A Plea to All Catholic and Conciliar Clergy, Putative and Actual: Stop Believing the Modern Aztec Body Snatchers

One of the most vexing things I have witnessed in the past eighteen years is the refusal of many, although not all, legitimately ordained Catholic priests who understand the See of Saint Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII is the willing acceptance all of that is proposed by the same medical “professionals” who, by and large, support the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children, dispense contraceptives in violation of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony like Pez tablets of yore, and readily prescribe medications to treat symptoms that wind up producing side-effects that result in the prescribing of more medications to treat those side-effects.

Most people alive today, including most Catholics, have no knowledge of the fact that Holy Mother Church is the mother of the organized system of healthcare called hospitals. It was from the earliest days of her history that individual Catholics began to provide “hospitality” to the sick and the indigent, and the bishop’s house became known in the place in which the sick could receive care. The wealthiest Catholics would take it unto themselves to care for the sick in their own homes if the bishop’s house became too crowded, and it was after the ascent of Holy Mother Church from the catacombs that hospitals themselves began to be established so that the mercy of the Divine Redeemer could be administered to those suffering from kind of illness or disability, whether acute or chronic, according to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Several of our Church Fathers, including Saint Basil the Great and Saint John Chrysostom, established foundations for the sick and the poor, and another Church Father, Saint Jerome, noted that Fabiola established an institution to provide healthcare to the sick in Rome. Pope Symmachus, who reigned between 498 A.D. and 514 A.D., established hospitals that were connected to the basilicas of Saint Peter, Saint Paul and Saint Lawrence. Indeed, there was a rapid spread of hospitals all throughout what became established as Christendom and Catholic emperors, most notably Charlemagne, endeavored to establish new hospitals and to rebuild those that had fallen into disrepair. The care for the sick and injured was a notable characteristic of Christian life as the Holy Faith was spread into barbaric and pagan lands. (Please see an article on  Hospitals in the Catholic Encyclopedia for a fuller explication of the facts summarized therefrom above.)

Monasteries and convents became the center of civic life after the founding of Monte Cassino by Saint Benedict of Nursia, and each monastery featured a priest or a religious who knew how to use God’s herbs as medicines to treat bodily ills and injuries. It has been only within the past half-century that the knowledge of these holy religious has attracted the attention of those who have come to realize the harmful effects of various food additives, preservatives, artificial sweeteners, flavor enhancers, white sugar, enriched and bleached white flour, chemical substances and other highly processed food products that have no nutritional value but are addictive in se. Many of the health problems, including the spread of cancer and heart disease, have been caused by products that were hitherto unknown, thus creating the “need” for various pharmaceutical products to “treat” afflictions that wind up consigning patients to “palliative care’ programs that feature a cocktail of pharmaceutical products designed to kill them. (For a review of the use of herbs to treat various afflictions, please see  Health Through God's Pharmacy.)

The Middle Ages, which is so hated and disparaged by Protestants, Talmudists, Freemasons and most other non-Catholics, saw the establishment of numerous religious communities whose charism was the care of the sick and the establishment and maintenance of hospitals. One of those communities was the Hospitallers of Saint John of God, although there are very few members of the order today because of the doctrinal, liturgical and moral bankruptcy of conciliarism (Poland and the Spanish provinces of Andalusia and Castile have the most Hospitallers in comparison to most of the world; there are only seventeen in the United States of America). Saint Aloysius, a professed member of the Society of Jesus, gave up his life to serve those in Rome who had contracted the plague, and our own Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini made sure that the establishment of hospitals was one of the chief works of her own Missionaries of the Sacred Heart of Jesus (in addition to caring for Italian immigrants to the United States of America and elsewhere in the Americas, establishing schools and orphanages). Mind you, these are only a few examples of the numerous saintly Catholics who took seriously the commands of the Holy Gospel to provide care to others motivated by a love of God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church and the spiritual and temporal good of the souls for whom His Divine Son shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem.

Rather than the indifference and, in all to many cases, callousness of many medical “professionals’ today who view time with their patients as burdensome, which is why some have taken to delivering messages to patients via video screens displayed on a robot, institutions of mercy established and maintained by the Catholic Church and staffed with believing Catholics took the time to comfort patients in body, mind and soul. Patients received sound medical care in Catholic healthcare institutions of yore, and many priests, consecrated religious, lay Catholic physicians, nurses, nurses’s aides, orderlies and other staff members took the time to sit by the bedside of patients while they prayed Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary together and to recite other prayers with them throughout the day. Those who serve others as though they are serving Our Lord Himself do so with a cheerful demeanor but are also ready to offer sympathy and compassion in times of distress and sorrow according to these words of Saint Paul the Apostle:

[6] And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; [7] Or ministry, in ministering; or he that teacheth, in doctrine; [8] He that exhorteth, in exhorting; he that giveth, with simplicity; he that ruleth, with carefulness; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness. [9] Let love be without dissimulation. Hating that which is evil, cleaving to that which is good. [10] Loving one another with the charity of brotherhood, with honour preventing one another.

[11] In carefulness not slothful. In spirit fervent. Serving the Lord. [12] Rejoicing in hope. Patient in tribulation. Instant in prayer. [13] Communicating to the necessities of the saints. Pursuing hospitality. [14] Bless them that persecute you: bless, and curse not. [15] Rejoice with them that rejoice; weep with them that weep.

[16] Being of one mind one towards another. Not minding high things, but consenting to the humble. Be not wise in your own conceits. [17] To no man rendering evil for evil. Providing good things, not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of all men. [18] If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. [19] Revenge not yourselves, my dearly beloved; but give place unto wrath, for it is written: Revenge is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord. [20] But if thy enemy be hungry, give him to eat; if he thirst, give him to drink. For, doing this, thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head.

[21] Be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good. (Romans 12: 6-21.)

