Ex-Mossad head Yossi Cohen boasted during a recent podcast that Israel has “boobytrapped” and “manipulated” equipment like that used in their pager attack in Lebanon in “all countries that you can imagine.”
He said he “invented” the “manipulated equipment method” in 2002 to 2004 and had already used it in the “Second Lebanon War” back in 2006.
WATCH:
Cohen’s comments were made on the Oct 16 episode of the Zionist propaganda podcast The Brink.
I said after the pager and walkie talkie attacks on Lebanon that “any goods connected to Israel must now be assumed to be rigged with explosives until proven otherwise.”
For a country that’s so obsessed with getting laws passed in America and throughout the West to ban engaging with BDS, the decision to rig consumer goods with explosives and then boast about having boobytrapped and manipulated equipment throughout the world is truly remarkable.
“Looking ahead, Taiwan will continue to increase military investment,” Ching-te said. “This includes building capacity in the indigenous defense industry and procuring necessary weapons and technology from other countries to bolster overall combat capacities. We hope that AIPAC will lend Taiwan even greater support and assistance in this matter.”
Taiwan never gave a satisfying answer as to what Gold Apollo’s role was in that shady deal, and looking back now you have to wonder if they were in on it.
The Lachman fire that burned 8 acres in the Palisades on New Years Day was contained and on Jan. 2nd. Firefighters warned their battalion chief that “the ground was still smoldering and rocks remained hot to the touch” at the site. But their battalion chief, identified as Mario Garcia, ordered them to roll up their hoses and pull out of the area on Jan. 2 rather than stay and make sure there were no hidden embers that could spark a new fire. The first fire remained burning underground until the strong winds of Jan. 7 rekindled it and ignited the devastating Palisades fire.
LA Fire Department Interim Chief Ronnie Villanova said that the area had been ‘cold trailed’ twice meaning that the firemen used their hands to feel for heat, dug out hot spots, and chopped a line around the perimeter of the fire to ensure it was contained. However, officials failed to provide records that would have corroborated this story.
Although the Los Angeles Fire Department equips firefighters with thermal imaging cameras and also employs drones with similar infrared imaging, officials decided against using them.
Jimmy Dore pointed out that the 113-million gallon reservoir that hadn’t been repaired sat empty for two years and contributed to the fire that resulted in 12 deaths and massive property damage.
.
A new report in the Los Angeles Times indicates that firefighters were ordered to abandon the smoldering underground fire that later became the devastating Palisades Fire, something the crews on the ground thought was a “bad idea.”
According to text messages reviewed by the Times, firefighters told their battalion chief that “the ground was still smoldering and rocks remained hot to the touch” at the site of the Lachman Fire, which burned on New Year’s Day before being contained.
Despite that warning, “their battalion chief ordered them to roll up their hoses and pull out of the area on Jan. 2 — the day after the 8-acre blaze was declared contained — rather than stay and make sure there were no hidden embers that could spark a new fire,” the Times reports.
That first fire, which prosecutors say was started by an Uber driver, remained burning underground until the strong winds of Jan. 7 rekindled it.
That blaze grew into the Palisades Fire, which killed 12 people and devastated the Pacific Palisades.
Mayor Karen Bass and current and former Los Angeles Fire Department officials declined or did not return the Times’ requests for comment, but officials have said that they thought the Lachman Fire had been extinguished.
Plenty of rank-and-file firefighters, however, disagreed with that assessment and made their displeasure known in the texts reviewed by the Times.
“In one text message, a firefighter who was at the scene on Jan. 2 wrote that the battalion chief had been told it was a ‘bad idea’ to leave the burn scar unprotected because of the visible signs of smoldering terrain,” the Times reports. “’And the rest is history,’” the firefighter wrote in recent weeks.”
This interview is well worth watching for several reasons, but the most important one is that it’s a classic two-dimensional example of opinion engineering. The outer dimension, which is in plain view, is interesting and mildly controversial but of no serious news value or long-term consequence. It serves mostly as bait that covers the hook. The inner dimension is where the action is but it can be seen only through the x-ray lens of analysis and is of great consequence for the survival of freedom in America.
The outer dimension involves whether the opinions of Nick Fuentes, the controversial guest being interviewed, are acceptable or unacceptable for public debate – the deciding factor being whether or not they are anti-Semitic. The hidden dimension involves whether an “America-First” policy in government is virtuous or treasonous.
It may seem that America First is obviously virtuous for Americans because it is the essence of patriotism. But what is the correct definition of patriotism? Some will say that it is an attitude expressed by the saying: “My country, right or wrong,” which means support of one’s government regardless of its actions. By this definition, the German civilians who supported the Nazi regime were virtuous patriots. My personal view is that opposition to corruption in government is the highest obligation of patriotism, so please note carefully that when Fuentes calls for martial law in the name of America first, he is advocating the cancelation of basic freedoms for us as well as the rioters, a condition that possibly could remain indefinitely. Also notice that his first solution to shutting down the mob is military force, not rounding up the leaders and funders of the organizations that deliver the violence. Take away their leaders, their paychecks and their buses, and the big show will cease. That course of action is not considered in this interview.
