Is it harmful to be a blood donor?

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
A question that lingers and does not go away is, if there is any harm in donating blood at the hospital? Or if one signs a note saying they can use a bodypart in case one passes too quickly? Now that I am in Europe and signing up for medical insurance they ask this question. And every time I move address, I fill out a new form and get a new card with a new asking.

So if STO gives all to those who ask, why not give half a liter every once in a while? But is the asking reasonable? A South African ICU once nurse told me, that there are many types of blood and that some do not mix as predicted by the standard classifications.

And what else can 'they', I mean if it ends up with the 'PTB', do with it.

Does a part of ones soul get stuck with the donated blood or is that just a matter of cleaning up ones mind first and donate it with detachment, joy and generosity, or is blood simply a 1st or 2nd density aspect that has little to do with the mind and the soul?

One question of ethical nature, is if some day I had an accident and needed blood would I be happy to receive from another? Does such a question and its answer have any significance. Or should one say that firstly there are some alternatives to blood, secondly just as all do not need to farm the land for most of us to have food, so all do not need give blood.

On the other hand, it is not alright I think that blood and bodyparts are shopped among poor people because someone else does not want to give, though that does not happen most of the time.

This question maybe has not the level of a C question, but whenever I contemplate it I think of the Cs, as there may be some involvement and interaction of the soul, or is such a thought just an escape from an answer I already know, but does not acknowledge? There probably is no universal answer. Though there could be some more aspects general and individual to consider before leaping.

What do others think of such a question? Maybe there is some research available that I have overlooked.
 
I was wondering about the blood that is collected via donations. If someone needs blood, are they charged for it? :huh: Perhaps someone working in that environment would know because I hate to think that donated blood gets sold for a profit and I would not be surprised if that is actually happening.
 
Since i am a weekly blood donor or should i say a weekly plasma donor (The plasma is a component of the blood), i can tell you that physically it is not harmful.

From wikipedia: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_plasma

Blood plasma is the yellow liquid component of blood, in which the blood cells in whole blood would normally be suspended. It makes up about 55% of the total blood volume. It is mostly water (90% by volume) and contains dissolved proteins, glucose, clotting factors, mineral ions, hormones and carbon dioxide (plasma being the main medium for excretory product transportation). Blood plasma is prepared by spinning a tube of fresh blood in a centrifuge until the blood cells fall to the bottom of the tube. The blood plasma is then poured or drawn off.[

And i think if you give with joy and love, it is something that really can help someone.

Are-we passing something more subtle with the blood, i do not know.

Is it really STO, i do not know but each week they call me and ask me if i want to make a donation and i say yes.
 
I think donating blood is a helpful thing. I started donating blood on a regular routine some months ago and found it can be a good struggle between 'yes and no'. I wouldn't doubt that people are charged for blood used from donations; there are probably a decent amount of costs that go into getting donors, drawing the blood, testing it, storing it, and so on. I'm sure there's abuses to the system as well. But I think that shouldn't prevent you from donating if it is something you want to do. And people do need it.
 
Vulcan59 said:
I was wondering about the blood that is collected via donations. If someone needs blood, are they charged for it? :huh: Perhaps someone working in that environment would know because I hate to think that donated blood gets sold for a profit and I would not be surprised if that is actually happening.

I can tell you that here in Canada, if you need blood, the receiver does not have to pay for it.
 
I have been a blood donor ever since I was teenager.
My original motives were not very noble, I simply had an excuse for not attending school on donation day.
Later, working in the hospital I understood the need for blood products and I gave blood every few months all my life.

Few year ago, when my son was in hospital for leukemia treatment, I gave blood there while visiting him.
About three or four days later my son received some blood in transfusion. We were told, that that blood came from
recent donation. It could've been mine.

Like Los, I too think there are abuses to the system, but it shouldn't stop us from giving to those who need it.

As to what effect donating or receiving has on the soul level - I don't know, and am curious myself what others think of it.
 
I have thought about this as well. I have also noted a few problems with it and have reservations with blood donation and organ donation.

The first one revolves around the science of it. Judging by what we know of how any science conducted in this period, much of it is extremely flawed. For me it is to the point of questioning any and all of it.

