Medical research, ethics, and experts

What is physical death? Take a moment and think about that.

Over the ages, throughout history, what has been the primary, agreed upon sign that somebody is dead?

OK, now let's have a look at a couple headlines:

Pig organ transplants inch closer with testing in the dead

Testing pig heart transplants in donated bodies (This is the video embedded in above story).

Genetically modified pig heart transplanted into deceased recipient, researchers say

On the face of it, this might seem a big macabre to some, but generally acceptable and even a good use of dead bodies, right?

Except they weren't fucking dead! They were brain dead. Their hearts were still beating, blood still flowing through their veins, lungs still processing oxygen.

There's so much here to unpack, but for me, the first thing that comes to mind is that it appears that the medical community is trying to redefine death for purposes of experimentation. That in itself is beyond disturbing.

Secondly, there's the obvious misleading language in the headlines from two major news sources.

If the experts are successful in redefining death so that dead people can still have beating hearts, where does that take us?

Here are a couple quotes that indicate where this is headed, which appears to be longer experimentation on 'dead' bodies, and this type of experimentation becoming more important, more common, and going on for years.

They serve as an important sort of stepping stone,” said Klassen, who wonders if researchers next might consider tracking the organs for a week or so in a donated body rather than just three days.

And presumably after a week, a month. Why not a year?

The next two quotes are from the video:

This is not a one and done situation. This is going to be years of learning...

The reason to do this ... one is, you never learn from one procedure, and two, by giving us a more controlled setting, we can study this in much more detail and in much more depth than would be otherwise possible in a human because you can't keep subjecting a live human to repeated procedures at all hours of the day.

Holy shit. I don't know where to start with that second quote.

more controlled setting = a body that is still full of life but can't put up any resistance

you can't keep subjecting a live human to repeated procedures at all hours of the day = they are poking and prodding and cutting up this person all hours of the day. Also, again, they're talking about this person as if they're physically dead.

Finally, another ethical question. How did they stop the heart beating? They stopped the experiment after three days, meaning they killed the heart. You can't do that with a brain dead person. You can't stop their heart. You can pump them full of morphine and let them die naturally, but you can't purposefully kill them, but the inference here is that that's what they did.

This is scary shit and it's being slid into our lives without discussion.

Finally, another ethical question. How did they stop the heart beating? They stopped the experiment after three days, meaning they killed the heart. You can't do that with a brain dead person. You can't stop their heart. You can pump them full of morphine and let them die naturally, but you can't purposefully kill them, but the inference here is that that's what they did.

Granted, the patient, er, I'm sorry, deceased, may have been on a ventilator in which case they could have just pulled the plug. The articles give no details at all though. They give very little context to this.

Another thought I had is this. Reuters and CNN would have gotten way more clicks by using a more honest headline.

Original: Pig organ transplants inch closer with testing in the dead
More honest, better clickbait: Pig organ transplants inch closer with testing on brain dead patients.

Original: Testing pig heart transplants in donated bodies
More honest, better clickbait: Testing pig heart transplants in unconscious patients.

So the question is, why use the misleading headlines? If they would have made more money by using a more honest headline, why use the ones they used?

The simplest answer is that, over time, they will make more money using the headlines they're using. AP is a huge organization. I wonder if they have any connections to the vast network of research facilities and pharmaceutical conglomerates involved in this research. Or maybe they're just counting on the advertising dollars from those players on the back end.

EDIT: Not Reuters, AP. They do have have a disclaimer at the bottom of the article:

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education.

Maybe that's where the money is coming from.

https://apnews.com/article/pig-heart-transplant-nyu-c332493b4d6232edcf9ca389df976de0

OK, apparently this has been going on for a while.

Pig organ transplants inch closer with testing in the dead

In the NYU case, researchers kept a deceased woman’s body going on a ventilator after her family agreed to the experiment. The woman had wished to donate her organs, but they weren’t suitable for traditional donation.

Again, they're calling her dead while her heart was still beating. Yes, she's on a ventilator, but it wasn't so long ago that we weren't allowed to unplug people on ventilators.

They're keeping a dead person's body going? That's what they're calling it.

But wait. There's more.

This disclaimer is appearing at the bottom of these AP stories:

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education.

It didn't take long to find this page:

The Associated Press and Howard Hughes Medical Institute Expand Collaboration to Bolster Health and Science Coverage

The HHMI clearly has a stake in this research. Is it funding it? Non-profit my ass.

The HHMI is giving the AP money.

From that page:

The Associated Press announced today an enhanced collaboration with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education that will further expand the news agency’s reporting on health and science over the next three years.

Designed to allow for deeper audience engagement and development, the multiformat health and science projects will also be used to establish best practices for science storytelling.

Funding from HHMI’s Department of Science Education, the largest private, nonprofit supporter of science education in the U.S., will add additional all-formats journalists to AP’s current health and science team.

So the AP, one of the most respected news organizations in the US, is acting as a mouthpiece for this organization.

HHMI is quite an organization.

So how do they make money? This is from their 2017 Financial Statement:

Intellectual Property

The Institute receives licensing fees and royalty income in connection with the commercialization of intellectual property created by its scientists. Licensing fees and royalty income are recorded as revenue in the Consolidated Statements of Operations and Changes in Net Assets at the time of receipt or when earned.

In addition, the Institute may indirectly have equity interests in startup companies formed to commercialize inventions created by its investigators. Such equity interests are held in the host institution’s name for the benefit of HHMI until such time as the host institution disposes of that interest. As a result, recognition of value related to such equity interests is recorded only upon notification to HHMI by the host institution that its equity interest has been sold, and the Institute’s share of the proceeds has been determined. No value for such equity interests is carried on the balance sheet.