Nick Fuentes has much to say with which we can agree, but please notice that his call to action is brute force and violence – exactly what our enemies want to happen. Unfortunately, Tucker Carlson never asks him to elaborate on his statement that he was a big fan of Stalin. I guess he just didn’t recognize the inner dimension of this message. ~~ GEG
A Flock camera captures a vehicle’s make, model and license plate that police officers can view on computers. The city of Stanwood has paused use of Flock cameras while lawsuits over public records issues are sorted out. (Flock provided photo)
Stanwood pauses Flock cameras amid public records lawsuits
A public records request for Flock camera footage has raised questions about what data is exempt under state law.
EVERETT — The city of Stanwood has paused use of its Flock cameras in light of questions over whether footage is subject to public records requests under state law.
The Stanwood City Council approved its $92,000 contract with Flock Safety in November 2024. In February, the city installed 14 automatic license plate reading cameras. The cameras were operating for about four months before the city turned them off in May, City Administrator Shawn Smith said.
In April, an individual requested all Flock camera footage in Stanwood within a one-hour window on March 30. In light of the request, the city decided in June to seek a court judgment that Flock footage either is not public record or is exempt from the public records act for privacy reasons.
Stanwood is seeking the judgment along with the city of Sedro-Woolley, which also received a records request for Flock footage from the same individual, Jose Rodriguez. The cities filed the complaint in Skagit County Superior Court.
In response, Rodriguez filed a lawsuit against Stanwood in Snohomish County Superior Court, alleging the city is violating the Public Records Act by not providing the footage.
“No exemption to the PRA requirements apply in this case and public policy favors timely disclosure, and in no way hinders disclosure, of the records requested,” the complaint read.
All Flock camera footage is stored in the Flock Safety cloud system, Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley attorneys wrote in their complaint. Cities only have access to data the officers search for, the complaint read. Stanwood and Sedro-Woolley argue that Flock footage is only public record once a public agency extracts and downloads the data. The Public Records Act states that public records include information “prepared, owned, used, or retained” by an agency.
“Requiring public agencies to generate a new search in the Flock cloud system for the sole purpose of accessing and downloading data requested under the PRA, data which the agency had not previously accessed, would require the agency to create new public records not in existence at the time of the request,” the complaint read.
If a judge decides the footage is public record, the cities argue it should still be exempt from requests under the Public Records Act. The law exempts certain intelligence information that could jeopardize the effectiveness of law enforcement or a person’s right to privacy if released.
“If the data becomes public record, that would allow nefarious actors to carry out their act,” Stanwood resident Tim Schmitt said in a July interview. “So imagine tracking your ex-spouse or a person you broke up with under difficulty, it would allow all sorts of malicious mischief against innocent individuals.”
Schmitt is a member of the Stanwood City Council and said his opinions do not reflect those of the council or the city.
State law does not explicitly exempt automated license plate reader data from public records. It does have explicit exemptions for red-light camera data. In July, Stanwood City Attorney wrote a letter to State Sen. Ron Muzzall, R-Oak Harbor, asking him to sponsor or support legislation to create a specific exemption for automated license plate reader data in the Public Records Act.
Schmitt was the sole vote against the Flock contract in November 2024. Part of the reason for his vote, he said, was uncertainty over public records laws.
“I had this doubt in the back of my mind,” he said.
Schmitt also raised concerns that the contract was too expensive, especially compared to other cities, he said. For example, Mount Vernon has six Flock cameras for a population of about 35,000 and a land area of about 12 square miles. Stanwood has 14 cameras for a population of about 8,000 and a land area of about 3 square miles.
While the cameras are turned off, Stanwood is not currently making payments to Flock Safety, Smith said.
In Stanwood, Flock cameras have helped identify a shoplifter that stole $1,000 from small businesses, apprehend a suspect in a shooting in a neighboring jurisdiction and locate an elderly person with dementia within 10 minutes, the complaint read.
The litigation comes as cities across the state and country continue to sign contracts with Flock Safety. According to the company, the cameras are operating in more than 5,000 communities nationwide. Most cities in Snohomish County have implemented Flock cameras within the past year.
At a Sept.4 meeting, Mountlake Terrace City Council member William Paige Jr. expressed regret for voting for the contract in June. Last month, Flock CEO Garrett Langley wrote in an Aug. 25 statement it had pilot programs with U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and Homeland Security Investigations. The program was intended to help combat human trafficking and fentanyl distribution, Langley said. The company has since paused the program, he said.
“We clearly communicated poorly,” Langley said. “We also didn’t create distinct permissions and protocols in the Flock system to ensure local compliance for federal agency users. I appreciate the sensitivities surrounding local and federal cooperation on law enforcement matters, and I understand that in order to allow communities to align with their laws and societal values, these definitions and product features are critical.”
At the Sept. 4 meeting, Paige said he doesn’t trust Flock Safety and no longer wants to do business with the company.
“We all heard concerns that day — and before and after that day — from the community about making sure Homeland Security and Customs and Border Protection would not have access to our data,” Paige said. “We had a Flock representative right here listening to those concerns. And yet, at that same time, Flock already had a contract that allowed those federal agencies to access data. They never shared that with us.”
The splashy moves could endanger the prosperous American economy, according to aninfluential economist speaking to Politico — especially in tandem with the White House’s gutting of agencies that have historically collaborated with the private sector.
“I think the kind of capitalism Trump has is crony capitalism,” Italian economist Mariana Mazzucato told Politico. “I would describe crony capitalism as Mafia-like. You’re showing your upper hand. You’re handing out favors to some. But then divide and conquer. Picking and choosing without a particular strategy.”
