pay for funeral expenses in a time of need and it would gracefully mark society's gratitude.
    Payments also could be made to living donors. Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker and Julio Elias have estimated that we could completely eliminate the shortage of donor kidneys by paying donors about $15,000. Payments to donors could be made by insurance companies or even by the federal government.
    But can the government afford to pay organ donors? Yes.
    Specifically, taxpayers currently pay for most dialysis treatment through the end stage renal disease program. But transplants are much cheaper than dialysis in the long run. So even with a $15,000 payment to donors, taxpayers could save hundreds of millions of dollars a year with reduced dialysis costs. And, of course, many thousands of lives would be extended.
    But we need not pay organ donors directly. Incentives come in a wide variety of forms. For example, why not waive the driver's license fee for people willing to sign organ donor cards? Shouldn't we thank people who are willing to be organ donors?
    Indeed, another gross unfairness of the current system is that organ donors receive no special treatment should they one day need an organ. I encourage everyone I know to sign an organ donor card, but if someone doesn't want to sign that's his or her choice. If someone isn't willing to give an organ, however, why should that person be allowed to receive an organ?
    "It's not fair to give organs to non-donors as long as there are registered organ donors who need them," argues Dave Undis, the founder of Lifesharers.org, a free, nonprofit organization that encourages organ donors to donate first to people who are also willing to be organ donors.
    The organization that runs the current system, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), could give people who have signed organ donor cards extra points that would advance them on the queue if they ever need an organ. UNOS already does this for previous organ donors, so why not do the same for potential organ donors? Not only would this be a more just system, it would also create an incentive to sign one's organ donor card.
    This was from an article in Forbes 2009 and reading between the lines paints a very devious picture of the plotting that has been going on about this. Note the selective process that undertones this article. There's already a problem with the transplant allotment system process as in the important get organs before the less important. This whole things smacks of Body Farm and it's seriously twisted.

  11. The problem is going to manifest under all instances in the bill that state "The Secretary Shall" in conjunction with what will now hit the wall of the regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein. It may not be in the bill itself, but, rather, in the discretion and diktats of the secretary of HHS and Sunstein’s "regulations."

    Over a century ago President Abraham Lincoln freed the Blacks from slavery. Now, the the First Black President who mendaciously seeks to have people think he emulates Lincoln, seeks to enslave all Americans, irrespective of race, in the most disgusting and profound manner.

    President Obama’s "Regulatory Czar" chief of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein believes and espouses that the State owns your body and can, at what it considers sufficient need, use it how it wishes to, up to and including harvesting your organs without your permission.

  12. What the hell is going on in this country? Is the WH on a bad acid trip? This reminds me of Nazi Germany and the atrocious Mengele. Who the hell told the government they have a right to act like carrion in emergency situations? This is outrageous!!

  13. This hurts to wrap my mind around, it's just way too strange and I'm not one for conspiracies but this makes no sense for government involvement. Unless there is another agenda that I shudder to think about. History is replete with notorious examples of sci fi gov't at its worst-the Tuskegee Experiment comes to mind first and foremost.

  14. TE went on for forty years, it was awful beyond belief what the government did to those men, black men, every one of them. They have "safeguards" in place, they claim, so it doesn't happen again. The HHS department, same goons that are pushing this craziness. This new government is becoming too close to mad scientists and communistic to suit me.
    They can:
    Snatch my land (eminent domain)
    Dictate my health (socialized medicine)
    Force GMO foods down my throat (SB 510)
    Take over my internet (net neutrality)
    Invade my person (TSA)
    And now they want to raid my body when I die?
    Where does it end??????????????

  15. Who's driving the OPU? Donald Sutherland?

  16. Of all the places to do this, NY, where body snatching of various forms has been going on in notorious ways for the last decade. Maybe they're trying to rehabilitate their image. Oy Vey the irony!

