Was football player Terrance Howard really dead? His parents didn’t think so.

The Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) states that there must be an irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain for a declaration of brain death. The way doctors currently diagnose brain death does not comply with the law under the UDDA.

North Carolina Central University football player Terrance Howard died recently after a car accident reportedly left him “brain dead.” But his family disputed this diagnosis and requested that their son be transferred to another facility for treatment of his brain injury, leading to conflict with Terrance’s doctors and hospital. According to News One, his parents claimed that Atrium Health Carolinas Medical Center wanted to kill their son for his organs, and accused doctors of snickering and laughing while refusing to help him. His father, Anthony Allen, told News One that the hospital removed Terrance from life support against his family’s wishes and forcibly ejected his family from his room. The family posted videos on social media of apparent police officers entering Terrance’s hospital room, and said that the hospital threatened them with criminal action for trespassing.

If these allegations are true, the Howard family has every right to be outraged at the disrespectful treatment they received at Atrium Health. Especially now, as the legitimacy of brain death is coming under increasing scrutiny, it is outrageous that hospitals and doctors continue being so heavy-handed. The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), formerly a staunch supporter of “brain death,” released a statement in April 2024, saying:

Events in the last several months have revealed a decisive breakdown in a shared understanding of brain death (death by neurological criteria) which has been critical in shaping the ethical practice of organ transplantation. At stake now is whether clinicians, potential organ donors, and society can agree on what it means to be dead before vital organs are procured.

The NCBC statement was prompted by the newest brain death guideline which explicitly allows people with partial brain function to be declared brain dead. But the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) states that there must be an irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain for a declaration of brain death. The way doctors currently diagnose brain death does not comply with the law under the UDDA.

Terrance Howard’s story is reminiscent of the mistreatment of another Black teenager, Jahi McMath. In 2013, Jahi was a quiet, cautious teenager with sleep apnea who underwent a tonsillectomy and palate reconstruction to improve her airflow while sleeping. An hour after the surgery, she started spitting up blood. Her parents requested repeatedly to see a doctor without success. Her mother, Nailah Winkfield, said, “No one was listening to us, and I can’t prove it, but I really feel in my heart: if Jahi was a little white girl, I feel we would have gotten a little more help and attention.”

Jahi continued to bleed until she had a cardiac arrest just after midnight. She was pulseless for ten minutes during her “code blue” resuscitation. Two days later, her electroencephalogram (EEG) was flatline, and it was clear that Jahi had suffered a severe brain injury which was worsening. But rather than treating these findings aggressively, her doctors proceeded toward a diagnosis of brain death. Three days after her surgery, her parents were informed that their daughter was “dead” and that Jahi could now become an organ donor. The family was stunned. How could Jahi be dead? She was warm, she was moving occasionally, and her heart was still beating. As a Christian, Nailah believed her daughter’s spirit remained in her body as long as her heart continued to beat. While the family sought medical and legal assistance, Children’s Hospital Oakland doubled down, refusing to feed Jahi for three weeks. The hospital finally agreed to release Jahi to the county coroner for a death certificate, following which her family would be responsible for her.

On January 3, 2014, Jahi received a death certificate from California, listing her cause of death as “Pending Investigation.” Why was the hospital so adamant about insisting Jahi was dead, even to the point of issuing a death certificate? Possibly because California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act limits noneconomic damages to $250,000. If Jahi was “dead,” the hospital and its malpractice insurer would only be liable for $250,000. But if Jahi was alive, there would be no limit to the amount her family could claim for her ongoing care.

After Jahi was transferred to New Jersey, the only US state with a religious exemption to a diagnosis of brain death, she began to improve. After noticing that Jahi’s heart rate would decrease at the sound of her mother’s voice, the family began asking her to respond to commands, and videoed her correct responses. Jahi went through puberty and began to menstruate — something not seen in corpses! By August 2014 she was stable enough to move into her mother’s apartment for continuing care. Subsequently Jahi was examined by two neurologists (Dr. Calixto Machado and Dr. D. Alan Shewmon) who found that she had definitely improved: she no longer met the criteria for brain death and was in a minimally conscious state. Jahi continued responding to her family in a meaningful way until her death in June 2018 from complications of liver failure.

