Pig brains revived hours post-mortem

But go ahead, be an organ donor!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190417132805.htm

You won’t feel a thing!

“Circulation and cellular activity were restored in a pig’s brain four hours after its death, a finding that challenges long-held assumptions about the timing and irreversible nature of the cessation of some brain functions after death.”

Long-held?

These are the people you trust to know when you’re actually dead.

They might as well be informed by entrails.

Low funding or low IQ workers?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-baby-death-investigation-widens-maternity-unit-shrewsbury-telford-hospital-trust-a8516326.html

I’d bet both.

Diversity hire, always backfire.

They have many cover-ups involving forged qualifications, abuse cases and simple laziness, so they turn up and don’t do their job and expect to get paid or cry Racism! But all the money’s going to useless admin who hired them (cheaper than training) or retired NHS pensions (including more self-congratulating admin). The system is already overburdened, it was designed for something like a tenth of this population. It cannot survive.

People frequently die in A&E from preventable causes. That’s assuming you don’t get ill from the hospital itself.

A random club slut with an STD gets seen quickly, the kid with cancer is told “we can’t afford your treatment.” One is likelier to vote. There are literal death panels that decide these things, it’s all PR spin. All of it!

In answer to “why don’t more Brits have kids?”

They don’t wanna DIE???

In many areas, it’s like giving birth in a Third World country. Preppers have no idea. It’s that bad NOW. And if you think white women get better treatment, especially if they hear you’re a Christian, you don’t know much about Third World healthcare.

Then there’s post-partum scarring (lifelong), injury (bye bye sex life) and death from “complications” (common with C-sections, and you can’t get just one).

They “run out” of basic supplies! Needles! Pain relief! Cleaning alcohol!

It’s already at around Victorian level in places, at least they had pain relief, on track to be Middle Ages.

And you wonder why the smart people are saving to go on private? No use conceiving if the hospital will kill or kidnap it (to be abused).

Americans need to mind their own business when they don’t understand foreign systems.

And they don’t give out IVF to young, normal people. You need a PC reason. You need to be single, or getting a “sex change”, or really, really old. There are plenty of young men who think supplements in a drink once a day will magically keep them fertile when they’ve already lost and continue to lose fertility (while “young”, so in medical terms under 30-35) from the modern world – bike riding, phone radiation, smoking, drinking, promiscuity and STDs. This is not theoretical and they don’t know until years later, when the damage is mostly done and they wrongly blame “age”. The external nature of the male system makes it incredibly vulnerable to environmental factors!

And men are told they shouldn’t care about their fertility (red flag) and just assume it’s fine.

Bachelor culture shames them for admitting they care about their health!

They’ll shame a man for being infertile too. You’re trapped.*

Don’t get me started on the ones who are stupid enough to supplement hormones (one, let’s be honest) for vanity without constant supervision from a doctor, those ones deserve it. Magic beans don’t work.

“Lifestyle choices” PCspeak for the wages of sin.

*Reminds me of how the manosphere shames everyone about suicide rates but never talks about suicide prevention (seriously), or they shame abortions like it’s a purely female cause with immaculate conception and not the cult of promiscuity that led to it. There’s a disconnect where even the people online who pretend to notice, only address the symptom (controlled op?) and ignore the cause like it’ll fix itself by magic or because it’s “judging” – what, and judging symptoms of moral decay isn’t?

Study: Survival capacity after brain death

http://www.neurology.org/content/51/6/1538.short

Mentioned in

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161103-the-macabre-fate-of-beating-heart-corpses

Further along the life-death continuum, skin and brain stem cells are known to remain alive for several days after a person has died. Living muscle stem cells have been found in corpses which are two-and-a-half-weeks old.

Even our genes keep going long after we’ve taken our last breath. Earlier this year, scientists discovered thousands which spring to life days after death, including those involved in inflammation, counteracting stress and – mysteriously – embryonic development.

This feeds in to all of those lies organ donors or prospectives are told.

If the person is dead, their organs cannot be transplanted. They are useless, when ‘harvested’ from corpses, pre-programmed cell death reactions have already kicked in. They must be taken before death is complete. 

