Showing posts with label dehumanization. Show all posts

   Surgeons in America are possibly about to get a new set of guidelines as far as organ donation is concerned. If these new guidelines are adopted the definitions of death and patient rights will be redefined. In our modern society the rights of the individual are overshadowed by the rights and dictates of the experts. With the current organ donor regulations there are a number of tests and consents that need to be performed in order to confirm death before organs can be taken from a patient for donation. The new regulations being considered will destroy the rights of sick patients, and even possibly lead to undue deaths and (horrifically) organ harvesting. The question is how long will it take doctors to begin to weigh the benefits of the profits of an organ donation/transplant or struggling to keep a patient alive, possibly saving their life. The new guide lines would include:

• After the donor's heart has stopped surgeons will not have to wait to make sure it doesn't start beating again before removing organs
• Ban on considering anyone to be a potential donor before doctors and family members have independently decided to stop trying to save them will be eliminated
• Confirmatory tests will no longer have to be performed to assure the family and the hospital professional staff that the patient is dead

Are we moving closer to a society like China's (which I've covered earlier) where fresh organs become an industry for the wealthy?
________________________________________________________

Surgeons won't have to wait to make sure a heart has stopped beating before harvesting organs under new guidelines

Surgeons retrieving organs to be transplanted just after a patient's heart has stopped beating will no longer have to wait to make sure it doesn't start up again if new proposals are adopted.
At present when doctors are retrieving organs they have to wait at least two minutes to ensure it doesn't spontaneously start again.
Critics now fear seriously ill patients could be viewed more like tissue banks than sick people if the plans to change rules about organ donation go ahead.
There is currently a ban on considering anyone to be a potential donor before doctors and family members have independently decided to stop trying to save them.
That is poised to be eliminated if the plans by the group that co-ordinates organ allocation in the United States are adopted.
The proposed changes by the United Network for Organ Sharing, the Richmond nonprofit organization that coordinates organ donation under a contract with the federal government, are part of the first major overhaul of the 2007 guidelines governing “donation after cardiac death,” or DCD, which accounted for 6% of the 28,000 organs transplanted in 2010.
Champions of the proposals claim the changes strengthen the transplant system because they align the rules with other regulatory bodies and better ensure that the wishes of donors and their loved ones are honoured without sacrificing necessary protections.
Charles Alexander, a former president of UNOS, said: 'The ultimate goal is to facilitate the dying wishes of patients who wish to be donors and save the lives of the 112,000-plus patients who are in need. We are always very aware of our public trust.'
Critics, however, say the move heightens the risk that potential donors will be treated more like tissue banks than like sick people deserving every chance to live, or to die peacefully.
Michael A. Grodin, a professor of health law, bioethics and human rights at Boston University, said: 'This is another step towards this idea of hovering, hovering, hovering to get more organs. The bottom line is that they want to do everything they can to increase organ donation.'
The 16-page proposal has resurrected the controversial debate over what it means to be dead.
It was drafted over a year by the 22-member UNOS organ procurement organization committee.
The UNOS board will convene in November in Atlanta to finalize the revisions, which include officially shifting the guidelines from 'model elements' to 'requirements.'
'We want the process to happen the way it’s supposed to happen to avoid any questions or problems,' Alexander said.
Donation after cardiac death involves surgeons taking organs within minutes of respirators and other forms of life support have being cut off from patients who still have at least some brain activity.
DCD had been the norm for organ donors before 'brain death' became the standard in the early 1970s. Since then, most donors have been brain-dead.
But as the number of people needing transplants rose, doctors in the 1990s began reviving what was then called 'non-beating heart' donation.
DCD has become a growing source of organs as the gap between the number of patients waiting for transplants and the number of available organs has widened.
About 6,000 Americans die each year while waiting for donated organs. There were almost 14,000 transplants between January and June this year with just under 7,000 donors.
The current waiting list for transplants stands at more than 112,000 people.

According to recent reports scientists are working on making gelatin that is manufactured using human DNA. In the long process of dehumanizing us all this is the latest to attack our humanity. In this new process yeast engineered with human DNA would be used to produce human gelatin.
With dehumanization being one of the major components that contribute to humanity's apathy to the problems in the world, this would be a huge step in the direction of utter apathy. Whether actively aware or subconscious to the components of our food this would be introducing an indirect form of cannibalism to all of us. Regardless of any health issues this causes a problem because in order to fix our problems we need to stand up and defend the sanctity of human life.
Defend the sanctity of life and don't let us turn into Soylent Green.

Do you fancy a jelly baby made from human DNA?