How could Jahi McMath, who was declared brain dead by three doctors, who failed three apnea tests, and who had four flatline EEGs and a radioisotope scan showing no intracranial blood flow, go on to recover neurologic function? Very likely, due to a condition called Global Ischemic Penumbra, or GIP. Like every other organ, the brain shuts down its function when its blood flow is reduced in order to conserve energy. At 70 percent of normal blood flow, the brain’s neurological functioning is reduced, and at a 50 percent reduction the EEG becomes flatline. But tissue damage doesn’t begin until blood flow to the brain drops below 20 percent of normal for several hours. GIP is a term doctors use to refer to that interval when the brain’s blood flow is between 20 and 50 percent of normal. During GIP the brain will not respond to neurological testing and has no electrical activity on EEG, but still has enough blood flow to maintain tissue viability — meaning that recovery is still possible. During GIP, a person will appear “brain dead” using the current medical guidelines and testing, but with continuing care they could potentially improve.

This [GIP] is not a hypothesis but a mathematical necessity. The clinically relevant question is therefore not whether GIP occurs but how long it might last. If, in some patients, it could last more than a few hours, then it would be a supreme mimicker of brain death by bedside clinical examination, yet the non-function (or at least some of it) would be in principle reversible.

Dr. Cicero Coimbra first described GIP in 1999, but in the never-ending quest for transplantable organs, his work has been largely ignored. There is absolutely no medical or moral certainty in a brain death diagnosis, and people need to be made aware of this. “Brain dead” people are very ill, and their prognosis may be death, but they deserve to be treated aggressively until they either recover or succumb to natural death. Unfortunately, as the family of Terrance Howard seems to have experienced, doctors are continuing to use a brain death guideline that ignores the reality of GIP and does not comply with brain death law under the UDDA.

Heidi Klessig MD is a retired anesthesiologist and pain management specialist who writes and speaks on the ethics of organ harvesting and transplantation. She is the author of “The Brain Death Fallacy” and her work may be found at respectforhumanlife.com.

Up Next

2024 is Going to Give us All PTSD

Don't Miss

Elon Musk’s X sues woke speech-censoring group out of existence

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Canadians’ Interest in Buying an EV Falls for Third Year in a Row

2025 Federal Election / 1 hour ago

Poilievre Campaigning To Build A Canadian Economic Fortress

2025 Federal Election / 2 hours ago

The Cost of Underselling Canadian Oil and Gas to the USA

2025 Federal Election

Study links B.C.’s drug policies to more overdoses, but researchers urge caution

Published on April 24, 2025

Todayville

By Alexandra Keeler

A study links B.C.’s safer supply and decriminalization to more opioid hospitalizations, but experts note its limitations

A new study says B.C.’s safer supply and decriminalization policies may have failed to reduce overdoses. Furthermore, the very policies designed to help drug users may have actually increased hospitalizations.

“Neither the safer opioid supply policy nor the decriminalization of drug possession appeared to mitigate the opioid crisis, and both were associated with an increase in opioid overdose hospitalizations,” the study says.

The study has sparked debate, with some pointing to it as proof that B.C.’s drug policies failed. Others have questioned the study’s methodology and conclusions.

“The question we want to know the answer to [but cannot] is how many opioid hospitalizations would have occurred had the policy not have been implemented,” said Michael Wallace, a biostatistician and associate professor at the University of Waterloo.

“We can never come up with truly definitive conclusions in cases such as this, no matter what data we have, short of being able to magically duplicate B.C.”

Jumping to conclusions

B.C.’s controversial safer supply policies provide drug users with prescription opioids as an alternative to toxic street drugs. Its decriminalization policy permitted drug users to possess otherwise illegal substances for personal use.

The peer-reviewed study was led by health economist Hai Nguyen and conducted by researchers from Memorial University in Newfoundland, the University of Manitoba and Weill Cornell Medicine, a medical school in New York City. It was published in the medical journal JAMA Health Forum on March 21.

The researchers used a statistical method to create a “synthetic” comparison group, since there is no ideal control group. The researchers then compared B.C. to other provinces to assess the impact of certain drug policies.

Examining data from 2016 to 2023, the study links B.C.’s safer supply policies to a 33 per cent rise in opioid hospitalizations.

The study says the province’s decriminalization policies further drove up hospitalizations by 58 per cent.

