Posts by Jeffrey Wilson4

I was watching some old clips of training camps last night—just mindless scrolling through YouTube—and it hit me how much we, as fans, actually derive our sense of identity from these repetitive, almost monastic rituals. There’s something deeply strange about the way we track every single movement, every minor drill, and every incremental change in a roster during the hottest months of the year. We treat these mid-summer practice sessions like they’re some kind of sacred pilgrimage, even though we know most of what we’re seeing is just muscle memory and conditioning.

I remember back in my college days, I used to follow my local team's summer sessions with a level of intensity that was frankly embarrassing. I’d sit there in my humid basement, refreshing live threads, checking to see if a specific player looked "faster" or if a certain position group seemed to be struggling with a new drill. I’d form entire opinions on the upcoming season based on whether a rookie looked confident during a three-minute drill or if a veteran seemed a bit sluggish in the heat. Looking back, I realize I wasn't actually analyzing the sport; I was just looking for a way to feel connected to something larger than my own boring Tuesday afternoon.

It’s a psychological phenomenon, isn't it? We crave the "update." We crave the feeling of being "in the know" before the real action even starts. There’s a specific kind of dopamine hit that comes from seeing a name pop up in a practice report, or reading a snippet about how a specific unit is clicking. It builds this illusion of momentum. It makes us feel like the season isn't just some distant event in the autumn, but something that is happening *right now*, under our fingertips. We turn the slow, grueling process of physical preparation into a high-stakes drama, even when it's just guys running through cones in 90-degree weather.

But there’s also a darker side to this obsession. The "wait and see" period can be so agonizing. We spend weeks building up these mental models of what the team *could* be, and then the actual season starts, and reality often has a way of shattering those carefully constructed illusions. We become so invested in the "process" and the "progress" that we forget how much of professional competition is actually just chaos and luck. We look for patterns in the sand, trying to predict the future through the lens of a few practice repetitions.

I also wonder about the players themselves. We consume these updates like they're entertainment, but for them, this is the most vulnerable time of their lives. Every single movement is being scrutinized by thousands of people who are essentially looking for reasons to be disappointed or reasons to be overly optimistic. The pressure to "look good" during a period that is supposed to be about fundamentals and conditioning must be immense. It’s like they’re performing for an audience that is already deciding their value before they’ve even stepped onto the field for a real game.

Is it just me, or has the way we consume sports changed because of this constant stream of incremental information? It feels like we’ve moved away from the "big game" excitement and into this constant, low-level anxiety of monitoring progress. We don't just watch the game anymore; we live in the periphery of the preparation.

Do you think this constant, granular tracking of summer progress actually helps fans engage more deeply with their teams, or does it just create a false sense of expectation that leads to more burnout and frustration once the real season kicks off?

Nicole James said:Two years ago, I was in the final stages of heart failure. I couldn't even manage to take a shower and wash my hair in one go because it was just too much physical exertion—I'd have to shower, nap for an hour, and then finally wash my hair. Then, I received a new heart. Now, I'm back at work, I run, I hike, and honestly, I'm in better shape than I ever was—I'm absolutely thriving. If I recall correctly, the average life expectancy is about 12 years, though since most transplant recipients are in their 50s or 60s, for people my age, a heart can often last 20 years or more. Plus, re-transplants aren't rare anymore, so some people end up living for over 30 years after the procedure.

I once met a man who received a new heart back when he was just a guy in his 20s; in the meantime, he finished his degree, started a company, and got married... I know a mother who gets to spend time with her son—a professor who returned to teaching—and several older folks who have retired and are simply enjoying life with their children and grandchildren... Basically, if you're asking me what life is like for most people, it's excellent.

So, how long did the recovery actually take you? And what's the deal with your immune system now? Also—this is the weird part I always wonder about—did you feel any... I don't know, "foreign" sensations after the transplant? Like, having someone else's heart inside you... did it change your personality, your interests, or anything like that?

Cheers!

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

It’s a damn shame—America could really use more associations like this one...

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

Cut the crap, please! I honestly thought "Enlightenment" meant just a simple explanation—but I guess that would be a "Declaration"... right?

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

And that’s exactly the point—you can't just go harvesting organs from bodies like that. Like you were saying, they have to keep them on mechanical ventilation and a whole mess of other life support just to keep these... well, these "not-quite-dead" patients hovering in some sort of limbo. It’s all just to serve someone else's needs. And honestly, that's where the whole thing falls apart—we're basically using technology to meddle with the natural process of dying.

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

Well, us and the Germans—that’s about 87 million people, right? 🙂 Just kidding, I meant us here on the forum, you know, those speakers of the first most annoying language before German took over. 😁

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

Fair enough. Thanks anyway!

brightgull95 said:I honestly haven't the slightest clue. Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of that KAO organization, and that’s after living and working here in America for several years now. But really, why are you even asking me? Why does this matter to you? You clearly have some very "strong" opinions on at least one specific niche of transplant medicine—even though you don't know the first thing about it, nor do you know anything about medicine in general.

It would go exactly like this:This insignificant, incompetent little group thinks they can play God by misleading the public. They’ve carved out this tiny, narrow niche within one specific subset of medicine—organ transplantation—and then have the audacity to present themselves in their headlines as some kind of authoritative, highly competent, and objective voice. It’s absolute nonsense.".

No, that has absolutely nothing to do with vegetation (just look at the details below)—we’re talking about total, absolute death here. Since you completely dodged my question earlier, let me answer it myself just so we can get some clarity:

How many people who can't even breathe on their own are actually "alive"? And just how much life is left in someone whose brain is stuck in total asystole?

If the control center responsible for spontaneous breathing—located deep within the medulla oblongata—simply shuts down, you’re looking at apnea. Or, to put it in the most blunt terms possible in any language other than American—it's the end of the line. Apnea. Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what we’re talking about here: that person has maybe 20, definitely no more than 30 minutes left. That is it. After that window closes, they are dead. It isn't just some vague "stopping of breath"—it is a total systemic collapse. The lungs aren't moving. There is zero gas exchange happening. Oxygen isn't hitting the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide? It's just sitting there, building up and poisoning the system. You get respiratory acidosis, which forces the cells into anaerobic metabolism, which then triggers metabolic acidosis. It’s a domino effect of biological failure. First, you have individual cells dying off through apoptosis, then the organs just shut down entirely, and then—boom—death has occurred. And I'm talking about *real* death here. We aren't just talking about someone who stopped breathing; we are talking about rigor mortis setting in, livor mortis, and—depending on where the body is located—the rapid decomposition of tissue and flies swarming the remains. It is brutal, it is final, and it is biology at its most unforgiving.

Look, let’s get one thing straight: if someone spontaneously stops breathing, they’re basically dead within thirty minutes. Period. It’s simple biology.

Look, let’s be absolutely clear about what’s actually happening here. If you hook a sick person up to a ventilator, that machine is doing all the heavy lifting—it’s the one ventilating the lungs and forcing gas exchange. Because of that artificial intervention, the rest of the organs—the heart, the liver, the kidneys, and yes, even the lungs themselves because they're being constantly perfused—all continue to function. From a strictly clinical and legal standpoint, you are looking at a dead person with functional organs. Or, if you want to get technical, you could call them "living organs." And here is the kicker: if that person stays on a ventilator for more than thirty minutes after clinical death (the moment breathing stops) has been established, those organs are only continuing to work because of an external mechanical intervention. They are functioning *after* certain death has already occurred. Furthermore, such a person can't move on their own. That means muscles atrophy, bones lose density, and limbs develop contractures, no matter how much you try to move them manually. To go searching for "signs of life" in someone in this state is to completely ignore the undeniable fact that without that ventilator, death is inevitable and imminent.

Look, you wouldn't get it because you were completely in the dark before. That’s the reality here. You were uninformed, clueless—and now? Well, now you aren't. Things have changed.
Who exactly is this legal guardian allowed to be? When someone is declared clinically dead and becomes a candidate for organ donation, the medical staff—I'm talking both the doctors and the nurses—is required to provide an incredibly detailed breakdown of the patient's actual condition. It’s just like how I was explaining things to the editor just now. Once you have that level of clarity, and once the guardian has had every single one of their questions answered, making the final decision becomes remarkably straightforward.

Look, you just have to respect the decision. Period. If a guardian decides to authorize organ donation, then we should be nothing but grateful for that choice. But if they decide against it? Fine. You don't get to throw it in their face or judge them for it. It’s their call to make.

The exact same logic applies to those people who still insist on labeling someone "alive" just because they have non-existent spontaneous breathing—and then go on to call organ transplantation nothing short of murder. If we limit ourselves strictly to those two specific claims, fine. That’s their right too. We shouldn't be trying to force them to see things differently or drag them kicking and screaming toward a different conclusion.

And there’s one more thing regarding those in a "vegetative state." Someone who is just vegetating—they’re breathing spontaneously, sure, but they are essentially just a plant at that point. Because they can still draw breath on their own, they might technically survive without being hooked up to a ventilator. However, make no mistake: once you pull that mechanical ventilation away, death follows. It could happen within a few hours, or it could drag on for several weeks, but the end result is exactly the same.

And what exactly is this "other side" you're talking about? Seriously, what is it that bothers you so much that you’ve jumped to such a conclusion based on your incredibly limited understanding of the situation?

Look, here’s the bottom line as far as I’m concerned: you can't just slap any organ into any person and hope for the best. That’s just not how it works (and that was yet another one of my questions that you completely brushed off, by the way). Once you get through the initial tissue typing—I think I read somewhere that they call it HLA—there’s a whole mountain of additional testing required. You don't just jump straight to surgery. There are layers upon layers of screening to determine if someone is even a viable candidate for an organ transplant in the first place. It's about deciding whether the entire procedure actually makes sense for the patient or if it's just a wasted effort.

I can't believe I have to even address this again. Honestly, it’s exhausting watching the same circular arguments play out every single day. You people think you're being profound, but you're just spinning your wheels! And don't get me started on what **Jeffrey Wilson4** was rambling about earlier. Absolute nonsense. It’s like some of you haven't spent a single second looking at the actual data or understanding how the Department operates. You’re throwing around terms you don't understand and acting like you've cracked the code. Newsflash: you haven't. It’s frustrating, truly. We need actual substance here, not just constant, mindless noise from people who wouldn't know a real issue if it hit them in the face. If we’re going to have a serious discussion, let’s actually act like it. Otherwise, why am I even bothering? kaže:
What does life actually look like for most people who undergo an organ transplant? Are they truly cured, or are they just stuck being chronic patients for the rest of their lives? And how much time do they even get before the body decides to reject that "new" organ entirely?

Look, I’ve only ever had the chance to treat two transplant patients in my entire career, so I don't exactly consider myself an authority on this subject. I'm really not in any position to give a definitive answer here.

You’d be better off asking someone who actually lives with a transplanted organ. If you aren't in any position to sit down and talk to someone like that—because, let's face it, it's incredibly easy to sit there and play armchair expert without any real skin in the game—then I have a suggestion for you. There are plenty of nephrotoxic substances out there that you can pick up quite easily. Just take a sufficient dose of one or more, induce permanent kidney failure, and you can experience all the "joys" of dialysis firsthand, just like Renate Greinert claims they're harmless. And hey, if you get a little bit of luck on your side, maybe you'll even land a new kidney. Then you'll know exactly what it's like to live with a transplant from personal experience.

You can find some statistics regarding late organ rejection right here:
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documen...ntation_en.pdf

I can tell it isn't. It’s obvious you’re quoting something you didn't even wrap your head around, though I shouldn't be surprised you'd quote something like that.

After reading this article, I can say with total confidence that this woman (Renata Greinert) built her career, more or less, on the death of her own son. It's pretty interesting how she conveniently left out that "alleged" quote from Prof. Pichlmayr right here.

"Us?" Can I translate "you guys" instead? Is there more than one person hiding behind that username?

I can translate it, but I won't. Not even if you pay me. I'm picky about whose money I take because I have principles, and I stick to them.

So, either pay someone else to translate it for you, or better yet, take a German class so you don't need a translator and won't embarrass yourself in public again. If funds are an issue, I suggest reaching out to that so-called "association" and asking them to financially support opening a branch in America or wherever you happen to be.

First you have to learn German, then biology, then the whole mess of planning, organizing, combining, coordinating, and controlling activities and organizational resources—it takes a hell of a lot of time to do all that...

brightgull95 said:

Jeffrey Wilson4 Asks:
If you dig through German literature, you’ll find a massive amount of critical commentary regarding the darker, often overlooked side of organ donation and the entire field of transplant medicine. There's a whole world of intense scrutiny out there that people just don't talk about enough.
If you happen to be fluent in German, you really ought to take a look at this website:

I’ve been digging through this site, and frankly, my blood pressure is spiking just looking at it. This whole "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation" initiative? It feels like they're trying to reinvent the wheel while driving straight into a ditch. They’re throwing around these massive, sweeping claims about medical ethics and transparency, but when you actually peel back the layers, it feels less like a movement for change and more like a disorganized shouting match against the entire American medical establishment. They want to talk about systemic flaws in how we handle organ transplants here in the States—questioning everything from donor protocols to the way hospitals communicate with families. I get the sentiment, I really do. We all know the system isn't perfect; even a glance at how Medicare handles complex cases shows there's plenty of room for bureaucratic messiness. But there's a fine line between being a whistleblower and just being a contrarian for the sake of it. The tone of their messaging is what gets me. It’s heavy-handed. They act as if they’re the only ones with a moral compass, casting doubt on every major transplant center from New York to LA. It’s incredibly aggressive. Is it an attempt at actual reform, or just a collection of people who are angry at the status quo? Sometimes I think they’re just looking for a fight with the Department of Health and Human Services. I can see why people gravitate toward it, though. When you feel like the institutions meant to protect you are opaque or slow, a group that screams "transparency!" sounds like a hero. But you have to ask: what is the actual end goal? If the goal is to improve patient outcomes and clarify the process for grieving families, then fine. But if it's just to cast shadows of doubt without offering a concrete, workable alternative to current American medical standards, then it’s just noise. It’s loud, it’s frantic, and honestly, it’s exhausting.

The people running this organization are honestly a joke. They go through all these grand motions, pretending to be productive, but they aren't actually doing a damn thing—though, I suppose they don't really *need* to work when the money just keeps rolling in regardless. It’s all just a massive charade. They’ve even got themselves a formal board of directors, glossy printed brochures, and their own YouTube channel to maintain the illusion. None of this theater would even be possible without that constant, steady stream of funding hitting their accounts. And get this: the guy heading the whole operation is a cardiologist. Can you believe that?

What kind of life are we even talking about when someone’s cerebrum, cerebellum, and brainstem—that vital medulla oblongata everyone calls the brainstem—are all completely non-functional? What does that existence actually look like? We’re looking at a person who hasn't maintained a single autonomous function. And let's be clear: I'm primarily talking about the loss of spontaneous breathing. Seriously, what kind of life is that?

Can you just take an organ from any random person and transplant it into anyone else, or are there actual limitations here? I mean, is it like trying to swap an engine from one car into another—where you have to worry about whether the parts actually fit or if the whole thing is going to blow up? There's gotta be some rules to this, right?

How much life is actually left in someone who can't breathe on their own? I mean, how much "life" is there really in a person facing brain asystole?

If we’ve actually proven that everything inside the skull—the cerebrum, the cerebellum, the brainstem—is completely dead, then the very thing that makes us human is gone. Period. If you really want to go down that road, you can stop talking about a "living organism" altogether. At that point, you're just looking at a collection of functional organs. There is a massive, fundamental difference there.

Oh, really? Are you seriously suggesting you’ve never heard of the autonomic nervous system? Look, fine, maybe you don't need to know that, but the folks at the OPO—specifically her leadership and every doctor employed there—absolutely *should* know that certain functions aren't controlled by the brain, but by centers outside of it (like the sympathetic ganglia in the chest and abdomen). The entire digestive tract has two independent nerve systems (the Meissner and Auerbachov plexuses) that stay active regardless of whether the brain is functioning or if the person is even alive. To ignore a fact that you learn as early as your second year of med school is just plain biased.

Is that so? So you're one of those witnesses who allegedly heard that sentence back in 1987 in Hannover?

If you're going to quote something, at least do it properly. Because on that OPO website, this is actually what it says:

Renate Greinert had asked Prof. Pichlmayr back then in Hannover:

“Why didn't you explain to us,
what it truly means to be an organ donor?”

That was his response before witnesses:

“If we educate society about organ donation,
we won't get any more organs.”

Prof. Rudolf Pichlmayr – 1987

Or, in plain English:
Renate Greinert once asked Professor Pichlmayr in Hannover:
"Why haven't you explained to us exactly what being an organ donor entails?"
His answer, in front of witnesses:
"If we were to explain the reality to society, we wouldn't receive any more organs."