Yes, there was a time when institutions of mercy provided the Corporal Works of Mercy as befits redeemed creatures, mindful that patients must be prepared to receive to the Sacraments and that those who are not disposed to do would be able to make their peace with the good God in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance on a regular basis, especially before they die, and to receive Holy Communion frequently while hospitalized and as Final Viaticum as death approaches. It is the absence of such care today, especially in institutions formerly administered by the authority of the Catholic Church that have merged with or been taken over by large corporate entities and are operated on an almost purely utilitarian basis without any regard to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law and thus of seeing the Divine impress in all that they serve.

A System Taken Over by the Merchants of Death

Now, obviously, this does not mean that there are not good professionals in the healthcare industry who are devoted to healing. Of course not. It would be inaccurate and irresponsible to state such a thing. There are many people who work long, hard hours and who are doing their best on a purely natural level to help patients, including elderly patients who have had heart attacks or strokes or suffer from some long-term, debilitating disease.

Nevertheless, however, it remains the case that, despite the level of care one receives and the dedication of many healthcare providers to the healing of the sick, the ethos of “palliative care” is suffused into every figurative corpuscle of major medical institutions, and it is also true that much of the good care provided on the merely natural level will last as long as does a patient’s insurance or savings accounts. No money, no care, and that is where the “bottom line” matters more than anything else, which is why the notorious “call to hospice” is made when “all is lost,” which in too many instances today means that the money has simply dried up and it is no longer cost-effective to keep someone who is comatose, terminally ill or suffering from some debilitating condition that interferes with his “quality of life.”

Moreover, as described in Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry and other commentaries over the years on this site, the predisposition to dispose of living human beings under one pretext or another is baked into the very fabric of the education of future doctors and nurses and is part of the practice of general medicine and in each of the medical specialties. Depending upon the particular provider and his hospital affiliations, it is almost as though one has to justify his existence to be deemed “worthy” of legitimate treatment in so many cases.

This is especially case with the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of brain death that has been discussed in so many articles on this site, including No Room In The Inn For Jahi McMath, Every Once In A While, Dr. Paul Byrne on Brain Death, Stories That Speak For Themselves, Headless Corpses?, First-Hand Evidence Of Fraud, Why Should Death Of Any Kind Get In The Way?, Grand Illusion, Every Once In A While, Canada's Death Panels: A Foretaste of ObamaCare, Someone Was Killed To Keep "J.R." Alive, Trying To Find Ever New And Inventive Ways To Snatch Bodies, Dispensing With The Pretense of "Brain Death", Good Rule Of Thumb: Reject What Conciliarists Promote, To Avoid Suffering In The Name Of Compassion, Just Obey God, Death To Us All, Choosing To Live In States Of Apoplexy, Medically Induced and Judicially Sanctioned Sorrow, Always Prowling About the World to Seek the Ruin of Us All, Montezuma Ships Via Southwest, No Human Being Is A Vegetable, Your Money or Your Life, Ever Enabling Montezuma’s Army of Body Snatchers, and my book Life, Death, and Truth: Under Attack by Medicine and Law.

Countless numbers of innocent human beings, especially the young with “fresh organs,” who are involved in accidents of one kind or another are declared “brain dead” so that their vital bodily organs can be harvested from them while they are vivisected alive, sometimes even without anesthesia, Countless also are the numbers of times when God has shown forth His Omnipotence to the modern Aztec body snatcher in white coats just as they are about to kill another victim as part of the ghoulish schemes of profit according to the self-serving slogan “giving the gift of life” when they are actually genocidal maniacs intent on carving up living human beings.

Here, among many other cases that have been chronicled on this website in the past twenty years, including that of Zack Dunlap, is the story of Anthony Thomas “TJ” Hoover II:

In 2021, a supposedly brain dead man, Anthony Thomas “TJ” Hoover II, opened his eyes and looked around while being wheeled to the operating room to donate his organs. Hospital staff at Baptist Health hospital in Richmond, Kentucky assured his family that these were just “reflexes.”

But organ preservationist Natasha Miller also thought Hoover looked alive. “He was moving around – kind of thrashing. Like, moving, thrashing around on the bed,” said Miller in an NPR interview. “And then when we went over there, you could see he had tears coming down. He was visibly crying.” Thankfully, the procedure was called off, and Hoover was able to recover and even dance at his sister’s wedding this past summer.

Last month, this case was brought before a U.S. House subcommittee investigating organ procurement organizations. Whistleblowers claimed that even after two doctors refused to remove Hoover’s organs, Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates ordered their staff to find another doctor to perform the surgery.

Because brain death is a social construct and not death itself, I can tell you exactly how many “brain dead” patients are still alive: all of them. When brain death was first proposed by an ad hoc committee at Harvard Medical School in 1968, the committee admitted that these people are not dead, but rather “desperately injured.” They thought that these neurologically injured people were a burden to themselves and others, and that society would be better served if we redefined them as being “dead.” They described their reasoning this way:

Our primary purpose is to define irreversible coma as a new criterion for death. There are two reasons why there is need for a definition: (1) Improvements in resuscitative and supportive measures have led to increased efforts to save those who are desperately injured. Sometimes these efforts have only partial success so that the result is an individual whose heart continues to beat but whose brain is irreversibly damaged. The burden is great on patients who suffer permanent loss of intellect, on their families, on the hospitals, and on those in need of hospital beds already occupied by these comatose patients. (2) Obsolete criteria for the definition of death can lead to controversy in obtaining organs for transplantation.

Since brain dead people are not dead, it is not surprising that the only multicenter, prospective study of brain death found that the majority of brains from “brain dead” people were not severely damaged at autopsy – and 10 actually looked normal. Dr. Gaetano Molinari, one of the study’s principal investigators, wrote:

[D]oes a fatal prognosis permit the physician to pronounce death? It is highly doubtful whether such glib euphemisms as “he’s practically dead,” … “he can’t survive,” … “he has no chance of recovery anyway,” will ever be acceptable legally or morally as a pronouncement that death has occurred.

But history shows that despite Dr. Molinari’s doubts, “brain death,” a prognosis of possible death, went on to be widely accepted as death per se. Brain death was enshrined into US law in 1981 under the Uniform Determination of Death Act. Acceptance of this law has allowed neurologically disabled people to be redefined as “dead” and used as organ donors. Unfortunately, most of these people do not, like TJ Hoover, wake up in time. They suffer death through the harvesting of their organs, a procedure often performed without the benefit of anesthesia.

