Cellular memory transfer and GMO human babies

https://www.medicaldaily.com/can-organ-transplant-change-recipients-personality-cell-memory-theory-affirms-yes-247498

At the School of Nursing at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, researchers sought to evaluate whether changes experienced by organ transplant recipients were parallel to the history of the donor. Researchers focused on 10 patients who received a heart transplant and found two to five parallels per patient post-surgery in relation to their donor’s history. The parallels that were observed in the study were changes in food, music, art, sexual, recreational, and career preferences in addition to name associations and sensory experiences. In the study, a patient received a heart transplant from a man who was killed by gunshot to the face, and the organ recipient then reported to have dreams of seeing hot flashes of light directly on his face.

Yet they won’t spring for 3D printing.

Hope the new liver doesn’t turn you gay.

The nurture people can’t really explain this, especially changes in politics.

Either that or the people are literally being haunted. Isn’t organ donation a kinda necromancy, if you think about it?

If it was dead, it is. If it wasn’t, a person was murdered. Either explains the almost haunting plot of these ‘memories’.

https://www.medicaldaily.com/will-genetically-modified-babies-live-shorter-or-longer-lives-436367

artificially breeding twin babies with genes resistant to HIV.

stolen European genes developed with plague resistance?

We already exist.

“Similarly, professors of genetics at Berkeley, Rasmus Nielsen and Xinzhu Wei, have proven that people of British ancestry with the CCR5 mutation have a 21 percent higher risk of dying between the ages 41 and 78. The information was acquired from the U.K. Biobank, a database with genetic informatic on nearly half a million U.K. citizens.”

Removing a gene is not a simple thing, it could be there for important reasons.

It is NOT a code. It’s a living being.

“The scientists are of the view that laws of natural selection intended for human beings to have the gene, since the protein is required for various functional purposes and if it were dangerous, the protein would have been destroyed by evolution naturally.”

White human beings.

“The CCR5-∆32 mutation is found in 11 percent of Northern Europeans and is uncommon in Asians, so unfortunately Jiankui’s genetic alteration has no sample to predict its results. Only time will tell.”

Asia wants to genocide us. The only reason they’d want to steal our genetic advantages. War.

If we’re still alive, why do they need to snip out parts of our DNA now? Why the urgency? White people have a right to our own DNA, exclusively. We evolved that through events like civil wars and the Ice Age, we earned it.

It belongs to us.

Genetic AA wouldn’t even be good for them.

Technically they wouldn’t be Asian anymore but transracial. But we evolve as complete beings for a reason. If you cut and paste, you’ll actually harm the organism. The foreign cells still react to the white DNA. Various disease risks, morons. Ah, but it isn’t about HIV, is it? They suppose a nootropic effect, all these Asian-stealing open borders DNA experiments are about muh IQ. North Europeans are the clue.

But wait, why steal white DNA if, as they claim, they’re already superior?

Cause they lyin’.

Christians cannot support organ ‘donation’

They should push for organs to be lab-grown, which has no strings, but isn’t “free” for the hospitals.
At least in the 18th century, doctors waited until you’d been buried before cutting you up for the socialist “common good”.

Brain-dead doesn’t exist, it’s a guess, like brain “damage”.

It’s odd Americans will fuss about unborn babies but totally ignore ritual butchery of alive adults and children.

You are most vulnerable in hospitals, why did the oldest of the elderly avoid them so? How did they become so old?

The vultures even pressure parents of children with brain conditions with spiritualist New Age nonsense about “living on”. That’s abusive. You know the way they can live on? Not to murder them like yanking carrots out of a garden plot. Physicalism is a cancer, it flouts every religious system, which advises NOT to disjoint the body parts. It is anti-religion and threatens or shames people with religion (who believe in a soul).

The body can’t be “put out” if it’s “donating” and why would they waste pain relief on someone they claim cannot feel?

Bear in mind, neuroscience has proven alternate states of consciousness. Simple EEGs are not done.

Interestingly, if you ask to see the donor cards of a vulture saying what others should do, they don’t have one or it’s a convincing replica.

Then there’s memory transfer, some heart cells in particular have been known to act like neurons. They won’t research why because the families won’t give away the memories (Egyptian soul) of their relatives.

Yah…. cos THAT’s the point where it becomes evil, right?

Not that you’re betraying your relative or spouse to psychopaths too tight to pay laboratories for clean specimens with far higher success rates (more hospital trips and complications, they make even more money).