I first began to question blood donation and/or blood transfusions when I learned the reasoning behind why Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse them. It was not so much their religious reasons, but some of the scientific reasons behind it. That prompted me to delve into what has been learned about the properties of blood and its function. Long story short, it was enough to make me suspicious of blood transfusions.

The second problem for me is that they (hospitals) charge for blood transfusions; they are making a profit from that which was donated freely. Most often cited is the expense of storing and testing the donated blood and thus the costs are passed on, but the math doesn't seem to add up.

Third is the problem of what else is being passed along in blood or its derivatives. Maybe we don't actually have enough or appropriate knowledge for giving/receiving in this area.

The fourth surrounds organ donation. It appears to me that this is an extremely profitable operation for doctors and hospitals. The poor and unsuspecting have become victims in this proposition. Further, I have noticed that deceased person's families are sometimes browbeaten to donate their deceased relatives organs. But it seems to be the wealthy who benefit, not to mention the profit for doctors and hospitals, again over something that was given freely. If it is deemed fitting for the donor to freely give, then why aren't the doctors/hospitals in this proposition giving freely??

A brief investigation of organ recipients arouses suspicion for me. While many are obliged to be added to a waiting list, it has been my observation that the rich and famous are not so encumbered. Examples are: Larry Hagman (actor) who was a notorious alcoholic received not one but TWO liver transplants. John Phillips, of the Mamas and Papas, known for long history of drug abuse is another who received TWO liver transplants. If you are one of the everyday people and have any history of drug/alcohol abuse, you most likely will not even be placed on a waiting list.
 
Thank for the replies, and the different angles.

One aspect to also consider in a question to the C's is what parts one can donate, if they are all equal? On the organ potential donator sign-up-card I have, it is possible to select between the heart, the kidneys, the lungs, the liver, the pancreas, the skin, the intestines or the cornea. Would there be any difference on the soullevel, in terms of negative effects, between giving a cornea and a heart. Is is all the same or are there differences. What do you think? Personally I can relate to the thought of giving a cornea but a heart I am not so sure.

If I die I would prefer to get cremated and forget about this third density story. I am still wondering if having a bodypart sitting somewhere with someone is a drawback .One thought is that throughtout life one has taken a lot of life. For example when we eat, the animals we killed to get food, lost their lives. Alright the is second density beings, but then think about that when food gets transported by air or by truck sometimes accidents happens during transit that cost human lives, just as farm accidents do happen, farmers get sick from all the poison they fill into the fields, not to mention that most of the fuel we need for the machines we use to produce food and to move around is blood stained by wars in Afghanistan, Iraque and ....
 
In my opinion, the available evidence indicates we should be highly suspicious of blood transfers, or giving body fluids away to sources unknown.

I used to donate plasma twice a week regularly over the course of 5 years.

Insight I gained primarily from reading the C's transcripts in 2001, and then doing some independent research on my own, led to me never making a donation of this sort again.

Here is the supporting evidence I found back then that lead me to my change of heart, and it is still rather convincing imo.

First, it should be noted that there are blood plasma donation centers set up in every major city, presumably around the world. In the U.S. at least, these centers pay cash for every plasma donation you make. Inevitably, a large number of these facilities end up in low income neighborhoods, and attract highly questionable clientele. They even offer incentive bonuses such as "Donate twice a week all four weeks this month, and earn an extra cash bonus." They are packed 7 days a week, and there is a seemingly never ending demand for this blood plasma.

Anyhow, I digress. I present the following 4 references as reason for concern for one's safety in such matters:



1 - Multiple studies conducted by Dr. Brian O'Leary as well as Cleve Baxter have shown that if you extract white blood cells (plasma) from the human body, the measured electrical impulses from the sample mirror that of the body. Furthermore, and if I recall correctly they discovered this initially quite by accident, they discovered that once the test subject left the lab and travelled miles away to her motel, the white blood cells in the lab were still recording electrical activity. At the time of a particularly strong recorded electrical activity period, the subject confirmed that indeed she had been engaged in sexual activity for that length of time. Subsequent studies showed that this transmission could take place over hundreds of miles. To my knowledge, nobody has attempted to test the obvious implications here (If you alter the blood cell sample, is the test subject affected/manipulated? Exactly how much information can be read/gathered/extracted from the electrical fields emanating from the white blood cells?) but I have often wondered.