Happily, some do manage to avoid becoming organ donors and go on to receive proper medical treatment. In 1985, Jennifer Hamann was thrown into a coma after being given a prescription that was incompatible with her epilepsy medication. She could not move or sign that she was awake and aware when she overheard doctors saying that her husband was being “completely unreasonable” because he would not donate her organs. She went on to made a complete recovery and became a registered nurse.

Zack Dunlap was declared brain dead in 2007 following an ATV accident. Even though his cousin demonstrated that Zack reacted to pain, hospital staff told his family that it was just “reflexes.” But as Zack’s reactions became more vigorous, the staff took more notice and called off the organ harvesting team that was just landing via helicopter to take Zack’s organs. Today, Zack leads a fully recovered life.

Colleen Burns was diagnosed “brain dead” after a drug overdose in 2009, but wasn’t given adequate testing and awoke on the operating table just minutes before her organ harvesting surgery. Because the Burns family declined to sue, the hospital only received a slap on the wrist: the State Health Department fined St. Joseph’s Hospital Health Center in Syracuse, New York, just $6,000.

In 2015, George Pickering III was declared brain dead, but his father thought doctors were moving too fast. Armed and dangerous, he held off a SWAT team for three hours, during which time his son began to squeeze his hand on command. “There was a law broken, but it was broken for all the right reasons. I’m here now because of it,” said George III.

Trenton McKinley, a 13-year-old boy, suffered a head injury in 2018 but regained consciousness after his parents signed paperwork to donate his organs. His mother told CBS News that signing the consent to donate allowed doctors to continue Trenton’s intensive care treatment, ultimately giving him time to wake up.

Doctors often say that cases like these prove nothing, and that they are obviously the result of misdiagnosis and medical mistakes. But since all these people were about to become organ donors regardless of whether their diagnoses were correct, I doubt they find the “mistake” excuse comforting.

However, Jahi McMath was indisputably diagnosed as being “brain dead” correctly. She was declared brain dead by three different doctors, she failed three apnea tests, and she had four flat-line EEGs, as well as a cerebral perfusion scan showing “no flow.” But because her parents refused to make her an organ donor and insisted on continuing her medical care, McMath recovered to the point of being able to follow commands. Two neurologists later testified that she was no longer brain dead, but a in minimally conscious state. Her case shows that people correctly declared “brain dead” can still recover.

Brain death is not death because the brain death concept does not reflect the reality of the phenomenon of death. Therefore, any guideline for its diagnosis will have no basis in scientific facts. People declared brain dead are neurologically disabled, but they are still alive. “Brain dead” organ donation is a concealed form of euthanasia. (Recovered 'brain dead' man dancing at sister's wedding reminds us all organ donors are alive.)

Imagine the horror of being wheeled into an operating room to be vivisected for your parts even after two doctors refused to do so. Vital bodily harvesting is big business, and it is time for Catholic priests, no matter where they fall along the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide in this time of apostasy and betrayal, wake up to the truth that brain death is no true death no matter who many times sone physician relative says it is. Priests and presbyters are encouraging Catholics to sign themselves up to be vivisected alive according to participate in a “myth” that has been propagated to “give the gift of life” when what is truly happening is that the victims of the brain death fraud have been signed up to make a perverse “gift” of their own vital bodily organs to the merchants of death while they become unwitting accomplices in their own murder.

Why are Catholic priests and presbyters so willing to trust the same “experts” from the establishment medical community even though these same “experts” support the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn babies?

Do we expect that these so-called “experts” have some kind of profound “respect” for innocent human life after birth once they have denied that respect to the innocent preborn before birth?

Do we expect that the same people who have been lying to us about the "dangerous" nature of the Covid-19 bioweapon that leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology nearly five years ago and the  “safety” of many vaccines even before the start of the SARS-CoV-2 global plandemic in 2019 have been telling “the truth” about “brain death” since the myth was invented on ex post facto basis in 1968 to justify the murder of Denise Darvall in South Africa in 1967 so that her heart could be vivisected from her body to be transplanted into the chest of Louis Washansky, who lived for all of eighteen days after this supposedly “successful” Aztec experiment was performed on December 3, 1967? (For more details see First-Hand Evidence Of Fraud and last month’s Always Prowling About the World to Seek the Ruin of Us All.)

Here is another recent case of a supposedly “brain dead” patient, a mother who woke up after hearing her daughter’s voice:

A 36-year-old mother without brain activity woke up after hearing the voice of her one-year-old daughter, one of many incidents that calls into question the long-held medical understanding of so-called “brain death.”

Father Michael Orsi, who has heard the play-by-play of the remarkable episode from one of the nurse anesthesiologists involved, told LifeSiteNews that the woman recently went to the hospital for a double endoscopy. While patients normally wake within five to 10 minutes of the end of the procedure, the mother did not wake up – hospital staff found her heart had stopped.

She received CPR, and soon her heart was beating on its own again. Believing she had suffered a stroke, they sent the mother to receive an MRI and found she had no brain waves. She was then transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) and put on a respirator to help her breathe. 

After two days in ICU, the husband told the nurse on duty that if his wife could only hear the voice of her one-year-old daughter she would be OK. Amazingly, when he prompted his daughter to speak over his cell phone to her mother, she woke up. She was “in perfect condition,” according to Orsi.

The priest has verified the details of the chain of events with the woman’s doctor, Omar Hussein, who has also confirmed to LifeSiteNews that the mother woke up upon hearing the voice of her daughter. Hussein has said there is no way he can scientifically explain what happened.

However, the longtime medical “consensus” on brain death in the U.S. has been contested by various doctors, some of whom point out that patients can indeed go on to recover consciousness after meeting what has been considered official criteria for brain death. 

