The American Journal: NWO Falling Apart? Jacob Rothschild Dies, Klaus Schwab, Mitch McConnell, Victoria Nuland Step Down
“The American Journal” is live every weekday from 8-11 am CST.
The NWO is falling apart in live time! https://t.co/9hF0qwSr0Z
— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) May 22, 2024
Follow The American Journal on Telegram:
Zelensky Wants The US & Its Allies To Shoot Down Russian Missiles
The Ukrainian President cannot understand why NATO won’t get directly involved in the conflict with Russia. Vladimir Zelensky told the New York Times that the US and its allies should shoot down Russian missiles, give […]
The post Zelensky Wants The US & Its Allies To Shoot Down Russian Missiles appeared first on The People’s Voice.
WEF Founder Klaus Schwab To Step Down By Next Year
WEF founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab is to step down from his leadership role by 2025, according to reports. Meanwhile, a World Economic Forum spokesperson said that the organization was going to be “transforming […]
The post WEF Founder Klaus Schwab To Step Down By Next Year appeared first on The People’s Voice.
‘Brain Death’ is a Convenient Fiction for The Organ Harvesting Industry
(LifeSiteNews) — At least half, and probably closer to 90%, of organ donors declared brain dead are actually alive when their organs are removed.
This shocking fact is the impetus for a February 2024 statement endorsed by 151 Catholic health care professionals, theologians, philosophers, ethicists, lawyers, apologists, and pro-life advocates.
The statement, “Catholics United on Brain Death and Organ Donation: A Call to Action,” asks the faithful “to unite against utilization of the current brain death criteria” because these standards do not ensure that patients are dead when their organs are removed. It explains that current criteria for brain death establish only partial loss of brain function.
This dramatic clarification came about after a recent effort to lower the legal standard for death and updated so-called “brain death” guidelines issued in October 2023.
People assume when they agree to be an organ donor that their organs will be harvested only after their death.
The new statement calls attention to the question of whether current definitions of “brain death” align with Catholic doctrine, and more importantly, whether current medical practice on this topic contradicts Church teaching.
Published on February 27, 2024, the document was prepared by Joseph Eble, a physician and the president of the Tulsa Guild of the Catholic Medical Association; John Di Camillo, an ethicist of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC); and Peter Colosi, a philosophy professor at Salve Regina University.
According to another statement recently released by the NCBC, the Catholic Church has long encouraged organ transplantation if three ethical principles are respected: (1) the organ donor must be truly dead before vital organs are taken; the act of organ procurement must not kill the donor; (2) there must be free and informed consent; and (3) the act of donation must be a true gift, not a commercial transaction.”
The Catholics United statement came in response to an effort to change the Uniform Definition of Death Act (UDDA) and newly issued brain death guidelines. Both statements point out that patients can be declared dead despite continued function of the hypothalamus, which is part of the brain. In other words, secular medicine now advocates that a declaration of brain death can be signed even when the brain is still functioning. The Church has always opposed this.
The Catholics United signatories therefore agree that “the current brain death criteria in widespread use do not provide moral (prudential) certainty of death,” as established by scientific studies, because they “only establish partial loss of brain function.”
“If someone had told me most people are alive at the time their organs are harvested, I wouldn’t have believed them,” said Dr. Eble.”It doesn’t seem possible, but that’s the reality.”
Organs must be living and functional at the time of transplant. Once the donor is dead — biologically dead, not just brain dead — the organs begin to shut down immediately and, in a matter of minutes, the organs become unusable.
The motivation behind the diluted criteria for organ harvesting is the enormous organ procurement industry, now estimated to be worth $48 billion annually. Organ procurement organizations profit in direct proportion to the number of organs they harvest, so they have a compelling interest to convince families to allow them access to their loved ones.
“This is why they wanted to change the law,” stated Eble.
It is possible for a person to have no brain function and still be alive. Eble pointed to the case of a 4-year-old, “TK,” who lived over twenty years despite his brain being destroyed. His autopsy showed no brain tissue whatsoever, and yet his body was capable of absorbing nutrients andhealing wounds, as only the body of a living person could.