This is mostly from memory, searching google for the terms "Brian O'Leary blood cell experiment" or "Baxter blood cell experiment" turn up numerous references to these studies. If someone can find a more direct link, it would be appreciated.

2 - " The Cellular Communication Process and Alternative Modes of Healing" by William C. Gough is an excellent collection of sourced references to studies relating to the above type effect and provides a good background to this topic.

http://www.fmbr.org/papers/cell_comm.php

3 - Cassiopaean transcript from January 21, 1995:

Q: What do aliens do to cattle?
A: Blood.
Q: (L) They take the blood out of them?
A: Yes.
Q: (J) They drink it? What do they use this blood for?
A: Nourishment.
Q: (L) Okay, but you just said that aliens eat humans, and humans eat cattle. Why were the aliens being nourished by cattle, if that's not their normal bill of fare? (J) Delicacy. (T) A cow's blood is a lot like human blood.

[...]

Q: (T) Okay, what do the Grays feed on?
A: Plasma.
Q: (T) Okay, the Grays feed on plasma, blood plasmas of some kind, is this what you are saying?
A: Yes.
Q: (T) Okay, so that's why they want the blood;

[...]

Q: (L) Do they use glandular substances at all?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What do they use glandular substances for?
A: Medicine.
Q: (L) And what or who do they use this medicine on?
A: Themselves.
Q: (L) And what does this medicine do for them?
A: Helps them cope with 3rd density.
Q: (T) Is this something that they use to help them stay in the 3d density?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Does it help them to manifest in a more solid physical manner?
A: Yes.


4. Cassiopaean transcript from February 22, 1997

[...]

A: Knowledge protects, ignorance endangers. Awareness makes you less vulnerable, both directly and indirectly. Heard anything about synthetic blood, and blood and plasma alteration lately?
Q:(Laura) There's a can of worms for you! All right, I'll bite! Go ahead, tell us about the synthetic blood and the blood plasma. (Terry) There's probably been a lot of research into that...
A: Less "mutes" needed.
Q: (Laura) Cattle Mutilations. They don't need as many cattle mutilations.




It also freaked me out when one day I went into my regular donation center, and asked to see any medical records related to the donations I had made. They looked at me funny, and explained that I was not authorized to see any of my records, not even the physical exam, none of it. All of that was the property of Bayer Corp. (as was presumably all of my blood samples). This being of course the same Bayer Corp. accused of collecting low quality plasma in the 80s and 90s without properly screening participants possibly having lead widespread contagions being released in end-products (see wikipedia on Bayer for this).

So......I dunno...but I don't donate blood, or blood plasma anymore, and haven't in 8 years. For me, the potential risks far outweigh the benefit here. I have also had a number of "unexplainable" scynchronicities that have very clearly told me there is something very wrong with it all, that is highly subjective I know, but it is rare I receive such strong impressions or communications warning me so I take them to heart. Especially when in conjunction with what I discovered above.

Seems like I've heard of something where you can donate your own blood and keep it in storage? I think it costs money, and probably sounds selfish, but may not be that bad of an idea really. Just a thought.

Hope this perspective helps someone!

Sincerely,
Jason in California
 
I used to be a blood donor. I stopped about 10 years ago because, after a donation, I received a letter from the hospital where I donated, saying I had an iron deficit, and therefore my blood was no use. Given anemia had been a regular problem of mine, I stopped donating.
My mother can't donate blood because she was given a blood transfusion after my birth.
Moreover, even if I used to think blood donation was a good thing, I began to have doubts, mainly the ones raised by Annette. Of course if a loved one needed blood transfusion, I'd do it right away (since, as an O- , I can donate to any blood type). But I have doubts about the process of donating / receiving someone else's blood, and the effects it could have on the receiver.

Thorbiorn said:
Or should one say that firstly there are some alternatives to blood, secondly just as all do not need to farm the land for most of us to have food, so all do not need give blood.

