Although condemned, according to a multitude of evidence illegal organ harvesting in China is taking place. In addition to the denial of the viral outbreak, the Chinese Communist Party are dismissing these horrific claims of crimes against humanity. However, an initial eyewitness account from a whistle blower in March 2006 initiated an uncovering of the Chinese multibillion-dollar-a-year industry that is said to support the bloody slaughter of innocent people. 

The International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC) is a coalition of lawyers, academics, ethicists, medical professionals, researchers and human rights advocates dedicated to ending forced organ harvesting in China. They reveal extensive evidence, from over a decade of investigations, that China is operating a government run industrial program that involves mass murder and the selling of organs. A quote from a political party member on ETAC’s website states how “livers, kidneys, hearts, lungs, and corneas are being cut out from prisoners of conscience and minority groups while they are still alive.” 

According to ETAC, Falun Gong practitioners are often healthier than the general prison population as they refrain from alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs. These prisoners of conscience are forcibly subjected to blood tests and organ examinations not given to other prisoners, indicate that they are targeted for organ sourcing. Other non-consenting victims targeted include Uyghurs, Tibetans and House Christians. 

On February 24^th 2021 a ‘Conference on The CCP’s (Chinese Communist Party’s) Forced Organ Harvesting’was held. Professor Wendy Rogers, Professor of Clinical Ethics at Macquarie University, Sydney, and Chair of the International Advisory Committee of ETAC, spoke at the event. She asserted that there is no excuse for wilful ignorance about these transplant-related human rights abuses, as there has been exhaustive examination of the evidence found that China is committing crimes against humanity. The Professor stated, “Information about these abuses is compelling and detailed… [and this crime] has been widely publicised… There is no longer any excuse for any institution or professional involved in transplant to claim that they know nothing about forced organ harvesting.”

Although considerable public awareness may not yet exist, Professor Rogers says, “Institutions and professionals must be aware that forced organ harvesting is occurring in China… [and] they must have the power to act in ways that condemn the CCP for forced organ harvesting. By acting together, professionals and institutions can exert pressure on China… and show that such actions are not tolerated by the rest of the world.”

With forced organ harvesting occurring in China, the issue of human tissue trafficking to Australia is also a concern. According to a 2015 inquiry report on the Commonwealth of Australia website, ‘Human Organ Trafficking and Organ Transplant Tourism’, the ‘Real Bodies’ commercial anatomical exhibition raised serious concerns about the source of the preserved bodies and organs, which included pregnant women and foetuses, as well as bodies literally sawn down the middle. The report reveals that some cadavers sourced for the exhibition were reported as “fresh”, with bullet holes in the skulls, and with livers already having been removed for transplant purposes. It was further reported that the proprietors were unable or unwilling to prove that any of the plastinated humans displayed ever gave consent.  

Professor Rogers‘ recommendations for specific actions and that professionals and institutions (including transplant institutions) should take include:

• Lobbying their members of parliament to ratify the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs
• Raising public awareness about organ trafficking and the need for transplant solutions
• Banning transplant doctors from China from attending or presenting at meetings
• Advising members not to travel to China for any kind of transplant activity
• Having processes to check all research and educational collaborations with China
• Refuse to host visiting Chinese transplant doctors
• Develop and publicise a China transplant policy to facilitate the above measures  

As China continues to downplay the concerns of the COVID-19, will they also be able to downplay one of the most controversial sources of illegal organ trafficking, which involves the bloody slaughter of innocent people? 

For further information about this serious human rights violation visit The International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China (ETAC)

The post Australian Advocates Exposing the Dark Trade of Organ Harvesting appeared first on Positive Profit.

The post Mitigating Risks in the Medical Transplantation Industry appeared first on Positive Profit.

The post A History of Ethical Operations appeared first on Positive Profit.

Even with a multitude of science-based evidence surrounding the safety of vaccines, some people are clearly still worried. An organisation called the Australian Vaccination-risks Network Inc. (AVN) was started in 1994 by a group of parents and health professionals who were concerned about the lack of scientifically-based information on the ‘other side’ of the vaccination issue. Although the AVN state their position is not anti-vaccination, nor pro-vaccination, but pro-choice, they have received a multitude of threats and abuse, and groups have even been set up with the stated aim of shutting them down.