Reports last week that researchers could be just six months away from producing the world’s first artificial meat, using thousands of stem cells bred in a laboratory, sent a wave of fascination around the world. Yet there is an even more ghoulish prospect ahead: the idea of eating artificial food made from humans.
This may sound like science fiction, yet a new technique for making gelatin from human DNA is attracting “increasing interest from research and industrial circles”, according to a new study by scientists from the Beijing University of Chemical Technology. The paper, published recently in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, revealed that successful experiments had been carried out in which human genes were inserted into a strain of yeast to “grow” large amounts of recombinant (genetically engineered) human gelatin.
read entire article

There are many casualties amongst the wars, increasing economic turmoil, and chaos of modern society. One of the most tragic casualties is our humanity. Human life is belittled in so many ways in the fast paced modern world. We learn the low cost of human life in various ways. Whether it is through our media, or even from our countries economic practices we see that human life is worthless to most people.
The western world is aware of the low cost manufacturing capabilities of the developing world. Each day we benefit (as we suffer from job loss) from the low cost labor from countries like China. most people know of the near slave conditions in these factories which Americans help establish. 
While the labor issues and many other human rights issues of China are known to be a problem their is a darker corner of Chinese human rights. The sell the organs of prisoners within China. The selling of the organs are not only to the Chinese, but to health tourists that buy the organs for transplant at a premium for their freshness. China has been known for controversies in other areas for mistreatment of prisoners bodies for the use in art exhibits. 
When we sit back and do business with countries that are so dehumanize or line up for art exhibits made up of political (thought) criminals we put our souls in jeopardy as well. This begins our march down a dangerous path. What makes you think your own life will be viewed as untouchable once the tyranny we support comes home to roost. 
Here is an article from the Scotsman describing their discovery of the horror of organ harvesting from prisoner:

Glasgow's twin city is selling living prisoners' organs to health tourists

Ahead of an international conference today in Glasgow about organ harvesting, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee said the illegal practice is rife in Dalian, a city in north east China with which Scotland's largest city has been twinned since 1987.

Delegates attending the event - hosted by Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting (DAFOH) - will hear claims the Chinese regime removes organs from prisoners who are still alive and that wealthy "health tourists" travel to China to buy kidneys and livers available on the black market.

Speakers include, David Matas, a Canadian human rights lawyer who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize last year for exposing China's illegal organ trade.

The victims of China's organ business are said to be mainly people arrested for practising Falun Gong, a spiritual movement banned by the CCP. Falun The CCP claims Falun Gong is a dangerous cult and outlawed it for "illegal activities" in 1999.

Mr Matas is co-author of Bloody Harvest - The Killing of Falun Gong for their Organs, for which he received his Nobel nomination last year. His investigation with David Kilgour, a former Canadian secretary of state for Asia-Pacific, revealed that in addition to using organs from executed prisoners, China has gone to the point of harvesting organs from living "prisoners of conscience".
read the entire article

    There are those in the world that seek to alter the perceptions of the rest of us. Through this alteration of perception they mold our minds to tolerate behavior that otherwise would be unacceptable. Through these deviations in our morals we leave our civilization vulnerable to further decay and degradation. Through most of recent history mankind has been going through numerous alterations of our collective moral compass. Within the noble justification of freedom of choice we have forgotten why there were strict taboos. Without vigilance we become more and more vulnerable as each taboo is broken down. With each compromise of our virtue the future becomes more uncertain, because we can never know how far down a chosen path one will try to take us. Progress should not be feared but to do so without proper foresight can release a slow acting venom into the stream on consciousness that can be used to bend our wills or kill all we have.
      At this point and time it is appalling to most to think of something as pedophilia as becoming normal.  This very taboo is attempting to be broke, and there is evidence that this attempt has been underway for quite some time now. We have already been bombarded by the idea through stories in movies and music. Most of us have also been made to feel uncomfortable seeing young boys/girls depicted on TV/movies as sex symbols. The most difficult question about this is to answer why you would want to do such a thing. The short answer is that out of social chaos you can remold society to your own liking (example: Some aspects of Nazism was a manipulated rural conservative backlash against the degradation of social life in the urban areas). The people became mailable and prepared to be changed one way or the other.
     The other question who would work towards the breaking down of such taboos. In this most recent article it is the group named B4U-ACT. At a confrence that this group is holding seeks to have pedophilia reclassified so not all pedophiles are criminals. In a run up to the publication of the newest addition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) there are those who want to see the definition of pedophilia redefined. This group is made up of pedophiles (minor attracted peoples, as they call themselves) and psychologists who wish to see them gain a measure of acceptance in society. The redefining of pedophile to minor attracted person is just an attempt to make you have an emotional response to a person that is seen as a criminal because of sexual preference. From the article (linked here) discussing the conference:

Child advocate Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting professor at Liberty University’s School of Law, said the conference is part of a strategy to condition people into accepting pedophiles.
“The first thing they do is to get the public to divest from thinking of what the offender does criminally, to thinking of the offender’s emotional state, to think of him as thinking of his emotional state, [and] to empathize and sympathize,” Reisman said. “You don’t change the nation in one fell swoop; you have to change it by conditioning. The aim is to get them [pedophiles] out of prison.”

Whenever a definition is being manipulated future generation become vulnerable to the repercussions of forgetting the original meanings. How far down the path will we slip?
      As this group tries to manipulate our understanding of a very clear cut issue today, the major leap towards this direction was made by Alfred Kinsey. In his Rockefeller Foundation funded Kinsey Report he chipped away at all the sexual taboos of the past. He used numerous study methods that skewed our understanding of sexuality to be closer aligned with perversion than reality. In his study of human sexuality subjects were taken from prisons, prostitutes, and known pedophiles. The perversion went so far as to have the perceived orgasms of infants be induced and recorded by recruited pedophiles (to see all about the Kinsey Report see the documentaries posted below). It is impossible to derive a clear understanding of human sexuality from a deviant test subject. Possibly the worst result of this report is that so much of our modern understanding of human sexuality comes from these studies. Since we have already accepted this we have already begun to travel the road of deviance.
    Besides a researcher of human sexuality who is Alfred Kinsey? Some would say a pedophile or sexual deviant himself. More importantly is who enabled Kinsey's studies to become world renowned. It is the Rockefeller Foundation that funded the work he did. Even to the extent of having a institute at Indiana University to do his work.
    Why is the Rockefeller Foundation's involvement so important when there are lone deviants all over the world. Not ever deviant has their work funded and promoted through such a powerful tax exempt foundation. It has been proven in the past that the tax exempt foundations have an agenda for America. It is through their grants and far reaching influence that they desire to remold America to their vision. The Select Committee to Investigate Tax-Exempt Foundations and Comparable Organizations or known as the Reece Committee was charged with finding out what the mission of these foundations are (you can hear the head researcher Norman Dodd discuss his findings in the previous post). In short it was found that through their grants they wanted to cause a revolution of thought in America to accept a new American way in their vision.
     What part could pedophilia play in this new America? It is hard to tell. It could be that those in power have a sad predisposition towards pedophilia and sexual deviation of numerous forms (corporations and all political systems are rife with sexual deviants, scandals and crimes - Documentary Conspiracy of Silence, article A history of political sex scandals). It could also be an attempt to baby step us into a chaotic society where we will become apathetic to the victims and results of all deviancy. Whatever the answers may be it is up to us to reclaim or own perception and be on guard for attacks upon it. Who knows where the next victim is, but in this case it is children. If we do not stand up to protect our children what future do we have?
_______________________________________________________________________



The Kinsey Syndrome 1 of 17  (Full 17 Part Playlist)


Kinsey's Paedophiles


_____________________________________________________________________

Updated recent news on the subject:
'Paedophilia is Hollywood's biggest problem,' explosive claim by former child star Corey Feldman

The Lost Boys actor said he was 'literally surrounded' by paedophiles at the age of 14, but didn't realise 'until I was much older what they were and what they wanted.'

If this is allowed to stand it will create a dangerous precedent for corporations being able to own parts of your genetic make up. Who knows what freedoms will be curtailed for those of us that have patented genes.

Who Owns Your Genes? The Case Continues…

Today, a divided appellate court upheld patents on two human genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. The ruling partially reverses a landmark decision by a federal district court in March 2010 that concluded that human genes cannot be patented. The appellate court did affirm the district court’s invalidation of several claims on methods for comparing two genetic sequences.
The decision today allows companies like Myriad Genetics, which controls the patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, to exclude others from testing and conducting research on patented genes. Patients who want to obtain genetic testing to determine whether they are at risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer have only one option for full genetic sequencing: Myriad Genetics. Myriad decides what tests are offered, which mutations are included, at what cost, and what research can be conducted without fear of patent infringement liability.
The Supreme Court, the court that would hear any appeal, has long held that products of nature are not patentable subject matter. A gene, even once removed from the cell, remains a product of nature. The patentholder did not “invent” the genetic information it embodies, and we will continue to fight for that principle.