It seems there are alternatives to blood donation: "marine blood" injection:
http://www.plasmaquinton.com/what-quinton-marineplasma.php

http://www.quinton-water.com/main/page_product_gallery_quinton_data_quinton_dog_expts.html
The following experiments were conceived and carried out before René Quinton contemplated the use of seawater for human treatment and well before French hospitals were using his protocol for mass therapy on children and chronically ill adults.
Although Quinton and his contemporaries referred to the dogs in their experiments as 'organisms', they treated the dogs with kindness and no disrespect was implied. They recognised the common mammalian characteristics and physiology and thus realised the potential for the experiments to be appropriate for mammalian species other than dogs.
These experiments have been described, in detail, in Quinton's book - "L'eau de Mer - milieu organique" - (1912: Ed. Masson) Reprinted: Ed. ENCRE 1995. The experiments shown below were repeated, successfully, 50 years after Quinton's daring exploits.
The earliest experiments were performed in 1897 with stray dogs at the laboratory of Etienne Marey for the study of physiology and pathology at the "Hautes Etudes du College de France" where René Quinton was working.
All references to seawater infer that ordinary filtered and unheated seawater collected from the plankton blooms was reduced (diluted with distilled water) to the isotonic 9% state of plasma. Today, the dilution is accomplished with sterile but 'living' spring water as Original Quinton Isotonic.

GROUP 1 EXPERIMENTS (pages 165-168)
Partial drainage of blood followed by intra-organic injections of seawater, via the saphenous vein, using normal adult dogs.
The first group of experiments were conducted in which different volumes of isotonic 0.9% seawater (66% - Expt 1, 81% - Expt 2 and finally 104% - Expt 3) proportional to the weight of the dog was injected, over a period of time.

In Expt 4 a small dog was injected with 0.9% isotonic seawater at three varying rates and reactions were observed and recorded. It was discovered that as long as the rate of injection kept pace with renal elimination, no traumatic reactions were encountered.

THIRD EXPERIMENT OF GROUP 1 (page 167)
A stray dog, was injected with 10.4 kg of 0.9% isotonic seawater. This enormous quantity of seawater, representing 104% of the dog's own body weight, was injected over a period of 11 hours and 40 minutes. This was equivalent to the injection of 62.4 kg of seawater into a man weighing 60 kg.
Here follows René Quinton's account of this experiment:
The dog lay quietly in the morning, covered, his body weight was 10 kg, the rectal temperature was 39.7ºC. The temperature of the injection was about 35-40ºC. The rate of injection was 14.9 g/min - the same as urinary elimination. During the 11 hours and 40 minutes of the injection, there was no agitation, no diarrhea, no albuminuria, and all the reflexes remained active. The dog kept his eyes on the operator and reacted to every caress. Occasional vomiting of a yellowish liquid (50cc total quantity). The rectal temperature declined in stages to 36.8ºC. and at the end of the injection period rose to 37.2ºC. By this time, the dog had absorbed 10.4 kg of [isotonic sea] water and had excreted 9.4 kilos of urine.
One hour and ten minutes after the injection, the dog was back on his feet, moved normally except for a slight limp caused by the binding of his feet during this experience. At this time, his rectal temperature was normal at 39ºC.
The next day, 14 hours after the injection, the animal was remarkably gay, ran and jumped in the laboratory, ate two portions of meat weighing 600 grams and drank 100 grams of water. His urine, from the night, showed a slight albumin cloudiness.
The day after, and the following days, the dog continued to behave the same way: more energetic than before the injection, no diarrhea, no vomiting, normal albumin, not troubles of any kind.

