Name: How the CCP Monetizes the Bodies of Its Prisoners | Matthew Robertson
Uploaded: 2025-11-04T17:31:40.000Z
Description: The Chinese communist regime has “created a market in the organs of their political enemies,” says Matthew Robertson, a researcher who has been investigating China’s organ transplant system for more than a decade.

Bringing you the latest videos, livestreams, and premieres.

Epoch Video

NTD Plus

Shows

At a time when our nation is becoming increasingly polarized, media often ignore viewpoints and stories that are worthy of attention. American Thought Leaders, hosted by The Epoch Times Senior Editor Jan Jekielek and his reporting team, features in-depth discussions with important thought leaders on key issues facing America—and Canada, the world—today.

American Thought Leaders

Here’s What They Hid in Wuhan | Matt Ridley

Jan Jekielek is a senior editor with The Epoch Times, host of the show “American Thought Leaders” and co-host of “FALLOUT” with Dr. Robert Malone and “Kash’s Corner” with Kash Patel. Jan’s career has spanned academia, international human rights work, and now for almost two decades, media. He has interviewed nearly a thousand thought leaders on camera, and specializes in long-form discussions challenging the grand narratives of our time. He’s also an award-winning documentary filmmaker, producing “The Unseen Crisis: Vaccine Stories You Were Never Told,” “DeSantis: Florida vs. Lockdowns,” and “Finding Manny.”

Jan Jekielek

The CCP Wants to Subjugate Taiwan—She’s Standing in the Way | An Exclusive With Hsiao Bi-Khim

Beijing Wants to Wipe Taiwan Off the Map—This Man Is Making Sure Its People Can Survive | Enoch Wu

How Classical Arts Training Helps Kids Unlock Their Full Potential | Sherry Zhang

How Cartel Mega-Tunnels Move Hundreds of Millions in Narcotics Into America | Sara Carter

Why Women Can’t Find Good Husbands | Timothy Goeglein

The Machinery Behind Modern Mass Manipulation | Jacob Siegel

What the End of the Orban Era Means for Hungary and Its Constitution | Marton Sulyok

One Key Fact About America’s Founding That Isn’t Taught Anymore | Eric Metaxas

Is Canada Becoming the CCP’s Backdoor into America? | Former Canadian Intel Analyst Scott McGregor

The Associated Press is an American not-for-profit news agency headquartered in New York City. 

The Associated Press

News

World News

Americas

Helicopter With Singer Oliver Tree on Passenger List Collides With Another in Brazil, Killing 6

NTD Newsroom comprises teams of reporters, editors, and producers assigned to cover breaking news and other stories.


NTD Newsroom

News you can trust from the U.S. and around the world. Critical information and insight. We cover the stories that others don’t. NTD News Today airs Monday–Friday at 11 a.m. ET.

NTD News Today

Iran's Football Team Leaves Note of Friendship

Melanie is a reporter and editor covering world news. She has a background in environmental research.

Melanie Sun

US News

State News

California

California Governor, LA Mayor Declare Emergency Over Warehouse Fire

News with integrity, from the United States and around the world. Focused reports and analyses that shed light on major issues the world deserves to know. NTD Evening News airs daily at 6 p.m. ET.

NTD Evening News

Up to 900 Planes Grounded Worldwide Amid Engine Shortage, United CEO Says

Reuters is a news agency owned by Thomson Reuters. It employs around 2,500 journalists and 600 photojournalists in about 200 locations worldwide writing in 16 languages.

Reuters

Andrew Thomas is a reporter for NTD News primarily covering business, the economy, and technology. 

Andrew Thomas

Science &amp; Tech

NASA Reverses Evacuation Alert Order for Astronauts Aboard Space Station

Rudy Blalock is a Southern California-based daily news reporter for NTD. Originally from Michigan, he moved to California in 2017 and the sunshine and ocean have kept him here since. In his free time, he may be found underwater scuba diving, on top of a mountain hiking or snowboarding, or at home meditating—which helps fuel his active lifestyle.

Rudy Blalock

8 Dead After B-52 Bomber Crashes at Edwards Air Force Base in California

Ohio

At Least 12 People Shot at Ohio Festival, Search for Suspects Ongoing: Police

Mary Man is a writer for NTD. She has traveled around the world covering China, international news, and arts and culture.