  17. I can say I have high standards and jump up and down and tell you, surely you can trust me. These are all words. That's all. That is not to say I am the ultimate in ethics or truth. Actions have always spoken louder than words. We see what they have done and now the plan has been revealed. It is their actions thus far, which cause me to have the greatest alarm. And it is not the fact the manner in which this project has been spun is not alarming. The words they have used has given me no comfort or assured me this is indeed a good idea, a wonderful way to help the living, or shown me the people in the transplant unit are the all knowing experts on the spot, who will absolutely guarantee, in all cases, the right decisions will always be made. This is not believable. It is alarming. Frightening.
    Who has devised this sinister project? Who would? Who could do something like this? And who could possibly want to take part in something like this, on either side? I would not want a decision like this made for me from an organ chaser, nor would I want to receive an organ from someone who it was taken from in this manner. Not like this. This is not good.
    It may very well do more harm than possible good, as I don't seem to understand how the people will stand by silently, allowing others to make these decisions and allow this project to continue. They want to decide who is really dead, in all honesty, who is about to be dead, might be dead or maybe possibly be dying, or who do ‘they’ want to ‘say’ is dead, so they can harvest the organs?
    After reading this article I would refuse to donate on the basis of the sheer madness of this idea.
    Some might say this is playing God. Seems more like something God would not do in the first place. So how might one compare this project as we know it and modern transplant medicine to God? Who would dare? This is wicked. It appears to be a worse kind of wickedness.
    And the project may do more to defeat such things as transplant programs, Living Wills, driver’s license donor programs and cause bereaved family members, who have just lost a loved one, to make the opposite decision than the one the organ takers agenda desires. They are not on the spot folks, for you to tell them, thanks, but no thanks. They are there to get the job done. This is disgusting.
    An opt out program will indeed be next. People need to be aware this is happening in New York City and be aware the people in this program have no right to chase an ambulance and an accident victim. They are also no more qualified to make this type of life and death decision for their fellow man than a flying jackass. Who would? Certainly not them. They who have found themselves working in this program are so far out of bounds it would be funny if this was not such a serious topic.
    I see lawsuits coming at them beyond any other area of law that has ever been seen in the history of the world. On second thought, in addition to that, it is more likely criminal and I can’t imagine there will not be long prison terms for murder in the first degree, for those who have taken part in this monstrous undertaking when it is discovered they have made premature death decisions for others.
    This is a ludicrous plan. I think they have all gone mad in the mind and perhaps we the people need to take action to have them dealt with swiftly and appropriately.

  18. Shades of Robin Cook's Coma. Lots of money to be made in organs and don't think for a minute some unethical soulless creeps wearing white coats aren't angling for a little "side action." Get it? A bit of gallows humor, sorry couldn't resist.

  19. The media is dutifully reporting the talking points and as usual, not asking the hard questions. We cannot get so lost in the "gift of life" glow that we do not consider the potential for this to go horribly wrong and expand the government's definition of death, not yours, as it moves along. Last time I checked there are over 20 differing sets of definitions of what brain death really is.

  20. I want to know why we have such radical loons in high places in the government who are proponents of population control, but here we have that same government getting into the business of saving lives?
    The "science czar," John Holdren is for sterilization and abortion for population control, and wrote, "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
    In a future society, "It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society," Holdren and his co-authors wrote.
    "…the development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired ... The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.
    I’m pro choice but this is beyond the pale and not something I approve of..
    Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the “health policy” czar blames the Hippocratic oath for the overuse of medical care, and that doctors need to serve two masters "the patient and society. He stated, "Medical students should be trained to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care. One sign of progress he sees: "The progression in the end-of-life care mentality from do everything to a more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible. Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist: treating them differently because they have more life-years is not." He’s also stated that we have a "moral obligation" to be experimented on.

    Cass Sunstein believes we don’t have a government right to food and shelter and that eugenics is a viable option.

    You cannot discuss any of these guys without discussing the others.

    When I voted for Obama (mostly because I was sick of the republican thugs) I had no idea this would come along with it…it’s shocking the direction the government is going in and reminds me more of Nazi Germany that it does America with each passing day.


IP tracking & BS detector is enabled.
Don't set it off.