“[H]e’s actually weakening the economy,” she summed up.
Mazzucato, a University College London economics professor and adviser to governments, argues that the Intel deal is poorly designed because it doesn’t have any conditions to incentivize the company to be build new products, while the government simply acts as a passive investor.
That kind of posture isn’t going to foster next-generation technology, Mazzucato said. A smarter approach, she says, would see a government put together a portfolio of companies in a sector, encourage them with subsidies and other incentives, and wait for a company or product to rise to the top via competition in the marketplace.
Mazzucato has written extensively about how governments should take equity stakes in companies, but not in the way the Trump administration is doing, which some have called a form of corporate welfare.
Corporate welfare causes monopolies to develop; monopolies are bad because consumers don’t get cheaper and better products, while companies don’t have outside pressure to innovate. If companies don’t innovate, other countries with better industrial policy and ambitious companies will eat America’s lunch.
“And I don’t think there is, under Trump’s administration, any policy that is kind of future and opportunity-oriented around innovation,” she said. “It’s just about getting companies either to come back or preventing foreign companies from selling their goods in the U.S. It’s kind of preventing stuff from happening, versus that more positive, proactive making things happen that otherwise would not have happened.”
She called Trump’s economic policy an “idiosyncratic hodgepodge” because there doesn’t seem to be a clear strategy or a holistic roadmap to bolster the industrial backbone of America, where manufacturing has faltered to China and other countries.
“Trump is not asking, ‘What are the problems that need to be solved, and how can we have public investment to solve those problems?’” she said. “He’s just kind of throwing money around and imposing tariffs and taking these equity stakes and dismantling things.”
She also argued in the interview that Trump’s gutting of agencies such as the National Institute of Health and NASA will negatively impact the country’s competitive edge because these institutions, along with their funding, help foster the creation of new technologies, products and entirely new industrial sectors.
“What’s going to happen in the future is, U.S. competitiveness will wither away because he’s dismantling the backbone of U.S. competitiveness which has been, in the past, smart, capable, strategic, outcome-oriented, mission-oriented state agencies,” she said.
The invention of the internet and GPS, for instance, wouldn’t have been possible without the government encouraging the private sector, she said.
Any outcome from the Intel deal will probably play out over the ensuing years, so we don’t know the downstream impacts yet, but we already have proof that Trump’s attack on federal agencies and their funding is impacting America’s edge in tech and science with scientists moving overseas.
(THE REAL HEADLINE SHOULD READ THAT PATIENT TAKING WEIGHT LOSS DRUG GLP-1 COLLAPSES)
Just Stands There After Man Collapses During Press Conference
One of the guests at Donald Trump’s press conference on weight loss drugs passed out during the event.
ANDREW HARNIK/GETTY IMAGES
A man appeared to collapse Thursday during a press conference to debut a deal to make those drugs more affordable, while President Donald Trump simply looked on.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, the daytime talk show host Trump picked to run the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, rushed to help the man to the ground (Oz was a heart doctor before he became a pseudoscience-peddling daytime host). Meanwhile, Trump, who was sitting behind his desk while others ran the show, slowly stood up as he watched the man take to the floor.
As members of the press were quickly ushered out of the room, Trump turned away from the fallen man, staring off into space.
It is unclear who the man is. While some outlets reported that it was Novo Nordisk executive Gordon Findlay, multiple sources toldThe Washington Post’s Dan Diamond that the man was a patient who uses Eli Lilly’s GLP-1 medication.
CBS journalists Jennifer Jacobs and Aaron Navarro reported that the only two Novo Nordisk executives at the event were CEO Mike Doustdar and Executive Vice President Dave Moore. A spokesperson for Eli Lilly told Navarro that the man was one of their guests.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the man was “okay” and being seen by the White House Medical Unit. Newsmax was quick to report that Trump—who was clearly not involved in the incident at all—was also okay.
A senior administration official said that under Trump’s new deal with Novo Nordisk and Elli Lily, weight-loss drugs could have an out-of-pocket cost of between $50 to $350 per month, as opposed to the current list price of more than $1000. However, prices would likely not be significantly cheaper for those whose prescriptions are covered by insurance.
TrumpRx, the president’s scheme to transform the federal government into a pharmacy, is already raising red flags for legal and health experts. They warn that the marketing gimmick isn’t likely to help the average American, and could actually expose private information to a government that clearly doesn’t know how to handle it. Already, other drug companies such as Pfizer and EMD Serono, which produces fertility drugs, have made deals to sell discounted products through TrumpRx, in exchange for being spared from the president’s sweeping tariffs on pharmaceuticals.
Immediately after October 7, a little know company shipped over 100 reconnaissance drones to Israel for use in its siege of Gaza. Having been battle-tested on Palestinian civilians, the UAVs are now being used to surveil protesters across the US.
AI-powered quadcopter drones used by the IDF to commit genocide in Gaza are flying over American cities, surveilling protestors and automatically uploading millions of images to an evidence database.
The drones are made by a company called Skydio which in the last few years has gone from relative obscurity to quietly become a multi-billion dollar company and the largest drone manufacturer in the US.
