Facebook Twitter Gplus RSS

Jews and Organ Transplants – Part 3

Yusuf Sonmez and Moshe Harel

History of the Jews in Moldova, Wikipedia:

1897: The Jewish population had grown to 225,637 of a total of 1,936,392[1]

History of the Jews in Bessarabia, Wikipedia.

The rationale of organ trafficking is usually explained in purely economic terms: rich exploiting poor. The reality is that biological/genetic compatibility also factors into the equation.

Shanda fur die goyim is misunderstood as embarassment. It is a reflection of jewish sensitivity to collective exposure/responsibility/vulnerability. It is an alarm, a call for the making of excuses and transferring of blame elsewhere. The most extreme and common example is how jews transfer blame to “anti-semitism”.

Report: Israeli suspected of running Ukraine organ trafficking ring, Haaretz Daily Newspaper, Aug 2010. A commenter’s telling reaction to this increasingly obvious pattern of organ-related jewish crime:

Israelis are going to have to do something about this

These stories are more damaging for Israel than a thousand Grad rockets

Less than a month after the “Bid Rig” arrest of trafficker Levy Izhak Rosenbaum in Brooklyn, an article by Donald Boström published by Aftonbladet on 17 Aug 2009 generated quite a bit of attention and controversy. The original, Donald Boström om hur palestinier anklagar Israels armé för att stjäla kroppsdelar från sina offer, is in Swedish. TLAXCALA : “Our sons plundered for their organs” is a translation to English:

Israel has repeatedly been under fire for its unethical ways of dealing with organs and transplants. France was among the countries that ceased organ collaboration with Israel in the nineties. Jerusalem Post wrote that “the rest of the European countries are expected to follow France’s example shortly.”

Half of the kidneys transplanted to Israelis since the beginning of the 2000s have been bought illegally from Turkey, Eastern Europe or Latin America. Israeli health authorities have full knowledge of this business but do nothing to stop it. At a conference in 2003 it was shown that Israel is the only western country with a medical profession that doesn’t condemn the illegal organ trade. The country takes no legal measures against doctors participating in the illegal business – on the contrary, chief medical officers of Israel’s big hospitals are involved in most of the illegal transplants

Doctor admits Israeli pathologists harvested organs without consent, The Guardian, 20 December 2009:

The story emerged in an interview with Dr Yehuda Hiss, former head of the Abu Kabir forensic institute near Tel Aviv. The interview was conducted in 2000 by an American academic who released it because of the row between Israel and Sweden over a report in the Stockholm newspaper Aftonbladet.

Channel 2 TV reported that in the 1990s, specialists at Abu Kabir harvested skin, corneas, heart valves and bones from the bodies of Israeli soldiers, Israeli citizens, Palestinians and foreign workers, often without permission from relatives.

Harvesting organs without consent is a euphemism for organ theft.

The interview with Hiss was released by Nancy Scheper-Hughes

Israel demanded that Sweden condemn the Aftonbladet article, calling it an antisemitic “blood libel”. Stockholm refused, saying that to so would violate freedom of speech in the country.

Swedish Anti-Semites Dig Up a Blood Libel, Commentary Magazine, Jonathan S. Tobin, 20 Aug 2009:

This is nothing but a modern version of medieval Jewish blood-libel myths. Whereas in the past, the object of these hate-inspired canards were helpless Diaspora Jewish communities, now it’s the state of Israel. Though Bostrom disingenuously claimed that he was not promoting the tale but merely repeating what others had told him, the ultimate purpose of such libels is to delegitimize the Jewish people and to exculpate the violence committed against them.

A new, old and ugly spirit, Haaretz, Jonathan Spyer, 4 Sep 2009:

The article in the popular Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet alleging the Israel Defense Forces were involved in organ theft was the latest and most heinous example of an increasingly familiar phenomenon: classic anti-Semitic tropes and expressions of open hostility to Jews turning up in statements by members of the European liberal left.

These tones are both new and very old. They are not the language of humanism and the enlightenment. They are instantly recognizable to anyone familiar with the tone of anti-Israel literature in the Middle East. They are also redolent of another, older Europe. These stalwarts of the bon ton left are adopting ideas whose original purveyors were situated, and are still situated, on the extreme right of the political spectrum. The ideas in question, which hark back to medieval Christianity, migrated from the European radical right to the Middle East, from where they have now migrated back to Europe, finding a new political home in the process.

Israeli Organ Trafficking and Theft: From Moldova to Palestine, by Alison Weir, Nov 2009:

In August Sweden’s largest daily newspaper published an article containing grisly evidence suggesting that Israel had been taking Palestinian internal organs. The article, by veteran photojournalist Donald Bostrom, called for an international investigation to discover the facts.

Israel immediately accused Bostrom and the newspaper of “anti-Semitism,” and charged that suggesting Israelis could be involved in the illicit removal of body parts constituted a modern “blood libel” (medieval stories of Jews killing people for their blood).2

Numerous Israeli partisans repeated these accusations, including Commentary’s Jonathan Tobin, who asserted that the story was “merely the tip of the iceberg in terms of European funded and promoted anti-Israel hate.”3 Others suggested that the newspaper was “irresponsible” for running such an article.4

The fact is, however, that Israeli organ harvesting – sometimes with Israeli governmental funding and the participation of high Israeli officials, prominent Israeli physicians, and Israeli ministries – has been documented for many years.

While Scheper-Hughes emphasizes that traffickers and procurers come from numerous nations and ethnicities, including Americans and Arabs, she is unflinchingly honest in speaking about the Israeli connection:

“Israel is at the top,” she states. “It has tentacles reaching out worldwide.”6

In a lecture last year sponsored by New York’s PBS 13 Forum, Scheper-Hughes explained that Israeli organ traffickers, “had and still have a pyramid system at work that’s awesome…they have brokers everywhere, bank accounts everywhere; they’ve got recruiters, they’ve got translators, they’ve got travel agents who set up the visas.”7

In her Forum 13 lecture Scheper-Hughes discussed the two motivations of Israeli traffickers. One was greed, she said. The other was somewhat chilling: “Revenge, restitution – reparation for the Holocaust.”

She described speaking with Israeli brokers who told her “it’s kind of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We’re going to get every single kidney and liver and heart that we can. The world owes it to us.’”

Scheper-Hughes says that she “even heard doctors saying that.”

For many years Israelis in need of an internal organ have gone on what experts call “transplant tourism” – traveling to other nations to obtain internal organs. Sometimes body parts are obtained from those freshly dead; more often from the desperately needy. While affluent people from numerous countries and ethnicities engage in this practice, Israel is unique in several significant ways.

First, Israelis engage in this at an extraordinarily high rate. According to a 2001 BBC report, Israelis buy more kidneys per capita than any other population.

Second, Israelis have the lowest donor rate in the world – one-fifth that of Europe, according to BBC. This is in part because there has been a widespread impression that Jewish religious law prohibits transplants as a “desecration of the body.”11 The Israeli news service Ynet reports, “the percentage of organs donated among Jews is the lowest of all the ethnic groups.”12

Third, the Israeli government has enabled the practice. For many years the Israeli health system subsidized its citizens’ “transplant holidays,” reimbursing Israelis $80,000 for medical operations abroad. Much of the remaining costs could often be obtained from government-subsidized13 Israeli insurance plans.14 In addition, Israel’s Ministry of Defense was directly involved.

Scheper-Hughes discussed Israeli organ trafficking in detail in 2001 in published testimony to the Subcommittee on International Relations and Human Rights of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.15 In her extensive testimony, Scheper-Hughes stated that although Israel had become a pariah for its organ policies, Israeli officials exhibited “amazing tolerance…toward outlawed ‘transplant tourism.’”

She described an international syndicate which was “organized through a local business corporation in conjunction with a leading transplant surgeon, operating out of a major medical center not far from Tel Aviv,” and which had forged links with transplant surgeons in Turkey, Russia, Moldavia, Estonia, Georgia, Romania, and New York City.

The Israeli Ministry of Defense was directly involved in what Scheper-Hughes called Israel’s “‘illicit [in other nations] national ‘program’ of transplant tourism…Members of the Ministry of Defense or those closely related to them” accompanied transplant junkets.

In her Forum 13 lecture, Scheper-Hughes said that investigating Israeli organ trafficking over the past decade had taken her “from country to country to country to country.”