Dr. Heidi Klessig recently explained that such cases of recovery after flatline EEGs (no brainwaves) can likely be attributed to a condition called Global Ischemic Penumbra, or GIP:

Like every other organ, the brain shuts down its function when its blood flow is reduced in order to conserve energy. At 70 percent of normal blood flow, the brain’s neurological functioning is reduced, and at a 50 percent reduction the EEG becomes flatline. But tissue damage doesn’t begin until blood flow to the brain drops below 20 percent of normal for several hours. GIP is a term doctors use to refer to that interval when the brain’s blood flow is between 20 percent and 50 percent of normal. 

During GIP, the brain will not respond to neurological testing and has no electrical activity on EEG but still has enough blood flow to maintain tissue viability – meaning that recovery is still possible. During GIP, a person will appear “brain dead” using the current medical guidelines and testing but with continuing care they could potentially improve.

Just last month, the New York Times shared the results of a large study that found at least a quarter of unresponsive patients (those diagnosed with a coma, vegetative state, or minimally conscious state) have some awareness.

During the study, teams of neurologists asked 241 such unresponsive patients to do “complex cognitive tasks,” such as imagining themselves playing tennis. Remarkably, 25 percent of the patients exhibited the “same patterns of brain activity seen in healthy people.”

“It’s not OK to know this and do nothing,” remarked Dr. Nicholas Schiff, a neurologist at Weill Cornell Medicine, the Times reported.

“This puts a whole new light on the Terri Schiavo case,” Fr. Orsi told LifeSiteNews, referring to a court’s decision to allow the husband of a cognitively disabled woman in a persistent vegetative state to have her refused nutrition and water so that she would die a slow and painful death of dehydration.

The priest pointed to the implications these findings have for the care of unresponsive patients, including in response to their capacity for mental distress.

“Imagine the terror of that, listening to what they’re going to do,” he said regarding times when the decision is made to pull the plug on an unresponsive patient. “Or hearing how it’s time to call in the organ transplant team. This is horrible.”

“Brain death” guidelines in the U.S. were revised this year to state that it occurs in individuals with catastrophic brain injury, and no evidence of function of the “brain as a whole,” a condition that must be “permanent.” Klessig has pointed out that “under the ‘brain as a whole’ formulation, people can be declared dead while parts of the brain are still working, as evidenced by electrical activity on EEG.”

Klessig has also highlighted the fact that, according to the new guideline, “(t)he panel chose to use the term permanent to mean function was lost and (1) will not resume spontaneously, and (2) medical interventions will not be used to attempt restoration of function.” 

“The fact that medical interventions ‘will not be used’ implies that they might have been used and might have been successful if used. This fact alone reveals that these people are not dead, since there exists a possibility of resuscitation!” she wrote.

Klessig noted that the diagnosis of brain death becomes “a self-fulfilling prophecy: most people diagnosed with BD/DNC very quickly have their support withdrawn or become organ donors.” She is calling for AAN guidelines to be scrapped in favor of “the traditional definition of death: cessation of cardiopulmonary function.”

“Brain death is a legal fiction that removes civil rights from vulnerable brain-injured people, who, under the United States Constitution, possess an ‘inalienable right to life,’ deserve protection, and should be treated as mentally disabled persons,” Klessig maintains. (Woman with no brainwave activity wakes up after hearing her daughter’s voice,)

Although Dr. Heidi Klessig’s opposition to the myth of “brain death” is generally well-stated, no summary of this monstrously ghoulish exercise in medical mendacity was given seventeen years ago to Mrs. Randy Engel in The Michael Fund Newsletter:

Editor: When we speak of vital organs, what organs are we talking about?

Dr. Byrne: Vital organs (from the Latin vita, meaning life) include the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and pancreas. In order to be suitable for transplant, they need to be removed from the donor before respiration and circulation cease. Otherwise, these organs are not suitable, since damage to the organs occurs within a brief time after circulation of blood with oxygen stops. Removing vital organs from a living person prior to cessation of circulation and respiration will cause the donor’s death.

Editor: Are there some vital organs which can be removed without causing the death of the donor?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. For example, one of two kidneys, a lobe of a liver, or a lobe of a lung. The donors must be informed that removal of these organs decreases function of the donor. Unpaired vital organs however, like the heart or whole liver, cannot be removed without killing the donor.

Editor: Since vital organs taken from a dead person are of no use, and taking the heart of a living person will kill that person, how is vital organ donation now possible?

Dr. Byrne: That’s where “brain death” comes in. Prior to 1968, a person was declared dead only when his or her breathing and heart stopped for a sufficient period of time. Declaring “brain death” made the heart and other vital organs suitable for transplantation. Vital organs must be taken from a living body; removing vital organs will cause death.

Editor: I still recall the announcement of the first official heart transplant by Dr. Christian Barnard in Cape Town, South Africa in 1967. How was it possible for surgeons to overcome the obvious legal, moral and ethical obstacles of harvesting vital organs for transplant from a living human being?

Dr. Byrne: By declaring “brain death” as death.

Editor: You mean by replacing the traditional criteria for declaring death with a new criterion known as “brain death”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. In 1968, an ad hoc committee was formed at Harvard University in Boston for the purpose of redefining death so that vital organs could be taken from persons declared “brain dead,” but who in fact, were not dead. Note that “brain death” did not originate or develop by way of application of the scientific method. The Harvard Committee did not determine if irreversible coma was an appropriate criterion for death. Rather, its mission was to see that it was established as a new criterion for death. In short, the report was made to fit the already arrived at conclusions.

Editor: Does this mean that a person who is in a cerebral coma or needs a ventilator to support breathing could be declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: Yes.

Editor: Even if his heart is pumping and the lungs are oxygenating blood?

Dr. Byrne: Yes. You see, vital organs need to be fresh and undamaged for transplantation. For example, once breathing and circulation ceases, in five minutes or less, the heart is so damaged that it is not suitable for transplantation. The sense of urgency is real. After all, who would want to receive a damaged heart?

Editor: Did the Harvard criterion of “brain death” lead to changes in state and federal laws?