“Neither the safer supply policy nor the subsequent decriminalization of drug possession appeared to alleviate the opioid crisis,” the study concludes. “Instead, both were associated with an increase in opioid overdose hospitalizations.”

The B.C. government rolled back decriminalization in April 2024 in response to widespread concerns over public drug use. This February, the province also officially acknowledged that diversion of safer supply drugs does occur.

The study did not conclusively determine whether the increase in hospital visits was due to diverted safer supply opioids, the toxic illicit supply, or other factors.

“There was insufficient evidence to conclusively attribute an increase in opioid overdose deaths to these policy changes,” the study says.

Nguyen’s team had published an earlier, 2024 study in JAMA Internal Medicine that also linked safer supply to increased hospitalizations. However, it failed to control for key confounders such as employment rates and naloxone access. Their 2025 study better accounts for these variables using the synthetic comparison group method.

The study’s authors did not respond to Canadian Affairs’ requests for comment.

Subscribe for free to get BTN’s latest news and analysis – or donate to our investigative journalism fund.

Subscribe to Break The Needle

Correlation vs. causation

Chris Perlman, a health data and addiction expert at the University of Waterloo, says more studies are needed.

He believes the findings are weak, as they show correlation but not causation.

“The study provides a small signal that the rates of hospitalization have changed, but I wouldn’t conclude that it can be solely attributed to the safer supply and decrim[inalization] policy decisions,” said Perlman.

He also noted the rise in hospitalizations doesn’t necessarily mean more overdoses. Rather, more people may be reaching hospitals in time for treatment.

“Given that the [overdose] rate may have gone down, I wonder if we’re simply seeing an effect where more persons survive an overdose and actually receive treatment in hospital where they would have died in the pre-policy time period,” he said.

The Nguyen study acknowledges this possibility.

“The observed increase in opioid hospitalizations, without a corresponding increase in opioid deaths, may reflect greater willingness to seek medical assistance because decriminalization could reduce the stigma associated with drug use,” it says.

“However, it is also possible that reduced stigma and removal of criminal penalties facilitated the diversion of safer opioids, contributing to increased hospitalizations.”

Karen Urbanoski, an associate professor in the Public Health and Social Policy department at the University of Victoria, is more critical.

“The [study’s] findings do not warrant the conclusion that these policies are causally associated with increased hospitalization or overdose,” said Urbanoski, who also holds the Canada Research Chair in Substance Use, Addictions and Health Services.

Her team published a study in November 2023 that measured safer supply’s impact on mortality and acute care visits. It found safer supply opioids did reduce overdose deaths.

Critics, however, raised concerns that her study misrepresented its underlying data and showed no statistically significant reduction in deaths after accounting for confounding factors.

The Nguyen study differs from Urbanoski’s. While Urbanoski’s team focused on individual-level outcomes, the Nguyen study analyzed broader, population-level effects, including diversion.

Wallace, the biostatistician, agrees more individual-level data could strengthen analysis, but does not believe it undermines the study’s conclusions. Wallace thinks the researchers did their best with the available data they had.

“We do not have a ‘copy’ of B.C. where the policies weren’t implemented to compare with,” said Wallace.

B.C.’s overdose rate of 775 per 100,000 is well above the national average of 533.

Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA for Surrey-Cloverdale, has been a vocal critic of B.C.’s decriminalization and safer supply policies.

“If the government doesn’t want to believe this study, well then I invite them to do a similar study,” she told reporters on March 27.

“Show us the evidence that they have failed to show us since 2020,” she added, referring to the year B.C. implemented safer supply.

This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism,

consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Subscribe to Break The Needle

Health

Horrific and Deadly Effects of Antidepressants

Published on April 20, 2025

Todayville

The Vigilant Fox

Once you see what else these drugs are doing, you’ll never look at depression “treatment” the same way again.

The following information is based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details have been streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact. Read the original report here.

Did you know that SSRI antidepressants INCREASE suicidal thoughts by 255%?

A clinical trial on healthy volunteers found that 2 out of 20 became suicidal after taking Zoloft.

One was literally on her way to kill herself when a timely phone call saved her life.

But it’s not just suicidal thoughts that make antidepressants dangerous.

And once you see what else these drugs are doing, you’ll never look at depression “treatment” the same way again.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—or SSRIs—are one of the most harmful medicines prescribed today.

And that’s saying a lot because the market is FULL of harmful medicines.