FOURTH EXPERIMENT OF GROUP 1 (page 168)
A third stray dog was injected with a large quantity of isotonic seawater. A small dog weighing 5 kg, was injected with 3.5 kg of isotonic seawater at injection rates varying from 67.3 ml/min per 10 kg of body weight during the first 30 minutes, to 5.4 ml/min (renal elimination) to 58.2 ml/min in a short period of 90 minutes. The dog's abdomen rapidly ballooned and the heart rate slowed perceptibly. The initial body temperature dropped from 38.2ºC to 32.5ºC and urination diminished. The corneal reflex disappeared.
It was noted that during the slow injection rate the traumatic symptoms did not aggravate but normalized. As soon as rapid injection rates resumed, the traumatic symptoms reappeared while renal elimination slowed.
As soon as the injection stopped [after 90 minutes], the body temperature rose, urination accelerated and the coronary reflex returned. The dog began to stagger about, his abdomen was no longer swollen . He took several steps and collapsed. The shock had been too violent and he found it hard to recover. By the eleventh day, the recovery was complete. The animal was extremely gregarious and exuberant inspite of his confinement for days in the basement. His body weight was still 5 kg.

GROUP 2 EXPERIMENTS (pages 169-170)
The complete drainage of blood and replacement with an equal amount of isotonic seawater.
This experiment involved withdrawing a quantity of blood from a mongrel dog and replacing it with an equal quantity of 0.9% isotonic seawater. No special precautions were made to prevent infection. Total and complete bleeding would have caused the death of the dog if left to its own resources. Moreover, the experiment withdrew not only a considerable part of the interior medium itself, but also a proportion of the cellular fluid that sea water cannot initially restore to the dog. The respiratory function was gravely compromised for lack of haemaglobin and thus oxygenation. In addition, there was at the same time depletion of all the WBCs inherent in the blood, even at the moment when the operation on the animal, handled without special precautions, had to fight against the infection inevitably introduced by the intervention itself. The total bleeding thus put the dog at the door of death, and this represented the most unfavourable conditions to overcome victoriously if sea water is deemed to have the least toxic disadvantage. For the experiment to succeed in spite of so many unfavourable factors, it would be necessary that sea water be indeed a perfect analogy to the interior medium.
The dog was to be placed at death's door, so that this would be a final test for the curative power of Quinton seawater and would demonstrate whether the isotonic water was an adequate replacement for the dog's blood. Here is the report by the observers:
Dog of 12.4 kg. Withdrawal of most of his blood from the femoral artery, of 491g over 4 minutes, without any antiseptic precautions, representing one twentieth of the dog's body weight. The corneal reflex halted. Presented with the impossibility of withdrawing any more blood, the injection of isotonic seawater at 23ºC began. 532 ml (18.7 ounces) at 23 degrees C were injected over a period of 11 minutes. The corneal reflex was restored. The untied animal was unable to walk, breathed with difficulty, with short breaths and remained stretched out on a blanket without moving.
DAY 2.
After 21 hours, the dog trots around the laboratory. The red blood cells have dropped from 6,800,00 before the treatment [experiment] to 2,900,000; white blood cell level is at 15,400 from a previous 14,000, the haemoglobin has decreased from 19 to 12. These results are a witness to the enormous withdrawal of blood, yet, the animal eats and drinks.
DAY 3.
The condition of the dog changed: the wound discharged puss, the body temperature rose to 40ºC and the condition looked grave, the animal sad and depressed. Now it was to be seen whether the organism, impoverished by the withdrawal of blood could overcome the infection aided by the seawater and accomplish leukocytosis [manufacture of white blood cells].
DAY 4.
Although the condition continued to look grave, the red blood cells were now at 3,020,000, the white blood cells at 24,000,000 and the haemoglobin at 16. Leukocytosis had been accomplished at a ratio of 1:484 vs. 1:125 before the procedure. That same evening, the dog ate 400g of meat.
Thereafter, the progress was rapid. On the eighth day, the dog became exaggeratedly exuberant, ran about wildly and this continued during the following days. The results showed that the organism had become revitalized by the seawater to a level that EXCEEDED that before the blood had been withdrawn. Five years later, Sodium, so named in memory of the experiment, was still alive and well.
Later, a doctor, Dr Tussaud, claimed that he had obtained the same results as René Quinton while completely bleeding a dog and then injecting it with simple physiological salt solution. On further investigation it emerged that the animal had survived only two months in the most extreme state of exhaustion, hardly able get around the laboratory. There is therefore no comparison to the results, the physiological salt solution being no substitute for the Quinton Plasma.
Following the successful completion of the group 1 and Group 2 Experiments, Quinton proceeded with further experiments to ascertain the life-supporting properties of the Quinton Isotonic seawater.

