This comment was linked from this v/pizzagate comment by @NOMOCHOMO.

^{Posted automatically (#9675) by the SearchVoat.co Cross-Link Bot. You can suppress these notifications by appending a forward-slash(/) to your Voat link. More information here.}

5_ You've demonstrated no connection between [Elite] and parents who want their terminally ill kids' lives to help other terminally ill kids. It's certainly likely that biomed profiteers would try to take advantage of such parents, but that is speculative.

A. The BBC article clearly states that organs are not going to just "terminally ill kids". They are also going to adults.

A newborn baby, who lived for less than two hours, became Britain's youngest-ever organ donor last year. Doctors at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, carried out the pioneering surgery three minutes after Teddy Houlston died on April 22. His kidneys were then used to save an ADULT'S life in Leeds....Teddy's kidneys - which were unaffected by the rare brain disease he had - will be able to grow inside another living body, making them suitable for donation to an adult, as well as a small baby. Teddy lived for 100 minutes after he was born. After he died, doctors would have moved quickly to perform the rare and intricate operation to remove his kidneys and use them to save another life. His case puts the focus back on neo-natal organ donation as a way of increasing the number of organ donors in the future.

B. The other articles clearly state that the ORGANS harvested went to Biomedical Profiteers. This isn't speculative. It's happening already.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna51436

the Slifkas became part of a small but growing group of parents who agree to neonatal donation, a little-known practice that retrieves organs and tissues from babies who die during birth or shortly after for use in transplants AND RESEARCH... transplant experts are urging much wider use....Cells obtained from infants and young children are rare, but RESEARCHERS say they may hold the key to understanding the start of diseases such as diabetes.

Amalya Conkel was delivered by cesarean section on Sept. 10, 2012. He lived 1 hour and 20 minutes. “He never cried or moved or made any sound. He did open his eyes,” his mother said....After his death, with the help of the International Institute for the Advancement of Medicine, an organ and tissue agency, the Conkels were able to donate Amalya’s liver and pancreas and his body for RESEARCH.

Sarah Gray, a Washington, D.C., mother who became pregnant with twin boys, Thomas and Callum, in 2009, but learned early on that Thomas had anencephaly. She carried both boys to term; Thomas died at home five days after his birth...donated their son’s eyes to the Schepens Eye Research Institute in Boston, his liver cells to Cytonet LLC in Durham, N.C., and his cord blood to the Duke Center for Human Genetics, also in Durham.

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/inspirational-stories/a41870/annie-ahern-anencephaly-infant-loss/

Because her oxygen levels were too low for too long, her organs weren't viable for transplant, which was disappointing [again demonstrating the need to keep the baby alive and breathing for successful transplants]....They were able to donate her heart valves for recipients and many of her organs for research purposes....not only were her organs donated, but the protocol was also put in place for other infants to donate their organs.

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/mother-uncovers-lasting-impact-of-sons-organ-donation/

“Infant eyes are like gold,” a Harvard scientist told her...“I don’t think people understand how valuable these donations are,” said Gray...Families often find comfort in learning how many lives were saved if they donated a loved one’s organs for transplant. But donating a body for research gets less attention – there are no headline-making “saves.” Yet critical medical research in labs around the country depends on scientists’ ability to work with human cells and organs, so they can study both normal development and how disease does its dirty work.

“A lot of people, if the tissue doesn’t get used for transplant, they think it’s kind of second-rate tissue or something. I’d like them to know that people who do research with human tissue are doing worthwhile things that are going to, hopefully, lead to cures for all kinds of diseases,” said Dr. James Zieske, a corneal specialist at Harvard and the Schepens Eye Research Institute, whose description of treasured infant eyes spurred Gray’s hunt.

4_ Pizzagate as defined for this sub is an organized attempt by a corrupt group of wealthy, globalist powermongers who use the abuse of kids to keep their chokehold on power.

Hillary Clinton is very tied to the AMA

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmillenson/2016/07/30/when-the-american-medical-association-cheered-hillary/

Hillary, who held no official title other than First Lady, had been placed in charge of the White House Health Care Task Force by her husband, Pres. Bill Clinton. Their plan’s specifics would not be unveiled until the president gave a primetime televised address to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 22, but the broad outline was already clear...She lashed out at the "excessive oversight" of insurance company reviewers and government bureaucrats who second-guessed medical decisions. She endorsed malpractice reform and, responding to an AMA wish list, seemed sympathetic to amending antitrust laws to allow medical professional societies to discipline poor-quality doctors..."What we need is a new bargain," she said, offering to reduce red tape and give doctors more autonomy.

American Medical Association has donated to Hillary Clinton.

http://docquery.fec.gov/pres/2016/M9/C00575795/A_EMPLOYER_C00575795.html

AMA is the 2nd largest lobbying group in the US

https://web.archive.org/web/20160105151443/https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/our-corrupt-politics-its-not-all-money/

Since 1998, OpenSecrets.org, a research group analyzing money in politics, has been tracking spending on lobbyists. The Chamber of Commerce easily leads its list, having spent more than $800 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2011. The American Medical Association comes in second, with over $264 million.

So an organization which is trying to change the definition of "brain-death" to allow for babies to be harvested is buying politicians including Hillary Clinton.