Today beating heart cadavers have spawned a strange new medical specialty, “cadaver donor management”, which aims to improve the success of transplants by tending to the health of the dead.

…they’re currently the only reliable source of hearts for transplant.

Do you know what this means?
Those organs feel pain. They still live and sense.

If human consciousness or any form of sentience is anywhere other than the brain or detectable at a level beneath current technology (now EEG) – they would feel themselves being eviscerated, in shock after hearing the surgeons planning the procedure verbally, unable to respond, and die in one of the most grisly, almost Satanic ways possible. Vivisection. 

How likely is any of that? The limits of current science?

Study: Victorian health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/

Are we better off?

What Did the Victorians Ever Do for Us?

The implications of the mid-Victorian story are far-reaching, because, unlike the paleolithic scenario, details of the mid-Victorian lifestyle and its impact on public health are extensively documented. Thus, the mid-Victorian experience clearly shows us that:

  1. Degenerative diseases are not caused by old age (the ‘wear and tear’ hypothesis); but are driven, in the main, by chronic malnutrition. Our low energy lifestyles leave us depleted in anabolic and anti-catabolic co-factors; and this imbalance is compounded by excessive intakes of inflammatory compounds. The current epidemic of degenerative disease is caused by widespread problem of multiple micro- and phyto-nutrient depletion (Type B malnutrition.)
  2. With the exception of family planning and antibiotics, the vast edifice of twentieth century healthcare has generated little more than tools to suppress symptoms of the degenerative diseases which have emerged due to our failure to maintain mid-Victorian nutritional standards.
  3. The only way to combat the adverse effects of Type B malnutrition, and to prevent and / or cure degenerative disease, is to enhance the nutrient density of the modern diet.

Restore, actually.
The nutrient profile of modern food is inexcusable.
It’s literally killing us.

More food than ever, and we’re the malnourished ones. Some progress.

Part of it is vitamin or mineral leaching, caused by bad habits such as alcoholism.

A third or more of households were temperate or teetotal, partly due to the sustained efforts of the anti-alcohol movement.

To end, the sex-positive sluts won’t like this one.

How the Mid-Victorians Died

Common causes of death [65,66]

  1. Infection including TB and other lung infections such as pneumonia; epidemics (scarlet fever, smallpox, influenza, typhoid, cholera etc), with spread often linked to poor sanitation: and the sexually transmitted diseases.

Mentioned in passing as if the most obvious cause in the world.
With antibiotic resistance returning, this will return too. Famine, disease, death.

If your organs are dead, why do they want you to donate them?

Short post, horror.
Atheists in particular need to bear this in mind. If there’s nothing but your body, guard it!

renegadetribune.com/organ-harvesting-ritual/

I have a distaste for the rhetoric but the medical points are true. BP rises in distress from the supposedly ‘dead’ donor, for example. That reaction test should be a standard for life, the body is reacting to the environment, they aren’t even locked-in. They say they don’t drug the victim because the chemicals would taint the organs. No really, that’s why, to keep it pure. It’s murder, they keep cutting until the person is dead, probably from shock.
There’s actually no such thing as brain death, it’s a philosophical term. It cannot be proven medically. You cannot prove a negative, they simply fail to detect, an issue of the technology. There are many alternate states of consciousness and you can still feel pain while completely unconscious, say, in a deep sleep with REM cycling. They carefully say “brain dead” instead of just ‘dead’ despite how, if there’s blood flow (cardiac standard) the brain is still biologically alive. We don’t die everytime we fall asleep, do we? We slip into another, hidden state of consciousness. And that’s why coma patients can wake up 30 years later and people can recover from real, huge brain damage that should’ve made them ‘a vegetable’.

All nerves are intact (pain) when organ donation is commenced, paralytics are given to keep the body still so the organs aren’t damaged and ‘patient’ doesn’t move and I pity the idiot who signs up for this. If they waited until you were actually dead, any atheist would logically call that organ death, at which point they don’t want them! We can 3D print organs or use pigs but they think that’s too expensive. There is ongoing discussion in neuroscience on full sentience in alternate states of consciousness, like how one is intact as the Self in a dream, with memories and motives intact, experiences, but these OD people say it’s either awake and blinking or dead to the world, despite how we all know this to be false e.g. you incorporate local sounds into your dreams without consciousness.