One of these is Moldova, the poorest country in Europe – and homeland of Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman – where 90 percent of the people earn less than $2 a day. A 2001 BBC report on organ trafficking described the situation: “Hundreds of Israelis have created a production line that starts in the villages of Moldova, where men today are walking around with one kidney.16

Another is Brazil, where a legislative commission found that 30 [it may actually have been as high as 60] Brazilians from impoverished neighborhoods had sold their kidneys to a trafficking ring headed by Israelis, with Israeli citizens receiving almost all of the organs, and the Israeli government providing most of the funding.17

An Inter Press Service (IPS) news story from the time reported that Scheper-Hughes testified to the commission that international trafficking of human organs had begun some 12 years earlier, promoted by Zaki Shapira, head of kidney transplant services at Bellinson Medical Center, near Tel Aviv.

Scheper-Hughes reported that Shapira had performed more than 300 kidney transplants, sometimes accompanying his patients to other countries such as Turkey. The recipients were very wealthy or had very good health insurance, and the “donors” very poor people from Eastern Europe, the Philippines and other developing countries.

The chairman of the Brazilian commission, physician Raimundo Pimentel, was outraged at Israeli policies, pointing out that trafficking can only take place on a large scale if there is a major source of financing, such as the Israeli health system. Pimentel charged that the resources provided by the Israeli health system “were a determining factor” in enabling a network that preyed on society’s poorest populations.

Organ theft

It is difficult to know how often Israeli trafficking involves outright theft of vital organs from living human beings.

It is not rare for the “donor” to receive little or none of the compensation promised. For example, in 2007 Israel’s Haaretz newspaper reported that two Israelis had confessed to persuading Palestinians “from the Galilee and central Israel who were developmentally challenged or mentally ill to agree to have a kidney removed for payment.” According to the Haaretz report, after the organ had been taken the traffickers refused to pay for them.

On occasion, people are coerced into giving up their organs. For example, Levy Izhak Rosenbaum, the alleged Brooklyn trafficker recently arrested in an FBI sweep in New Jersey, reportedly carried a gun. When a potential organ seller would try to back out, Rosenbaum would use his finger to simulate firing a gun at the person’s head.

The Rosenbaum case, reportedly part of a ring centered in Israel, is the first case of trafficking to be prosecuted in the US. His arrest and the substantial evidence against him may have surprised State Department Countermisinformation Director Todd Leventhal, who had characterized organ trafficking as an “urban legend,” stating, “It would be impossible to successfully conceal a clandestine organ-trafficking ring.” Leventhal called such reports “irresponsible and totally unsubstantiated.”

Todd “urban legend” Leventhal – the fox watching the chicken coop.

Perhaps one of the most long-term and high-level cases of organ theft – and one that involves Palestinian as well as Israeli organs – concerns an extraordinarily high official: Dr. Yehuda Hiss, Israel’s chief pathologist and, from 1988 through 2004, director of Israel’s state morgue, the L. Greenberg Institute of Forensic Medicine at Abu Kabir.

An early indication of malfeasance came to light in 1998 and concerned a Scottish man named Alisdair Sinclair, who had died under questionable circumstances after being taken into custody at Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport.

Palestinian Victims

Israelis have also targeted Palestinians, a particularly vulnerable population on numerous levels.

In her congressional subcommittee testimony, Scheper-Hughes reported that before he moved overseas, Israeli hospital transplant head Zaki Shapira had located kidney sellers “amongst strapped Palestinian workers in Gaza and the West Bank.” She said that his “hand was slapped by an ethics board,” and he moved his practice overseas.

Israel has consistently characterized such accusations as “anti-Semitic,” and numerous other journalists have discounted them as exaggerations.

However, according to the pro-Israel Forward magazine, the truth of these charges was, in fact, confirmed by an Israeli governmental investigation a number of years ago.

A very small but significant minority of Israelis, including military officers and governmental ministers, hold extremist supremacist views relevant to organ extraction. In 1996, Jewish Week reported that Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburgh, a leader of the Lubavitch sect of Judaism and the dean of a religious Jewish school in a West Bank settlement, stated: “If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that.” Ginzburgh elaborated: “Jewish life has infinite value. There is something infinitely more holy and unique about Jewish life than non-Jewish life.” [The Jewish Week, April 26, 1996, pp. 12, 31]

Most of the rest of jews either agree or look the other way. The fact that there are such “extremists” in positions of authority is evidence that their views are not seen as intolerable or unacceptable by the majority of their compatriots.

Scheper-Hughes, in her congressional testimony, describes the danger of “organs got by any means possible including (I was told by one guilt-ridden practitioner) chemically inducing the signs of brain death in dying patients of no means and with access to minimal social support or family surveillance.”

More on Alison Weir at AlisonWeir.org. Jews detest her. See Alison Weir… anti-Semite, Israel-basher and one ugly bitch! and Rogues Gallery >> ALISON WEIR-NAZI SYMPATHIZER.

More information concerning Yusuf Sonmez, AKA “Dr Frankenstein”.

Turkish organ trade doctor faces 171 years in prison, B92, 29 Sep 2011:

The Istanbul court indicted Sonmez for illicit organ trafficking and forming of a criminal organization.

The organs were being sold in Israel.

Kosovo Organ Trafficking Witness Recalls Surgery Con, Balkan Insight, 13 Feb 2013:

Seven Albanian defendants are being prosecuted in Pristina, including Lutfi Dervishi, the owner of the Medicus clinic.

Two Turkish doctors, Sonmez and Kenan Demirkol, are also accused of being involved in the organ trafficking ring.

Sonmez was arrested in Istanbul in January 2011 but was later released on bail.

But Serbia’s war crimes prosecutor said on Tuesday that Sonmez had absconded to South Africa and then moved on to another, unnamed African country that does not recognise the EU rule of law mission’s jurisdiction in Kosovo and therefore will not extradite the Turkish doctor to Pristina.

War crimes prosecutor Vladimir Vukcevic told Serbian media that Sonmez had “set up a clinic for organ transplants” in the unnamed African country.

Former health official admits to illegal organ harvesting from living donors, The Raw Story, 5 Apr 2013:

The trial, which opened in 2011, is set to draw to a close by the end of the month.

The indictment describes Israeli national Moshe Harel as the mastermind of a network for recruiting donors and finding recipients, while Turkish doctor Yusuf Sonmez is said to have performed organ removal surgeries at the clinic.

But the two are not among those being tried in Pristina as they did not make themselves available to the court.

Unity of Nobility – News for White Europeans has been tracking recent developments in organ harvesting.

For example, Jews use humor to combat Blood Libel and Organ Theft, which links Fighting the New Blood Libel, Jewish Journal:

“What the song did was place the hypocrisy and the prejudice of the Swedish government — and, by the way, of the Swedish press — against Israel into clear view,” Glick said. “It was a very stinging response straight to their jugular. And it was more effective than we could have dreamed.”

A volunteer in Israel originally from Sweden provided Swedish subtitles for the clip on YouTube.

“Through Swedish Jews here in Israel who made aliyah, we managed to place it in some of the very few pro-Israel Web sites in Sweden,” Glick said. The next day, a news article about it appeared in Sweden’s leading broadsheet newspaper, Dagens Nyheter.

“They were surprised that suddenly there was this Israeli voice. They weren’t expecting us to give them a piece of our mind. No one here had ever done this sort of thing before. So when the Swedish newspaper published a news article about it, the news of Latma spread like wildfire. Within three days we had over 100,000 viewers, most of them from Sweden and the U.S., at our site in the clip on YouTube.

“What was even more interesting was that a lot of the talkbacks that these Swedes wrote on YouTube were Nazi-like in their anti-Semitism. The Israeli public got very angry at these Nazi comments. Army Radio reported the news, and one of their talk show hosts called on his listeners to go on to our site and ‘fight the Nazi assault.’ This really made the public feel empowered, and they flocked to Latma by the thousands. It was simply amazing.

“The ABBA parody showed that there is a hunger in Israel for this kind of Web site, for this kind of satire, for this kind of biting criticism of the media at home and abroad,” Glick said.

Understanding this “new blood libel” helps put the “old blood libel” in perspective.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
2 Comments  comments 

Jews and Organ Transplants – Part 2

Levy Izhak Rosenbaum

This installment focuses on jewish involvement in the organ trade and trafficking.

An article first mentioned in Race and Organ Transplants – Part 2:

Citation: Sade RM. Transplantation, the Organ Gap, and Race. J So Carolina Med Assoc 1999; 95(3):112-115 (PDF):

Financial Rewards For Organ Donation

Another kind of personal benefit that could provide incentive to donate organs is financial rewards. Such payment, however, has been illegal since 1984.

The rationale behind the prohibition of financial rewards to living kidney donors is that it is morally outrageous, and therefore intolerable, to pay people for organs. Moreover, nearly all of us react to the idea of paying for organs with a feeling of repugnance. On close inspection of these issues, we will see that moral arguments against payment for organs are extremely weak, and that the real basis of prohibition is emotional.

Issues of exploitation and paternalism are also used to justify prohibition of the sale of organs. Paternalism occurs when a person is coerced for his own benefit. Exploitation occurs when a person is coerced for another’s benefit. Coercion is generally understood to occur when one person reduces the options available to another, so that the other suffers a loss from his own viewpoint. Either form of coercion may be justified or unjustified.

The effect of prohibition has been disproportionately adverse on poor minorities. Organs, both from living donors and cadavers, have great value, and financial benefit to donors disproportionately harms poor people. Prohibiting the sale of organs reduces special incentives for poor people to donate, and the disproportionate number of blacks in that group translates into reduction of availability of biologically suitable organs for blacks in particular. While prohibition of organ sales harms everyone, its disproportionate effect on blacks means that reversing it would disproportionately benefit them.

There are strong moral and ethical arguments that lead to the conclusion that absolute prohibition of the sale of organs should be rejected. By changing the focus from rationing of scarce organs to increase the numbers of organs available for transplantation, we will at least be free to discuss, as we are not now, what kind of financial rewards would work best in assuring an adequate supply of organs. Increasing the range of policy choices in this way may smooth the road toward disappearance of the organ gap.

What started with a discussion of racial disparity in organ donorship and need, and specifically under the guise of favoring blacks, was in the end clearly an argument in favor of monetization. Who would really benefit?

When investigating organ trafficking, one name keeps popping up. Nancy Scheper-Hughes, Wikipedia:

Nancy Scheper-Hughes (born 1944, New York City) is a professor of Anthropology and director of the program in Medical Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley.

In the 2000s, Scheper-Hughes investigated an international ring of organ sellers based in New York, New Jersey and Israel. She interviewed several hundred third-world organ donors, and reported that they all felt that they had been taken advantage of, and were often left sick, unable to work, and unable to get medical care. Some of them were tricked into donating organs, and threatened at gunpoint when they tried to resist. Some transplants took place at major New York City hospitals, and Scheper-Hughes said that the hospital personnel knew illegal transplants were taking place. She informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which led to arrests several years later.[8][9] When the events became public, she said that much of the world’s illicit traffic in kidneys could be traced to Israel.[citation needed] In a 2008 lecture, she is reported as identifying two motivations of Israeli traffickers as “greed” and “Revenge, restitution—reparation for the Holocaust.” She is reported as describing speaking with Israeli brokers who told her “it’s kind of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We’re going to get every single kidney and liver and heart that we can. The world owes it to us.’”[10]

Rather than simply reporting the plain facts about the organ trafficking, the following article dresses it up as a human interest story, personalized with false details. As a result the jewish/Israeli nature of this trade is somewhat disguised, though it can be gleaned from close reading, especially between the lines. Kidney kin: inside the transatlantic transplant trade, by Nancy Scheper-Hughes, 1 Jan 2006:

Lucille Hubbard is a tiny woman. Lucille, not her real name, is poor, black, and dependent on Medicaid and public assistance. After leaving the West Indies for New York as a young adult, Lucille made her living caring for people in need. Before turning 25, however, she learned that she suffered from untreated hypertension and kidney disease.

Later on “Lucille” is described as “a wealthy New Yorker”.

Her health rapidly deteriorating, Lucille considered an illegal transplant abroad from a paid living kidney donor. Lucille was put in touch with an Israeli-led syndicate of organ brokers, part of a worldwide network of transplant traffickers. The brokers suggested a “transplant tour” to Turkey or Romania, but the price of the prearranged package deal to Turkey was an astronomical US$180,000, and the cheaper option of rural Transylvania was frightening. Lucille feared that she might reject a kidney from a Romanian or Turkish peasant. She needed a cheaper alternative and an organ from a person who was, she felt, biogenetically “closer” to herself, preferably a kidney from a black person. “I am not a racist,” she told me. “But I was afraid of going all that distance and facing another organ rejection.”

There is obviously no shortage of desperate individuals willing to sell a kidney, a portion of their liver, a lung, or a cornea for a pittance. While erasing one vexing scarcity, the organs trade has produced a new one–a scarcity of transplant patients of sufficient means and willingness to break, bend, or bypass laws and longstanding codes of medical ethical conduct. The organ trade depends on four populations: desperate buyers, equally desperate sellers, renegade surgeons, and well-organized organs brokers.

Alberty sought out the brokers: a retired military police captain, Ivan Bonifacio, and his sidekick, a tall, “mean-looking” guy with a thick accent named Gaddy.

To Alberty’s surprise, Gaddy was Gadalya Tauber, a retired 67-year-old Israeli Defense Force policeman. On learning that Brazilians would donate to Israeli patients, Alberty asked, “Can it work that way?” Gerson, a nephew of Captain Ivan, assured him that there would be no problem because “under the skin, all men are brothers.” Gerson offered Alberty US$10,000, airfare to South Africa, and all his expenses. He was promised excellent medical care at a luxury hospital, and he might even get to travel afterwards–just for giving away a kidney he didn’t need. Gerson told Alberty that one kidney works while the other sleeps; the surgeons would remove his sleepy kidney and leave the good one.

We see here in action the fraudulent claim discussed in the White network – Race and Fraud: The Races of Mankind – Part 4, “under the skin, all men are brothers”. It is accompanied by the fraudulent claim that donors sacrifice nothing.

Going over the records in February 2004, Captain Helberg read incredulously: “August 1, 2003. Recipient: ‘Lucille Hubbard’ (New York City), age 48. Donor: Alberty Alfonso da Silva (Recife, Brazil), age 38. Living related donor.”

“Do you think the transplant surgeons really believed that a poor Brazilian was related to a wealthy New Yorker?” he asked. “These doctors turned everyone into family members–one big, sick, unhappy family,” he said disgustedly. “I won’t rest until every last one of the surgeons, nephrologists, nurses, transplant coordinators, translators, insurance company managers, HMO administrators and their international brokers are arrested and charged with organized crime.”

In August 2005, four South African transplant surgeons and several associates were charged with “fraud, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and contravening the Human Tissues Act.” Their trial takes place in early 2006.

I wonder if playing up the false family relations of the organ donor and recipient is a way to compensate for not mentioning the extended jewish relations among the surgeons, nephrologists, nurses, transplant coordinators, translators, insurance company managers, HMO administrators and their international brokers. After all, organized crime has a strong tendency to be organized around familial relations.

Here is another article about organ trafficking. Again the jewish/Israeli nature of the trade is disguised somewhat as a human interest story. The Illegal Trade in Organ Is Fueled by Desperation and Growing, SPIEGEL ONLINE, 3 August 2012:

It was 2008 when a wealthy, 74-year-old businessman from the western German state of North Rhine-Westphalia decided to ignore the law and morality in order to save his own life. The businessman’s first name is Walter

Vera Shevdko, 50, a hotel maid from Israel, was on the same flight. She had emigrated from Moscow only a few months earlier

Tall and lanky, with piercing eyes, Canadian prosecutor Jonathan Ratel came to Kosovo in 2010 to aid in the development of a constitutional system within the framework of the European Union Rule of Law (EULEX) mission. It wasn’t long before Ratel had turned his attention to the illegal activities of organ traffickers at the Medicus Clinic.

Ratel, 51, is convinced that unscrupulous transplant surgeons removed kidneys from 20 to 30 people and implanted them into wealthy patients at the partially German-owned clinic. The middleman was from Israel, the buyers of the organs were from all over the world and the surgeon, referred to in the press as “Dr. Frankenstein,” was from Turkey. The organ “donors” were from places like Istanbul and the Moldovan capital Chisinau, or they had recently immigrated to Israel. The system could only work, says Ratel, because Kosovar doctors and government officials helped cover it up.

Page 2 – Vera’s Kidney, Walter’s Money: Meeting the Traffickers:

The world of organ trafficking revolves around a simple scheme. There are importing and exporting nations. Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United States and Canada are examples of the former, while China, India, the Philippines, Egypt and Moldova are exporting nations.

No Side Effects?

The truth is that organ removal is very dangerous. The recipients return to hospitals in their native countries, where doctors don’t ask a lot of questions and provide the best possible post-surgical care, especially to avert the risk of transmission of HIV or hepatitis through the new organs. The clandestine business is, of course, not entirely without risk for the buyers, either.

The suppliers of the organs, on the other hand, often can’t expect to see a doctor at all when they return home. They face the risk of infection and postoperative hemorrhage, rising blood pressure and reopening wounds.

American anthropologists and doctors have tracked down and interviewed dozens of organ sellers. Almost all donors reported that their health declined considerably after the risky procedure.

Page 3 – Vera’s Kidney, Walter’s Money: Contempt of Humankind:

A Kidney-for-Money Deal

Hospitals in Europe and North America repeatedly see patients like Walter, who return from a trip abroad and suddenly have a new kidney. Four strange incidents involving presumed organ trafficking were brought to light in Germany in 2002. In the first case, a kidney from a young Moldovan man was transplanted into a retiree from Israel at a hospital in the eastern German city of Jena in 2001. The donor was allegedly his nephew. Every transplant of this nature is examined by a so-called living donor commission in each of the German states. Its job is to determine whether the donor is truly motivated by altruism, or whether money is changing hands.

The commission in the western city of Essen, where the two alleged relatives were to undergo the surgeries, had voiced doubts — perhaps because it was the fourth such case in which an Israeli received an organ from a young Eastern European “relative.” The surgeon wasn’t overly concerned about the Essen commission’s qualms and agreed to perform the operation in Jena instead, where the local commission consented to the procedure.

Page 4 – Vera’s Kidney, Walter’s Money: Tracking Down the Suspects:

Ratel’s investigation is much further along, but he also faces an uphill battle. It was only with difficulty that the special prosecutor managed to secure permission to interview foreign witnesses via video during the trial. One of the witnesses appearing on the courtroom monitor was Vera Shevdko, who described how she lost her kidney.

But while she was speaking, the scene in the courtroom was reminiscent of the waiting room at a train station. A defense attorney answered a call on his mobile phone and also made calls. Another attorney ranted that it would be better if Israel recognized Kosovo. The next one shouted “shalom,” while a defendant gesticulated at the judge and left the courtroom. Another defendant was sleeping with his head on the table in front of him. It was a farce, and the presiding judge had no intention of intervening.

Ratel has become increasingly doubtful over whether his investigative zeal is even wanted. He has sent mutual-assistance requests halfway around the world, but even in the best cases, he says, they are only being “poorly” fulfilled. And Moscow, he adds, didn’t react to his request at all, even though several victims, like Shevdko, are Russian-born.

The investigators have identified two men who they believed played a key role: the surgeon and the organ broker, a Turk and an Israeli. Both are at large.

A Piece of Meat

The surgeon is believed to be Yusuf Sönmez, a gaunt, bald man with a neatly trimmed beard. He is known as both Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Vulture. He even boasts of having transplanted 2,200 kidneys. By European standards, this certainly wasn’t legal.

Vera Shevdko met Sönmez. She begins to tremble and cry when she talks about him. She says that when she saw him in Priština, he didn’t respond to any of her questions, not in Russian and not in Hebrew. He simply ignored her, as if she were a piece of meat.

According to Ratel’s investigation, Sönmez collaborated with Moshe Harel in Israel. The stocky 62-year-old has both Turkish and Israeli citizenship. According to Ratel, he was in charge of recruiting donors and managed the payments. Today, Harel lives less than 20 kilometers (9 miles) away from Shevdko, in the Israeli town of Ramla. He was arrested in Priština after the raid on the Medicus Clinic. Four weeks later, the court allowed him to travel to Turkey for a month, where he had claimed that his mother was ill. Harel never returned to Kosovo. “Of course not,” says Ratel.

A German Doctor

Interpol still lists Harel as a wanted criminal. The statements by Shevdko and other donors convinced Israeli authorities to join Ratel’s investigation. Harel was arrested and charged with human trafficking, money laundering, organ trafficking and tax evasion. The Israeli authorities released him on parole. He has not commented on the charges.

I wrote about the Bid Rig bust and the organ trafficking that it brought to light in 2009: Jewish Supremacists Bribing Politicians and Laundering Proceeds of Criminal Activity. The insular, no-snitch attitudes of jews enabled these crimes, as did the taboo, hands-off attitudes of law enforcement authorities.

Operation Bid Rig, Wikipedia:

Operation Bid Rig III

The third phase of the investigation—Operation Bid Rig III—began after an individual identified by news sources as real estate developer Solomon Dwek of Ocean Township was arrested on charges of committing $50 million in bank fraud in May 2006. Dwek, a well-known member of the Syrian Jewish community whose parents founded the Deal Yeshiva,[1] agreed to become a cooperating witness for the FBI, infiltrating a money-laundering network connecting Israel and Syrian Jewish communities in Brooklyn and Deal, New Jersey. This network has allegedly laundered tens of millions of dollars through charitable non-profit organizations controlled by rabbis in New York and New Jersey. Among the rabbis implicated are Saul J. Kassin of Congregation Shaare Zion in Brooklyn, Eliahu Ben Haim of Congregation Ohel Yaacob in Deal, and Edmond Nahum of the Deal Synagogue.[6]

According to criminal complaints, Dwek (identified as “CW” for “cooperating witness”), informed targets of the sting that he was bankrupt and trying to conceal his assets, claiming involvement in illegal businesses including the sale of counterfeit Gucci and Prada handbags, as well as insurance scams and bank frauds. The targets accepted checks made by Dwek made out to their charitable foundations and returned the money to him after deducting a fee. Much of the cash they provided him came from Israel, and some of that in turn came from a Swiss banker, prosecutors said. Prosecutors said that about $3 million had been laundered for Dwek since the beginning of the third phase of the operation in June 2007, much of the money coming from Israel.

Organ trafficking

Levy Izhak Rosenbaum of Brooklyn was alleged to have been conspiring to arrange the sale of an Israeli citizen’s kidney for $160,000.[1] According to the complaint, Rosenbaum told the cooperating witness that he had been involved in the illegal sale of kidneys for 10 years. Acting US Attorney Ralph Marra said “His business was to entice vulnerable people to give up a kidney for $10,000 which he would turn around and sell for $160,000”. Anthropologist and organ trade expert Nancy Scheper-Hughes claimed that she had informed the FBI that Rosenbaum was “a major figure” in international organ smuggling 7 years ago, and that many of Rosenbaum’s donors had come from Eastern Europe. She also heard reports that Rosenbaum held donors at gunpoint to ensure they donated their organs.[9] This is the first organ trafficking case in U.S. history. In October 2011, Rosenbaum plead guilty to three counts of organ trafficking and one count of conspiracy.[10]

Anthropologist’s ‘Dick Tracy moment’ plays role in arrest of suspected kidney trafficker, NY Daily News, 24 July 2009:

The Brooklyn man arrested Thursday for dealing in black-market kidneys was identified to the FBI seven years ago as a major figure in a global human organ ring.

Levy-Izhak Rosenbaum’s name, address and even phone number were passed to an FBI agent in a meeting at the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan by a prominent anthropologist who has been studying and documenting organ trafficking for more than a decade.

Nancy Scheper-Hughes of the University of California, Berkeley, was and is very clear as to Rosenbaum’s role in the ring.

“He is the main U.S. broker for an international trafficking network,” she said.

The man called Rosenbaum “a thug” who would pull out a pistol he was apparently licensed to carry and tell the sellers, “You’re here. A deal is a deal. Now, you’ll give us a kidney or you’ll never go home.’ “

She waited and waited for something to be done. The FBI may have been following the lead of the State Department, which dismissed organ trafficking as “urban legend.”

“It would be impossible to conceal a clandestine organ trafficking ring,” a 2004 State Department report stated.

Scheper-Hughes had better luck in Brazil and in South Africa, where law enforcement corroborated her findings and acted decisively.

But the ring kept operating elsewhere. Scheper-Hughes visited villages in Moldova where, “20% of the men were siphoned off to be kidney sellers in this same scheme.”

15000 kidneys trafficked each year, Organ Watch (Scheper-Hughes was a founder), 15 Feb 2008:

Vienna, Austria: Top transplant surgeons are collaborating with criminal organ trafficking networks to target the desperate, an expert said Thursday.”It involves people from the highest level of their profession,” said Nancy Scheper-Hughes, founding director of Organs Watch, an academic research project at the University of California, Berkeley.

Some surgeons are ”willing to collaborate with the lowest levels of society — with criminal networks, brokers and with kidney hunters, who are the absolutely necessary factor,” she said.