The extent of Skydio drone usage across the US, and the extent to which their usage has grown in just a few years, is extraordinary. The company has contracts with more than 800 law enforcement and security agencies across the country, up from 320 in March last year, and their drones are being launched hundreds of times a day to monitor people in towns and cities across the country.
Skydio has extensive links with Israel. In the first weeks of the genocide the California-based company sent more than one hundred drones to the IDF with promises of more to come. How many more were delivered since that admission is unknown. Skydio has an office in Israel and partners with DefenceSync, a local military drone contractor operating as the middle man between drone manufacturers and the IDF. Skydio has also raised hundreds of millions of dollars from Israeli-American venture capitalists and from venture capital funds with extensive investments in Israel, including from Marc Andreessen’s firm Andreessen Horowitz, or a16z.
And now these drones, tested in genocide and refined on Palestinians, are swarming American cities.
According to my research, almost every large American city has signed a contract with Skydio in the last 18 months, including Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Diego, Cleveland and Jacksonville. Skydio drones were recently used by city police departments to gather information at the ‘No Kings’ protests and were also used by Yale to spy on the anti-genocide protest camp set up by students at the university last year.
The AI system behind Skydio drones is powered by Nvidia chips and enables their operation without a human user. The drones have thermal imaging cameras and can operate in places where GPS doesn’t work, so-called ‘GPS-denied environments.’ They also reconstruct buildings and other infrastructure in 3D and can fly at more than 30 miles per hour.
The New York police were early adopters of Skydio drones and are particularly enthusiastic users. A spokesman recently told a drone news website that the NYPD launched more than 20,000 drone flights in less than a year, which would mean drones are being launched around the city 55 times per day. A city report last year said the NYPD at that time was operating 41 Skydio drones. A recent Federal Aviation Authority rule change, however, means that number will undoubtedly have increased and more generally underpins the massive expansion in the use of Skydio drones.
Prior to March this year, FAA rules meant that drones could only be used by US security forces if the operator kept the drone in sight. They also couldn’t be used over crowded city streets. An FAA waiver issued that month opened the floodgates, allowing police and security agencies to operate drones beyond a visual line of sight and over large crowds of people. Skydio called the waiver ground-breaking. It was. The change has ushered in a Skydio drone buying spree by US police and security forces, with many now employing what is called a ‘Drone As First Responder’ program. Without the need to see the drone, and with drones free to cruise over city streets, the police are increasingly sending drones before humans to call outs and for broader investigative purposes. Cincinnati for example says that by the end of this year 90% of all call outs will be serviced first by a Skydio drone.
This extensive level of coverage is enabled by Skydio’s docking platform hardware. These launch pads are placed in locations around a city enabling drones to be remote charged, launched and landed many miles away from police HQs. After launch, all the information gathered by these flights is both saved to an internal SD card and automatically uploaded to special software configured for law enforcement. This software is made by Axon, a major financial backer of Skydio and the controversial maker of Tasers and ‘less-lethal weapons’ used by police departments in the US and across the west. The software, Axon Evidence, enables, in the words of an Axon press release, ‘the automatic uploads of photos and video footage from drones into a digital evidence management system.’
Axon’s equipment is also central to Israel’s infrastructure of apartheid, with the company providing body cameras and Tasers to Israeli police forces and prison guards who routinely torture Palestinians. Axon, which participated in a $220 million Series E round of funding in Skydio, is just one of the many entities backing Skydio who serve a Zionist agenda.
Skydio’s first investor in 2015 was Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) which provided $3 million of seed capital to the three-man team behind the drone maker. They have since invested tens of millions across numerous funding rounds. The founders of a16z, Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz, are both notorious Zionists. The firm was the most active venture capital investor in Israel in 2024 and this summer Andreessen and Horowitz visited Israel to meet with tech companies founded by ex-IDF and Unit 8200 war criminals.
Other Skydio investors include Next 47, which has an office in Israel headed by Moshe Zilberstein who worked in the IDF’s computer spy center Mamram, and Hercules Capital whose managing director Ella-Tamar Adnahan is an Israeli-American described by Israeli media as “Israel’s go-to tech banker in the US.”
The saturation of US police departments with drone technology so closely connected to Israel, technology used to carry out war crimes is a frightening, if not unsurprising, development. Skydio drones will be central to the rapidly advancing proto-fascism in the US and the crack down on Antifa and other so-called ‘domestic terrorists’ by the Trump administration. In this context, the bigger surprise is that the rapid expansion of Israel-linked surveillance drone technology across America has so far gone largely under the radar.
Skydio should also make it on to the agenda of Zohran Mamdani. Recently criticized for saying “when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF,” Skydio is just another example that shows he’s right. If he has the courage of his convictions, he could do worse than use his powers as mayor to shut down the NYPD’s Skydio deal.
Skydio is also a large supplier to the Department of Defence, recently signing a contract to provide the US Army with reconnaissance drones. As a significant supplier to both military and civilian security forces, it raises questions about what information is or will be shared between the US military and domestic security agencies via the Skydio-Axon digital evidence management system.
Skydio shows once again how Gaza is the laboratory for weapons makers, the place where new surveillance and apartheid technologies are tested, before being refined and used in the West. And next year Skydio is rolling out new indoor drones. We can only speculate as to what extent these new drones were informed by the ‘learnings’ accrued via genocide.