Eble pointed out that that the ability to make an accurate prognosis immediately after severe head injuries is quite limited. Such a patient is severely brain damaged, and the swelling in the brain mimics brain death, but the person is still alive. “I personally believe there’s sound medical evidence to show that such patients are not dead even though declared ‘brain dead’,” he declared.
“Given the lack of moral certainty of death whenever the current brain death criteria are used, a clear majority of vital organ donors can be presumed alive at the time of organ harvesting,” Catholics United affirmed. Since the Catholic Church forbids removing vital organs when this would kill the patient, “it is therefore wrong to remove organs from patients declared dead using these inadequate criteria.”
Eble described a “brain dead” person in a coma as having warm, supple, pink skin; the ability to sweat and move; and, if pregnant, capable of gestating a child. This person is biologically alive. Yet they can be declared ‘brain dead’ today, with the debate having shifted from the biological certainty of death to the philosophical realm of ‘brain death,’ which is obviously beneficial to those in the organ transplant industry.
“When you think about it, the soul is the principle of integration with the body. What unites all the structures and makes it into a living person is the body-soul composite,” Eble emphasized.
“Our statement unites Catholics on brain death and organ donation more than ever before,” he explained. “One of the most important aspects of the statement is that it provides Catholics in the pew with simple, actionable steps which will help them to ensure that the sacredness of human life is reverenced during their end-of-life care. We pray that this statement will help Catholics and pro-life groups to protect vulnerable patients at the end of life,
especially when it comes to organ donation.”
Those Catholic leaders who accept brain death say that patients declared dead in this way should be known to have “whole brain death.” However, some of the cosigners of the Catholics United statement do not believe that even ‘whole brain death’ is absolute biological death; they concur that it at least a stronger definition of death than the currently accepted, organ donor registry promoted, definition.
Catholics United urges the following recommendations:
- Declining to be an organ donor at the Department of Motor Vehicles.
- Refusing to be an organ donor after death in advance directives.
- Improving education on end-of-life care and organ donation at the pastoral level.
- Identifying criteria that will establish certainty of death.
- Advocating for conscience protection rights for health care professionals and institutions.
“We must remain very, very humble before the mystery of the human person, and we must be very, very cautious in speculating on the moment of death,” stated Eble. “We must be willing to reevaluate medical and legal norms in light of new scientific evidence—and always in light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. When certainty has not been achieved that a person is dead—and medical evidence continues to accumulate which should make us all increasingly uncertain that we can pinpoint the exact moment of death—we cannot risk ending a patient’s life by harvesting their organs. Therefore, following the sound advice of Pope Benedict XVI on the principle of precaution, we Catholics should oppose organ harvesting from ‘brain-dead’ patients.”
For centuries, death was universally recognized as no heartbeat, circulation, pulse, respiration, or sensation. Dr. Paul Byrne sees the term ‘brain death’ as intentionally coined to create a misleading and untrue definition of death.
While he understands the Catholics United statement as an effort to educate Catholics on the facts of organ donation and to encourage them to remove themselves from organ registries, he believes it is evil to condone the taking of an organ from a living person, and that even so-called “whole death” is not death.
“Death is an event,” he stated. “There is only one death. To think in terms of, ‘whole brain death’ or ‘partial brain death’ requires a confused thought process. Brain death is not death; I mean nothing against those who have been caught up in the invented lies to get healthy organs from a person with a beating heart, circulation, respiration, digestion of food, healing of wounds, etc. None of these occur in a cadaver. Such a patient has commonly been declared dead via fulfillment of UDDA, irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain including the brainstem.”
Dr. Byrne refers to several necessary conditions found in a dead person: disintegration, destruction, decay, decomposition, and putrefaction. He sees the challenge in trying to undo decades of lies and the incremental approach of the Catholics United position, but says, “it is morally wrong to accept the UDDA or a ‘whole brain death’ declaration. A physician has an obligation duty not to declare death unless the event of death has occurred.”
