Dr. Malone is Controlled Opposition on Organ Donation
By Katherine Hine, August 9, 2025
More half-truths, Dr. Malone. There is NO EXCUSE for organ donation since the following material facts were established without objection several years ago in the matter of Plaster v. Plaster:
:https://occr2021.com/pending-cases/
Those material facts, which controlled opposition doctors such as you typically conceal from patients and their families, are as follows:
a.Organs extracted even moments after true death has occurred are medically undesirable for implantation in recipients. Organs are therefore now typically extracted while the ”donor” is still alive and capable of feeling pain. The extraction of the vital organ then kills the “donor,” who might otherwise recover.
b.The science behind “brain death” has been newly created and perverted so as to give the appearance that organ extraction is being done ethically, i.e. after death. In 1967 it was discovered that the vital organs of truly dead patients did not survive the transplantation process for very long in the bodies of the recipients. However through experimentation, doctors discovered that if the organs came from living donors, the results were far better, and therefore, more marketable.
c. As organ harvesting became increasingly lucrative, the definition of death had to be altered to permit the extraction of vital organs. This led to the invention and reformulation of the condition known as ‘brain death’ beginning in the late 1960’s.
d. Instead of using the more accurate brain scans or EEG’s, Respondent agents and contractors diagnose such “brain death” using the “apnea test” in which the unconscious critically ill or injured patient is removed from the ventilator for 10 minutes to determine whether he or she can breathe adequately on his or her own. If the “donor” cannot do so, he or she is declared ‘brain dead’ and put back on the ventilator until organ recipients are located. Then the vital organs are extracted, causing the death of the “donor”. The “apnea test” itself can cause irreparable harm.
e. According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine on August 14, 2008 “brain-dead” patients are considered dead based on the theory that brain damage has led to the “permanent cessation of functioning of the organism as a whole”. Yet evidence shows that if these patients are supported beyond the acute phase of the illness or injury (which is rarely done), they can survive for many years, often without significant disability.
f. Most organ donors have their organs removed without the benefit of anesthesia, such practice being justified by the nebulous diagnosis of ‘brain-death’. Nurses and anesthesiologists have charted a significant increase in the donor’s pulse and blood pressure during the removal process indicating that the donors were experiencing severe pain.
g. According to corporate policies of STATE OF OHIO, expressed in its “Ohio Revised Code Section 2108.05, being administered by Respondents DeWine, Vanderhoff, Norman, Voinovich, Nagy, Wadsworth, Will, and LaRose, an anatomical gift can only be withdrawn by the “donor”. However, policy statements from agents of private, for-profit corporations, such as STATE OF OHIO, their affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent corporations, are not law and apply only to legal fiction “persons”, not to living people, including without limitation, Claimant Gail Plaster.
h. Organ donors are also not informed that organ recipients are required to take expensive anti- rejection pharmaceutical products such as those manufactured by corporations in which Respondent DeWine and other Respondents are invested and for which they act. These drugs must be taken for life and they basically shut down the recipient’s already vulnerable immune system. The recipient’s body treats the donated organ or tissue as a foreign contaminant and would attack it, but for the anti-rejection drugs. The altruistic motives for organ donation are therefore unsupported by the actual evidence.
i.Organ donors are not informed that organ donation is highly lucrative.
j. Organ donation “consent”, even after it has been withdrawn, may still appear in Respondents’ records, which are then made available electronically to their agents and contractors, including without limitation, Respondents Holtzmann, Kent, Rodriguez, and men and women acting as their code enforcer agents. All such agents and contractors are also considered as receiving the within Notice. Knowledge of the facts contained herein are imputed to all Respondents, their agents, principals and contractors. Respondent code enforcers and their agents routinely transmit their superiors’ false and misleading information as to donor “consent” to medical personnel, including without limitation, Respondent Goudy, who is Gail’s primary care physician and may at some point be called upon to treat her if injured on the roadways. Respondents have a clear profit motive in seeking any and all “evidence” that “consent” has been provided at some point in the past, even though such consent was extracted without full prior disclosure of all material facts as set forth at paragraph 24 a-j hereinabove.
Katherine Hine,J.D.
Categories: Uncategorized