Dr. Byrne: Indeed. Between 1968 and 1978, more than thirty different sets of criteria for “brain death” were adopted in the United States and elsewhere. Many more have been published since then. This means that a person can be declared "brain dead" by one set of criteria, but alive by another or perhaps all the others. Every set includes the apnea test. This involves taking the ventilator away for up to ten minutes to observe if the patient can demonstrate that he/she can breathe on his/her own. The patient always gets worse with this test. Seldom, if ever, is the patient or the relatives informed ahead of time what will happen during the test. If the patient does not breathe on his/her own, this becomes the signal not to stop the ventilator, but to continue the ventilator until the recipient/s is, or are, ready to receive the organs. After the organs are excised, the “donor” is truly dead.

Editor: What about the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA)?

Dr. Byrne: According to the UDDA, death may be declared when a person has sustained either “irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions” or “irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem.” Since then, all 50 states consider cessation of brain functioning as death.

Editor: How does the body of a truly dead person compare with the body of a person declared “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: The body of a truly dead person is characterized in terms of dissolution, destruction, disintegration and putrefaction. There is an absence of vital body functions and the destruction of the organs of the vital systems. As I have already noted, the dead body is cold, stiff and unresponsive to all stimuli.

Editor: What about the body of a human being declared to be “brain dead”?

Dr. Byrne: In this case, the body is warm and flexible. There is a beating heart, normal color, temperature, and blood pressure. Most functions continue, including digestion, excretion, and maintenance of fluid balance with normal urine output. There will often be a response to surgical incisions. Given a long enough period of observation, someone declared “brain dead” will show healing and growth, and will go through puberty if they are a child.

Editor: Dr. Byrne, you mentioned that “brain dead” people will often respond to surgical incisions. Is this referred to as “the Lazarus effect?”

Dr. Byrne: Yes. That is why during the excision of vital organs, doctors find the need to use anesthesia and paralyzing drugs to control muscle spasms, blood pressure and heart rate changes, and other bodily protective mechanisms common in living patients. In normal medical practice, a patient’s reaction to a surgical incision will indicate to the anesthesiologist that the anesthetic is too light. This increase in heart rate and blood pressure are reactions to pain. Anesthetics are used to take away pain. Anesthesiologists in Great Britain require the administration of anesthetic to take organs. A corpse does not feel pain. (The Michael Fund Newsletter.)

“Brain death” is a lie and “palliative care” is euthanasia disguised under various euphemisms to disguise the reality of what it does: to kill a person by the use of various pharmaceutical cocktails designed to cause a person to become disoriented and seemingly aggressive before the protocols for the final doses of what can be called the hemlock treatment to be administered, sometimes at home by a patient’s own relatives in the belief that they are “relieving” of a loved one from pain when they are actually serving as unwitting accomplices in deaths that are the result of decisions made by men, not by God. We are to accept the suffering that comes out way at every moment of our lives, which is why we pray for the grace to bear the sufferings of whatever kind of death God has willed for us to undergo so that we can pay back perhaps a small amount of the punishment that we owe because of our sins.

One must recognize the simple fact that those who have given the world what has become common life-taking practices are not motivated by a love of God and His Holy Commandments. Instead, of course, the monsters of Modernity desire to play God, and we have seen this with especial clarity in the ongoing fear mongering and actual medical malfeasance with respect to what is called “Covid-19” as well as the development of gene therapy treatments (“vaccines”) that are injuring and killing hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of people around the world.

The monsters of Modernity are indistinguishable from the monsters of the German Third Reich, the monsters of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the monsters of Red China at this time.

Indeed, Pope Pius XII explained that it was vital to know who developed and/or propagated various medical experiments or treatments in order to understand whether Catholics could cooperate with them legitimately, focusing principally on the necessity of respecting innocent human life and avoiding subordinating to alleged “needs” of the “community”:

Nevertheless, for the third time we come back to the question: Is there any moral limit to the “medical interests of the community” in content or extension? Are there “full powers” over the living man in every serious medical case? Does it raise barriers that are still valid in the interests of science or the individual? Or, stated differently: Can public authority, on which rests responsibility for the common good, give the doctor the power to experiment on the individual in the interests of science and the community in order to discover and try out new methods and procedures when these experiments transgress the right of the individual to dispose of himself? In the interests of the community, can public authority really limit or even suppress the right of the individual over his body and life, his bodily and psychic integrity?

23. To forestall an objection, We assume that it is a question of serious research, of honest efforts to promote the theory and practice of medicine, not of a maneuver serving as a scientific pretext to mask other ends and achieve them with impunity.

24. In regard to these questions many people have been of the opinion and are still of the opinion today, that the answer must be in the affirmative. To give weight to their contention they cite the fact that the individual is subordinated to the community, that the good of the individual must give way to the common good and be sacrificed to it. They add that the sacrifice of an individual for purposes of research and scientific investigation profits the individual in the long run.

25. The great postwar trials brought to light a terrifying number of documents testifying to the sacrifice of the individual in the “medical interests of the community.” In the minutes of these trials one finds testimony and reports showing how, with the consent and, at times, even under the formal order of public authority, certain research centers systematically demanded to be furnished with persons from concentration camps for their medical experiments. One finds how they were delivered to such centers, so many men, so many women, so many for one experiment, so many for another. There are reports on the conduct and the results of such experiments, of the subjective and objective symptoms observed during the different phases of the experiments. One cannot read these reports without feeling a profound compassion for the victims, many of whom went to their deaths, and without being frightened by such an aberration of the human mind and heart. But We can also add that those responsible for these atrocious deeds did no more than to reply in the affirmative to the question We have asked and to accept the practical consequences of their affirmation.

26. At this point is the interest of the individual subordinated to the community’s medical interests, or is there here a transgression, perhaps in good faith, against the most elementary demands of the natural law, a transgression that permits no medical research?

