Hospitals harvest organs from donors who are still alive.

Infowars - com

<h2>Claim Review: Hospitals Harvest Organs From Donors Who Are STILL ALIVE</h2>
<p>Infowars recently claimed that hospitals harvest organs from donors who are still alive. Dr. Heidi Klessig, M.D., appeared on Children’s Health Defense (CHD) TV to warn people that registering to be an organ donor puts them in danger of having their organs harvested from their bodies while they are still alive.</p>
<p>Dr. Klessig argues that when people register to be organ donors, they are not informed that brain death does not mean biological death. She cites cases where individuals declared braindead have delivered healthy babies and suggests that organ donors may recover if not taken advantage of by the organ transplant industry.</p>
<h3>Understanding Brain Death</h3>
<p>Brain death is a medically recognized state of death. According to the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3565687/">National Institutes of Health</a>, brain death occurs when all functions of the brain, including the brainstem, have permanently and irreversibly ceased. This is determined through a series of rigorous tests and evaluations.</p>
<p>While it is true that a person declared braindead may still have a beating heart and functioning organs, this is due to the use of mechanical ventilation and other life support measures. The person is considered legally and medically dead because the brain, which controls all bodily functions, has ceased to function.</p>
<h3>Organ Donation Procedures</h3>
<p>Organ donation procedures are strictly regulated to ensure ethical practices. The <a href="https://www.organdonor.gov/about/donation-process.html">U.S. Department of Health and Human Services</a> outlines the process, which includes obtaining consent from the donor or their family, conducting medical evaluations, and ensuring that the donor is medically suitable for donation.</p>
<p>Organ procurement organizations (OPOs) work closely with hospitals to facilitate the donation process. The decision to declare brain death and the process of organ donation are separate and independent, ensuring that the best interests of the patient are always prioritized.</p>
<h3>Addressing Specific Cases</h3>
<p>Dr. Klessig mentions two cases where individuals declared braindead may have been able to recover. However, these cases are not representative of the standard medical practice. In rare instances, there may be controversies or misunderstandings, but these do not negate the established medical criteria for brain death.</p>
<p>The case of Terrance Howard, a 19-year-old athlete, and Amber Ebanks, a 23-year-old business student, are cited as examples. While these cases are tragic, they do not provide evidence that organ donation procedures are routinely unethical or that hospitals harvest organs from living donors.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>The claim that hospitals harvest organs from donors who are still alive is misleading and not supported by scientific evidence. Brain death is a medically recognized state of death, and organ donation procedures are strictly regulated to ensure ethical practices. While there may be rare cases of controversy, the overall system is designed to prioritize the best interests of the patient and the ethical procurement of organs.</p>
<p>For more information on organ donation and brain death, please refer to reliable sources such as the <a href="https://www.organdonor.gov/">U.S. Department of Health and Human Services</a> and the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/">National Institutes of Health</a>.</p>

Claim Review: Hospitals Harvest Organs From Donors Who Are STILL ALIVE

<p>The claim that hospitals willingly subjected patients to deadly protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic to generate financial incentives from the government has been circulating widely. This claim is based on testimonials from nurses and the analysis of author Ken McCarthy, who investigated the treatment protocols implemented during the height of the pandemic.</p><p>McCarthy's book, 'What the Nurses Saw,' alleges that hospitals followed dangerous protocols from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which were financially incentivized. One of the key issues highlighted is the use of the drug remdesivir, which was halted in Africa due to organ failure. Other factors contributing to high mortality rates included the denial of anti-inflammatory medications, the use of BiPAP masks, and the excessive use of ventilators.</p><p>However, the claim that hospitals were solely motivated by financial incentives is not supported by comprehensive evidence. A study analyzed more than 4,200 hospitals and found that over half did not experience financial distress due to COVID-19, even without government relief funds. Moreover, average operating margins increased from 2.8% before the pandemic to 6.5% from 2020 to 2021, indicating that many hospitals were financially stable or even profitable during this period.</p><p>It is important to note that the complexity of treating a novel virus like COVID-19 led to varied and sometimes ineffective treatment protocols. The use of remdesivir, for example, was based on initial studies suggesting its potential efficacy, but subsequent research has shown mixed results. The denial of anti-inflammatory medications and the use of ventilators were also part of evolving treatment guidelines that were not universally effective.</p><p>Furthermore, the claim that hospitals were financially incentivized to keep patients on ventilators for extended periods is not substantiated by reliable scientific sources. The use of ventilators was based on medical necessity and the severity of the patient's condition, rather than financial incentives.</p><p>In conclusion, while there may have been instances of suboptimal treatment protocols and financial incentives, the claim that hospitals willingly subjected patients to deadly protocols for financial gain is largely unfounded. The treatment of COVID-19 patients was complex and evolved over time, reflecting the challenges of managing a novel virus.</p>

