A dystopian nightmare

Wouldn’t it be awful if the state was murdering people for their organs and then rejecting those organs as being too “unhealthy” to be transplanted? What a story! What kind of futuristic Brave New World-like fiction volume would it have to come from?

Today, in the news.

This is sickening.

government sanctioned murder.jpg

Link

This interesting set of statistics from the article bears a little closer scrutiny: I quote

During 2018-2019, 408 patients died while on the transplant waiting list or within one year of being removed from it, according to NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT). 

The overall number of transplants fell by two per cent last year, from 5,104 to 4,990, while more people were added to the list.  

Of all transplants, 3,951 were from deceased donors, 87 fewer than 2017/2018 when there were 4,038.

According to another part of the article “Every person is able to donate nine organs in theory.” This means that according to the statistics above that if every “donor” (read murder victim) supplied the full 9 organs, then 439 people were killed to provide the organs for the transplants in 2018-19 (3,951 transplants from “deceased” donors – the lie carefully repeated to cover up the crime). That’s a lot of blood on the hands of people who are supposedly there to “first do no harm” (according to the pagan Hippocratic Oath).

The state is killing the innocent, and then complaing that the organs aren’t good enough quality – what a sick world we live in in 2019. Shame on them all!

Lis

Advertisements

From 2020, you’re just spare parts under May’s murderous regime

When we think of evil, we recall the pictures of the holocaust, or images of the killing fields. We might think of those awful pictures of a man with a gun to his head, waiting to be shot, his body swiftly thrown into a ready-dug trench. Perhaps we recall earlier histories of barbarity, including the Spanish inquisition, and the human sacrifice of the savage and ignorant Aztecs.

We wouldn’t think of our own time, we wouldn’t think of our current government, because we wouldn’t – couldn’t – surely believe that our leaders were involved in hoodwinking the British public to be vivisected (dissected alive) for their organs. But that is indeed exactly what they have done since the organ “donor” register was created. Now, the government has passed a law which sets the default to “donor” for all people. Most won’t make a fuss, or opt out, because they don’t know the truth. Read more: Link

The lies about organ donation are required. Just as a mother who wants to believe, as she aborts her child in a state-sanctioned sacrifice (a sacrifice to her own life, her wants and her plans) that the child inside her is just a “blob of cells”, some “matter” to be removed, and that it (not he or she) feels no pain, the lies of organ donation are vital for the process to be continued.

If you knew that organs came from living people, not dead bodies, you’d be horrified. But the government lies to you, just as the abortionist comforts with lies a mother who doesn’t want the responsibility of her child. The family of the person who is deemed “brain dead” don’t know that that person is alive (and that life support does not keep the heart beating). If they knew that the organs would be removed without anaesthetic, and that their loved one was not dead in any way that they, or you, or I, understand, they would say NO!

But the necessary lies are there – the lie that the NHS will test you to make sure you’re dead. The lie that the organs are taken “after death” without explaining that the criteria for “death” aren’t death at all – the necessary lies for the most heinous and evil acts of murder, by a murderous regime – a regime who would sacrifice you in an instant.

Life is precious, and sacred. Death is the enemy. From next year you will have to OPT out of being vivisected – murdered – for your precious organs. Make sure you do.

For more (horrifying) facts, visit organfacts.net

Lis

Tragic: Another man murdered for his organs – Bored Panda uses this for pro-donate propaganda

The family of Daniel Bassillo have recently shared their pride that their family member was vivisected for his organs, which are reputed to be helping other people. Their tragedy is now being used to further the cause of medical murder. Organ donation is firstly not a donation (because informed consent was not obtained), and secondly requires the victim to be alive when their organs are harvested – hence why it is medical murder.

I quote: (Link)

“We didn’t even hesitate when they asked us if we wanted to donate. I don’t even think we really had to talk about it,” Alexa told Bored Panda. “I pray that you don’t lose the most important person in your life but if you can at the very least take that and turn it into something good.. why wouldn’t you want to do that?” she added.

Why? Because if your brother had usable organs, he was still alive. Alive! He wasn’t dead when his organs were removed, and he may not even have been given an anaesthetic before he was cut open. Just horrifying!