GROUP 3 EXPERIMENTS (Page 171- 173)
The definitive experiment was to extract white blood cells (WBCs) from a fish, a lizard, a man, a rabbit, a dog and a chicken. Each sample of WBCs was then mixed with varying amounts of seawater (up to 200 times dilution of the equivalent unit of blood with Marine Plasma) to observe when the WBCs would cease living. This proved a total success. In all cases, the WBCs (effectively simulating other cellular activities in an organism) presented all the vital signs of normal life within the body: adherence and amoebic movements.

It was found that WBCs were able to survive 25+ hours in non-sterile plasma solutions and upwards of a month in sterile solutions. This surpasses by far even the most optimistic artificial plasma solutions.

The Law of Marine Constancy

From the above experiments René Quinton constructed his Law of Marine Constancy which says
"La vie animale, apparue à l'état de cellule dans les mers, tend à maintenir, pour son haut fonctionnement cellulaire, à travers la série zoologique, les cellules constitutives des organismes dans le milieu marin des origines."
Which translates as
"Animal life, that had originally appeared in cellular form in the seas, tends to maintain, for its best cellular functioning throughout the zoological species, its fundamental cells in a marine environment similar to its origin".
 
I am a plasma donor and i have been doing it for many years.

I give every week and up to now i have given more than 900 times.

Here where i live, we are not pay if we give blood or plasma. We do it freely. And i know that i might make a difference in someone life or even in a family life. I have seen many people telling that they have been saved because someone that they do not even know, had given blood or plasma.

So for the moment, i keep on giving until i have more data telling me that i should not.
 
I donated plasma for a few years at a place called BioLife Plasma services. BioLife is a franchise owned by Baxter International, a drug company that's one of the major developers of the H1N1 vaccine. Aside from that, Baxter was apparently involved in a deadly pneumonia outbreak in Ukraine, a deliberate plot which was leaked two months earlier by a whistleblower named Joseph Moshe. Moshe was later arrested after a police standoff, for allegedly "making threats against the White House."

Here's an article about this: http://davidrothscum.blogspot.com/2009/10/has-baxter-international-released.html

After learning about Baxter's involvement with the vaccine and the Ukraine incident, I stopped donating plasma. I've considered going back, justifying it to myself in various ways, "maybe my plasma will actually help people," etc... But in reality I think it's because BioLife pays $60 a week for donations and I "could really use the money." Which I know isn't good enough; how many horrors have been committed for that very reason? Still, after reading what Jason Best posted I'll stand firm in my decision. Baxter is clearly a pathological organization, and if plasma helps feed the Grays I want no part in it. But it does make me wonder - how would donated plasma get from Baxter's hands to the Grays? Is this plasma coming from donations or some other source? It's stuff we'll probably never know, but I'd rather stay away just in case.
 
I will give blood (and have done so) when there is a call for it for a particular reason. I am also prepared to give it to family and friends if they are hospitalized and in need. That's as far as I want to go.
 
Laura said:
I will give blood (and have done so) when there is a call for it for a particular reason. I am also prepared to give it to family and friends if they are hospitalized and in need. That's as far as I want to go.

Me too. Though health authorities try to run a guilt trip on you for not donating. I'm not so keen on accepting blood products either. It seems gross and unnatural to me to have anyone's but especially a strangers fluids circulating in my body.

I've given blood a few times and plasma once. I'll never give plasma again. I found the atmosphere very unsettling. All those poor (financially) people herded in like animals...The workers were somewhat rude. It seemed a bit demeaning to me. Kinda like the feeling you get from having to go downtown and apply for welfare. Plus, it's probably not a good idea to keep having your veins punctured week in and week out.

And what do they do with it all? When I worked as a nurse we gave plenty blood transfusions but not so much plasma. The fact that in the US you are paid for donating plasma but not blood makes my eyebrow raise. That's very valuable stuff.

You raised some good points, Jason. I read about a man who received a donated heart and he started taking on the personality characteristics of the woman donator. He took up knitting at one point. What is transfused along with the blood/plasma?
 