Claim Review: Hospitals Subjected Patients to Deadly Protocols for Financial Gain

<p>The claim that hospitals treated far more people for Covid shot side effects than unvaccinated patients for Covid infections has been circulating, based on a journal article published in October 2024. However, a thorough examination of the study and its findings reveals several issues that cast doubt on the validity of this claim.</p>
<p>The journal article in question reported that 5.69% of respondents were hospitalized due to vaccination adverse events, compared to 1.49% hospitalized due to Covid infection. While these numbers may seem alarming at first glance, it is crucial to consider the context and limitations of the study.</p>
<p>Firstly, the study primarily focused on gender differences in Covid-related outcomes and endocrine systems, not on comparing hospitalization rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The data on hospitalizations was a secondary finding and not the main objective of the research.</p>
<p>Secondly, the study relied on self-reported data from a global survey, which can introduce biases and inaccuracies. Self-reported data is not as reliable as clinical data collected in a controlled setting. Participants may misinterpret or misreport their experiences, leading to skewed results.</p>
<p>Thirdly, the study did not provide detailed information on the severity of the adverse events leading to hospitalization. It is possible that some of the reported hospitalizations were for minor or temporary side effects that did not pose a significant health risk.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the study did not account for the overall number of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the population. Without this context, it is impossible to determine whether the hospitalization rates are representative of the broader population.</p>
<p>It is also important to note that numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines. For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107058">The New England Journal of Medicine</a> &nbsp;found that the mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing Covid-19 infections and severe outcomes.</p>
<p>Another study published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(22)00001-7/fulltext">The Lancet</a> &nbsp;concluded that the benefits of Covid-19 vaccines far outweigh the risks, with adverse events being rare and generally mild.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that hospitals treated more people for Covid shot side effects than unvaccinated patients for Covid infections is not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The study cited has significant limitations and does not provide conclusive data to support this claim. It is essential to rely on peer-reviewed research and expert analysis when evaluating claims about public health issues.</p>

Claim Review: Hospitals Treated More People for Covid Shot Side Effects than Unvaccinated Patients for Covid Infections

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose claims that the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) and the World Health Organization (WHO) employ 200 fortune tellers to find the pathogen that could cause the next pandemic. This claim is misleading and inaccurate. Let's delve into the details to understand the truth behind this claim.</p>
<h2>Understanding the Claim</h2>
<p>The article suggests that CEPI and WHO are using unscientific methods, akin to fortune-telling, to predict the next pandemic pathogen. It also implies that these efforts are driven by the vaccine industry and individuals like Bill Gates.</p>
<h2>The Truth Behind the Claim</h2>
<p>CEPI and WHO are indeed involved in efforts to prepare for future pandemics. However, these efforts are based on scientific research and collaboration, not fortune-telling. The WHO R&amp;D Blueprint for Epidemics is a global platform for research and development collaboration, focusing on medical countermeasures, including vaccines.</p>
<p>The report mentioned in the article is the result of a meeting held in May 2024, where over 200 scientists from more than 50 countries collaborated to evaluate the evidence related to 28 Viral Families and one core group of Bacteria, encompassing 1,652 pathogens. The goal is to investigate entire families of pathogens that can infect humans, develop knowledge and tools for entire pathogen families, foster research that generates knowledge, tools, and countermeasures that can be rapidly adapted to emerging threats, and encourage globally coordinated research efforts.</p>
<h2>Scientific Basis</h2>
<p>The approach taken by CEPI and WHO is grounded in scientific principles. Pathogen prioritisation is a process aimed at categorising pathogens according to their public health importance, antimicrobial resistance, and potential for epidemic or pandemic spread. This is not fortune-telling but a systematic and evidence-based approach to prepare for future health threats.</p>
<p>For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0895-3">Nature Medicine</a> discusses the importance of preparedness for future pandemics through scientific research and collaboration. The study highlights the need for a proactive approach to identify and mitigate potential pandemic threats.</p>
<h2>Addressing Misconceptions</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose misrepresents the efforts of CEPI and WHO by comparing them to fortune-telling. This is a misleading analogy that undermines the scientific basis of these efforts. The claim that these efforts are driven by the vaccine industry and individuals like Bill Gates is also unfounded. While it is true that CEPI was co-founded and co-funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, among others, this does not imply that the efforts are unscientific or driven by profit motives.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that CEPI and WHO employ 200 fortune tellers to find the pathogen that could cause the next pandemic is false. The efforts of CEPI and WHO are based on scientific research and collaboration, aimed at preparing for future pandemics through a systematic and evidence-based approach. The misleading and inaccurate claims in the article from The Expose should be disregarded.</p>

Claim Review: CEPI and WHO Employ 200 Fortune Tellers to Find the Pathogen That Could Cause the Next Pandemic

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Hospitals harvest organs from donors who are still alive." is Mostly False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: