About the Aftonbladet article by Donald Borström:

A doctor friend of mine told me today:

“Any medical resource or expert anywhere will tell you that cold, dead corpses are never used as source for transplantable organs.

“Only brain-dead or beating-heart donors are used. The reason is that if no anti-coagulant drugs are infused before death and organ removal, micro-clots ruin the survivability of the organ. Even a brief lack of oxygen drastically lowers the ability of a transplanted organ to function in a new host, due to what’s called ‘reperfusion injury’.

“Nobody uses dead corpses for anything but cornea, bone or skin grafts, never internal organs.”

He went on to explain that organ harvesting, to be of any use to the recipient, must be done in a properly-equipped operating theater with a skilled surgical staff. Taking into consideration the fact that about 40% of the staff in Israeli hospitals are Israeli Arabs, including surgeons, medical technicians, surgical nurses and ward nurses, it’s highly unlikely that if the allegations in Donald Borström’s article were being carried out in Israeli hospitals, Arab medical personnel would have remained silent about it (even if all the Jewish personnel remained silent, another highly unlikely occurrence). The fact that no one has come forward over 17 years to confirm or deny the allegations in his article says a lot.

IF, as some reports claim, Donald Borström has been “trying to get this article printed since 1992”, a simple conversation over those 17 years with any surgeon performing transplants could have disabused him of the reliability of the allegations. This means one of two things: either he knew that the allegations had to be false or he is an irresponsible journalist who doesn’t try to verify his stories.

In addition, Mr. Borström’s demands for investigation are worse than useless. Islam, like Judaism, does not practice embalming, except under rare and specific circumstances that do not apply here. Within a year, all that remains of a human body in a grave are bones and random fragments of tissue. To be worth anything at all, any investigation would require bodies less than a month old. All this information is readily available on the Internet, in Medical School libraries and from conversations with pathologists and/or coroners. It’s difficult to accept that he doesn’t know this.

The Swedish government’s refusal on the grounds of “freedom of expression” is harder to understand. No one is denying the reporter’s freedom of speech in any way by criticizing the article. It’s already been printed, so how is his “freedom of expression” being curtailed in any way? “Freedom of expression” shouldn’t reject the ability to rebut—just the opposite, in fact. Limiting the right to rebut is also a limitation of freedom of expression, so the Swedish government position seems to be somewhat contradictory. The only conclusion left to reach is that the Swedish government endorses the article, in which the author admits that he has no idea whether the allegations are true or not…