Well, There are some things that bother me about receive a blood trasnfusion, but I understand that it was for a emergency.

The first thing is the majority of persons have toxic bodies then toxic blood, and maybe this could ruin months of your detox work if you receive a transfusion

Second, and I don`t know it, I can not find anything about it, if could there be an genetic interaction between the cells of the received blood and the acceptor blood? an Epigenetic interaction is posible?

I think once I read somewhere in cases of people who experience subtle changes in behavior after receiving organ transplants, that makes me think that something is happening behind that and I think the same would apply to the blood. I found some of it on the net and put it here

http://www.med.unc.edu/wellness/main/links/cellular%20memory.htm

Current understandings about memory, for example, place this mental capacity solely as a function of the brain. However, the process of memory may be too complex to be explained by measuring brain activity through electroencephalograms or oxygen uptake as recorded on PET scans. Looking at memory as part of the quantum world of sub-atomic systems gives the visual image of tiny specks whizzing around every which way until there is a need for them to come together into some sort of pattern of awareness. But, where do the memories reside?

Candace Pert, author of Molecules of Emotion: Why You Feel the Way You Feel, says, "Memories are stored not only in the brain, but in a psychosomatic network extending into the body . . . all the way out along pathways to internal organs and the very surface of our skin." After having discovered neuropeptides in all body tissues, Pert suggests that through cellular receptors, thoughts or memories may remain unconscious or can become conscious-raising the possibility of physiological connections between memories, organs and the mind.

University of Arizona scientists and co-authors of The Living Energy Universe, Gary Schwartz, PhD, and Linda Russek, PhD, propose the universal living memory hypothesis in which they believe that "all systems stored energy dynamically . . . and this information continued as a living, evolving system after the physical structure had deconstructed." Schwartz and Russek believe this may explain how the information and energy from the donor's tissue can be present, consciously or unconsciously, in the recipient.

Paul Pearsall, MD, a psychoneuroimmunologist and author of The Heart's Code, has researched the transference of memories through organ transplantation. After interviewing nearly 150 heart and other organ transplant recipients, Pearsall proposes the idea that cells of living tissue have the capacity to remember.

Together with Schwartz and Russek, Pearsall conducted a study, published in the Spring 2002 issue of the Journal of Near-Death Studies, entitled, "Changes in Heart Transplant Recipients That Parallel the Personalities of Their Donors." The study consisted of open-ended interviews with 10 heart or heart-lung transplant recipients, their families or friends and the donor's families or friends. The researchers reported striking parallels in each of the cases. The following is a sampling of some these.

In one case, an 18-year-old boy who wrote poetry, played music and composed songs, was killed in an automobile accident. A year after he died his parents came across an audiotape of a song he had written, entitled, "Danny, My Heart is Yours," which was about how he "felt he was destined to die and give his heart to someone." The donor recipient "Danny" of his heart, was an 18-year-old girl, named Danielle. When she met the donor's parents, they played some of his music and she, despite never having heard the song, was able to complete the phrases.

In another case, a seven-month-old boy received a heart from a 16-month-old boy who had drowned. The donor had a mild form of cerebral palsy mostly on the left side. The recipient, who did not display such symptoms prior to the transplant, developed the same stiffness and shaking on the left side.

A 47-year-old Caucasian male received a heart from a 17-year-old African-American male. The recipient was surprised by his new-found love of classical music. What he discovered later was that the donor, who loved classical music and played the violin, had died in a drive-by shooting, clutching his violin case to his chest.

A 29-year-old lesbian and a fast food junkie received a heart from a 19-year-old woman vegetarian who was "man crazy." The recipient reported after her operation that meat made her sick and she was no longer attracted to women. If fact, she became engaged to marry a man.

A 47-year-old man received a heart from a 14-year-old girl gymnast who had problems with eating disorders. After the transplant, the recipient and his family reported his tendency to be nauseated after eating, a childlike exuberance and a little girl's giggle. [...]

Edit and PD: I realize that the behaviours described above could be explained by spirit attachment also.
 
Back
Top Bottom