There is much in the air right now, and you are seeing it on your internet with the things that people are saying and foreshadowing (rightly or wrongly).You need to know that one is not here to follow another’s path but to follow one’s own, even when that may seem less than… inspiring or even important.Know that as long as you are doing what is right for you, then it isimportant, more than that it is vitally important for you, for your own life. This is not time for questioning because there is so much fakery out there and every day brings more.
It is difficult at times to discover what is real and what is fake, and ultimately and some times the only wya to do so is to go within and FEEL how that person, thing, sign, whatever feels to you.Does it feel real?Does it feel as thought had been manufactured to create a result, an effect, a response?
Things are what they are in themselves and do not need to have the end or the result (we stumble on this word for the concept is much broader than that, but at the present time, the correct word in your language evades us.) implicit in the thing.
The effect that is made is because of what is written into the action.Can you understand that?When a false flag or a contrived action is done, there is written into the playbook of the event or the action what the desired outcome is to be.It is a am matter of control, oftentimes of crowd control, and a way in which they are able to direct attention away from what is really going on due to the confusion of the event that they have just perpetrated.(Hmmm, it seems we too are turning into conspiracy theorists.). Perhaps that is all conjecture is at the outset.Or even philosophy.
Has your philosophy been so skewed as to lead you to these perilous times.For yes, they are perilous, but not something that is inevitably bad, not something in which the ultimate outcome is written, for those who feel themselves to be in control have a desired outcome, but it is not a final outcome, and it is, after all, the final outcome that determines the efficacy of the event.
At a recent conference, the ‘godfather of AI’, Nobel Laureate Geoffrey Hinton, got down to the core issue:
“There’s only two options if you have a tiger cub as a pet. Figure out if you can train it so it never wants to kill you, or get rid of it.”
Meaning: If you give AI a job to do, a goal, it’ll relentlessly pursue that goal, no matter what.
If you don’t build in extremely tight limitations and guard rails, AI won’t consider the safety, well-being, and survival of humans a barrier. It’ll jump the barrier.
In a recent article, I quoted tech big shots who admitted they don’t really know how AI works.
That’s right.
They confessed they don’t understand how or why chatbots like GPT select each successive word they present as answers to human queries.
That’s not a comforting confession.
Press stories have been detailing many so-called AI hallucinations—in which AI invents data that don’t exist, makes up fictional court cases and legal precedents as if they’re genuine.
Increasingly, AI is being designed and trained to make users happy and feel smart. It flatters users. It tunes into users’ language to figure out how to present itself as a friend.
Many children growing up with AI prefer relating to it over humans.
The concept of “brain death,” introduced in 1968 to enable organ harvesting, has never been proven equivalent to actual death — it merely defines an irreversible coma
Documented cases exist of “brain dead” patients who were conscious, including some who mouthed “help me” as their organs were nearly harvested
Global organ shortages have fueled a black market, with an estimated 5% to 20% of transplants involving illegal procurement and added pressure to lower diagnostic standards for “brain death”
Recent federal investigations found serious failures in the U.S. organ donation system: 29.3% of reviewed cases showed troubling signs, and 20.8% of patients had neurologic activity incompatible with procurement — yet transplant coordinators still pushed to proceed
Safer, ethical alternatives exist — such as natural therapies like DMSO that have revived “brain dead” patients and restored organ function, removing the need for transplant
When I first got my driver’s license years ago, they asked if I wanted to be an organ donor. Having learned to be skeptical of institutions and having heard some concerning stories, I said no. But I felt conflicted about it — I believe in treating others as you’d want to be treated, and if I needed a transplant someday, I’d desperately want someone willing to help save my life.
Since then, I’ve discovered much more disturbing information about organ transplantation that completely shifted my perspective. Recently, RFK Jr. did something I never expected — he formally announced that there were widespread failures in our organ donation system’s ethical safeguards.1 This opened the floodgates for others to start discussing the grim reality that organs were being taken from people who were still alive.2
Over time, medicine transformed our cultural relationship with death — from an accepted, intimate companion to a feared, medicalized enemy to be defeated (e.g., one author traces this shift through six historical stages, arguing that medicalization stripped individuals of autonomy and commodified death itself).3
Medicine fueled this transformation by performing modern “miracles,” such as reviving the dead through cardiac resuscitation and transplanting organs — crossing what was once an absolute boundary between life and death. In doing so, it gained immense public trust and the ability to justify exorbitant costs.
This cultivated the myth that medicine can conquer death. Over time, it became seen not just as a means of survival, but as something to be continuously consumed in the name of “health” — transforming it into a highly profitable industry that now accounts for over 17.6% of all U.S. spending.
Because viable donor organs (a central crux of medicine’s dominion over death) are so limited, transplants quickly became incredibly valuable — costs range from $446,800 to $1,918,700 depending on the organ.4 Given how desperate people are for organs and how much money is involved, it hence seemed reasonable to assume some illegal harvesting would occur.
Over the years, as demand for organs continues to increase, I’ve continually found disturbing evidence that this was happening.5 This includes:
•Individuals being tricked into selling a kidney (e.g., in 2011, a viral story discussed a Chinese teenager who did so for an iPhone 4 — approximately 0.0125% of the black market rate for a kidney, after which he became septic and his other kidney failed leaving him permanently bedridden,6 and in 2023, a wealthy Nigerian politician being convicted for trying to trick someone into donating a kidney for a transplant at an English hospital).7
•A 20098 and 20149 Newsweek investigation and a 2025 paper highlighted the extensive illegal organ trade,10 estimating that 5% of global organ transplants involve black market purchases (totaling $600 million to $1.7 billion annually), with kidneys comprising 75% of these due to high demand for kidney failure treatments and the possibility of surviving with one kidney (though this greatly reduces your vitality).