The family showed online the letter they received, telling them how many people the doctors were able to help after they murdered her brother:

organs.jpg

I quote: (Link)

One cannot determine with certainty what organ donors feel, if anything, while being harvested. The logic of brain death goes like this: If the brain stem is dead, then the higher centers of the brain are also probably dead, and if the whole brain is 
dead, then everything beneath the brain stem is no longer relevant. Since in practice only the brain stem is routinely tested, the vast majority of the body, everything above the brain stem and everything below, no longer counts as human.

The reason for denying beating-heart cadavers anesthetic during the removal of their organs is hard to pin down. (Some experts say it is because anesthetic will harm the organs.) Nevertheless, administering anesthetics to BHCs during organ harvests is becoming more common in Europe, according to Robert Truog, professor of medical ethics, anesthesia, and pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. Despite their strong opposition to brain death, Truog and Shewmon both refuse to acknowledge the possibility that some donors may be in severe pain during organ harvests, even though they acknowledge that some donors did exhibit reactions similar to inadequately anesthetized surgical patients who afterward reported pain and consciousness. Shewmon said the donor reactions were simply “bodily reactions to noxious stimuli.” I asked if an experiment could be designed to answer the question of pain in donors. He said no.

Truog did not even want to discuss the possibility of pain in the organ donor. But when I suggested experiments along the lines suggested by other anesthesiologists—when BHCs show pain reactions during a harvest, administer anesthetic to see if the reactions subside—he surprised me by saying he had already done this. He has used two different kinds of anesthetics that do not harm organs to quell symptoms such as high blood pressure or heart rate. “Just because the symptoms come down, though,” he added, “does not mean the patient is in pain. Pain is a subjective thing.” As with Shewmon, I asked Truog if an experiment wasn’t called for. He said there was no experiment that could answer the question of pain in the donor.

Would Daniel have lived if he’d been kept on life support? Would he have recovered? We’ll never know. But we do know that this poor man was killed for his organs – that his heart was beating independently when he was being harvested. We know that this barbaric practice is shrowded in secrecy and that most people are ignorant of the truth of what organ “donation” entails.

Always say no to organ donation – do not “donate” or accept organs from murdered people for yourself or a family member. This secretive practice in which linguistic confabulation and misdirection is used to obtain “consent” for the abhorrent human sacrifice of one living person for other living people can only be stopped if we share that knowledge far and wide.

Your organs will not be taken AFTER your death, and Daniel Basillo’s organs were not, either.

I pray that he felt no pain.

May the fear of God bring you into all wisdom.

Lis

 

Getting past the Daily Mail censors to reveal the truth about organ donation

I have found one of the Daily Mail’s censored words! I have! It’s the word “abomination”, isn’t that interesting?

After two attempts last night to share this short comment on this article, I succeeded this morning when I added dots into the word abomination:

Are you aware that organs come from living people, and are not taken after death as the ordinary person understands it? If so you will understand that people should never be used in this way. As for animals, this is an absolute abom.in.ation.

Why is this important? Because organ donation is an important topic on this blog, and as you’ll see from the following top three comments, most Daily Mail readers would rather humans be vivisected than animals:

dm comments 3.jpg

So taking a pig’s heart is terrible evil and exploitation, yeah? Here’s the comment I replied to, which is currently the seventh of the top ten:

dm comment

These people really do think it’s cruel to take an animals organ, but not to take a human one.They probably believe that the animal will be killed for the organ but that human organs are taken “after death”. This is part of the sick trick our satanic rulers have played on us.

The bit which the DM clearly didn’t like is that taking that organ (it wouldn’t matter which animal it came from, being a pig is just the most “obviously” bad) and putting it inside a human, made in the image of God is an ABOMINATION!

These fools revere animals above humans!

We are not to love our lives “to the death”

“and they did overcome him because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony, and they did not love their life — unto death;” Revelation 11:12 [YLT]

Taking an organ from another human to prolong another human life is to deny the humanity of the “donor” (not a donor because they have not given informed consent to be vivisected for their organs – vivisected means to be cut open alive, often without anaesthetic). It is theft: state sanctioned murder. To put an animal part into a human, a pig’s heart of all things, is to fly in the face of God and say that human life is worth more than God’s Will!

Doctors cannot deliver you out of the hand of God! God tells us who He is:

“See now that I am He; there is no God besides Me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal, and there is no one who can deliver from My hand.” Deuteronomy 32:39 [KJV]

I’ll end with sharing Hannah’s prayer from the book of Samuel. First the context. In Chapter 1 we see Hannah pray for a child, and she promises this child to God. God grants her wish, and opens her womb. At the end of Chapter 1 we read: [emphasis added]

24 And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the Lord in Shiloh: and the child was young.

25 And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli.

26 And she said, Oh my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying unto the Lord.

27 For this child I prayed; and the Lord hath given me my petition which I asked of him:

28 Therefore also I have lent him to the Lord; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord. And he worshipped the Lord there. [KJV]

In chapter two we read her prayer: [emphasis added]

1 And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the Lord, mine horn is exalted in the Lord: my mouth is enlarged over mine enemies; because I rejoice in thy salvation.

2 There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God.

3 Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

4 The bows of the mighty men are broken, and they that stumbled are girded with strength.

5 They that were full have hired out themselves for bread; and they that were hungry ceased: so that the barren hath born seven; and she that hath many children is waxed feeble.

6 The Lord killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.

7 The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.

8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them.

9 He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.

10 The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces; out of heaven shall he thunder upon them: the Lord shall judge the ends of the earth; and he shall give strength unto his king, and exalt the horn of his anointed.

I love her prayer because she acknowledges the might and power of God.

When we turn to medical science, and in this case it’s “abomination science”, we are denying the might and power of God! We are saying that without medical intervention this person will die, as if we should not turn to God first and see what He says!

Here are some previous relevant posts for you to read:

Organ donation scandal – the truth about organ donation – MUST READ MUST SHARE

The Truth About Organ Donation: 13 y.o. boy wakes up as doctors prepare to harvest his organs

Go to God, or ask the devil?

Medical word-magic

May the fear of God bring you into all wisdom.

Lis

Promotion of euthanasia in the Daily Mail

It’s not a coincidence that this story appeared this week in the newspapers online. It’s never a coincidence when we have a story following someone’s decision, their journey and the outcome. That doesn’t happen unless the media are keen to promote this journey, and are present right from the beginning. When something is promoted in this way, we should be very wary, because those who promote this do not have our best interests at heart.

proeuthanasia.jpg

Earlier in the week we saw this:

proeuthanasia 2

If you search for his name on the Daily Mail, this is what you get: (Link)

goodall 1.jpg

Goodall 2

Goodall 3

Goodall 4

Goodall 5

Goodall 6

There is no doubt that this has been promoted! Such a lot of press for this subject in the last week. Here’s another one:

promoting death

I wonder if these poor people knew Yeshua as their Lord and Saviour? I wonder at all the folks who think that euthanasia is OK – do they not know that we do not have dominion over ourselves? We have no right to make these decisions, nor to cause someone else to become a murdered in order to allow others to end their lives.

God Bless you

Lis

Organ donation versus abortion

What do organ donation and abortion have in common? More than you’d like to think.

First of all, they both end in the actual death of a living person, who was once knitted together in their mother’s womb (Psalm 139:13)

Secondly they are both performed without anaesthetic – of course ‘foetuses’ and people who are ‘brain dead’ don’t feel pain… or do they? Link Link

Thirdly they are very valuable to those removing their organs and killing them. “Today the transplant industry is a $20 billion per year business.” Link (quote is from page 2). Aborted foetuses are also apparently worth money to Planned Parenthood Link

No organ donation, or abortion were consented to by the victim, whether ‘informed’ consent in the case of organ donation, or by the so-called ‘foetus’ or baby.

They are both pushed for by society and doctors. In fact even the church is getting in on the act, calling for Christians to be organ donors, and that these are ‘sacrificial offerings’ – in total ignorance I’m sure, but human sacrifice is pretty much what organ donation amounts to. Link

Please help spread the word. Say NO to organ donation.