Dr. Eble highlighted the supernatural root of the debate: “The adversary is always seeking to divide, distract, deceive, and destroy. We have to see the element of spiritual warfare here in seeking unity on this issue.”
RELATED: ‘Brain death’ is a fallacy used to prop up the organ harvesting industry
EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
Italy, Eastern European Countries Reject EU’s Radical New Homosexual Declaration
(LifeSiteNews) — On May 17, the European Union released a statement by the High Representative on behalf of the EU for the so-called “International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia.” It was a declaration of the new Western values, calling on countries everywhere to “focus on fighting inequalities and multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination” to ensure that “justice” will “apply to everyone regardless of their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.”
The EU further declared that:
On IDAHOT Day, and every day, we call on governments around the world to repeal discriminatory legislation, take action to tackle and eliminate hate crimes and hate speech, prevent all forms of violence against LGBTI persons [sic], and tackle structural and institutional barriers and biases that still limit the participation of LGBTI persons [sic] in decision-making and political processes… The EU continues to work with partners on inclusive laws and policies.
At this point, internationally recognized “LGBT awareness periods” occupy much of the calendar year, making up a sort of post-Christian liturgical cycle. May 19 is “Agender Pride Day”; April 6 is “International Asexuality Day” (in which everyone presumably leaves each other alone); September 16-22 is “Bisexual Awareness Week,” followed by “Celebrate Bisexuality Day” on September 23; October 17-24 is “Genderfluid Visibility Week,” and July 19 is “Drag Day.” There are 26 internationally recognized “LGBT awareness” days (or weeks), with some countries having plenty of domestic days as well. Canada has moved from a four-week “Pride Month” to a four-month “Pride Season.” Federally funded, of course.
Notably, not all EU countries signed off on the recent declaration of fealty and obeisance to the LGBT agenda. Nine countries refused to sign, including more conservative countries such as Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Latvia, and Lithuania, but also Slovakia, the Czech Republic and, most surprisingly, Italy. The decision provoked fury amongst Italian LGBT activists and left-wing politicians, who launched protests against the Meloni government over the decision. (Press reports referred to these protests as “widespread,” but this seems to be an exaggeration intended to pressure the government rather than a report on reality.)
The declaration, although non-binding, was significant, as it was essentially a promise from the signatory states to, as one outlet noted, work on “implementing national strategies for LGBTQ+ people [sic] and appointing a new EU Commissioner for Equality following the upcoming EU parliamentary elections.” The declaration is, undoubtedly, a coup for the LGBT activists in Brussels, and thus the dissident countries faced enormous opprobrium. Family Minister Eugene Rocella, however, defended her government’s position in an interview with Il Messaggero.
Rocella stated that everyone can choose who to “have sexual relations with.” “But the freedom to ‘be who you want to be’ advocated in the document is an ideological constraint and a denial of reality because the reality of the body and sexual affiliation cannot be changed to the end,” she added. In short, Meloni’s government has realized what other politicians have been slower to identify – that the LGBT movement is demanding that even biological boundaries be eliminated in law.
“I think the so-called gender binarism should continue to apply: There are women, and there are men,” Rocella noted. “We want to preserve the anthropology on which parenthood and the continuity of humanity are based because if you abolish men and women, parenthood also changes, and you shouldn’t be surprised if no more children are conceived.” While Rocella stated that the Meloni government has no problem with people getting “sex change” surgeries if they choose, they are not willing to accept gender ideology wholesale.
“They are trying to deny not only biology but also the body, which is based on the gender difference between men and women,” Rocella concluded. She’s right, and the outrage of LGBT activists indicates that they are concerned about this expression of common sense. In an increasing number of European countries, the transgender movement’s advance has been halted after a decade of nearly unimpeded progress and the colonization of wide swathes of the calendar. Perhaps Italy’s opting out is a sign of things to come.
EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War
By Month’s End, WHO Seeks to Pass Orwellian Pandemic Treaty to Implement Algorithmic Surveillance and Control Systems Worldwide
The World Health Organization (WHO) body of experts are set to convene in Geneva, Switzerland, at their 77th World Health Assembly from May 27 to June 1, 2024. At the assembly, WHO’s member countries will cast their votes on the final version of the agency’s “pandemic agreement.”
This agreement will give the beleaguered agency more power over sovereign nations, including the power to order targeted lockdowns and mitigation measures. The agreement will allow a global body of experts to use surveillance tools and implement broader mandates for PCR testing, masks, so-called vaccines and other countermeasures. Right now WHO is developing a standardized algorithm to quantify airborne transmission risk to dictate public policies on human interactions.
WHO’s psychotic ARIA tool doubles down on germaphobia, analyzes aerosols and micromanages human activity
WHO is currently collaborating with the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) to develop an online tool [PDF] that will evaluate and predict risks associated with future airborne virus transmission across various public and private settings. This surveillance tool, named ARIA, will model the hypothetical spread of airborne pathogens in indoor settings, so WHO can craft precise directives on mitigation measures for business owners, households, healthcare centers and others indoor venues.
According to WHO, ARIA was developed by “a global group of experts” who conducted a “comprehensive review of the scientific literature.” Again and again, we are told to “trust the experts” – even though WHO’s guidance has caused significant damage to families, economies and livelihoods worldwide.
The ARIA tool is a psychotic doubling down of the germaphobia, social distancing, human isolation and mental illness behavioral training that took place during the covid-19 scandal. In their formulas, the WHO experts break down the “expiratory activity” of talking, speaking, singing and shouting, and analyze its impact on spreading viruses. The experts discuss issues like “volumetric particle emission concentration” and the “gravitational settlement” of aerosol particles from people who are sitting and/or standing. According to the tool, controlling household size and ensuring societal compliance with mask mandates is important for determining spread.
From ARIA: “In the absence of mask mandates, the compliance of face coverings is an important parameter, hence the exact quantification of the risk reduction provided by the use of face coverings is highly dependent on the level of compliance.”
The tool was obviously designed by people who would be better off living their paranoid lives isolated in a padded room. The tool delves into the concept of “particle deposition” which they claim “is primarily governed by the mechanisms of inertial impaction, gravitational sedimentation, Brownian diffusion, and, to a lesser extent, by turbulence, electrostatic precipitation, and interception.”
WHO planning more pandemics, weaponizing science and propaganda to control people and depopulate Earth
The WHO “experts” lay out a formula to understand how unseen particles in the air are influenced by various factors that they concocted. In their mentally insane attempt to govern the particles in the air – and in their wild delusion that they can somehow control viruses – the WHO experts seek to collect data on people, surveil and control every human activity. As they collect this data, they will only seek to micromanage every last particle in the air and dictate how people interact with those particles for the collective “good of all.”
WHO’s ARIA tool is beyond Orwellian. Behind all the formulas and “science” is a global technocracy that seeks to control people, to strip individuals of autonomy and threaten their lives at every turn.
Jeremy Farrar, WHO Chief Scientist, is certain that this tool will bring clarity for addressing future pandemics:
Together with a very diverse range of leading public health agencies and experts across multiple disciplines, we are pleased to have been able to address this complex and timely issue and reach a consensus. The agreed terminology for pathogens that transmit through the air will help set a new path for research agendas and implementation of public health interventions to identify, communicate and respond to existing and new pathogens.
The WHO has proven to be a totalitarian nightmare of a bureaucracy. Without accountability and without a complete repudiation of their tactics, we will see more pandemic propaganda and societal controls in the near future, coupled with more predatory “vaccine” depopulation efforts. We’re all involved in this war, whether we like it or not, so we must get used to being called “anti-science” and an “anti-vaxxer.” We must be prepared to say NO to all breaches of liberty and sanity, and be willing to defend our lives and our families at all costs.
EXCLUSIVE: Syrian Girl Reveals How Escalations In The Middle East Could Ignite Mankind’s Final War