Mary Man

Daniel Monaghan is a reporter for NTD News covering culture, social issues, and education. He holds a BA in Political Science and Government.

Daniel Monaghan

China News

Epoch Times Obtains Over 2,000 Unseen Tiananmen Square Photos on 37th Anniversary of the June 4th Massacre

US Embassy in Israel Issues Travel Alert for Much of Middle East

Los Angeles Warehouse Fire Prompts Shelter-in-Place Orders

Gordon Chang Breaks Down Trump-Xi Summit and What’s Next

The CCP’s Greatest Insecurity—and America’s Greatest Weapon | Sam Brownback

Why a Taiwan Invasion Would Trigger Trillions in Global Losses | Amb. Alexander Yui

Over 1,000 CCP-Linked Groups in America: Exposing United Front Operations | Peter Mattis

Why 28- and 29-Year-Olds Are Disappearing From China’s Uyghur Concentration Camps | Ethan Gutmann

Texas AG Ken Paxton Breaks Down Wave of Lawsuits Targeting CCP Surveillance

The Charter School Principal Turning Children Toward Plato, Virtue, and the Eternal | Caylan Ford

The Failures of Multiculturalism in the United Kingdom | Peter McIlvenna

From AI Girlfriends to Brain Implants, How the AI Revolution Is Radically Reshaping Our World | Wynton Hall

Most Americans Agree: You Can’t Change Your Sex | Jonathan Butcher

The Woke Movement Has Peaked. What’s Next? | Andrew Doyle

Rob Schneider: Here’s What’s Wrong With Our Culture Today

Why These 9 Institutions Must Be Reformed Post-COVID | Jeffrey Tucker

Robert Kiyosaki: Why America’s Middle Class Keeps Getting Poorer

The CCP’s Gloves Are Off in Trade War—What’s Next? | Lee Smith

How Tariffs Once Paid America’s Bills–And Why They Could Again | John Gardner

Jeffrey Tucker: Everything You Need to Know About the Fed

Impact of Trump’s Trade, Tax, Energy Policies | Mark Skousen

How Clay Clark Helped Small Businesses Survive—and Thrive—During the Pandemic and Beyond

Eric Trump: How America Can Outcompete China in Manufacturing

EJ Antoni Decodes the Trump Economy and the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Controversy

Homeopathy Cured Her Disease, Now She’s Fighting for More Access | Paola Brown

Here’s What Darwinian Evolution Can’t Explain About the Origins of Species | Stephen Meyer

How ‘Brain Rot’ and the Escapist Virtual World Are Harming Our Youth | Adnan Alkhalili

Treating the Root, Not Just the Symptoms: The Power of Integrative Medicine | Dr. Daniel Monti

Exclusive: Dr. Jay Bhattacharya on How the NIH Is Rethinking Autism, DEI, China Ties, and Gain-of-Function

The False Promise of Antidepressants | Dr. Joanna Moncrieff

Why Steak Is at the Top of the New Food Pyramid | Dr. Shawn Baker

A New Approach to Alzheimer’s? | Lou Reese

Dr. Mehmet Oz: Up to $4 Billion in Health Care Fraud in California

The Evidence of Harm: What the Data Really Show About Pediatric Transgender Procedures | Leor Sapir

An Exclusive, Inside Look at Shen Yun Performing Arts | Special Episode

Epoch Cinema

Cinema

A Little Sketchy TV

Breast Milk, McDonald’s, & Garbage | A Little Sketchy

3-Headed Hydra, NSA, & Cringe | A Little Sketchy

Special

Jubilee Celebrations, Valentines Day, & Selling to China | A Little Sketchy

Freedom Convoy, Ukraine, & Winter Olympics | A Little Sketchy TV

Mollie Hemingway: The Untold Story of How One Man ‘Reshaped the Supreme Court’

Inside ‘Trump 2.0’ and the Media’s Role in Political Violence | Sean Spicer

He Ran the World’s Biggest Payment Processor; Now He’s Taking on Social Security | Frank Bisignano

Devin Nunes on Ending the Politicization of America’s Intelligence Agencies

Exclusive: Inside SBA’s Crack Down on Loan Fraud Nationwide | Administrator Kelly Loeffler

Exclusive: Kash Patel Talks China Fentanyl, Violent Networks, ‘Burn Bags,’ and More

Andy Ngo: I Was Nearly Killed by Antifa. This is What I Learned.

Eric Trump Opens Up About How Relentless Attacks Impacted Him and His Family

Why Charlie Kirk’s Approach Matters Now More Than Ever | Pastor Jackson Lahmeyer

The Battle Over Alligator Alcatraz, the US Census, and CCP Surveillance | Florida AG James Uthmeier

[RUSH TRANSCRIPT BELOW] The Chinese communist regime has “created a market in the organs of their political enemies,” says Matthew Robertson, a researcher who has been investigating China’s organ transplant system for more than a decade.

Fluent in Mandarin, Robertson is a China studies research fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and co-author of a number of research papers on China’s organ transplant system including, “Execution by organ procurement: Breaching the dead donor rule in China.”

After conducting a forensic review of thousands of Chinese research papers, they found 71 cases where violations of the dead donor rule were essentially written into the paper itself.

In a moment that stunned the world, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin were recently caught on a hot mic with their translators talking about increasing longevity through repeated organ transplants.

What is the true extent of China’s forced organ harvesting industry? How are physicians in China complicit? It’s been known for many years that practitioners of the Falun Gong spiritual practice have been a prime target—but are they the only ones?

Views expressed in this video are opinions of the host and the guest, and do not necessarily reflect the views of NTD.

Editor’s Note: Matthew Robertson previously worked as a journalist for The Epoch Times. 

RUSH TRANSCRIPT
Jan Jekielek:

Matthew Robertson, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.

Hello, Jan.

You describe it as state-sponsored organ trafficking. Sometimes it’s called forced organ harvesting. I’ve described it as a murder-for-organs industry in communist China. The bottom line is that something terrible is happening over there. And if you were to describe it to someone who’s maybe skeptical or who hasn’t heard about it and might find it unbelievable, how would you explain that to them?

I think you might start with what is the standard way that organs are procured and transplanted in most countries around the world. And that is from voluntary donors to recipients based on medical need. Countries around the world create a system that facilitates this altruistic transfer where there is, you know, a tragedy that has resulted in, most typically, brain death. This is in the case of vital organs; the individual is brain dead, declared so in the hospital, and then there is an organization that facilitates, you know, gains permission if they weren’t already a donor. And then that’s the kind of transplantation that we are mostly familiar with.

So at least until 2015, and probably subsequently, China’s model of organ transplantation was very different. Almost the sole source of organs were prisoners of one kind or another: death row prisoners, prisoners of conscience/political prisoners, and in some cases, simply beggars—like homeless people—who were kidnapped and killed, according to PRC [People’s Republic of China] media reports. When I’m talking about state-sponsored organ trafficking, I’m talking about state, military, and paramilitary hospitals that have a transplant wing, and they’re performing transplants, but the organs are obtained, procured illicitly, often by killing prisoners.

And then they are distributed not by medical need, but by the ability to pay cash to the recipient. There are some private hospitals; those are run by surgeons as a kind of a side hustle. Those surgeons are, of course, affiliated with the state, or they’re party officials, or they’re the party secretary of a hospital. But that’s basically how China’s organ transplantation system operated, and almost certainly continues to operate.

What would you say is the strongest evidence you’ve seen that this whole thing, which sounds almost unbelievable, is real?

I think ironically the strongest evidence is simply the utterances of Chinese officials themselves. You could look at an official statement by someone like Dr. Huang Jiefu, who was the former vice minister of health and is now kind of the great eminence of the transplant system. He’s sometimes called the transplant czar. He has admitted almost everything I just said.

The idea that Chinese hospitals procured organs from prisoners is not disputed by, you know, the Chinese medical establishment. That there was buying and selling of organs is not disputed. The kind of dispute lies with the identity of the donors. That’s a matter of some controversy.

And then perhaps the matter of scale or sophistication or organization or, you know, systematicity—these kinds of questions. I think each piece of the puzzle has a different kind of evidentiary trail. We could think about something like the involvement of surgeons in the execution process. The evidence there is Chinese medical publications that show quite explicitly that the donor was not deceased by any medical or legal criterion at the time of the procurement. And therefore, there’s a violation of the donor.