3_ "three last links of actual tissue donations all emphasize how difficult and rare it was for parents to attempt to donate their children's organs"

Yet the medical associations have been talking about it since the 80's. It's rare & difficult compared to conventional organ donations, but it is rapidly increasing in prevalence. These Mainstream articles are Propogandizing the practice and don't mention the extensive 30+ year medical legacy of the practice. Also they all mention that the parents are now "spreading awareness" or "education" to increase the practice, and that a few of these parents are involved in the medical industry themselves.

1. The supporting link you provide for the AMA statement on this is decades old and also refutes the claim, stating: "Courts have said that anencephalic babies fall under the purview of the Americans With Disabilities Act, deserving all the medical care that society can provide."

Not quite, it clarifies a few sentences down

"In 1992, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the parents of an anencephalic baby could not donate her organs because the baby was not dead."

This article was published in 1995 by the American Medical Association. Since then, no US court has ruled against an anencephalic child's organs being harvested. (although surprisingly Canada has). And like i posted, multiple anencephalic kids have been used as organ donors in the US.

The AMA is the largest association of physicians in the US. The AMA also publishes a list of Physician Specialty Codes which are the standard method in the U.S. for identifying physician and practice specialties. Doctors use these "ethical guidelines" to cover their ass. Similarly, as the largest medical body in the US, AMA statements inform Judges and Legislators.

http://everydaybioethics.org/resource/anencephalic-babies-are-now-“wanted”—-their-organs

The American Medical Association (AMA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs dealt with this problem by recommending suspension of the “dead donor rule” if the parents consented and various safeguards were put in place. In sharp contrast, the policies of the Canadian Paediatric Society (1990, reaffirmed in 2005) and of the American Academy of Pediatrics (1992) stated that anencephalic infants were not appropriate organ donors, and held firm to the prevailing legal and medical criteria for brain death.[6] The AMA changed course, and its current policy now also affirms the “dead donor rule,” but it does allow mechanical support to keep the organs viable until death is declared.

Now that sounds good right? The AMA backtracked and says the baby has to be dead. But how do they define death?

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/anencephalic-newborns-organ-donors

anencephalic newborns are thought to be unique among other brain- damaged beings because they lack past consciousness and have no potential for future consciousness.

In the context of prospective organ donation from an anencephalic newborn, physicians may ethically:

(a) Provide ventilator assistance and other medical therapies that are necessary to sustain organ perfusion and viability until such time as a determination of death can be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

(b) Retrieve and transplant the organs of an anencephalic newborn only after such determination of death, and in accordance with ethics guidance for transplantation and for medical decisions for minors.

Thus, the AMA created an exclusive category for Anencephalics so they can more easily & quickly declare "brain-death". Yet these infants are kept on life-support through this declared "brain death" (like Terry Schiavo) so that the organs don't fail. Basically, the body is alive, and the brain is maintaining organ function, but the infant is still declared brain-dead. During this living "death" the organs are harvested. They have to keep the child's body alive, and harvest quickly, otherwise, the organs fail.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722973/

In 1989, Loma Linda reported a study (6) of 12 anencephalic infants who were supported with intensive care measures for one week to facilitate declaration of brain death. Successful organ donation did not occur from any of the infants. The study authors concluded that anencephalic infants could not be used as organ donors without legal and medical changes to regulate brain death and organ donation.

1. Where is the source that supports this statement: "Now, parents are even encouraged to carry their children to term so they can be harvested."

"http://everydaybioethics.org/resource/anencephalic-babies-are-now-“wanted”—-their-organs"

Fetal Harvest: Anencephalic Babies Are Now “Wanted”—For Their Organs

For although about 4,000 babies with anencephaly are born in the US each year,[9] in the UK, only about a dozen are born every year. The rest—at least 230 annually—are aborted. Yet British transplant surgeons anticipate that, under their proposal, at least 100 anencephalic babies annually will become organ donors. This means that all ten or twelve women who will carry their babies to term regardless would need to consent to donation, while another 90 or so women who would otherwise abort must be persuaded to carry their babies to term for transplant purposes.

But how can the latter goal be reached if a woman cannot be approached about donation until after she’s decided against abortion? No need to worry: the surgeons are already discussing whether to amend their proposal to allow them to offer the woman the option of organ donation at the time the diagnosis of anencephaly is made. If this is done, and if it motivates a woman to carry her child to term and give birth, would she be doing so because she loves her child, or only for the sake of some other family’s child? Wouldn’t the latter amount to treating the anencephalic baby merely as a medical resource, an object to serve “the greater good”?

It is no secret that under the current regime in both Britain and America, women who are carrying a child with a disability are often pressured to terminate their pregnancy. I have been told about more than one pregnant woman being taken aside and quizzed by the nurse, “Is your husband forcing you to continue this pregnancy?” Frequently, the only option she is offered is abortion. It is ironic, to say the least, that these brave women’s refusals to abort are now being lauded rather than scorned—but only because the utilitarian goal posts have shifted toward “using” their babies’ organs

The term "proposal" is a weasel word, as it is an active policy being implemented.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-plan-harvest-organs-babies-7503903

"A committee has been set up by NHS Blood and Transplant, tasked with boosting organ donation from newborns and very young babies. A lead nurse has also been appointed to co-ordinate efforts to educate NHS staff about talking to parents about such a sensitive issue. Under the proposals, midwives and other NHS workers are to be educated about the possibility of using babies’ organs in transplants."

From experience an anecheplic child can never survive long after birth. A few days maybe a few months at max, so doctors normally give an option to terminate pregnancy. They're placed on life support from birth, as far as organ harvesting/donating, I was told not possible but that was in 1999.