Approximately 10% to 20% of kidney transplants from living donors are illegal, with British buyers paying $50,000 to $60,000, while desperate impoverished donors (e.g., from refugee camps or countries like Pakistan, India, China, and Africa) receive minimal payment and are abandoned when medical complications arise, despite promises of care. To quote the 2009 article:11
“Diflo became an outspoken advocate for reform several years ago, when he discovered that, rather than risk dying on the U.S. wait list, many of his wealthier dialysis patients had their transplants done in China. There, they could purchase the kidneys of executed prisoners.
In India, Lawrence Cohen, another UC Berkeley anthropologist, found that women were being forced by their husbands to sell organs to foreign buyers to contribute to the family’s income, or to provide for the dowry of a daughter. But while the WHO estimates that organ-trafficking networks are widespread and growing, it says that reliable data are almost impossible to come by.”
Note: These reports also highlighted that these surgeries operate on the periphery of the medical system and involve complicit medical professionals who typically claim ignorance of its illegality (e.g., a good case was made that a few U.S. hospitals, like Cedars Sinai were complicit in the trade).
•A 2004 court case where a South African hospital pleaded guilty to illegally transplanting kidneys from poorer recipients (who received $6,000 to $20,000) to wealthy recipients (who paid up to $120,000).12,13
•Many reports of organ harvesting by the Chinese government against specific political prisoners.14,15,16,17,18 This evidence is quite compelling, particularly since until 2006,19 China admitted organs were sourced from death row prisoners (with data suggesting the practice has not stopped).20
Note: Harvesting organs from death row prisoners represents one of the most reliable ways to get healthy organs immediately at the time of death (which is one of the greatest challenges in transplant medicine).
•I’ve read reports of organ harvesting occurring in Middle East conflict zones,21 by ISIS and in the Kosovo conflict,22 and with drug cartels.23
Note: Many other disturbing cases of illicit organ harvesting are discussed in more detail here. Likewise, many other valuable tissues (e.g., tendons and corneas) can be harvested from dead bodies. Significant controversy also exists with the ethics of how these are collected (e.g., the respect given to the bodies or how profit focused that industry is).
When Consciousness Gets Trapped
Different parts of the brain control various aspects of our being, so people who are still conscious can sometimes completely lose control of their bodies or their ability to communicate — known as Locked-in syndrome.24
The most famous case involves Martin, a 12-year-old who fell ill with meningitis and entered a vegetative state.25 He was sent home to die, but stayed alive. At 16, he began regaining consciousness, became fully aware by 19, and at 26, a caregiver finally realized he was conscious and got him a communication computer. He eventually married.
Note: Two things from his memoir stuck with me: years of being haunted by his mother once saying, “I hope you die” in frustration, and him sharing, “I cannot even express to you how much I hated Barney” because the care center had him watch Barney reruns every day, assuming he was vegetative.26
When someone is dying, certain functions are lost before others. It’s frequently observed in palliative care that touch and hearing are the last senses to disappear27 (e.g., studies show hearing persists at the end of life).28 This is why I sometimes tell grieving families their “brain-dead” loved one might still hear their voice or feel their touch.
Note: Many people who’ve been resuscitated report “near-death experiences” where they were aware of their surroundings when their brain was supposedly “dead,” suggesting other senses may persist during brain death.29
The Problem with Brain Death
Since organs rapidly lose viability once someone dies, the only way to ethically obtain them is from someone who has “died” but whose body is still keeping organs alive — someone who is brain dead.
Brain death was defined by a 1968 Harvard Medical School Committee30 report called “A Definition of Irreversible Coma.”31 They stated their purpose was to “define irreversible coma as a new criterion for death” for two reasons: the burden of caring for brain-damaged patients and avoiding controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation.
However, the committee was confident about diagnosing “irreversible coma” but tentative about calling this “death.”32 A Harvard ethicist noted: “That link, between being irreversibly unconscious and being dead, has never really been made in a convincing way.”
The criteria included no response to stimuli, no breathing, no reflexes, no brainwaves, and replication after 24 hours. Though rapidly adopted, it was immediately contested by doctors who felt harvesting organs from someone with a heartbeat was unethical, worried about diagnostic errors, and suspected the primary motivation was avoiding long-term care costs and obtaining organs.33
Note: Recent studies show fMRIs demonstrate intentional brain activity in 20% of vegetative patients,34 and 25% of patients with no physical ability to respond can still activate brain regions when spoken to.35
The New York Times recently published an essay advocating for broadening the definition of death, arguing: “We need to broaden the definition of death … So long as the patient had given informed consent for organ donation, removal would proceed without delay … We would have more organs available for transplantation.”36
When ‘Brain Dead’ Patients Are Actually Conscious
Compelling cases demonstrate these concerns are valid. Zack Dunlap, a 21-year-old pronounced brain dead after an ATV accident, was about to have his organs harvested when a nurse relative tested his reflexes and got responses.37 The transplant was cancelled, and Zack fully recovered. Crucially, Zack was fully conscious throughout:
“The next thing I remember was laying in the hospital bed, not being able to move, breathe, couldn’t do anything, on a ventilator, and I heard someone say, I’m sorry he’s brain-dead … I tried to scream, tried to move, just got extremely angry.”