You’re saying they were killed by the organs being removed?

Yes. So the removal of the heart is the proximate cause of death in those cases. That’s what our paper shows. Let’s talk about trafficking. So what’s the evidence of trafficking? In that case, it’s even more straightforward. Because you look at hospital websites before they were all taken down in 2006, 2007. But they’re all in the Wayback Machine or otherwise archived. And they would have price lists on their website for the organs.

So, okay, they’re clearly being sold. It’s a pay-for-treatment system. So all kinds of transactions are cash for the organs. So there wasn’t, at that time, a kind of state health insurance system that would cover these treatments. There’s an interesting piece of evidence that, when you dig into it, has so many different, really interesting implications about things we cannot observe that are worth discussing. Do you want me to?

Yes, please.

Okay, this is a phenomenon called emergency transplants—emergency liver transplants, specifically. So I’ll explain what that means. If a patient in any country has acute hepatic failure, their liver fails. If they do not receive a new liver within a short period of time, then they are going to die, because the liver is required; it’s a vital organ. A patient in the United States, Australia, or the UK, for them to get that organ, they present at the hospital, their condition is diagnosed, and the need for an organ is established.

And then they’re basically first on the waiting list. If in 24 to 48 hours there is a tragedy—there was a car crash or some other incident that renders a compatible donor brain dead—and that compatible donor has already registered as an organ donor, or their family agrees for them to become a donor, then the recipient will get that liver, and their life will be saved.

So how do you do emergency transplants when you don’t have voluntary donors? The Chinese government has never explained that. What we know is that in 2005, they published the annual report of the liver transplant registry at the time that had a subsection, which included a certain number of the total hospitals doing organ transplants. And then in 2006, they published the same annual report. And these have both been deleted from the internet.

They showed—I’m not going to get the numbers exactly, but it was something like 25 percent, and then the other was close to 30 percent. There were many that were done on an emergency basis, and then the remainder were done on an elective basis. So if you don’t have voluntary donors, this is what the government says; therefore all the organs are coming from prisoners. And yet to get a liver, you need a compatible donor who has recently died. Then you have possibilities.

One is that it just so happened in every single case that a prisoner was going to be executed on that date when the need for that liver arose, and that prisoner happened to have a compatible blood type, and that prison and that hospital had some connection. So it had to be local.

So the difference, you know, in the UK, it could be the entire country, but in China, there was no computerized system for allocating organs, and so it would have to be local. So that’s one. You can see a chain of increasingly implausible conditions that would allow that. Even then, it’s from executed prisoners.

The other is something that you can see that doesn’t make sense in official publications. And then there are different inferential possibilities, like ways to explain this outcome. But they all strangely point in one direction. Well, the highly implausible one in this case would be that there were death penalty prisoners and they happened to be killed at that time, blah, blah, blah.

But then the far more plausible one is that actually, the Chinese state had blood-typed a much larger number of donors, because if you’re going to have so many that are on this emergency basis, then you must need a larger pool from which to draw. And that would have to be at many places nationally because there are dozens of hospitals in this data set.

And so just this one page in these two documents has this ripple of implications about what that actually means in terms of the logistics, donor sources, and what must have been happening to enable that to have been reported. And then sometimes, some of these hospitals—before there was international attention in 2006 by Kilgore and Matas, and everything else that went on then—they were saying, we have the bodies, or to that effect, very explicit statements that they have the donors ready.

Right. I remember people were calling up and saying, yes, we can set it up for you on the other end of the line. Which is unbelievable when I think about it. It’s been a while since I looked at that evidence, by the way.

I think people just don’t believe the phone calls were real in those cases. Because they’re like, well, how could those be real? The interesting thing is, I did a sub-study of just those phone calls. And so I spoke to the investigators who made the phone calls and then got their downloaded Skype records from their actual account. They let me log into their account and downloaded them, and it’s got like the call time and date and then the duration of the call, and then matched that to the actual audio file.

And then it’s got the numbers they called, and then I would call those numbers back and say, is this the so-and-so hospital? And they would say, who is this? And then I would hang up. And like, so I confirmed to my satisfaction that the call records showed that they made that call to that number for that length of time, and then the audio matched it. The calls are real. But yes, for anyone who’s actually looked at the transcripts, it’s rather extraordinary that these things would just be said on the telephone.