27. One would have to shut one’s eyes to reality to believe that at the present time one could find no one in the medical world to hold and defend the ideas that gave rise to the facts We have cited. It is enough to follow for a short time the reports on medical efforts and experiments to convince oneself of the contrary. Involuntarily one asks oneself what has authorized, and what could ever authorize, any doctor’s daring to try such an experiment. The experiment is described in all its stages and effects with calm objectivity. What is verified and what is not is noted. But there is not a word on its moral legality. Nevertheless, this question exists, and one cannot suppress it by passing it over in silence. (Pope Pius XII, The Moral Limits of Medical Research, September 14, 1952.)

Parenthetically but not unimportantly, though, it should be noted that there are even some fully traditional Catholic prelates and priests who continue to accept uncritically the claims by “medical science” about “brain death/vital organ vivisection,” the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged people, “palliative care” and even the well-documented effort on the part of those are acting under the demands of the “Global Reset” to keep pushing poisoned potions as a means to avoid or at least mitigate the effects of man-made bioweapons designed to depopulate the earth. It is morally and theologically irresponsible to pass over these things in silence and to surrender one’s intellectual judgment to physicians who are part and parcel of what Dr. Paul Byrne rightly calls our “system of death.”

Pope Pius XII further explicated on this point in his allocution:

28. In the above mentioned cases, insofar as the moral justification of the experiments rests on the mandate of public authority, and therefore on the subordination of the individual to the community, of the individual’s welfare to the common welfare, it is based on an erroneous explanation of this principle. It must be noted that, in his personal being, man is not finally ordered to usefulness to society. On the contrary, the community exists for man.

29. The community is the great means intended by nature and God to regulate the exchange of mutual needs and to aid each man to develop his personality fully according to his individual and social abilities. Considered as a whole, the community is not a physical unity subsisting in itself and its individual members are not integral parts of it. Considered as a whole, the physical organism of living beings, of plants, animals or man, has a unity subsisting in itself. Each of the members, for example, the hand, the foot, the heart, the eye, is an integral part destined by all its being to be inserted in the whole organism. Outside the organism it has not, by its very nature, any sense, any finality. It is wholly absorbed by the totality of the organism to which it is attached.

30. In the moral community and in every organism of a purely moral character, it is an entirely different story. Here the whole has no unity subsisting in itself, but a simple unity of finality and action. In the community individuals are merely collaborators and instruments for the realization of the common end.

31. What results as far as the physical organism is concerned? The master and user of this organism, which possesses a subsisting unity, can dispose directly and immediately of integral parts, members and organs within the scope of their natural finality. He can also intervene, as often as and to the extent that the good of the whole demands, to paralyze, destroy, mutilate and separate the members. But, on the contrary, when the whole has only a unity of finality and action, its head-in the present case, the public authority-doubtlessly holds direct authority and the right to make demands upon the activities of the parts, but in no case can it dispose of its physical being. Indeed, every direct attempt upon its essence constitutes an abuse of the power of authority.

32. Now medical experiments-the subject We are discussing here immediately and directly affect the physical being, either of the whole or of the several organs, of the human organism. But, by virtue of the principle We have cited, public authority has no power in this sphere. It cannot, therefore, pass it on to research workers and doctors. It is from the State, however, that the doctor must receive authorization when he acts upon the organism of the individual in the “interests of the community.” For then he does not act as a private individual, but as a mandatory of the public power. The latter cannot, however, pass on a right that it does not possess, save in the case already mentioned when it acts as a deputy, as the legal representative of a minor for as long as he cannot make his own decisions, of a person of feeble mind or of a lunatic.

33. Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.

34. We cannot refrain from explaining once more the point treated in this third part in the light of the principle to which one customarily appeals in like cases. We mean the principle of totality. This principle asserts that the part exists for the whole and that, consequently, the good of the part remains subordinated to the good of the whole, that the whole is a determining factor for the part and can dispose of it in its own interest. This principle flows from the essence of ideas and things and must, therefore, have an absolute value. (Pope Pius XII, The Moral Limits of Medical Research, September 14, 1952.)

This, of course, means nothing to the conciliar revolutionaries, who are always at the beck and call of the globalists and their schemes to subordinate us all to the so-called exigencies of the “global community.”

Some Catholic clergy have contended with a perfectly straight face that opposition to “brain death” by Dr. Paul Byrne, Dr. Heidi Klessing, and other experts is out of the “mainstream” of medical thought.

Are you serious?

You mean to tell me that sedevacantists or sedeprivationists or sedeimpedists are part of the “mainstream” of Catholic thought?

Who defines the mainstream, and since when are Catholics the least bit interested in such a thing?

Are we not baptized and confirmed to bear witness to the true Faith, which was not in the “mainstream of religious though on Pentecost Sunday and has fallen into disfavor with the so-called “mainstream” in the Christophobic world of Judeo-Masonic Modernity and even in the equally Christophobic world of Modernism within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism?

Does truth depend upon human acceptance for its binding force or validity?

It is not frequently the case that lonely voices belonging to legitimate scholars in their own field of medical specialty are the only ones willing to seek and to defend the truth no matter what may happen to them professionally?

Indeed, many of the same “mainstream experts” who keep defending the myth of “brain death” I order to vivisect living human beings for their vital bodily organs have been the same ones have been insisting for the past four years the “emergency vaccines” developed under former President Donald John Trump’s very warped “Operation Warped Speed,” which he still insists “saved” over one hundred million lives, showing himself to be as impervious to the truth about the harm caused by the poisoned jabs as many Catholic clergy have been about the myth of “brain death” because they have “taken a position” and unwilling to respond with courage to the evidence of the error of their ways.

Despite the “medical mainstream” and despite the gargantuan bureaucratic efforts to silence opposition to the “vaccines” and to marginalize, delegitimize, and “cancel” heretofore respected medical scholars such as Dr. Peter McCullough who have edited medical journals and published numerous peer-reviewed studies, the mendacity of vaccine ghouls is being exposed quite publicly, including by the minister investigating “Covid vaccines” in  Slovakia and also by thousands of ordinary Japanese people who have quite enough of the illnesses, injuries, and “sudden deaths” caused by these transhumanist instruments of depopulation in order to “save the planet” from the very beings—human beings—whom God put here to be its masters and stewards and whose immortal souls His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ became Incarnate in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb to redeem by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday:

Peter Kotlár, Slovak government commissioner for investigating the handling of COVID-19, regards mRNA injections to be hazardous and has urged for a ban on the novel injections, slamming the “pandemic” as an “act of bioterrorism” and a “fabricated operation.”