God Bless you

Lis

England takes a further step towards tyranny

Oh yes, you thought you lived in a free country? You thought you were born free? No, because the government is planning to introduce an opt-out organ donation system after all. No, I did not get a response from my MP – I reminded him about my letter, and got a stock response extolling the virtues of organ donation opt-out systems. I never had him down as a moron – I doubt he is, he is what my father would have called a knave. He is a social engineer who thinks that his opinions are of interest to his constituents, when in actual fact it’s supposed to be the other way around (because, Sonny Jim, you work for me). But I digress, I haven’t decided whether to pursue the matter through his office – there will be a consultation and I hope to get involved in some small way – the idea that the state thinks it owns your organs unless you claim them by opting out is abhorrent at the very least, unethical as standard (the modern way) and deceptive by design. Can’t get informed consent? No need – just presume consent.

I need to pray fervently about what action to take on this – I have said a lot, and I have a future, and a life to live. I have written much about this on an internet where free speech is not really safe any longer. Privacy is under threat, and to continue to speak up and speak out is a risk. I will continue if the LORD calls me to – because to disobey Him would be worse than any human harm that could come my way. But I also acknowledge that standing up now may be the thing He no longer wants me to do, and in which case, again to continue to speak would be to be disobedient. As a woman I have to acknowledge my place, and my role, and I’m not Boudicca!

So I’m going to share with you the highs and lows of this new system as unveiled by the evil Theresa May. Can you tell how I feel about this? The pain, the physical pain I felt last night when I came home to see the news – no words for it. No words. My heart was heavy, and my soul was deeply troubled.

So, quoting from this article: [My added comments in bold]

In her speech at the Conservative conference in Manchester, Mrs May said: ‘Our ability to help people who need transplants is limited by the number of organ donors. That is why last year 500 people died because a suitable organ was not available. So to address this challenge … we will change that system, shifting the balance of presumption in favour of organ donation, working on behalf of the most vulnerable.’ [No, Ms May, the most vulnerable are those who are deceived to think their organs are removed after they are cold, blue and dead.]

The devolved Welsh government changed the rules in December 2015 so doctors can assume all over-18s consent to be donors after their death [lies!] unless they have opted out. Relatives still have the right to object to a loved one’s organs being removed, but if they can’t be contacted a transplant will go ahead. [Those in my generation without children will not be protected – who will speak up to stop this for us, if we have not opted out? This makes those without family especially vulnerable, but who cares about them, Ms May?]

While doctors are happy, there are others sounding the alarm: The article continues:

Dr Chaand Nagpaul, chairman of the BMA council, said the plan for an opt-out system was ‘excellent news’ and that it ‘has the potential to save many lives’. [And murder many innocents, Dr Nagpaul]

But Peter Saunders, from the Christian Medical Fellowship, said: ‘Presumed consent is illiberal, unethical, unproven and unnecessary and is based on the false presumption that the organs of deceased people are the property of the state rather than the family. Furthermore there is no proof it increases organ donations.

‘Presumed consent legislation is based on the legal fiction that people who have done nothing – neither signed an opt-in nor an opt-out register – have deliberately chosen to donate their organs.’

You could say that Peter Saunders’ comments are a good sign (that they were published at all is a step forward). However, it was the comments section which gave me some real hope. When the first article was published yesterday I think only one out of the top ten comments was in favour – everyone else, even those on the organ donor register now, said they would opt out on principle. They object strongly to the presumption of state ownership of their bodies, their organs! Some of the comments are copied below:

top comment
This was the top comment yesterday
comment 2
Another top ten comment
top ten comment
Another top ten comment from yesterday’s article

It ought to be noted that the level of public enthusiasm for the opt out system can be seen in this screen grab of the government petition started a few months ago:

public opinion

And from today’s article (an update on yesterday’s one):

organs
A rather concerning comment!
organs 2
Huge cynicism towards this government grab
organs 3
And another fully awake individual telling it like it is

Those three were in the top ten comments on today’s article.

There is hope, but there needs to be action, and I don’t think it’s going to come from my complicit MP at this time. If you are in the UK, NOW is the time to take a moment to write to your MP and express your disquiet and disapproval of this legislation – let’s get it stopped before it’s too late.

Please also pray for me as I try to navigate the role God wants me to play (if any) in highlighting this issue in an ever more dangerous world. Thank you.

God Bless

Lis