Though it goes unmentioned by the anthropologist, a tribal bond helps explain this otherwise odd willingness.

Other members of the jewish tribe are hard at work on the legislative front. Kidney Donation Scandal Sparks New Debate Over Specter’s Organ Legislation, Forward.com, 5 August 2009:

Washington — Attempts to fix the nation’s organ donation system have attracted new interest following the recent arrest of a Brooklyn rabbi accused of illegally buying kidneys from live donors and selling them at a huge profit to desperate patients awaiting transplant surgery.

While human organs trafficking of the sort allegedly conducted by Rabbi Levy Izhak Rosenbaum is widely condemned, the notion of providing compensation as an incentive for organ donors is being examined seriously in Washington.

Media reports since Rosenbaum’s arrest have highlighted in particular a proposed bill that would allow organ donors and their families to receive non-cash benefits from state or federal governments.

The proposed language cites Israel as a model of a country that has enacted a law providing benefits for organ donors. Israel’s law, passed in March 2008 to address a notoriously low rate of donation in that country, provides living organ donors with about $5,000 in compensation and increased health care and social security benefits. Studies to document the law’s impact do not yet exist.

Critics of Specter’s legislation point to the case study of Iran, which has allowed the regulated sale of organs since 1996. Studies there indicate that a majority of donors subsequently regretted selling their organs. Many suffered medical complications.

Specter’s proposal has been endorsed by the American Medical Association and by advocacy groups for kidney patients, and is seen as a lifeline for patients fighting an increasing shortage of organs for transplant. According to 2007 statistics, there are more than 100,000 individuals in America waiting for organ donations, with only 14,000 people donating organs during the year. More than 6,000 patients died in 2007 while on the transplant waiting list.

But critics view any material incentive given to organ donors as morally wrong and practically counterproductive. A paper published in June by two leading activists from the Coalition for Organ-Failure Solutions argues that while Specter’s bill does not offer cash compensation, it nonetheless entails all the risk of a commercialized organ donation system: targeting poor donors, encouraging donations from unfit donors in financial need and changing the structure of the American organ donation system “by abandoning our altruistic system and replacing it with a system based on calculated materialism.”

The issue is also vexing for a Jewish community still struggling to overcome the wide exposure of Rosenbaum’s arrest. Beyond that, there have long been complaints that Jews are underrepresented among organ donors because of Jewish religious restrictions.

But Rabbi Eddie Reichman, a leading voice in the Orthodox community on issues of bioethics, sees no problem with fully supporting Specter’s proposed legislation. Reichman, an associate professor of emergency medicine at Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine, recently completed a detailed study of Jewish law’s approach to the issue. His conclusion: “From a Jewish standpoint, there is no reason not to receive compensation for organ donation.”

Connecting the dots. New Light On Organ Trafficking, The Jewish Week, 29 July 2009:

The FBI knew about a Brooklyn-based organ merchant working within the Jewish community here and in Israel as far back as 2002, but for unknown reasons, did not act against him until last week.

“I used my ethnographic skills to connect the dots,” Scheper-Hughes, who is writing a book on organ trafficking, said on WNYC radio Friday. “Eventually that brought me to Isaac Rosenbaum.”

Robby Berman, executive director of the Halachic Organ Donor Society, says 3,000 Americans and 100 Israelis die each year of kidney failure.

“Although there are two sides to the debate, there are many prominent rabbis who support giving financial incentives to encourage people to donate their kidneys,” said Berman. “Admittedly there are many social concerns, such as the exploitation of poor people. [But] it is my personal opinion that this option of legalizing payments along with government oversight and supervision should be seriously explored.”

Legalization of payments to donors, which could bring about insurance coverage, would shut down the black market, said Berman.

“The illegality of it,” he said, “fuels the exploitation.”

We can use our ethnographic skills to connect more dots than Scheper-Hughes will.

* Jews are into organ trafficking up to their eyeballs – because jews are overrepresented among doctors, because jews need more organs than they donate, and because it is profitable.

* Jews get away with it, at least to a certain extent – because “fear of the jews” and because of jewish media control.

* Jews would like to see organ trafficking legalized. They construct arguments moralizing/rationalizing it and lobby for legislative changes. They want the profits without the embarassing scandals.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
6 Comments  comments 

Jews and Organ Transplants – Part 1

An Overview on Organ Transplanation (PDF), by Arye Durst:

Source: ASSIA – Jewish Medical Ethics,
Vol. III, No. 1, January 1997, pp. 7-10

In 1966 the HLA (Human Leukocyte Antigen) system was discovered, assisting in the determination of organ compatibility. In 1980 a new breakthrough was achieved by Borel, a Swiss researcher from the Sandoz company, who developed Cyclosporin A, a new immunosuppressive substance which is still widely used.

Owing to the shortage of organs, organ trade is flourishing, and it is well known that kidneys may be bought from live donors not related to the patient. People from all over the world travel to India to buy kidneys and even undergo the transplants there. Organ trade also exists in Egypt.

There are well-founded rumors from South America con- cerning the kidnapping of children, particularly from the poorer sectors. These children disappear, supposedly taken to resorts for treatment and support, but it is believed that their organs are removed and sold. With evidence of such worldwide trade, we are particularly careful in Israel. However we do treat Israeli patients who have undergone organ transplantation in India, particularly kidney transplants, and who come back to us for continued treatment following the operation.

A review of the results of kidney transplants shows that there is 90% success during the first year for kidneys from live relatives, and 75% success during the first year from dead donors. Currently there are approximately one hundred kidney transplants carried out each year in Israel, with the demand reaching around two hundred and fifty. The organ-demand curve in recent years has been rising exponentially while the supply of organs has remained constant, giving rise to various phenomena which are entirely unethical.

Jews discussing unethical phenomena. How intriguing.

But first, a bit about Human Leukocyte Antigen. HLA is a complicated subject. Essentially it is to organ transplants (AKA grafts) what the ABO antigen system is to blood transfusions. As with the ABO antigens, racial variation is evident in the types and distribution of HLA.

History and naming of human leukocyte antigens, Wikipedia:

Each person has two HLA haplotypes, a cassette of genes passed on from each parent. The haplotype frequencies in Europeans are in strong linkage disequilibrium. This means there are much higher frequencies of certain haplotypes relative to the expectation based on random sorting of gene-alleles. This aided the discovery of HLA antigens, but was unknown to the pioneering researchers.

Human leukocyte antigen, Wikipedia:

These haplotypes can be used to trace migrations in the human population because they are often much like a fingerprint of an event that has occurred in evolution. The Super-B8 haplotype is enriched in the Western Irish, declines along gradients away from that region, and is found only in areas of the world where Western Europeans have migrated. The “A3-B7-DR2-DQ1” is more widely spread, from Eastern Asia to Iberia.

Back now to the jews. Let’s start with their attitudes.

Organ donation in Jewish law, Wikipedia:

Some ultra-orthodox Jews (haredim) are vehemently opposed to organ donation. Haredim in Israel have recently issued an anti-organ-donor or “life” card which is intended to ensure that organs are not removed from the bearer after brain death or brain stem death. It states: “I do not give my permission to take from me, not in life or in death, any organ or part of my body for any purpose.”

Organ Donation – Death & Mourning, Chabad.org:

Jewish law distinguishes between donating organs during your lifetime and organ donation after death.

It is forbidden to tamper with a corpse in any way unless it is in order to directly save a life. But when you sign a consent form to have your organs removed, not all of those organs will necessarily be used for an immediate transplant. They may be used for research, or stored away, or even discarded if not needed. Jewish law only allows organ donation if it can be ensured that the organs will indeed be used to save lives.

But there is a much more serious concern. To be usable in a transplant, most organs have to be removed while the heart is still beating. But Jewish law maintains that if the heart is still beating, the person is still alive. The moment of death is defined as when the heart stops. So to remove organs from a brain dead patient while the heart is still beating is tantamount to murder.

While the medical and legal world has accepted brain death as a new definition of death, the vast majority of experts in Jewish law have not.

Some countries offer an option to give consent to organs being removed on condition that a rabbi is consulted beforehand, who will ascertain that they will only be removed after absolute death and be used only to save lives. In countries where no such option exists, we don’t consent to the removal of organs after death.

“Jewish law” is a cover, an excuse. Using it, jews discriminate themselves from everyone else, and at the same time rationalize their expectation for special, preferential treatment.

In Israel, a New Approach to Organ Donation, NYTimes.com, by DANIELLE OFRI, M.D., February 16, 2012.