The Institute may in the future directly hold equity or other interests in some startup companies formed to commercialize inventions created by its group leaders or other researchers at the Janelia Research Campus. In this event, the equity or other interests would be managed by the Institute’s Investment Department and appropriately recorded in the consolidated financial statements.

The 2021 statement shows they have total assets of over 23 billion, with total revenue over 6.7 billion.

And they're worth more than that because As a result, recognition of value related to such equity interests is recorded only upon notification to HHMI by the host institution that its equity interest has been sold, and the Institute’s share of the proceeds has been determined. No value for such equity interests is carried on the balance sheet.

So they have a LOT of wealth that doesn't appear on these statements.

There's a lot to explore here. I feel like I've caught the Dulan Drift bug.

EDIT: Had to edit this as I originally read the statements wrong. I believe these numbers are correct.

This is just getting too fucking weird.

I saw two stories on this this morning, one from AP and one from CNN.

I've already established AP's connection with HHMI. But what about CNN? Why would they also have a misleading headline and sanitized, feel good story about some poor guy on a ventilator getting experimented on?

Well, turns out HHMI has their own film studio called Tangled Bank Studios.

Tangled Bank Studios makes a lot of movies, among them one called Race for the Vaccine. I clicked on more info about that documentary. I'll post a screenshot for the movie info. It speaks for itself.

[image]

This disclaimer is appearing at the bottom of these AP stories:

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education.

It didn't take long to find this page:

The Associated Press and Howard Hughes Medical Institute Expand Collaboration to Bolster Health and Science Coverage

Designed to allow for deeper audience engagement and development, the multiformat health and science projects will also be used to establish best practices for science storytelling.

There's so much crazy shit in these posts, i don't know where to start, but the phrase science storytelling is as good as any. As you point out, it's not the real truth coz the headline implies, wrongly, that they're experimenting on cadavers, when in fact they're technically alive. It's based on the unshakeable belief by scientists that they're always right - which frees you up to tell whatever lies you like, do whatever unethical stuff you like, coz you know, on a higher-level, that you're right.

It also helps explain the inexplicable refusal by the media to report on the scandal of the millennium that was Covid. The media normally loves scandals - i couldn't understand why they were resolutely shutting down any investigative reporting on it. But as you've documented, it turns out that media organizations and research organizations are often the same thing.

The Guardian is another good example - the majority of the board is from Oxford - which in turn was one of the academic institutions that was the most pro-active in covering-up the origin of Covid.

This behaviour is not that far removed from the organ harvesting of live Falun Gong members. You wouldn't have to get all the way to The Refuser to see a day when the 'dead' definition comes to include prisoners on death row - or even political prisoners. The rationale would be: Well, they're dead to society - let's put them to some use!

But as you've documented, it turns out that media organizations and research organizations are often the same thing.

That's right, quite literally. When I read:

Funding from HHMI’s Department of Science Education, the largest private, nonprofit supporter of science education in the U.S., will add additional all-formats journalists to AP’s current health and science team.

I read that HHMI has hired journalists, plural, to work in, to be embedded in, AP.

This behaviour is not that far removed from the organ harvesting of live Falun Gong members. You wouldn't have to get all the way to The Refuser to see a day when the 'dead' definition comes to include prisoners on death row - or even political prisoners. The rationale would be: Well, they're dead to society - let's put them to some use!

And I think they're working in that direction. These two stories seem to be a case of a 21st century version of manufacturing consent.

They're publishing these stories, apparently at the behest of the HHMI, but why? They have misleading headlines. What's going on?

I think what's happening is that they're taking a proactive approach to public consent. They know that if they explained this in the starkest of terms, the public would likely protest. This way, the public will likely not even read the stories! They'll see the headlines, maybe read the first paragraph or two, and that's it. Notice that the first couple of paragraphs in both stories are vague and largely avoid the whole context of the experiment.

Then if, in the future, there are voices raised, they can say, "Well, these experiments have been reported by the most respected news sources for years, and nobody said anything." It's a way to allow the acceptability of these experiments to seep into society.

But back to your point about the unfortunate and unwilling Falun Gong organ donators. Where is this headed?

Our societies are aging so once this becomes common, researches will have plenty of unwilling subjects. They sure won't talk back! And consider where this type of research could go. Cancer research requiring the subject be kept alive for possibly months or longer. Other types of transplantation. Brain work? Growing viruses in the body? All these scenarios would require longer periods of research.

And it's all for the money! HHMI is, among other things, a venture capital organization. When one of their researchers gets a patent as a result of research done under HHMI funding, HHMI profits from that patent.

And I think they're working in that direction. These two stories seem to be a case of a 21st century version of manufacturing consent.

They're publishing these stories, apparently at the behest of the HHMI, but why?

I think what's happening is that they're taking a proactive approach to public consent. They know that if they explained this in the starkest of terms, the public would likely protest. This way, the public will likely not even read the stories! They'll see the headlines, maybe read the first paragraph or two, and that's it. Notice that the first couple of paragraphs in both stories are vague and largely avoid the whole context of the experiment.

Then if, in the future, there are voices raised, they can say, "Well, these experiments have been reported by the most respected news sources for years, and nobody said anything." It's a way to allow the acceptability of these experiments to seep into society.

'Narrative' fabrication has become a buzz-word - in fact it's simply culture control - which has always been in fashion - but due to the potentially manufactured crisis of Covid, it has skewed alarmingly towards centralized power. Covid, or keeping us safe, has become an excuse for everything. The collaboration of science and media with their fucking science story-telling is a frightening reality in this creation of an unreal reality - which, in turn, becomes real - if that makes sense ...

RSS Feed of thread

Formosahut forum

Medical research, ethics, and experts (General)