During an October 2 press conference, Kotlár, a member of the ruling Slovak National Party, elaborated on a report he was commissioned to compile on the previous government’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the presser, Kotlár explained why he was calling for a stop to the use of mRNA COVID vaccines, asserting that SARS-CoV-2 was artificially created in a laboratory and deliberately spread worldwide. As a result, he urged for an end to Slovakia’s collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO). The full report will be made public, according to Kotlár, but not before the first session of the government.

“The most serious consequence of the whole fabricated operation called the COVID-19 pandemic is the endangerment of human health and the confirmation of the naivety of the world population to be subconsciously obedient,” Kotlár stated, according to an English translation by Interest of Justice.

“Let us at least make the right gesture together by stopping the administration of mRNA preparations until their effectiveness and safety have been proven,” he added.

In January 2024, the Slovak government appointed Kotlár to spearhead its official inquiry into the management of COVID-19.

“At the end of my investigation, which I will present in September, there is also clear evidence that there was no pandemic in Slovakia in terms of what a pandemic means, in terms of incidence and other measurable parameters, “ Kotlár told the National Council on the Extraordinary Health Committee, a parliamentary committee, in June.

Kotlár has long opposed the previous Slovak government’s COVID measures, particularly its promotion of the experimental vaccines.

Slovak Prime Minister Fico has echoed Kotlár’s stance towards the COVID-19 vaccines, saying, “You all know that I personally have always been against vaccination with experimental vaccines against COVID.”

Notably, the Slovak leader elaborated that he had “many acquaintances” who had experienced considerable health problems after the COVID vaccination. Moreover, Fico urged Kotlár to probe who in Slovakia had enriched themselves through the “unnecessary purchase of medical supplies and vaccines.”

Commenting on Kotlár’s report, American physicist, internist and cardiologist, Dr. Richard Fleming remarked to outlet The Expose:

I have submitted material to Dr. Kotlár detailing both the origins of SARS-CoV-2 viruses as well as the Eugenic Genetic Vaccines. The attached slides show the money paid to develop the SARS-CoV-2 viruses including U.S. DoD, the matching genetic sequences to the three viruses made and the paper published by Kariko and Weissman stating pseudouridine mRNA doesn’t work as a vaccine BUT does work as ‘gene therapy’.  Since I can only post one slide at a time on this site, the attached slide is from Kariko and Weissman’s paper where they show their mRNA doesn’t work for vaccine effect but is useful for ‘gene therapy.’ (Slovak COVID commissioner calls pandemic a 'fabricated operation,' calls for end to vaccines.)

Tens of thousands of Japan citizens took to the streets last month to protest the unveiling of yet another mRNA-based COVID vaccine.

From September 24 to 28, the International Crisis Summit (ICS) (formerly the International COVID Summit) convened in the Japanese capital of Tokyo to notify people about the new “replicon” self-amplifying mRNA “vaccines” that have been scheduled to be introduced in Japan, a country with a significantly aging population, this October.

According to reports by journalist James Corbett, who was present in Tokyo to document the ICS proceedings, tens of thousands of people gathered in the city to “march against the biosecurity state, against the WHO, against this new vaccine technology.”

Japan authorized the use of the first self-amplifying mRNA (“saRNA”) vaccine, supposedly to tackle COVID-19, in November 2023.  The vaccine, known as “Kostaive,” is also referred to as ARCT-154 or, in Vietnam, VBC-COV19-154.

Japanese regulators approved the ARCT-154 shot in November 2023. As per an article in The Defender, Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare gave the green-light to ARCT-154, the world’s first self-amplifying mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for adults. This vaccine is jointly manufactured by the biotechnology firm CSL and Arcturus Therapeutics.

“The approval is based on positive clinical data from several ARCT-154 studies … which achieved higher immunogenicity results and a favorable safety profile compared to a standard mRNA COVID-19 vaccine comparator,” CSL claimed.

A replicon vaccine is a type of vaccine that relies on a self-amplifying RNA as its antigenic component. Replicons can trace their origins to viruses like alphaviruses.

Strikingly, according to an article by The Expose, “the use of alphavirus-derived RNA technology in vaccines is where the danger lies. The man-made genes in the replicon vaccines, if introduced into humans, are likely to spread not only to other humans but also to other species.”

The same article continues:

The difference between a COVID mRNA vaccine and a COVID saRNA vaccine is that with the former, a cell’s machinery produces the spike protein for as long as these instructions persist while the saRNA goes a step further.  It integrates the genes needed for the replication and synthesis of the spike protein-encoding RNA, effectively establishing a biological printing press for fabricating the vaccine inside cells.

Unsurprisingly, skeptics have slammed such self-replicating vaccines as the “third atomic bomb,” according to a report by The Rio Times.

Others have warned that due to self-amplifying mRNA shots being so new, they are potentially hazardous.

One such expert is epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, who told The Defender that “these products are completely new. There is absolutely no long-term safety data on them.”

“In the clinical trials for ARCT-154, injected participants experienced a 90% adverse event rate after the first dose in study Phases 1, 2, and 3a combined,” Hulscher said. Of these adverse events, 74.5% were systemic — meaning they occurred in a part of the body distant from the point of injection — and 15.2% required medical attention.

Likewise, Karina Acevedo Whitehouse, Ph.D., a professor of microbiology at the Autonomous University of Querétaro in Mexico, told The Defender, “We do not know” the safety profile of the self-replicating vaccines. She said:

There have been no studies on the potential of this technology to transform cells — that is, to render them cancerous or more prone to not repairing damage to DNA — or to lead to a self-inflammatory status, that can harbor all sorts of pathologies.

There have also been no studies conducted on transgenerational effects — for instance, teratogenicity [birth defects] — of self-amplifying mRNA injections … We simply do not know what the consequences could be.