This article informs us that it is a “well-known fact” that jews do not donate organs. Most countries have either one of two legal systems for organ donation: opt-in or opt-out. But of course, Israel is special:

A third way to increase donations is being pioneered in Israel. Until now, Israel ranked at the bottom of Western countries on organ donation. Jewish law proscribes desecration of the dead, which has been interpreted by many to mean that Judaism prohibits organ donation. Additionally, there were rabbinic issues surrounding the concept of brain death, the state in which organs are typically harvested. As a result, many patients died waiting for organs.

So Israel has decided to try a new system that would give transplant priority to patients who have agreed to donate their organs. In doing so, it has become the first country in the world to incorporate “nonmedical” criteria into the priority system, though medical necessity would still be the first priority.

The Israeli program was initiated by Dr. Jacob Lavee, a cardiothoracic surgeon who heads the heart transplant program of Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer. In 2005, he had two ultra-Orthodox, Haredi Jewish patients on his ward who were awaiting heart transplants. The patients confided in him that they would never consider donating organs, in accordance with Haredi Jewish beliefs, but that they had absolutely no qualms about accepting organs from others.

That Haredi Jews would not donate organs was a well-known fact in Israel. But this was the first time anyone had openly admitted the paradox to Dr. Lavee.

The unfairness of a segment of society unwilling to donate organs, but happy to accept them, nagged at Dr. Lavee. After he operated on both patients, giving each a new lease on life, he put together a proposal that would give priority to those patients willing to donate their organs.

Working with rabbis, ethicists, lawyers, academics and members of the public, he and other medical experts worked to create a new law in 2010, which will take full effect this year: if two patients have identical medical needs for an organ transplant, priority will be given to the patient who has signed a donor card, or whose family member has donated an organ in the past.

A critical component of the law’s success was engaging the country’s highly influential religious leadership, which had long been resistant to organ donation. Even among the half of the country that is devoutly secular, when faced with death and whether to donate organs. “Suddenly the families become very religious,” said Dr. Yael Haviv, the medical director of the organ donation program at Sheba. “Suddenly they ask the rabbis.”

The initial claim is that haredi are the ones who don’t donate. Then, at the end, they reveal that even the non-haredi jews use the same “jewish law” excuse.

Jews have organizations dedicated to identifying and advocating for their narrow concerns. For example, HODS – Halachic Organ Donor Society: Mission:

  • To save lives by increasing organ donations from Jews to the general population (Jews and non-Jews alike).


  • To educate Jews about the different halachic and medical issues concerning organ donation.
  • To offer a unique organ donor card that enables Jews to donate organs according to their halachic belief.
  • To provide rabbinic consultation and oversight for cases of organ transplantation.
  • To match altruistic living kidney donors with recipients.

Despite their lame attempt to spin it otherwise, their clear concern is for the jews, and especially what more altruistic donors can do for them. HODS – Halachic Organ Donor Society: Frequently Asked Questions about the Halachic Organ Donor (HOD) Society:

6. Has the HOD Society saved any lives?

Yes. The HOD Society has helped to save more than two hundred people who need a donated organ. Some organ donations were directly enabled by the HOD Society, such as in the pairing of altruistic, live kidney donor Eric Swim of the U.S. with ten year-old recipient Moshiko Sharon of Israel.

Yiddish Phrases:

SHANDA: A shame, a scandal. The expression “a shanda fur die goy” means to do something embarrassing to Jews where non-Jews can observe it.

Debate Over Jewish Guidelines for Organ Donation Crosses the Atlantic, Forward.com, by Michael Goldfarb, January 26, 2011:

London — The controversy over what is dead according to Jewish law is no longer an intramural question among Orthodox rabbis on either side of the Atlantic. In Britain it is now being played out in public. As in the United States, the emotional question of organ donation is the battlefield.

The most recent round of arguments began in early January, when the London Beth Din, the religious court associated with the United Synagogue — Great Britain’s Orthodox umbrella group — and its chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, issued guidelines on organ donation. The beit din’s ruling was that brain stem death is not death for the purpose of heart and lung donation; a person is dead under traditional Jewish law, or Halacha, only when there is a cessation of cardio-respiratory function.

The matter might have remained an obscure dispute among Jews. But on January 12, The Guardian, a prominent British daily with national distribution, published an article outlining the beit din’s decision and reported that the chief rabbi had issued an edict ruling that “organ donation and the carrying of donor cards are incompatible with Jewish law.” The paper quoted the British Medical Association asking the chief rabbi to meet with organ donation experts as a matter of “urgency.”

Protect organ donation, JPost, 01/02/2011:

Particularly galling has been the sense that halachic authorities, in America and in Israel, are permitting Jews to receive organs, but not to donate them.

Orthodoxy has been increasingly hijacked by religious fundamentalism

This fanaticism has swept America as well.

Of course, as noted above by the jewish paper of record, the New York Times: most jews go in for this fundamentalist fanaticism excuse when it comes to not donating their organs.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
Comments Off on Jews and Organ Transplants – Part 1  comments 

Race and Organ Transplants – Part 2

Effect of Race Upon Organ Donation and Recipient Survival in Liver Transplantation, Nov 1990:


The effect of the race of the donor on organ donation and on the outcome of clinical liver transplantation has not been addressed previously. The aims of this study were to determine: (1) the number of organs donated by each of the major racial groups of the United States, (2) the outcome of transplantation of these organs across racial groups, and (3) the pattern of liver disease that required transplantation in each of these racial groups. A significantly higher proportion of organs were donated by white non-Hispanic Americans than either black or Hispanic Americans. There was no significant difference in survival when an organ was transplanted between black and white Americans and vice versa.

Currently, donors for liver transplantation are matched with recipients only according to ABO blood group compatibility and body size. Nonetheless, it is well known that man as a biological species is polymorphic, with significant variation occurring within the species. Despite genetic differences in the prevalence of blood groups and HLA antigens between the various races, the effect of the race of the donor and the race of the recipient on the outcome of clinical OLTx has never been investigated.

A retrospective analysis of all adult patients undergoing their first OLTx at the Presbyterian University Hospital of the University of Pittsburgh between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1988

The race of the donor was determined by what the family members considered was their racial grouping, while that of the recipient was determined by what the patients considered their racial group to be. For the purpose of this study, a transplant failure was defined as a graft failure leading to retransplantation and/or the patients death within 60 days of the initial liver transplant.

The total number of livers donated by blacks (69) was far less than that by whites 795 (Hispanic and non-Hispanic). Of the 51 black recipients, only 5 (10%) received an organ donated by a black, while 46 (90%) received an organ donated by a white; conversely of the 813 white recipients, 749 (92%) received an organ from a white donor while 64 (8%) received an organ from a black donor (P < 0.001). The total number of organs donated by blacks for either black or white recipients was far less than that observed for whites and is well below their population fraction.

A breakdown of the white population into Hispanic and non-Hispanic groups (Table 3) shows that the number of organs donated by the Hispanic group is even smaller than that donated by the black population. Thus, most donors are white non-Hispanics and both Hispanic and black recipients are most likely to receive an organ donated by a white who is non-Hispanic.

PubMed Central, Table 1: Dig Dis Sci. 1990 November; 35(11): 1391–1396.

This table indicates the failure rate of black recipients of White livers is twice the rate for Whites recipients of any liver.

PubMed Central, Table 2: Dig Dis Sci. 1990 November; 35(11): 1391–1396.

This table excludes “hispanics”. A more honest term would be mestizo, meaning “people with a various degrees of Caucasian, Amerindian and African admixture”. The black recipient failure rate is still roughly twice the White failure rate. The article says:

The failure rate for an organ transplanted from a black donor into a white recipient was 14.1% (14.8% in the case of a white non-Hispanic) while the failure rate for an organ obtained from a white donor and transplanted into a black was 28% (30% for white non-Hispanics). These differences were not significant.

PubMed Central, Table 3: Dig Dis Sci. 1990 November; 35(11): 1391–1396.

This table directly contrasts White with “hispanic”. Note that it indicates the White failure rate is more than doubled when the donor is “hispanic”.

PubMed Central, Table 5: Dig Dis Sci. 1990 November; 35(11): 1391–1396.

This table indicates that the mixed race cases consistently result in higher failure rates.

Because of the small numbers involved, there was no statistically significant difference in the failure rate for recipients with either PBC, PSC, or AHF among the various races. Among recipients transplanted for PNC, no differences in the failure rate was evident when the donor and recipient pairs were either matched or mismatched for race.