They often refuse to connect an EEG to measure brain activity to check, they just say it to the distraught next of kin hoping to manipulate them with grief. If the person is truly ‘brain dead’, yet they categorically refuse to check for activity, that should tell you EVERYTHING about their unethical, evil deception.

Here’s another, more neutral source:

http://www.wired.com/2013/04/consciousness-after-death/

““The evidence we have so far is that human consciousness does not become annihilated,” said Parnia, a doctor at Stony Brook University Hospital and director of the school’s resuscitation research program. “It continues for a few hours after death, albeit in a hibernated state we cannot see from the outside.”

Compare to: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Organ-donation/Pages/Donationprocess.aspx

“A team of specialist surgeons is called to the donor’s hospital to remove and preserve the organs for transport to the transplant unit. Timing is crucial because certain organs need to be transplanted within four to six hours.”

aka While the cells are still alive.

Why aren’t the atheists onto this, seriously? Without a belief in spirit their concern for their physical being should be high.

Some doctors are valiantly trying to fight against this.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/7/406.full

Like the US “whole brain criteria,” the UK criteria—held to define death conceptualised as permanent loss of the capacity for consciousness and the capacity to breathe spontaneously23did not require the electroencephalogram (EEG) as a test for continuing life in the brain. If recorded, continuing EEG activity was to be disregarded—along with other evidence of persisting brain function—as lacking “significance.” It remains unclear, however, on what grounds such activity is disregarded, bearing in mind the present very limited understanding of brain physiology.

Typical Leftist reaction.

Although the term “brain death” is supposed to have gone out of use in the UK,22 comatose, ventilator/dependent patients are still being certified “dead” for transplant purposes using similar tests but on the basis of some idiosyncratic concept that remains far from clear.

Because ‘brain death’ doesn’t exist, medically. They are using the word ‘dead’ because…

The UDDA and the “dead donor rule” still govern transplantation practice. Truog and Robinson, like others before them,24,25 propose the abandonment of all obfuscation where requests for transplantable organs are concerned. They accept that “brain dead” individuals are alive. The issue then becomes: “Given that brain dead individuals are not dead, is it morally acceptable to remove their organs for transplantation?”

Hence the title:

Does it matter that organ donors are not dead?

Truog and Robinson answer “yes,”

shock horror wtf omg no denial signs

Remove their organs, the very things keeping them alive. Like taking out a rotten tooth. Remove…

For Truog and Robinson, the case for taking organs from still living donors depends upon “shifting the key ethical question from ‘Is the patient dead?’ to ‘Are the harms of removing life sustaining organs sufficiently small that patients or surrogates should be allowed to consent to donation?’”

They’re literally trying to change the ethical question to look less like murderers. Murdering to save lives is like, to quote Carlin, fucking for virginity.

Once we recognise that the dead donor rule is not morally necessary for organ procurement, the “concept of brain death will then disappear from textbooks, illustrating the degree to which the concept was never more than a social construction, developed to meet the needs of the transplantation enterprise during a crucial phase of its development”

To answer the charge that vital organ removal kills the living patient, ……the physician acts, and this act is the most proximate cause of the patient’s death……the physician is not morally responsible for the patient’s death—the morally relevant cause of death is the patient’s disease. In both cases, the physician is acting with the patient’s consent in ways that respect the wishes of the patient and that are in the pursuit of morally worthwhile ends.

“I was just following orders.”

What about the medically relevant COD? Cutting out their heart as the piece de la resistance, skinning them for grafts, the mental shock of chopping off the tip of the eyeball?
No. The patient’s consent is invalid if it isn’t fully informed.

“We welcome Truog and Robinson’s admission that “brain dead” individuals are not dead and that brain death criteria were developed to allow vital organ donation, rather than being on a firm scientific or philosophical basis.”

Philosophy isn’t a standard for medicine. If I firmly believed in the philosophical hypothesis that waterboarding causes no harm, does it?

