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

Advertisements

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

 

Deception and brutal force

In Africa they believe that albinos have magical power. They believe that in order for this power to be in the body parts, they must be cut off while the person is alive.

muti.jpg

What does this remind you of? Oh yes, organ donation. Except that we in the west declare them dead before we cut out their beating hearts and put them in other people’s bodies.

If Africa is backward, we are deceptive, devious and equally evil.

God says: “Thou shallt not kill”

Organ donation is little more than Aztec human sacrifice. It is little more than African muti – murder, theft, deception and evil beyond comprehension. Yet people continue to support organ donation through ignorance. They are deceived.

I am, as yet, to hear back from my MP, or Dan Jarvis MP regarding the emails I sent them.

God Bless you

Lis

Of doctors and death

In the latest twist in the case of Charlie Gard it seems that yet again his parents have been thwarted in their attempts to take him to the US for treatment. I want to discuss a little about the rights of children, and how all this nasty debacle seems to have happened.

As things currently stand, while you are pregnant you have the right to abort/kill/murder/evict that child from your uterus (depending on your viewpoint). Currently a woman can do this without the consent of her partner, even though his sexual act with her involved her consent. Hmmm.

But once your child is born and REGISTERED (the crucial part is that fact) they are effectively owned by the state. Your rights as a parent end there. A child who is registered has rights which are separate from the parents. So if a parent is a Christian, and the state disapproves of the way the child is being raised the child can be taken away. This happened to a Norwegian couple not long ago.

Your rights as a parent do not extend to knowing that your child has been given contraception by their school while they are underage. Your rights as a parent do not extend to denying them transgender enabling treatments until they are adults. No, the state assumes the right to step in, and effectively destroy the child’s life by allowing such evil and stupidity to reign.

You, as a parent, have very few rights at all.

Oh, unless you’re one of the hundreds of parents in the UK involved in female genital mutilation (FGM) of your muslim or African daughters, then the state will just tell you it’s not a good thing, and your child will not be taken away, not protected, nor the parent prosecuted. Satan is the god of this world, in case you had a moment of surprise and wonder as to why this might be!

Another issue in this case is one a friend highlighted to me, and I think it’s worth mentioning. I was talking to him about this case of Charlie Gard, and he said that it’s important for doctors to take this court route to stop other parents questioning everything they do. My immediate reaction was to say that they MUST question everything – as doctors often get things wrong, and never know the patient like their family do.

I have not forgotten the surprise of my father’s hospital consultant when told that Dad was still happily chopping logs at aged 80. No doctor would expect that – they are mostly too young to have any real idea of the world let alone the lives of their patients when not presenting in a state of ill-health. Remember that 130,000 elderly a year are (and I’ll say ‘are’ because the Liverpool Care Pathway has never ceased to be used, but it has ceased to be named as that). Doctors who don’t know elderly patients are very happy to write them off as incapable of a life worth living. Doctors are killers! What with abortion, euthanasia (which is what the LCP was and is) and organ theft (murder). Doctors are killers. Tragic but true (and these are only direct examples, the drugs kill far more).

And that’s the other issue here. Apart from the fact that Great Ormond Street Hospital have some kind of desire to play god with this child’s life – their desire is clearly to decide his fate regardless of any treatment that another medical team CAN do for him – the arrogance is astounding! Apart from that fact is the dangerous issue of Charlie’s ‘rights’. If Charlie has rights which do not chime with his parents obvious pro-life views, then he clearly has a ‘right to death’ – a dangerous precedent. The courts, who do not know Charlie, nor love him, and the doctors who want to play god to ensure they are in charge, in control of this little life separate from his parents – they want to decide the rights of this child for DEATH! His parents want him to have a chance of LIFE!

So children’s rights are a gateway to all kinds of nastiness dressed up as ‘progress’ – whereas, in the main, parents love their children, and want them to live, and be healthy and cared for.

Lastly let me be clear that whilst the medical profession are the only people on earth allowed to claim they can cure cancer, they do so by promoting chemotherapy which kills 25% of patients, is ineffective in 97% of cancer cases, and has now been shown to spread cancer throughout the body. Doctors and pharmakeia are the work of the devil. Beware!

Go to God, or ask the devil?

Yet today I read of a case of a child with brain damage who has been healed quite spectacularly with simple hyperbaric oxygen therapy. After 40 sessions this little girl is almost back to 100%! Read more here: Link

Oxygen is a supplement – it’s a natural substance, and there’s no money in it for Big (P)harma. No wonder, as with hemp for cancer, they continue to want their very profitable treatments which kill to remain the ‘standard of care’ (death).

May God bless you this Shabbat. Praise YHWH for His goodness. Stay close to Him in these troubling and difficult times. And please pray for Charlie Gard and his parents who have fought so hard for his right to life!

Lis

My letter to my MP regarding organ donation opt out system

A note to you – would you please write to your MP and voice your concerns about this bill?

I wrote to my MP this morning, and thought I would share what I wrote to him with you.

Dear Mr Hancock,

I am writing to you with regard to a Private Members Bill which, I understand, is about to be presented in the House of Commons (according to this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ health/article-4704718/My-new- lungs-don-t-work-more.html).

I have written urgently to Dan Jarvis MP, and now I am writing also to you, as my MP, to share my very great disquiet.

Informed consent is the basis for everything that is done in the way of treatment (and the withdrawal of treatment) within the NHS. However, no one has ever given informed consent to be an organ donor. Organ donation requires the donor to be alive when their organs are removed. They must still have full respiration, a beating heart etc. in order for their organs to be usable. There have been numerous cases of patients who heard doctors discuss the harvesting of their organs, and who regained consciousness and later fully recovered from their injuries. Those cases are chilling in themselves, but the plain matter of law is the matter of informed consent.

If the public do not understand that they will be alive, not cold and blue as they believe, when those organs are removed, then the continuation of the organ donor system as it stands now is based on deception!

I’ll give you an example that I also shared with Mr Jarvis:

I asked a couple of my friends whether they were on the organ donor register, and they both said no. I said to them, “Well don’t go on it.” They asked why, and I simply asked them ‘Would you like an anaesthetic when your organs are removed?” They said, “But why would I need one, I’d be dead?”

There you have the public’s understanding of organ donation in a nutshell.

Yet the government is now considering moving to an opt out system of presumed consent, which worse, not only denies most people who are ambivalent about the decision a choice, but will also ensure the continuation of the public’s ignorance of the facts of organ donation.

Let me reiterate – the public believe they will be dead in the common understanding of that word when their organs are removed. Doctors know that organs from the dead cannot be used, and so have invented new definitions of death in order to get these organs. How can this be anything other than deception, Mr Hancock?

I ask you to stand against this new bill, which I believe is a crime against the British people.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx

Having written to Dan Jarvis MP, and now Matthew Hancock MP, I will of course share any responses I recieve on this matter.

God Bless you

Lis