When race was considered in addition to other variables such as age, sex, and ABO blood groups, no difference in outcome was found, although the number of blacks within each of these subsets was small.


No data exist with respect to the outcome of organ donation between racial groups in clinical liver transplantation. This is related in part to the difficulty in classifying individuals in one or another racial group based solely upon their physical characteristics—commonly referred to as the “typological approach.” Our definition was determined by what the patient or the donor’s family members considered themselves to be.

The main difficulty with the “typological approach”, or for that matter most any empirical approach to race, is that it runs afoul the anti-“racist” dogma that race doesn’t exist or doesn’t matter or is a social construct of oppressive Whites. Race is not supposed to be real or important or objective despite all the indications that it is. The fact that any deliberate measure of the actual effects of such obvious biological differences could be put off for so long, despite the potential (and apparently substantial) life-threatening impact, is a good indication how all-important anti-“racist” ideology has become.

The present study confirms the low rate of donation of livers among blacks and Hispanics. It also shows that transplantation across racial groups has no effect upon the transplant outcome. The importance of determining the severity of the recipient’s illness and correcting for such is also illustrated in this study. The apparent higher failure rate for organs obtained from white donors and transplanted into black recipients was due entirely to the fact that a higher proportion of the black recipients who died were more seriously ill (4–6 on UNOS scale) than were the white recipients who were transplanted in this series (Table 4). However, a difference in survival rate for transplants performed between white Hispanics and white non-Hispanics also was noted. The numbers within this group are small, however, and thus no definitive conclusion can be drawn from the data.

The genetic differences owing to race per se are not considered to be major, as the genetic variability within each race is greater than the variability between the races. Moreover, it has been variously estimated that black Americans have a 30–50% chance of having a white ancestor (10). Because of this fact and because of the findings in this study, the likelihood of graft failure solely as a result of the presence of a genetic difference between the race of the donor and recipient is not tenable. This conclusion is consistent with studies recently reported for renal transplantation from our center (11). Thus transplantation of organs across racial groups can be performed without fear of an additional problem occurring as a result of some inherent difference between the donor and recipient races. Our data indicate that the major problem in success of liver transplantation is the severity of the illness of the recipient immediately prior to the transplant.

The numbers in the tables contradict the textual denials which accompany them. The reasons provided – statistical insignificance, severity of illness – are not accompanied by any detailed exposition. The raw numbers indicate a consistently higher failure rate for cross-race transplants, and at the very least suggest that more deliberate research is warranted.

They claim similar results for kidney transplants. Similarly flawed perhaps. The problem with cross-race kidney transplants is described in the following reports.

Donor Race May Impact Kidney Transplant Survival, Oct 2009:

“We found that transplant between races had better outcomes than transplant across races,” says Anita Patel, M.D., transplant nephrologist at Henry Ford Hospital Transplant Institute and lead author of the study.

By regression analysis, the non-black recipients who received a kidney from black donors had a significant lower survival rate compared to those who received a kidney from a non-black donor (hazard ratio 1.111, p=0.014) after adjusting for all known variables.

“Hepatitis C infection in the donor or recipient was seen as a significant risk factor for mortality,” says Dr. Patel.

Dr. Patel presented a similar study earlier this year which looked at race and the effect on renal allograft survival in different donor/recipients pairs. In that study, Dr. Patel found an increased risk in graft failure in non-black recipients of non-heart beating black donor kidneys. They appeared to have a two-fold increased risk of graft failure.

Twelve percent of living donors are African-American.

Genes, not race, determine donor kidney survival; Implications for kidney transplant recipients and kidney donors, May 2011:

“It’s been long observed that kidneys taken from some black donors just don’t last as long as those taken from non-black donors, and the reason for that has not been known,” said Barry I. Freedman, M.D., John H. Felts III Professor and senior investigator. “This study reveals that the genetic profile of the donor has a marked affect on graft survival after transplantation. We now know that these organs aren’t failing because they came from black donors, but rather because they came from individuals with two copies of a specific recessive gene.”

Long observed, and long ignored.

The researchers identified that kidneys from donors who had specific coding changes in a gene called apolipoprotein L1 (APOL1) did not last as long after transplant as those from donors without these changes. These coding changes in the APOL1 gene that affect kidney transplant function are found in about 10 to 12 percent of black individuals. Recent studies, led by Freedman and his colleagues, have shown that these genetic changes are associated with an increased risk of kidney disease, which prompted researchers to investigate the role of these changes in transplant success.

“In looking at the records and follow-up of the recipients of these organs, we accounted for all the usual factors that are known to contribute to more rapid loss of kidney function after transplant,” said Freedman, chief of the section on nephrology. “What we found was that the kidney disease-causing risk variants in APOL1 were the strongest predictor of graft loss after transplant. The effect of having two copies of this gene was stronger than the impact of genetic matching between donor and recipient, the amount of time the organ was out of the body, and the antibody levels. APOL1 dwarfed all these other factors known to affect survival.”

A more honest title for this article would be, “Race denial causes death”, or “Genetic factors finally discovered despite race denial”.

There is no “black gene”. There are many black genes. This is one of them.

The problem is avoided entirely by avoiding cross-race transplants.

Citation: Sade RM. Transplantation, the Organ Gap, and Race. J So Carolina Med Assoc 1999; 95(3):112-115 (PDF):

Institute of Human Values in Health Care • Medical University of South Carolina

The issue of race poses special problems in transplantation. Because of the prevalence of hypertensive renal disease in the black population, that group has a disproportionately high representation on the kidney transplant waiting list. While blacks compose 12% of the general population, they comprise 37% of the kidney transplantation waiting list, yet receive 25% of the kidney transplants. Other organs are not so disproportionate.

A variety of factors contribute to differences among races: biological, medical, social, and personal. Biological factors include different rates of ABO blood groups within races, as well as differences in major histocompatibility complex antigens. Because of these differences, organs from black donors have a better match with potential black recipients than white. Blacks have a lower donation rate than whites, for reasons discussed in more detail below, contributing to fewer available biologically compatible organs for blacks than for whites.

Confirms racial differences reflected in disparate incidence of disease, distribution of blood types, donation rates.

Such a program is likely to disproportionately benefit the rate of transplantation in the black community. Blacks donate organs at a lower rate than whites. There are many reasons for this, but prominent among them are distrust within the black community of the health care system and of medical authority, and the belief that donated organs from blacks will go to other races. A system in which black persons could specify that their organs could go only to other blacks would give them a special reason to donate. An additional benefit of an increase in black donation rate is that blood groups and histocompatibility antigens have different distributions in different races. Therefore, as the black donation rate goes up, the number of transplants into blacks will increase, and longevity of the implanted organs will improve as well.

As with blood, an examination of organ transplants indicates that race not only exists but has significant consequences. When something is perceived to be somehow negative for non-Whites the “medical community” argues openly and unabashedly to help them, even if that means acknowleding race and racial differences. Meanwhile, concern for White lives is pathologized and demonized. This dishonest regime is called anti-“racism”. Anti-“racism” causes White deaths.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
3 Comments  comments 

Race and Organ Transplants – Part 1

In the spirit of the topic of this installment, race-related donations, I’d like to echo the appeal and rationale expressed by Carolyn Yeager at the beginning of Upholding Standards Within the Truth Community, broadcast on 18 March 2013. Please show your support for our work by contributing money, recommending tWn to friends and family, linking tWn at forums you frequent, and also by making helpful, intelligent comments here on our site.

The main topic of this installment are the racial disparities in organ disease and donor rates, including in the pro-non-White spirit reflected in the attitudes with which these disparities are commonly discussed.

Organ and Tissue Donation 101 – The Office of Minority Health

Why is it Important for Minorities to Donate?

The need for transplants is unusually high among some ethnic minorities. Some diseases of the kidney, heart, lung, pancreas, and liver that can lead to organ failure are found more frequently in ethnic minority populations than in the general population. For example, Native Americans are four times more likely than Whites to suffer from diabetes. African Americans, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics are three times more likely than Whites to suffer from kidney disease. Many African Americans have high blood pressure (hypertension) which can lead to kidney failure. Some of these diseases are best treated through transplantation; others can only be treated through transplantation.

The rate of organ donation in minority communities does not keep pace with the number needing transplants. Although minorities donate in proportion to their share of the population, their need for transplants is much greater. African Americans, for example, are about 13 percent of the population, about 12 percent of donors, and about 23 percent of the kidney waiting list.