Compare to: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Brain-death/Pages/Introduction.aspx

After brain death, it’s not possible for someone to remain conscious. Combined with the inability to breathe or maintain bodily functions, this constitutes the death of a person.

Outright lie, they’re measuring the peripheral stem, not the central brain itself. Locked-in syndrome. Coma patients spontaneously awakening. Not possible either, but it happens.
Their heart is still-beating. Cardiac standard. There is blood flowing to and from the brain. fMRI of people in a deep coma? Reports of hearing and dreaming and feeling? People who feel during surgery under anesthesia?
Your brain naturally paralyses you in deep sleep, you can’t feel your body, are you still alive?
Ask anyone who’s had a case of sleep paralysis (many people, millions). Were they dead? Ask them. Look up the stories of horror and terror.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Brain-death/Pages/Diagnosis.aspx

Brain death will be diagnosed if a person fails to respond to all of these tests.

Occasionally, a person’s limbs or torso (the upper part of the body) may move, even after brain stem death has been diagnosed.

These spinal reflex movements are generated by the spinal cord and don’t involve the brain at all. Therefore, they won’t affect the diagnosis of brain death.

err what wut wtf scared rdj

The cerebellum is part of the brain. It’s a motor control system.
http://neuroscience.uth.tmc.edu/s3/chapter05.html

Has brain stem death ever been incorrectly diagnosed?

From the available evidence, the answer is no.

Note the legal dodge there.
Comforting.
You can be moving, in BP distress, and you’ll be able to hear them calling you dead.

http://www.nursingtimes.net/communicating-with-unconscious-patients/200542.fullarticle

Studies of patients’ memories of their unconscious state indicate that they heard and understood conversations. Lawrence (1995) found that unconscious patients could hear and respond emotionally to verbal communication. One patient, when being neurologically assessed, understood the nurse’s request to squeeze her hand but was unable to move. Another stated: ‘I could think and I could hear, but I could not move and I could not talk or open my eyes.’

Medical ethicists are justifying this. Pretty sure I’ve posted this before but…

https://aeon.co/essays/should-we-harvest-organs-from-patients-who-are-not-dead-yet

From a “professor of philosophy” – brain death is a philosophical term, there is no neuroscientific evidence for it. No neuroscientist would feel comfort calling it, it cannot be proven, it is simply impossible to measure.

As the Doctor in the wired article says;

“Death is really a process.”

If your organs are dead, why do they want you to donate them? How can they live on in another if they didn’t work for you? It’s tautological, calling death, creating death, calling death while using the proof of original death to give life somehow.

I agree with the BMJ author.

“We believe that removing vital organs from a still living donor is the taking of innocent human life.”

Organ donation is murder.

As for ‘presumed consent’.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3363073/

Human rights stand clear against it, despite how it’s come in in Wales.
If we own anything in this life, we own our bodies. No means no. The state cannot make active medical decisions prior to the will of the patient (the opt-out system). There are numerous cases of NHS data fraud and data sales and data loss. What’s to stop someone adding you to the registry, for their own personal reasons? From the outside, no system is uncrackable, magically exempt from hacking.
They can no more say “you’re selfish for keeping your organs for burial” than to tell a rape victim “you’re selfish for not sharing your vagina.” Why is the stranger family of an unchosen donor (who might’ve brought their illness on themselves) more important than the potential donor’s? Why aren’t donors paid, if everyone else is? Plenty of religions state the body must remain intact for reception to Heaven, going back to the days of mummification. Who owns your organs? The people calling this selfish, have they donated a kidney while they’re still alive? Then they’re as selfish as everyone else who dare call their very cells their own.

How dead do you have to be, to be cut open for organs?

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204603004577269910906351598

Not as much as you’d hope.

“”I like my dead people cold, stiff, gray and not breathing,” says Dr. Michael A. DeVita of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “The brain dead are warm, pink and breathing.”

You might also be emitting brainwaves. Most people are surprised to learn that many people who are declared brain dead are never actually tested for higher-brain activity. The 1968 Harvard committee recommended that doctors use electroencephalography (EEG) to make sure the patient has flat brain waves. Today’s tests concentrate on the stalk-like brain stem, in charge of basics such as breathing, sleeping and waking. The EEG would alert doctors if the cortex, the thinking part of your brain, is still active.