Professor Brian Martin, emeritus professor at the University of Wollongong, Australia, reveals that when dissenters are supressed there may be significant consequences. In his 2015 study ‘On the suppression of vaccination dissent’, Professor Martin argues how dissenters from the dominant views about vaccination sometimes are subject to adverse actions, including abusive comments, threats, formal complaints, censorship, and deregistration, a phenomenon that can be called suppression of dissent. The study further reveals how such a pattern can result in a reluctance of researchers to undertake studies in particular fields and governments and corporations not wanting to fund studies, which can create gaps in knowledge leading to a highly polarized public discourse.

In her 2015 thesis, “A critical analysis of the Australian government’s rationale for its vaccination policy”, Judy Wilyman reveals, “In the era of globalisation research is being driven primarily for profit and not just for its contribution to knowledge. She argues that public health decisions should be determined independently of vaccine manufacturers, and warns that “Public health is put at risk if community education campaigns can be influenced by corporations that profit from the products they are promoting.

With global vaccine market revenues jumping from around 30 billion to around 60 billion US dollars within 6 years, and economic agendas being prioritised within many nations, the way public health decisions are made may require further consideration. As Ms Wilyman adds in her thesis, “The corporate model of health that was adopted by the states and territories in the 1990’s allows corporations to fund health promotion programs, such as vaccination, to the public in media campaigns.”

Governmental prioritisation of the economy and GDP over public health is something to also consider. According to cybersecurity researchers for IBM Security X-Force, rather than a rogue monetary driven criminal operation, the 2020 cyberattacks that targeted the COVID-19 vaccine supply chain point to a government-sponsored initiative from an unknown country.

These are perhaps some of the reasons why, according to a multitude of peer reviewed academic research articles, parents who are vaccine-hesitant and vaccine-refusing generally lack trust in governments, health professionals, and pharmaceutical companies. As previously stated, trust in vaccine programs is vital to public health systems. But how can this be achieved with a lack of trust in the government itself?

A quick Google search of “Are vaccines safe in Australia?” results in a number of government departments, education and research centres, and independent organisations concluding that the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. However, upon closer inspection of the “independent” organisations listed throughout multiple pages of the Google search, most, if not all are funded by the Australian Government.

In 2020 a petition was signed by 13711 people requesting the Parliament of Australia to fund unbiased research studies to affirm the safety of the current child vaccine schedule. This was sought partially on the basis that chronic illness in Australian children has increased simultaneously to the ever-increasing 72 dose vaccine schedule, and that there is a lack of safety studies in relation to the combined dosing of multiple vaccines with varying ingredients from numerous manufacturers.

Greg Hunt, Australia’s Minister for Health, responded to the petition by stating, “The Government already has in place, an Advisory Committee on Vaccines (ACV) that provides independent medical and scientific advice to myself, and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) on issues relating to the safety, quality and efficacy of vaccines supplied in Australia.” Although the ACV members include professionals with expertise in specific scientific, medical or clinical fields, or in consumer health issues, nearly all have links to organisations and institutions that have either received direct or indirectly funding from the Australian Government. Although this potentially creates a question about what constitutes “independent” advice, the doubting of vaccination and public health systems as a whole can lead to dangerous consequences.

In 2020 The World Health Organisations (WHO) released information about vaccine myths and misconceptions. They revealed, after a decline in immunisation levels a number of developed countries faced the immediate effects of increased disease outbreaks and pandemics. The WHO wrote, “you must always look at both risks and benefits… While any serious injury or death caused by vaccines is too many, it is also clear that the benefits of vaccination greatly outweigh the slight risk, and that many, many more injuries and deaths would occur without vaccinations.”As previously mentioned, vaccine hesitancy and/or refusal can be influenced by distrust in governments. This distrust however, is unlikely to disappear until the opportunity to buy influence is stamped out. Pfizer, the manufacturer of Australia’s recently rolled out Comirnaty vaccine, have made numerous donations to both the Australian Liberal and Labor political parties. With clear links to data on the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) Transparency Register, ‘Democracy for Sale’ reveals donations by Pfizer have totalled over $133,000 since 2016, even without donations under approximately $14,000 requiring disclosure.

The post Vaccine Safety or Big Business Profits? appeared first on Positive Profit.