So when it comes to the identity of the organs, you mentioned that this is contentious, the identity of the source of the organs. So what is it that you’ve come to believe based on your extensive research?

So the most contentious point on that is whether they came from Falun Gong or not. And then kind of the more contemporary question is, are they coming from Uyghurs or not? And on both of these, I think you could think of the calls as direct evidence, potentially. Like, if you believe the calls, you have surgeons on the call saying, yes, we’ve got the Falun Gong organs. Are they like upselling? Are they just running their mouths on, you know, a random phone call?

The way that I have approached this is that I have a paper as part of my dissertation that specifically looks at this question of the identity of the organs because that’s significant. If the organs are coming from death penalty prisoners, you have a situation where the state can explain the emergency transplants potentially even by death penalty prisoners, where the state has blood-typed prisoners, but they just haven’t actually carried out a formal judicial execution until they’ve been required for an organ.

And the other possibility is obviously they’re doing extrajudicial executions of political prisoners. And so prior to, you know, 2017, 2018, when the mass detention of Uyghurs took place, the repression of Falun Gong was the largest repression of a religious group in China. There was mass detention starting in 1999. In terms of the organ transplantation system, one would not expect, without any prior information, that the growth of transplantation and the detention of a particular religious dissident group would be connected. But if you look at indicators of transplantation activity, several key indicators suddenly go up in the year 2000, six months after the repression.

For my work, what I’ve been able to gather is a large corpus of medical publications. I downloaded something like 100,000 PRC medical papers, and usefully, they’re in a single database. They show when you do a lot of things to code them according to their content and whether they are like a clinical paper about a particular transplant. They suddenly go up in the year 2000, and then they dip a little bit in early 2006, which happens to be when the actual revelations of forced organ harvesting.

It’s called, it was when I first realized it was real that then I felt the evidence. I mean, I didn’t want to believe it. I remember, right, that this seems so outlandish. But I felt at that point the evidence was compelling enough that it was real.

Sure. So that’s like you have this temporal observation. There are two explanations, right? When you see mass repression of this group, mass detentions, and then blood tests, these phone calls, and targeted organ examinations. There are some particularly acute cases where a surgeon has another hat as the leader of an anti-Falun Gong propaganda group, and that’s unusual. Why would a liver transplant surgeon also be specifically involved in repressing a religious minority?

On the other side, there’s a well-known case of a security official who performed a lot of transplants and oversaw a lot of transplant operations. This security official was directly involved in the repression of this group. It’s evidence like that, blood tests, organ examinations, and so on. You’ve got to explain the outcome that you observed, which is a lot more transplants. So you’ve either got this explanation that they came from this group, or you basically have to say that it was actually death row.

So the death row system is an order of magnitude larger than anyone has observed. Moreover, it continued to grow, even as all indicators about death row showed that it was receding. These are the reports by human rights organizations based on their estimates and discussions with Chinese officials, some leaked documents, and then significant reforms to the death penalty system in 2007 that centralized review to the Supreme People’s Court.

There are a lot of laws associated with the death penalty system. That is a topic that has received far more scholarly attention than organ trafficking. It is a highly implausible set of hypotheses or claims that you would have to advance; you would have to show that it was actually the death penalty all along.

I’m not clear there’s a third competing hypothesis for this outcome. To the extent that it’s contentious, it’s driven by, I would imagine, just a simple lack of knowledge of the observations, the outcome, like lots of transplants, and a lot of growth in the transplant infrastructure. There are so many different ways of measuring that growth: the number of surgeons, the number of hospitals performing transplants, new hospitals and hospital wings, and the advancement in different kinds of transplants, because a liver can be transplanted in different ways.

Chinese surgeons have been on the cutting edge of surgical improvement in performing transplants. You need to do a lot of transplants for these things. Everything shows there were lots more transplants being done. You have to explain that. The paper I have, the dissertation, looks at the competing explanations and then chases down data that supports or doesn’t support either of them.

And the bottom line is, the other explanation isn’t very plausible. I mean, of course, I’m familiar with your work.