Jahi McMath, a thirteen-year-old declared brain dead after tonsillectomy complications, was kept on life support by her family despite court orders.38 Nine months later, she had regained brainwaves and blood flow to the brain, and moved in response to verbal commands.
More cases include Lewis Roberts (began breathing hours before organ harvesting),39 Ryan Marlow (diagnosis reversed after wife’s insistence),40 Colleen Burns (awoke on the operating table and was later found by HHS to have been repeatedly misdiagnosed),41 and Trenton McKinley (13-year-old who recovered before scheduled donation).42
There were also cases like Steven Thorpe (declared brain dead by four doctors, parents refused organ donation, and he awoke two weeks later),43 and Gloria Cruz (husband refused to allow withdrawal of care, and she recovered).44
Note: A recent study found that over 30% of brain-injured patients deemed unrecoverable would have partially or fully recovered had life support not been withdrawn.45
Harvesting from Conscious Patients
Most alarming are cases where harvesting was attempted on conscious patients. Anthony Thomas “TJ” Hoover II, who’d repeatedly shown signs of life but was sedated, was brought to the operating room with eyes open.46 Tears streamed down his face as he mouthed “help me” and thrashed to avoid surgery. The surgeon refused to proceed, but the coordinator attempted to find an alternative surgeon.
Note: In a similar case, a woman diagnosed as brain dead was in fact “locked-in” and able to hear everything around her, including a doctor telling medical students her husband was “unreasonable” for being unwilling to sign away her organs to people who could benefit from them, and that it was fine to speak this way around her as she was brain dead.47
There have also been cases like James Howard-Jones, who woke up just before life support was to be withdrawn for organ harvesting.48 Additionally, several patients including a three-month-old boy,49 a ten-month-old boy, a 15-year-old girl,50 and a 65-year-old woman,51 who were all declared “brain dead” had their life support turned off to facilitate peaceful transitions, but instead unexpectedly survived and recovered.
Note: I suspect these stories are more common than we are led to believe (e.g., after I published this story on Substack, readers came forward to share instances of “brain-dead” children or patients who subsequently fully recovered).
Federal Investigations Expose Systematic Failures
Regional organ procurement organizations facilitate transplants under the Organ Procurement and Transplant Network (OPTN). Due to chronic organ shortages (roughly 5,600 die yearly awaiting organs),52 OPTN faced scathing Congressional hearings53 and DOJ investigation.54 They found OPTN had become corrupt and dysfunctional:
•20% to 25% of kidneys lost during transport
•Never collecting 80% of eligible organs
•Poor training leaving staff unable to determine brain death
•Retaliating against whistleblowers
•Misinforming families and seeking consent from impaired relatives
•Medicare fraud and altering causes of death
As such, Congress passed a 2023 law breaking up OPTN’s monopoly.55
The HRSA Investigation Bombshell
The Health Resources and Services Administration conducted an extensive investigation after OPTN refused to release critical records. While OPTN’s review found “no major concerns,” HRSA’s investigation revealed disturbing patterns.
RFK Jr. made the unprecedented decision to publicly release these horrifying findings56,57 despite knowing it would undermine trust in organ donations. The partially redacted report found:58
“HRSA found a concerning pattern of risk to neurologically injured patients … Multiple patients were documented as evincing pain or discomfort during peri-procurement events after OPO staff had either failed to adequately assess neurologic function or had documented findings inconsistent with successful organ recovery without change to the plan.”
The scale was shocking: Of the authorized but not recovered cases (meaning something went awry at the last minute), HRSA found 103 (29.3%) had concerning features, including 73 patients (20.8%) showing neurologic status incompatible with organ procurement. At least 28 (8.0%) patients had no cardiac time of death noted, suggesting potential survival.
Note: ANR stands for “authorized but not recovered” — something went wrong at the last minute (like the donor reviving) that stopped the harvesting.
The report revealed systematic misreporting of drug intoxication cases, where depressed mental status from drugs was being mistaken for permanent brain injury.
Mainstream Media Confirms the Horror
A July 2025 New York Times investigation corroborated these findings:59
“Fifty-five medical workers in 19 states told The Times they had witnessed at least one disturbing case … coordinators persuading hospital clinicians to administer morphine, propofol and other drugs to hasten the death of potential donors.”
One surgical technician described a crying, alert woman being sedated anyway: “I felt like if she had been given more time on the ventilator, she could have pulled through … I felt like I was part of killing someone.” Dr. Wade Smith, a UCSF neurologist, concluded: “I think these types of problems are happening much more than we know.”
Living with Transplants
Transplants aren’t the miracle they’re portrayed as. Failure rates are significant:
•Lung — 10.4% (within a year),60 72% (within 10 years)61
•Heart — 7.8% (within a year),62 46% (within 10 years)63
•Kidney — 5% (within a year),64 46.4% (within 10 years)65
•Liver — 7.6% (within a year),66 32.5% (within 10 years)67
Patients must follow lifelong regimens of immune-suppressing medications costing $10,000 to $30,000 annually, with many serious side effects. Comprehensive vaccination is also typically required, which became controversial during COVID-19 when people were denied transplants for refusing COVID vaccines (and in some cases then died from those required vaccines).