Successful transplantation is often enhanced by matching of organs between members of the same racial and ethnic group. Generally, people are genetically more similar to people of their own ethnicity or race than to people of other races. Therefore, matches are more likely and more timely when donors and potential recipients are members of the same ethnic background.

Here, with the imprimatur of the US government, is a clear enough statement that race exists and is in fact critically important. It is acceptable to discriminate on the basis of race when the purpose is to better serve anyone but Whites.

Attitudes and beliefs about organ donation among different racial groups.


Many people on the waiting list for organ donation die each year without receiving organs. The shortage of organs is even more pronounced in minority communities. Despite the fact that minorities are at higher risk, they may be less likely to support or consent to organ donation. This investigation was undertaken to study racial factors in organ donation, by focusing on differences in awareness, attitudes, and behavior.

From the PDF:

The shortage of organs is even more pronounced in minority communities. For example, due to their increased incidence of hypertension with end-stage renal disease, a disproportionately large number of African Americans await kidney transplants. Despite this greater risk, African Americans are less likely than other racial groups to support or consent to organ donation (Gallup, 1993, unpublished data).25 An additional concern is that African-American recipients face a decreased likelihood of successful transplantation due to poor tissue match if the donor is not also African American.6 Although Hispanic Americans have not been shown to represent a larg- er than expected portion of patients on organ recipient lists, it has been documented that they are less likely than whites, but more likely than African Americans, to express their support of organ donation in surveys and to consent to organ donation (Gallup, 1993, unpublished data).5’7

Several studies have investigated why minorities are less likely than whites to support organ donation. Some of this is attributable to differences in access, ie, minorities are less likely than whites to have access to adequate medical care and to information about organ donation.2’5’7 In addition, the relatively low confidence in organ donation that has been found among African Americans has been attributed to differences in religious beliefs and a distrust of the medical community as a whole.6’8 Among Hispanics, differences in language and the role of the family in decision making are reported to be barriers to organ donation.7’9 It also has been reported that a person’s level of education, which often is associated with minority status, is directly correlated with his or her support of organ donation and the likelihood of signing an organ donation card (Gallup, 1993, unpublished data).

Here and in subsequent examples many reasons are considered to explain and excuse non-White failure to donate. Most often it includes the fact that non-Whites simply don’t trust “the medical community”. Note the one explanation that isn’t considered is “racism”, even though that is always the first and foremost explanation when some perceived “failure” on the part of Whites is discussed.

Organ donation and culture: a comparison of Asian American and European American beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. [J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000] – PubMed – NCBI:


The well-known gap between organ-donor supply and demand in the United States is particularly acute for Asian Americans. Lower participation in organ donation programs by Asian Americans has been hypothesized as one explanation for this observation. This study finds that, relative to European Americans, Asian Americans hold more negative attitudes toward and participate less frequently in a large, urban organ-donor program.

Once again, they have “more negative attitudes” and “participate less frequently”, but it’s perfectly understandable, even if the actual reasons aren’t yet understood.

The need for increasing organ donation among African Americans and Hispanic Americans: an overview. [J Emerg Nurs. 1999] – PubMed – NCBI:

We know that most Asian countries, such as Japan, have only recently begun organ donation programs. The United States represents one of the most culturally heterogeneous populations in the world today. Health care workers are called on every day of their lives to overcome cultural or ethnic differences, and at no point during the health care process is culturally competent care more necessary than during the final hours of a person’s life. Organ donation is a question that should be asked of every family that loses a loved one so that they can have the opportunity to give of themselves in an effort to save the lives of others.

Overcoming differences, culturally competent care – these are just a few of the costs of the multicult. The burdens imposed by heterogeneity make it less likely that anyone will “give of themselves” to “save the lives of others” – behavior which comes naturally in the homogeneous White societies that the multicult destroys.

Racial disparities in organ donation and why. [Curr Opin Organ Transplant. 2011] – PubMed – NCBI:



High prevalence of comorbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, obesity, hepatitis B and C, in minority groups, results in racial minorities being disproportionally represented on transplant waiting lists. Organ transplantation positively impacts patient survival but greater access is limited by a severe donor shortage.


Unfortunately, minority groups also suffer from disparities in deceased and living donation. African-Americans comprise 12.9% of the population and 34% of the kidney transplant waiting list but only 13.8% of deceased donors. Barriers to minority deceased donation include: decreased awareness of transplantation, religious or cultural distrust of the medical community, fear of medical abandonment and fear of racism. Furthermore, African-Americans comprise only 11.8% of living donors.

This article speaks fairly directly about racial differences in disease and donorship. But the length of the waiting list is not only because of the race-based disparity between supply and demand rates. What is known but left unsaid here is that the wait, especially for kidneys, is also because race-based organ compatibility is important.

Race matters more than most of these articles are willing to admit, at least all at once. Each ignores or plays down or even flatly denies one or more aspects of race, which are revealed by consulting other sources which conceal a different mix of the facts.


Transplant center-based education classes significantly and positively impact African-American concerns and beliefs surrounding living donation. Community and national strategies utilizing culturally sensitive communication and interventions can ameliorate disparities and improve access to transplantation.

Stripping of its “culturally sensitive” trappings, this is an open call for more government-backed efforts to urge blacks to do what’s best for blacks.

Bone Marrow Transplants: When Race Is an Issue – TIME, Jun 2010:

Devan would need a marrow transplant. The prospect of going through chemotherapy for a second time and needing a transplant is daunting to anyone, but it’s especially harrowing if — like Devan — you’re of mixed race. Multiracial patients often have an incredibly hard time finding life-saving marrow matches. When Devan, whose father is Caucasian and mother is part Indian, was first diagnosed with leukemia, his family did a search of the international marrow registry that contains over 14 million donors and came up empty. “We knew there was nothing out there for him,” Tatlow says.

Compared to organ transplants, bone marrow donations need to be even more genetically similar to their recipients. Though there are exceptions, the vast majority of successful matches take place between donors and patients of the same ethnic background. Since all the immune system’s cells come from bone marrow, a transplant essentially introduces a new immune system to a person. Without genetic similarity between the donor and the patient, the new white blood cells will attack the host body. In an organ transplant, the body can reject the organ, but with marrow, the new immune system can reject the whole body.

To find a marrow match for anyone is hard. Even within one’s own family, the chances of finding one are only about 30%. According to the World Donor Marrow Association, while two out of three Caucasians find a match, the chances of a patient from another ethnic background can be as low as one in four. Despite rapid improvements in marrow registries around the world, the global registry is still disproportionately represented by the U.S., U.K. and Germany — all predominantly Caucasian countries. For a multiracial person, the chances are usually even worse. Athena Mari Asklipiadis, the founder of the California-based Mixed Marrow, one of the only outreach groups devoted to recruiting mixed race donors, says “the numbers are quite staggering … People compare it to winning the lottery.”

It’s difficult to ascertain the exact chances of finding a match for a mixed race person because the different combinations have different success rates, and the U.S.-based National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), which has about eight million donors in its registry, does not have statistics on the success rates of mixed race patients. But Asklipiadis maintains the rates are lower — much lower. “God forbid I need a match, because I’m a very rare combination,” Asklipiadis says of her mixed Japanese, Italian, Armenian, Egyptian and Greek background.

Recall how in the 1940s the Boasian/jewish/commie anthropologists behind The Races of Mankind said race and race mixing doesn’t matter, and “science” proved it? They were lying. Organ transplant incompatibility, most obvious in the case of bone marrow, is an undeniable, biological down-side of race mixing. The subject is only broached here to help mixed race people after the fact. It would be far better to inform people of this reality before they create mixed-race children.

Tatlow recently received another call, this one bearing good news. Devan’s doctor informed the family a cord blood match had turned up. It’s not a perfect solution, but Devan’s doctor says it’s good enough. Blood from the umbilical cord is rich in blood-forming cells, and cord blood doesn’t have to match quite as closely as marrow from an adult. In the U.S. registry, compared to the over eight million potential marrow donors, there are only about 160,000 cord blood units. Tatlow urged pregnant women to donate their cord blood: “For pregnant women, your baby’s umbilical cord, which is otherwise thrown away, can save a life. It just seems like a very simple thing to do for the greater good of mankind.”

Except, as with organ donations in general, it is not “for the greater good of mankind”. It’s for the greater good of race mixing and non-Whites, to the detriment of the greater good of the rest of mankind, i.e. Whites.

The podcast will be broadcast and available for download on Tuesday at 9PM ET.

 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
5 Comments  comments 
© the White network