Yes, so the death row explanation hasn’t even been seriously advanced, but it’s the only alternative. But no one has come out and claimed that.

That paper, and thank you for co-authoring it with Dr. Jacob Lavee, is one of the closest things to a smoking gun. It’s written into the transplant literature that these transplant surgeons and researchers are killing people by extracting their organs, as we discussed earlier. It’s shocking. I mean, it’s shocking to me that they let you publish with that headline, actually. I’m really glad they did because I think a whole lot of people suddenly understood something they didn’t understand before. What kind of interest has that paper generated? You know, I guess, what has come out of that subsequently?

I found it to be incredibly compelling. The two things that strike me as interesting about that paper are that the finding itself wasn’t the shocking part to Dr. Lavee and me. It was that we actually saw the data. Both of us were prepared to believe that this was real based on work that had already been done, but we were only surprised to find that we could actually count lots of them through some, you know, looking through these papers with some basic coding methods that can now be done much easier with AI. So that we found them at all was the surprising part to us.

The other was that it wasn’t actually new information. It had already been shown by the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong [WOIPFG], an advocacy group that has all this evidence on the repression of Falun Gong. In a paper, and it might have even been two papers by Huige Li and colleagues, it had been shown that there were instances of this. I think what Dr. Lavee and I added a systematic methodology and got it into a journal. But the actual bare facts were not new.

That’s interesting because it kind of suddenly makes something real because an institution in a position of authority has declared it to be so effective. But it was already real before we got it published. I think that’s interesting because a lot of this seems to hinge on questions of authority. Who has been authorized to declare something to be a fact about this topic?

So you use a lot of these computational methods. You mentioned that some of them can be done better with AI language models today. Can you just give me a basic picture of what you do, what you specialize in, and your kind of career trajectory?

Yes. The field is called computational social science, or social data science is another term for it. It’s simply using computers, building data sets out of text, wrangling text into grids, extracting variables from unstructured text, and then doing statistics on them. For example, with the medical papers, that was many months and thousands of lines of code just to get into the website and download all the files. That’s only the beginning because once you’ve got it, you now need to extract the text from the PDF files. There’s nothing glamorous about it. So it used to be really hard to do that before AI. You had to actually write code yourself. But now you can just tell the computer to write your code as long as you know exactly what it is you want.

So how did you get into this?

I was frustrated with the epistemic status of the topic. Some people thought it was real, and some people didn’t think it was real. There seemed to be taboos around figuring out what’s going on and doing so properly. Also, I had a great deal of ignorance about what it actually means to do scientific research, especially on a topic like this. And so I wanted to figure out how to actually produce knowledge.

What methods do you need to create reliable knowledge on things that are hard to study? It’s interesting to reflect in hindsight that it’s not clear that actually producing knowledge artifacts changes what people think. You would think it would, but there’s not a necessary relationship between those two. It’s not one-to-one, but it does help. I’d like to think so.

I can tell you it does, because again, this is the reason why I often cite your paper, the Execution by Organ Procurement paper, because it’s highly compelling knowledge, knowledge that was created as you described or at least resurfaced and validated.

Yes. It also relies on authority to a degree. We trust that because it’s the American Journal of Transplantation, and the reviewers have done their job.

I think it’s, based on my opinion, I think it’s particularly valuable because, as you mentioned, there’s a bit of a taboo around this issue, right, in all sorts of areas, in academia, in the transplant industry, as you well know. Yet it was actually validated by a very, I guess, prestigious authority on the issue. And so I felt that that actually elevated the issue considerably, right? Because I would imagine they actually experienced some pressure or some thought about perhaps not doing it, as is often the case with publishing contentious things. In my mind, the use of Falun Gong practitioners for these organs has been pretty well established through your work and the work of some others. However, the next claim is that at some point, Uyghurs started being used the same way.

And to me, this makes perfect sense because, unfortunately, this issue wasn’t dealt with in any meaningful way, and these types of crimes against humanity have a way of spreading when they’re left completely unchecked. So it makes perfect sense that that would happen. We know that Ethan Gutmann, who’s one of the big researchers on this issue, is working on a book as we speak, looking at this question when it comes to Uyghurs. He’s written one of the more definitive books on the issue in the past, The Slaughter. But what, in your mind, is the reality of this having moved or at least incorporating the Uyghurs as a source?