Two doctors can “declare” you brain-dead as you sit there reading this, grab the rib crackers (don’t look them up) and cut out your still-beating heart for someone THEY deem more worthy to live than you… and that’s legally kosher.

Legal, but not moral.

The SJWs willing to trust any shrink will probably meet that fate.

Declare =/= Prove

How to prove a negative?

The propaganda is heavily anecdotal, one-sided, emotional and vaguely fascist e.g. the government owns your organs.
https://www.kidneycareuk.org/news-and-campaigns/news/organ-donation-bill-passes-final-stage-house-lords/

Oh, openly fascist now apparently.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2019/march/royal-assent-organ-donation-deemed-consent-bill-signed-into-law/

This Bill, presented by Mr Geoffrey Robinson, will allow for consent to organ donation in England to be deemed to have been given by a potential adult organ donor before their death unless they have expressly stated that they did not wish to be an organ donor or an exception applies.

I’m sure “lost paperwork” won’t be a factor if your organs happen to be pristine.

Mistakes won’t be made.

You can’t sue to get the organs back, I presume?

And what about a surplus? They sell them. The family see no money.

This is often referred to as an “opt-out” system of consent as people may “opt-out” of becoming an organ donor on the premise that they do not consent.

Organ rape.

You cannot assume consent.

Libertarians are weak.

Objectification, humanity butchered to view us as meat. Everyone just lost their human rights, their property right to their body, and they’re so idiotic they celebrate?

At which age are you assumed to consent to being cut up like a hog?

The lamb praising the slaughter.

The Nazis weren’t this bad, how’s a baby to vouch non-consent? They ‘allow’ those donations. Placentas are stolen.

The NHS already promises you ‘first dibs’ on organs if you donate one yourself. This is evil.

You don’t need to go to Asia to be robbed of a kidney. Anyone thinking this is ‘nice’ can give their liver to the chavs down the road now.

Each according to his need, morons.

Old people aren’t informed, nobody got a letter about this. They’re just saying they can gut you.

The brain is the final organ to die. Hearing goes last.

Remember, the doctors are just following orders.

They brought this in because families kept saying No.

The Nazis were great humanitarians, they “harvested” so many organs.

“Fascism is capitalism in decay.” – Lenin

Missing babies

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-41122888

Not to be funny, but is she sure the child had actually passed or wasn’t simply “pronounced” dead so they could take it away and do whatever they wanted?

It’s a very big difference. The rush to take it away before she saw it suggests latter.

If it was only pronounced, it could’ve been sold.

You can give children drugs so the pulse becomes impossible to detect without machines.
This can convince relatives to be blackmailed into “organ donation” aka human butchery.

Children and especially young women go “missing” in morgues all the time.

Note the gaslighting as she asked questions – the State owns you all like cattle and your consent doesn’t really matter.

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.

Video: Dear White people (of Black Lives Matter)

This whole thing is stupid. Not the video, the frame.

No, the same people who push abortion, don’t get to say ANY lives matter.
If a baby’s life doesn’t matter, a pure innocent in every way, certainly no adult does.
Typical Millennial scum refusing responsibility.

And it begs the question most people never ask: matter to whom?
To their parents?
No. Or they wouldn’t turn to crime. Ironically, the abortion spikes are the recognized reason in criminology that violent crime has gone down from what would be expected. I endorse r-type abortion for this reason, they have no maternal instinct whatsoever, why should we pay for their ‘mistake’.
To society?
No. White people in particular are often told society hates us, we are evil incarnate and we should stay away from everything. We don’t owe anything. We’re staying away, like you told us too. I’m sure black people don’t need white people to swoop in and solve their problems, that would be like, racism or something.
They’re collectivists, aren’t they? These “protesters”?
Are they saying they should matter: To all of us?
How the fuck does that work? (it doesn’t, or we aren’t free)
They’re adults. I don’t owe them sympathy, let alone something more.
They’re in the same boat as the rest of us. Get it together or fuck off. Why should I put my life ahead of yours, when I’ve followed the rules, the laws and done everything right, while you did the opposite and get rewarded for it?

I’m not playing, fam. 

Here’s the brutal truth: most people are unimportant.
Odds are, we won’t be special snowflakes. History will forget us.
Most Lives Don’t Matter. 

This is enforced at every level.
War. Poverty. Crime.
A life’s only objective value without proving its own worth, can be calculated by the sum total of your healthy organs viable for donation.
Your life has a dollar value.
Suck it up, buttercup.