But various researchers decided that this test was unnecessary,[sureeee]  so it was eliminated from the mandatory criteria in 1971. They reasoned that, if the brain stem is dead, the higher centers of the brain are also probably dead. [comforting]

But in at least two studies before the 1981 Uniform Determination of Death Act, some “brain-dead” patients were found to be emitting brain waves. One, from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in the 1970s, found that out of 503 patients who met the usual criteria of brain death, 17 showed activity in an EEG.

Even some of the sharpest critics of the brain-death criteria argue that there is no possibility that donors will be in pain during the harvesting of their organs. One, Robert Truog, professor of medical ethics, anesthesia and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, compared the topic of pain in an organ donor to an argument over “whether it is OK to kick a rock.” [is he on the register?]

But BHCs (beating heart cadavers) —who don’t receive anesthetics during an organ harvest operation—react to the scalpel like inadequately anesthetized live patients, exhibiting high blood pressure and sometimes soaring heart rates. Doctors say these are simply reflexes.

What if there is sound evidence that you are alive after being declared brain dead? In a 1999 article in the peer-reviewed journal Anesthesiology, Gail A. Van Norman, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Washington, reported a case in which a 30-year-old patient with severe head trauma began breathing spontaneously after being declared brain dead. The physicians said that, because there was no chance of recovery, he could still be considered dead. The harvest proceeded over the objections of the anesthesiologist, who saw the donor move, and then react to the scalpel with hypertension.

Organ transplantation—from procurement of organs to transplant to the first year of postoperative care—is a $20 billion per year business. Recipients of single-organ transplants—heart, intestine, kidney, liver, single and double lung and pancreas—are charged an average $470,000, ranging from $288,000 for a kidney transplant to $1.2 million for an intestine transplant, according to consulting firm Milliman. Neither donors nor their families can be paid for organs.

It is possible that not being a donor on your license can give you more bargaining power. If you leave instructions with your next of kin, they can perhaps negotiate a better deal. Instead of just the usual icewater-in-the-ears, why not ask for a blood-flow study to make sure your cortex is truly out of commission? [brainstem tests in the UK are medieval, and there’s a good chance you could be awake for these < same brainstem that beats the heart btw, but sure, I guess it’s probably dead…]

And how about some anesthetic? Although he doesn’t believe the brain dead feel pain, Dr. Truog has used two light anesthetics, high-dose fentanyl and sufentanil, which won’t harm organs, to quell high blood pressure or heart rate during harvesting operations. “If it were my family,” he said, “I’d request them.”” [big clue, nudge nudge. Translation: They’d be doing that to my relatives over my dead body.]

You see, the agreed-upon Medical Death is both brain and heart, because of trouble establishing one for certain, it’s a fail-safe to prevent premature burial.
As a University of Minnesota bioethicist explains on an embarrassingly 90s style webpage;

However, the definition of death is open and flexible, at least to some degree.
Death might be closer to a process than an instant.
And when we are considering organ-transplantation, it is especially important to have the organs as alive as possible, so that the organs can resume their functions in the body of the recipient.
Death must be declared before any cutting and harvesting begins.
Otherwise, the transplant surgeons might be accused of causing death by removing vital organs.

Let’s review: your heart can be beating (BHC). Your brain can be firing (any part of it, for argument’s sake). You don’t need anesthetic to be cut open on the word of a single doctor pronouncing your ‘death’, who isn’t doing the scalpel cutting. Because you wrote your name on a register, trusting them to ensure you were actually dead first (when the organs are necrotic and useless). Gee! I wonder why the donations rates are so low!

And as psychology goes on, more states of brain ‘awareness’ are discovered in what we used to consider unconscious or, yes, brain dead. The lights are down, but somebody is home.
http://www.livescience.com/39761-brain-activity-deep-coma.html
http://www.livescience.com/14559-brain-losing-consciousness-3d.html
http://www.livescience.com/39812-strange-consciousness-state-in-surgery.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140609153429.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131202082316.htm < this one is interesting “Uniform protocols, standards for determining brain death needed”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130918180246.htm