To begin with, you have a situation where hundreds of thousands to up to a million, to over a million, who knows, a large number of people have been incarcerated. It’s been described as a genocide by the U.S. State Department. And then we know from the Xinjiang police files, this is a leaked case of documents that was leaked to my colleague Adrian Zenz at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, that shows that there’s been mass blood testing of this population. And then there’s large-scale DNA collection as well.

And then there are accounts by survivors of strange medical examinations, such as urine tests that are repeated. It’s not clear what condition that’s aiming to detect. So it’s not just urine tests, but also ultrasounds of abdominal organs, CT scans, urine tests, blood tests. These are, especially when they’re repeated, not aimed at assessing the general health of the detainee. They seem targeted.

And then there is at least one instance where a hospital and a work camp are literally next door to each other with a crematorium. That’s in an RFA [Radio Free Asia] report. And that’s strange. Recently, the government announced that they were building more hospitals in Xinjiang. There are still many transplants being performed, but the official explanation that they’re from voluntary donors seems at least partially implausible because figures appear to have been manufactured.

So the registry data associated with the reform program appears to have been falsified based on a simple equation. We have a paper about that that was published in 2019. So it’s rational to believe that Uyghurs are being harvested for their organs. And I feel like I’m not sure what else as an analyst one is permitted to say necessarily. We don’t even have such a clear outcome that is crying for an explanation because we don’t even know the number of transplants anymore.

Before 2006 and 2007, and even into the 2010s, a lot of stuff was being published on Chinese hospital websites. When a whole lot of international attention started coalescing on it, it seems a lot of that just got pulled. And now there’s a voluntary transplant system, and surgeons aren’t going to the media and just mouthing off about how we did 2,000 liver transplants at our hospital last year and things like this. Our ability to even observe the activity is diminished. And so, I mean, that’s the state of affairs there. I have a book chapter about it, and I use the words of, you know, the vulnerability. So they’re obviously vulnerable to this abuse.

You know, this question of vulnerability is really interesting and very important, and I think actually is a piece of the evidential epilogue because when it comes to the Falun Gong, for example, you have a population that the dictator at the time has said should be eradicated. That didn’t necessarily mean to kill everybody, but to re-educate them, transform them. The language, as we know, is very strong. And of course, these types of things can escalate easily from something that could mean, at the beginning, re-educate them or something like that to something that makes it a lot easier for someone to do things of this nature.

And the unwritten rule that all Falun Gong deaths will be considered suicides. It’s okay to torture these people in extreme ways to re-educate them. Right? Or the fact that they don’t reveal their names because they don’t want to implicate their relatives or have problems. So there you have this huge nameless incarcerated population, and people just are dying because of torture. And so would you really miss anybody because they were organ transplanted, and you wouldn’t even know that that’s what happened, right? It’s just a unique kind of scenario that these people are existing in. The vulnerability, I think, is an incredibly important part, which often I guess is overlooked even when I talk about the issue.

You mentioned something about the language used. The surgeon that I spoke about was both a liver transplant surgeon and involved in anti-Falun Gong activities. On the question of language, I found a book that he edited and had stamped, For Internal Circulation. In the foreword to this book, he writes that Falun Gong is a cancer on society.

This struck me because he’s a liver transplant surgeon; he removes cancer. You can see the sense in which he probably thinks if he’s killing these people, it’s not bad. If he’s writing that these are evil people who are destroying the foundations of our society, and they’re a cancer, and so on and so on. It’s obviously genocidal language.

One of the things that struck me after first reading your paper, again, Execution by Organ Procurement, was that clearly this practice, I mean, this was not an exhaustive search of all the transplant literature in China that you looked at. You found, I think it was 71 cases in that paper where this dead donor rule was violated, where people were being killed by the organ extraction itself. There’s probably a lot more, right?

Latest

Paywall Related

Free for Subscribers

Conversations on current and trending topics.

Latest and breaking news, documentaries, movies, and lifestyle content on NTD+.
 
Empower your knowledge and elevate your spirit with NTD+, your go-to destination for truthful news, insightful documentaries, and captivating lifestyle content that enriches your life.