Prof. Pichlmayr passed away in 1997 in Mexico. We can't exactly go ask him to verify the accuracy of this statement. Nor can we ask if the quote, assuming it's true, was ripped out of context or not. So, we can't say he definitely said it; we can only say that a certain Renate Greinert *claims* he said it. And who is this Renate, anyway? Well, look at that—she's a member of the executive board for that very same OPO initiative!
https://initiative-kao.de/kritische-...o-ev/#vorstand

Wow! So, we're dealing with a woman whose entire profession is pushing a specific agenda. Someone who is obsessed with making sure people only hear the information that suits her narrative. Someone who would coldly tell anyone waiting for a kidney transplant, "What do you care about a kidney? You have dialysis" (see link below). But oh, she won't mention the long-term risks and complications of dialysis, no, no—that doesn't interest her. She only cares about making sure her side gets heard. Hypocrite.

https://www.gesundheit-adhoc.de/tag-...ende-2019.html

"Renata Greinert: „It’s rarely actually about saving a life. According to the latest data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, 77% of organ recipients are specifically waiting for a kidney. These people already have an alternative—dialysis."

Does anything like that exist here in the States? And what would you even call their little group in English: "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation"?

brightgull95 said:

Jeffrey Wilson4 Asks:
If you dig through German literature, you’ll find a massive amount of critical commentary regarding the darker, often overlooked side of organ donation and the entire field of transplant medicine. There's a whole world of intense scrutiny out there that people just don't talk about enough.
If you happen to be fluent in German, you really ought to take a look at this website:

I’ve been digging through this site, and frankly, my blood pressure is spiking just looking at it. This whole "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation" initiative? It feels like they're trying to reinvent the wheel while driving straight into a ditch. They’re throwing around these massive, sweeping claims about medical ethics and transparency, but when you actually peel back the layers, it feels less like a movement for change and more like a disorganized shouting match against the entire American medical establishment. They want to talk about systemic flaws in how we handle organ transplants here in the States—questioning everything from donor protocols to the way hospitals communicate with families. I get the sentiment, I really do. We all know the system isn't perfect; even a glance at how Medicare handles complex cases shows there's plenty of room for bureaucratic messiness. But there's a fine line between being a whistleblower and just being a contrarian for the sake of it. The tone of their messaging is what gets me. It’s heavy-handed. They act as if they’re the only ones with a moral compass, casting doubt on every major transplant center from New York to LA. It’s incredibly aggressive. Is it an attempt at actual reform, or just a collection of people who are angry at the status quo? Sometimes I think they’re just looking for a fight with the Department of Health and Human Services. I can see why people gravitate toward it, though. When you feel like the institutions meant to protect you are opaque or slow, a group that screams "transparency!" sounds like a hero. But you have to ask: what is the actual end goal? If the goal is to improve patient outcomes and clarify the process for grieving families, then fine. But if it's just to cast shadows of doubt without offering a concrete, workable alternative to current American medical standards, then it’s just noise. It’s loud, it’s frantic, and honestly, it’s exhausting.

The people running this organization are honestly a joke. They go through all these grand motions, pretending to be productive, but they aren't actually doing a damn thing—though, I suppose they don't really *need* to work when the money just keeps rolling in regardless. It’s all just a massive charade. They’ve even got themselves a formal board of directors, glossy printed brochures, and their own YouTube channel to maintain the illusion. None of this theater would even be possible without that constant, steady stream of funding hitting their accounts. And get this: the guy heading the whole operation is a cardiologist. Can you believe that?

What kind of life are we even talking about when someone’s cerebrum, cerebellum, and brainstem—that vital medulla oblongata everyone calls the brainstem—are all completely non-functional? What does that existence actually look like? We’re looking at a person who hasn't maintained a single autonomous function. And let's be clear: I'm primarily talking about the loss of spontaneous breathing. Seriously, what kind of life is that?

Can you just take an organ from any random person and transplant it into anyone else, or are there actual limitations here? I mean, is it like trying to swap an engine from one car into another—where you have to worry about whether the parts actually fit or if the whole thing is going to blow up? There's gotta be some rules to this, right?

How much life is actually left in someone who can't breathe on their own? I mean, how much "life" is there really in a person facing brain asystole?

If we’ve actually proven that everything inside the skull—the cerebrum, the cerebellum, the brainstem—is completely dead, then the very thing that makes us human is gone. Period. If you really want to go down that road, you can stop talking about a "living organism" altogether. At that point, you're just looking at a collection of functional organs. There is a massive, fundamental difference there.

Oh, really? Are you seriously suggesting you’ve never heard of the autonomic nervous system? Look, fine, maybe you don't need to know that, but the folks at the OPO—specifically her leadership and every doctor employed there—absolutely *should* know that certain functions aren't controlled by the brain, but by centers outside of it (like the sympathetic ganglia in the chest and abdomen). The entire digestive tract has two independent nerve systems (the Meissner and Auerbachov plexuses) that stay active regardless of whether the brain is functioning or if the person is even alive. To ignore a fact that you learn as early as your second year of med school is just plain biased.

Is that so? So you're one of those witnesses who allegedly heard that sentence back in 1987 in Hannover?

If you're going to quote something, at least do it properly. Because on that OPO website, this is actually what it says:

Renate Greinert had asked Prof. Pichlmayr back then in Hannover:

“Why didn't you explain to us,
what it truly means to be an organ donor?”

That was his response before witnesses:

“If we educate society about organ donation,
we won't get any more organs.”

Prof. Rudolf Pichlmayr – 1987

Or, in plain English:
Renate Greinert once asked Professor Pichlmayr in Hannover:
"Why haven't you explained to us exactly what being an organ donor entails?"
His answer, in front of witnesses:
"If we were to explain the reality to society, we wouldn't receive any more organs."

Prof. Pichlmayr passed away in 1997 in Mexico. We can't exactly go ask him to verify the accuracy of this statement. Nor can we ask if the quote, assuming it's true, was ripped out of context or not. So, we can't say he definitely said it; we can only say that a certain Renate Greinert *claims* he said it. And who is this Renate, anyway? Well, look at that—she's a member of the executive board for that very same OPO initiative!
https://initiative-kao.de/kritische-...o-ev/#vorstand

Wow! So, we're dealing with a woman whose entire profession is pushing a specific agenda. Someone who is obsessed with making sure people only hear the information that suits her narrative. Someone who would coldly tell anyone waiting for a kidney transplant, "What do you care about a kidney? You have dialysis" (see link below). But oh, she won't mention the long-term risks and complications of dialysis, no, no—that doesn't interest her. She only cares about making sure her side gets heard. Hypocrite.

https://www.gesundheit-adhoc.de/tag-...ende-2019.html

"Renata Greinert: „It’s rarely actually about saving a life. According to the latest data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, 77% of organ recipients are specifically waiting for a kidney. These people already have an alternative—dialysis."

Yeah, exactly—it's just pure vegetative state territory. But then again, what about the lives of most people who actually receive an organ? Are they actually "cured," or are they just permanent sick persons? How long do they even last before the body decides to reject the "new" part? It isn't that black and white. We really need to look at the other side of the story that transplant medicine keeps feeding us.

brightgull95 said:

Jeffrey Wilson4 Asks:
If you dig through German literature, you’ll find a massive amount of critical commentary regarding the darker, often overlooked side of organ donation and the entire field of transplant medicine. There's a whole world of intense scrutiny out there that people just don't talk about enough.
If you happen to be fluent in German, you really ought to take a look at this website:

I’ve been digging through this site, and frankly, my blood pressure is spiking just looking at it. This whole "Critical Enlightenment on Organ Transplantation" initiative? It feels like they're trying to reinvent the wheel while driving straight into a ditch. They’re throwing around these massive, sweeping claims about medical ethics and transparency, but when you actually peel back the layers, it feels less like a movement for change and more like a disorganized shouting match against the entire American medical establishment. They want to talk about systemic flaws in how we handle organ transplants here in the States—questioning everything from donor protocols to the way hospitals communicate with families. I get the sentiment, I really do. We all know the system isn't perfect; even a glance at how Medicare handles complex cases shows there's plenty of room for bureaucratic messiness. But there's a fine line between being a whistleblower and just being a contrarian for the sake of it. The tone of their messaging is what gets me. It’s heavy-handed. They act as if they’re the only ones with a moral compass, casting doubt on every major transplant center from New York to LA. It’s incredibly aggressive. Is it an attempt at actual reform, or just a collection of people who are angry at the status quo? Sometimes I think they’re just looking for a fight with the Department of Health and Human Services. I can see why people gravitate toward it, though. When you feel like the institutions meant to protect you are opaque or slow, a group that screams "transparency!" sounds like a hero. But you have to ask: what is the actual end goal? If the goal is to improve patient outcomes and clarify the process for grieving families, then fine. But if it's just to cast shadows of doubt without offering a concrete, workable alternative to current American medical standards, then it’s just noise. It’s loud, it’s frantic, and honestly, it’s exhausting.

The people running this organization are honestly a joke. They go through all these grand motions, pretending to be productive, but they aren't actually doing a damn thing—though, I suppose they don't really *need* to work when the money just keeps rolling in regardless. It’s all just a massive charade. They’ve even got themselves a formal board of directors, glossy printed brochures, and their own YouTube channel to maintain the illusion. None of this theater would even be possible without that constant, steady stream of funding hitting their accounts. And get this: the guy heading the whole operation is a cardiologist. Can you believe that?

What kind of life are we even talking about when someone’s cerebrum, cerebellum, and brainstem—that vital medulla oblongata everyone calls the brainstem—are all completely non-functional? What does that existence actually look like? We’re looking at a person who hasn't maintained a single autonomous function. And let's be clear: I'm primarily talking about the loss of spontaneous breathing. Seriously, what kind of life is that?

Can you just take an organ from any random person and transplant it into anyone else, or are there actual limitations here? I mean, is it like trying to swap an engine from one car into another—where you have to worry about whether the parts actually fit or if the whole thing is going to blow up? There's gotta be some rules to this, right?

How much life is actually left in someone who can't breathe on their own? I mean, how much "life" is there really in a person facing brain asystole?

If we’ve actually proven that everything inside the skull—the cerebrum, the cerebellum, the brainstem—is completely dead, then the very thing that makes us human is gone. Period. If you really want to go down that road, you can stop talking about a "living organism" altogether. At that point, you're just looking at a collection of functional organs. There is a massive, fundamental difference there.

Oh, really? Are you seriously suggesting you’ve never heard of the autonomic nervous system? Look, fine, maybe you don't need to know that, but the folks at the OPO—specifically her leadership and every doctor employed there—absolutely *should* know that certain functions aren't controlled by the brain, but by centers outside of it (like the sympathetic ganglia in the chest and abdomen). The entire digestive tract has two independent nerve systems (the Meissner and Auerbachov plexuses) that stay active regardless of whether the brain is functioning or if the person is even alive. To ignore a fact that you learn as early as your second year of med school is just plain biased.

Is that so? So you're one of those witnesses who allegedly heard that sentence back in 1987 in Hannover?

If you're going to quote something, at least do it properly. Because on that OPO website, this is actually what it says:

Renate Greinert had asked Prof. Pichlmayr back then in Hannover:

“Why didn't you explain to us,
what it truly means to be an organ donor?”

That was his response before witnesses:

“If we educate society about organ donation,
we won't get any more organs.”

Prof. Rudolf Pichlmayr – 1987

Or, in plain English:
Renate Greinert once asked Professor Pichlmayr in Hannover:
"Why haven't you explained to us exactly what being an organ donor entails?"
His answer, in front of witnesses:
"If we were to explain the reality to society, we wouldn't receive any more organs."

Prof. Pichlmayr passed away in 1997 in Mexico. We can't exactly go ask him to verify the accuracy of this statement. Nor can we ask if the quote, assuming it's true, was ripped out of context or not. So, we can't say he definitely said it; we can only say that a certain Renate Greinert *claims* he said it. And who is this Renate, anyway? Well, look at that—she's a member of the executive board for that very same OPO initiative!
https://initiative-kao.de/kritische-...o-ev/#vorstand

Wow! So, we're dealing with a woman whose entire profession is pushing a specific agenda. Someone who is obsessed with making sure people only hear the information that suits her narrative. Someone who would coldly tell anyone waiting for a kidney transplant, "What do you care about a kidney? You have dialysis" (see link below). But oh, she won't mention the long-term risks and complications of dialysis, no, no—that doesn't interest her. She only cares about making sure her side gets heard. Hypocrite.

https://www.gesundheit-adhoc.de/tag-...ende-2019.html

"Renata Greinert: „It’s rarely actually about saving a life. According to the latest data from the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, 77% of organ recipients are specifically waiting for a kidney. These people already have an alternative—dialysis."

Thanks! 👍 German definitely isn't my strong suit.
I stumbled upon this text by Renata—could you give us a translation? Thanks in advance!

https://www.transplantation-informat...entag_2005.htm

Let’s be real for a second—transplant medicine is basically just legalized killing to serve someone else's needs. Most people don't wrap their heads around the fact that organs are actually harvested while the person is still technically alive, even if they've been declared "brain dead" for legal reasons. Sure, there’s a whole battery of tests used to confirm this supposed "brain death," but it isn't the finality everyone thinks it is. Once actual death happens, those organs become useless pretty fast. I mean, come on—patients labeled as brain dead still have pulses, men can still get erections... you get the idea. It's weird, right?
Prof. Pihlmaer once straight up said: "If we actually gave the public the full story, we wouldn't be able to source organs anymore".

If you dig into German sources, you'll find a ton of critical writing about the shady side of organ donation and the whole transplant industry.
If you happen to speak German, it's definitely worth checking out this site:

https://initiative-kao.de/

Henry Williams said:The Bhagavad Gita—man, it’s such a gem when it comes to Indian spirituality and wisdom! It’s this incredible book of seven hundred verses that basically captures a deep conversation between God and Arjuna. Honestly, out of everything I've read, this is the one that taught me the most about spirituality. A friend actually handed me the version by Prabhupada, which I've been working through. Personally, I think it’s great, even though I know some people swear the translation isn't the best. Have you guys ever read it? I'd love to hear what you think!

I’ve actually sat through both the Prabhupada version and that one translation by Miroslav Marković from back in the day—you know, the one translated from Sanskrit around 1980 (that old US edition from BIGZ 1989). Look, it’s pretty obvious that Bhakti Vedanta Swami Prabhupada wasn't exactly a literature major or a professional translator, but honestly? I’d say there IS NO real difference. But those commentaries on the Gita verses? Yeah, that’s a whole different ballgame.

The Bhagavad Gita—the Song of the Lord—is actually just a piece of the much larger Indian epic Mahabharata (the Epic of Great India), though people usually just buy it as its own standalone thing.

Henry Williams said:The Bhagavad Gita—man, it’s such a gem when it comes to Indian spirituality and wisdom! It’s this incredible book of seven hundred verses that basically captures a deep conversation between God and Arjuna. Honestly, out of everything I've read, this is the one that taught me the most about spirituality. A friend actually handed me the version by Prabhupada, which I've been working through. Personally, I think it’s great, even though I know some people swear the translation isn't the best. Have you guys ever read it? I'd love to hear what you think!

I liked it! I mean, all those ancient religious texts have several layers of truth to them—the Gita included. But since we're talking about texts that are ancient (whether they're 2,500 or 5,000 years old, who knows?), my take is that they carry more historical and literary weight than anything else. Not to mention how much could have been added or stripped away over the centuries... you know, the whole mess of interpreting symbolism correctly through the ages.

Nowadays, looking at humanity as a whole, our global spiritual consciousness is just... different. We have a way bigger, richer vocabulary to work with. Because of that, the Spirit Truth from the Absolute is being revealed through modern prophecy much more clearly and abundantly than was ever possible in previous millennia. I respect the Gita and all the old scriptures, really, but when it comes to actual spirituality, I need things to be "up to date" 🙂

Akasha or maybe even better described as the etheric chronicle—it’s basically this massive energy layer wrapped around the whole USA. It’s like a cosmic hard drive where everything that’s ever happened gets etched into the fabric of reality, and yeah, it’s recording every single thing happening on the planet in real-time. Since we’re all stuck living under the law of action and reaction—you know, the whole "every action has a consequence" thing—all those accumulated records actually create a pattern. If you look closely at the sum of all those entries, you could technically squint and see what the future holds... assuming people actually change their ways before it hits the fan. Generally speaking, anything stored in the akasha tends to manifest here in the physical world eventually (though, let’s be real, not everything actually makes it through). Even the akasha itself has its own way of showing up—take the internet, for example—this endless, sprawling database of data containing absolutely everything under the sun.

But, just a heads-up: this akasha chronicle is also stuffed with everyone's random thoughts, fleeting desires, and wild fantasies. It’s a total mess of truth mixed with pure fiction, which is why I wouldn't suggest using it as some kind of reliable guidebook. Honestly, trying to use it for actual spiritual growth is probably a fool's errand.