![]() | By Miriam Shaviv
August 26, 2009 | Share |
Freakonomics author Stephen Dubner explains in his New York Times blog why the "Swedish blood libel" - the accusation that Israel was deliberately killing Palestinians in order to harvest their organs - is physically and logistically unlikely:
Al Roth, the Harvard economist whose work on matched-pair organ donations has started to transform the organ-transplantation scenario, told me he found the accusation unbelievable because of the logistics of organ harvesting itself. “Organs don’t last very long and have to be matched rather particularly,” he said, “so it would be hard to take them on spec for an international market. So I think black market organs must mostly be from live donors. Live donors can take blood tests well in advance and travel to where the patient is. Deceased organs have to be put on ice, and the clock starts ticking immediately and fast.”
Another question: If you did kidnap someone in order to harvest their organs, would you really return the body to the family afterwards? Wouldn't that be incredibly stupid?
Just asking.
(Via)

viv green
27 August, 2009 - 11:59
Rate this:
Hi Miriam
Want to hear something just as dumb
Aftonbldet has a headline today saying
"The Israeli army is not Jewish"
Imlying that their average reader should know that Beduin and Druise people serve in the IDF and therefore should realise that the paper is not referring to a jewish blood libel when they read that the army steals organs.
This implies quite a lot of prior knowledge from an Aftonbladet reader - seeing that the editors of the paper say that they have never heard of the blood libel!
I've got to the point of laughing at them.