In August, Japan’s largest broadcaster, NHK, showcased a feature on their morning show Asaichi depicting real-life experiences of individuals who have suffered grave side effects from the COVID-19 vaccines.

The Asaichi program featured a viewer who recalled:

My headaches became severe. Although they have lessened since the beginning, the symptoms have persisted for more than two years. It has been two and a half years of vaccine aftereffects.

One such report from the program highlighted the plight of a vaccine injured person known as Misu from Ibaraki Prefecture, a former healthcare worker in her forties. According to Misu, she has been suffering from “pain and numbness in the vaccinated arm, fatigue, and other symptoms.” Additionally, Miso urged that “the government and media report this properly. Voices are being raised to spread awareness about the suffering caused by side effects.”

Following the NHK’s program, Japan’s Health Minister, Keizō Takemi, declared:

Regarding whether health damage from the COVID-19 vaccine constitutes drug-induced injury, our response at this point is that we would like to refrain from commenting.

The latest demonstration is the second time this year Japanese citizens took to the streets in droves to oppose COVID-related developments. In April, thousands of Japanese citizens demonstrated against the World Health Organization’s Pandemic Treaty and against mRNA flu vaccines.

Notably, Kazuhiro Haraguchi, a former Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications and a present member of the House of Representatives, gave an engaging speech apologizing for the Japanese’s government’s handling of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, voicing his sympathies for those who succumbed to vaccine-linked deaths.

“I apologize to all of you. So many have died, and they shouldn’t have,” he stated.

Adding, Haraguchi said:

When I travel around to different areas, I see those who can’t stand, can’t walk, can’t go to school, can’t go to work. We could have prevented these injuries from happening, but we did not. (Tens of thousands rally in Japan against new 'self-amplifying' COVID vaccine.)

We must stop trusting in the so-called "experts" uncritically, and we must be willing to have the humilty to admit mistakes and then to defend the truth to prevent people from either permitting themselves to be vivisected after a phony declaration of "brain death" and to oppose with as much strength as we can derive from Our Lady's graces the human terminating schemes of the vaccinators and their poisoned jabs.

We are still in the month of October, the month of the Holy Rosary and of the Holy Angels. The second day of this month was the feast day of Our Holy Guardian Angels and today, Thursday, October 24, 2024, is the Feast of Saint Raphael the Archangel, who was celebrated as follows by Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., in The Liturgical Year:

The approach of the great solemnity, which will soon be shedding upon us all the splendors of heaven, seems to inspire the Church with a profound recollection. Except for the homage she must needs pay, on their own date, to the glorious Apostles Simon and Jude, only a few Feasts of simple rite break the silence of these last days of October. Our souls must be in conformity with the dispositions of our common Mother. It will not, however, be out of keeping to give a thought to the great Archangel, honored today by many particular churches.

The ministry fulfilled in our regard by the heavenly spirits is admirably set forth in the graceful scenes depicted in the history of Tobias. Rehearsing the good services of the guide and friend, whom he still called his brother Azarias, the younger Tobias said to his father: Father, what wages shall we give him? or what can be worthy of his benefits? He conducted me and brought me safe again, he received the money of Gabelus, he caused me to have my wife, and he chased from her the evil spirit, he gave joy to her parents, myself he delivered from being devoured by the fish, thee also he hath made to see the light of heaven, and we are filled with all good things through him.

And when father and son endeavored, after the fashion of men, to return thanks to him who had rendered them such good service, the Angel discovered himself to them, in order to refer their gratitude to their supreme Benefactor. Bless ye the God of heaven, give glory to him in the sight of all that live, because he hath shewn his mercy to you … When thou didst pray with tears, and didst bury the dead … I offered thy prayer to the Lord. And because wast acceptable to God, it was necessary that temptation should prove thee. And now the Lord hath sent me to heal thee, and to deliver Sara thy son’s wife from the devil. For I am the Angel Raphael, one of the seven, who stand before the Lord … Peace be to you, fear not; … bless ye him and sing praises to him.

We too will celebrate the blessings of heaven. For as surely as Tobias beheld with his bodily eyes the Archangel Raphael, we know by faith that the Angel of the Lord accompanies us from the cradle to the tomb. Let us have the same trustful confidence in him. Then, along the path of life, more beset with perils than the road to the country of the Medes, we shall be in perfect safety; all that happens to us will be for the best, because prepared by our Lord; and as though we were already in heaven, our Angel will cause us to shed blessings upon all around us. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Raphael the Archangel, October 24.)

Yes, all that happens is for the best as it is within the Providence of God, which is why we must remain in a spirit of equanimity in the midst of the dangers around us. After all, we have the help of Our Lady, Queen of the Angels and of the Most Holy Rosary, Saints Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael the Archangels, Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, Saint Philomena the Wonder Worker, our own Guardian Angels and Patron Saints as well as the membersof the Church Triumphant in Heaven and the Church Suffering in Purgatory.

Catholics must always keep close to their own personal Guardian Angel, and they must be conscious of the particular roles played by Archangels, Saints, Michael, Gabriel and Raphael, in the economy of salvation and thus to foster a deep devotion to them. Such a devotion, which can be as simple as a salutation/invocation to them each morning and before going to sleep, will increase the ardor within our souls for Holy Mother Church, for the integrity and of purity of her Faith, Worship, and Morals, and thus for all that is pleasing in the sight of the Most Holy Trinity.

As noted just before, Our Lady is the Queen of the Angels. She is our Queen and our heavenly Mother. Every Rosary we pray by reflecting carefully on the meaning of the mysteries contained therein will help to purify our souls and to be pleasing in the sight of her Divine Son, Christ the King and His angels who minister unto Him and us.

May our devotion to Our Lady and to the Holy Angels in the remaining days of October and the remaining days, however many short or many those days may be, fortify us against the wickedness of the snares of the devil, especially by remaining firm in our resolve to eschew everything to do with mendacious body snatchers of the medical industry as well the mendacious soul snatchers of   conciliarism and their false religion, which has made a mockery of the Holy Faith for sixty-six years.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us! 

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.