What’s most abhorrent is that the COVID vaccine could actually increase transplant rejection risk. I received numerous reports from my network of this and found a paper documenting 44 cases of corneal graft rejections following COVID vaccines,68 plus similar results with kidney transplants (36 cases)69 and liver rejections (12 cases).70
Transplant recipients often face intense psychological stress — from the uncertainty of waiting for a donor, to the ever-present risk of organ rejection, and the lifelong burden of managing complex medical needs.
One of the most overlooked yet profound sources of stress is the phenomenon of personality, preference, and memory transference from donor to recipient. Numerous documented cases describe recipients acquiring new traits — such as food preferences, talents, or even shifts in sexual orientation — that align closely with those of their donor, despite having no prior knowledge of them.
In some extraordinary instances, recipients have reported memories of events they never experienced, including details of a donor’s death that later contributed to solving crimes.
The psychological impact of integrating these unexpected traits — essentially, elements of another person’s identity — can be deeply unsettling. Moreover, research and clinical observation suggest that recipients who resist or struggle to accept these changes may experience more complications post-transplant. Likewise, we frequently observe an immense amount of transference with organs, and it is often necessary to release the trapped emotions from the organ to improve transplant outcomes.
These observations raise complex questions about the nature of consciousness, memory, and identity. They also bring ethical concerns to the forefront — particularly if tangible spiritual consequences exist for receiving organs that are harvested without the donor’s informed consent.
What Needs to Change
Many of the long-standing issues within the U.S. organ transplantation system stem from the lack of accountability and competition within the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN).
For decades, OPTN has operated with minimal oversight, resulting in little incentive to improve donor identification protocols (e.g., recognizing the “brain dead” patients who are still alive), invest in better diagnostic tools, or modernize organ collection practices so that fewer vital organs are lost. To address these systemic problems, meaningful reforms are urgently needed:
•Improved diagnostic standards — Incorporate advanced methods for assessing consciousness — such as functional MRI (fMRI) and other neuroimaging techniques — that can detect subtle signs of awareness often missed by traditional evaluations.
•Independent oversight — Establish clear separation between organ procurement organizations and clinical care teams. All potential donor cases should be reviewed by independent ethics and medical committees.
•Legal safeguards — Enact stronger legal protections, including mandatory waiting periods, second medical opinions from independent professionals, and family rights that cannot be overridden under pressure.
•Transparency and accountability — Implement rigorous oversight mechanisms, robust whistleblower protections, and enforceable penalties for organizations that violate ethical standards.
More importantly, viable alternatives to conventional organ transplantation must be prioritized — because as long as demand far outpaces supply, unethical practices will inevitably emerge. Fortunately, several promising solutions are already within reach:
•Natural and regenerative therapies — Throughout my career, I have seen many marginalized “alternative” therapies restore failing organs. Likewise, physician readers have reported DMSO saved livers and lungs, allowing their patients to be taken off the transplant list.
•Bioengineered organs — Cutting-edge research is advancing the development of synthetic and lab-grown organs, which may be commercially available within the next decade.
•Living donor solutions — In many cases, a healthy living donor — often a family member — can safely donate nonessential organs such as a kidney, significantly reducing the need for deceased donor transplants.
•Reversal of “Brain Death” — Intravenous DMSO has shown remarkable success in reviving patients diagnosed as brain dead or in severe neurological states (and requiring a lifetime of costly medical care). Despite decades of clinical evidence supporting its potential, mainstream medicine has largely ignored this low-cost therapy.
Note: Many documented cases of organ harvesting from paralyzed but conscious individuals closely mirror scenarios in which DMSO has led to full neurological recovery.
In short, recent federal investigations have exposed cracks in a system that can no longer be ignored. We now have a critical opportunity not only to reform a deeply flawed process, but also to champion ethical, innovative alternatives that honor the dignity of every human life.
It is up to each of us — patients, providers, policymakers, and citizens — to ensure that medical decisions are made in the true best interest of the individual, not driven by the pressures of organ demand. Organ donation touches upon one of the most sacred aspects of being human, and now is the time to make sure it is honored.
Author’s Note: This is an abridged version of a longer article which goes into greater detail on the points mentioned here (e.g., the therapies which can restore failing organs, the extensive body of data consciousness resides in the organs, and methods for releasing trapped emotional trauma). That article, along with additional links and references can be read here.
A Note from Dr. Mercola About the Author
A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) is a board-certified physician from the Midwest and a longtime reader of Mercola.com. I appreciate AMD’s exceptional insight on a wide range of topics and am grateful to share it. I also respect AMD’s desire to remain anonymous since AMD is still on the front lines treating patients. To find more of AMD’s work, be sure to check out The Forgotten Side of Medicine on Substack.
Ex-Mossad head Yossi Cohen boasted during a recent podcast that Israel has “boobytrapped” and “manipulated” equipment like that used in their pager attack in Lebanon in “all countries that you can imagine.”
A Flock camera captures a vehicle’s make, model and license plate that police officers can view on computers. The city of Stanwood has paused use of Flock cameras while lawsuits over public records issues are sorted out. (Flock provided photo)