What’s so bad about these antidepressants?

First of all, their use is widespread and frequently unjustifiable.

They promise to be a magical solution to depression and anxiety, but it’s quite the opposite.

In fact, they can cause side effects far worse than what they claim to treat.

SSRIs don’t just dull your emotions, and they don’t alter your brain chemistry for the better.

They literally reprogram your brain.

Between 40% and 60% of users report emotional numbness. Not just negative emotions—all emotions.

Joy, pain, motivation—all of it completely flatlined.

Some describe it as “life without color” or a “zombie-like” existence.

Sure, maybe you don’t feel depressed anymore. But you don’t feel anything at all.

That sounds… terrible.

Depression can be serious, but should we accept emotionless zombies as the alternative?

If you want to dig even deeper into the dark side of antidepressants and why they’re so harmful, check out @Midwesterndoc’s comprehensive report on the subject. And be sure to share this with anyone you know who may be considering starting an SSRI.

And it’s not just becoming an emotionless zombie you have to worry about. The emotional shutdown can lead to something that is much worse than depression and anxiety.

Psychotic violence.

I don’t mean just a little anger here and there.

SSRIs are causing people to commit suicide—and yes, even horrific mass shootings.

And guess what? The FDA knew about it.

Prozac triggers hallucinations, mania, and violence, and the FDA has known all along.

Even animals become aggressive on SSRIs.

But instead of going back to the drawing board, the FDA approved it anyway.

After nine years on the market, 39,000 people reported major psychiatric events. And those are only the people who reported it…

Really makes you question FDA approval, doesn’t it?

Did you know most of the mass shooters we hear about in the news were often on SSRIs?

It’s true.

And the media even reported on it. But then, they stopped.

That’s weird.

So why are we “not allowed” to talk about SSRIs and violence anymore?

It’s pretty simple.

It would blow the lid off one of the most dangerous pharmaceutical cover-ups in modern history.

It would expose the truth that Big Pharma knowingly released drugs that could make people snap and kill other people.

And they just kept selling them anyway.

But the psychotic violence caused by SSRIs is only the tip of the iceberg.

Obviously, not everyone taking these drugs becomes a mass shooter. But that doesn’t mean the other side effects are any less terrible for those who experience them.

SSRIs truly warp your mind, body, and emotions. And sometimes it is irreversible.

The numbers are truly chilling:
→ A 255% increase in suicidal thoughts
→ 30% of SSRI users develop Bipolar disorder
→ 59% suffer long-term sexual dysfunction

With many saying their libido never came back even after stopping the drug.

The science is clear. The harm caused by SSRIs greatly outweighs any benefits they provide.

Talk about depressing…

A 2020 study involving 20 healthy volunteers with zero history of depression or other mental illnesses had shocking results.

They were each given Zoloft.

TWO of them BECAME suicidal.

One of them was even on her way to kill herself when a divinely timed phone call interrupted her plans.

These two study participants were still affected several months later. They were actually questioning the stability of their personalities.

This doesn’t sound like a magic solution. This sounds like torture.

Speaking of stopping SSRIs—good luck!

They are highly addictive.

And it’s not just physical addiction. It’s neurological.

And because of what they do to the brain, it can take years to step down the dose and wean off of them. Years!

Withdrawal symptoms include things like:
– Brain zaps
– Panic attacks
– Suicidal spirals
– Derealization

And these symptoms can last weeks, months, or even years.

It’s not uncommon to fail and continue taking them because the withdrawal is just that bad.

A 2022 review found that 56% of users who tried to stop SSRIs experience withdrawal symptoms, and 46% describe it as severe.

Psychiatrists mislabel it as a “relapse” and prescribe even more drugs.

The system is set up to trap you. There’s no exit.

And the most vulnerable groups?

Pregnant women and children.

Despite strong evidence linking SSRIs to birth defects, premature birth, and newborn death, the FDA still endorses their use during pregnancy.

One study showed a six times higher risk of pulmonary hypertension in newborns.

Another study showed that SSRI babies lost height and weight in just 19 weeks.

This isn’t good.

SSRIs are being pushed on everyone. Especially vulnerable people like foster kids, parolees, prisoners, and elderly nursing home residents.

And in many of these cases, there is no real ability for them to say no.

That’s not mental health care. That’s drugging people.

The industry tells us SSRIs are “fixing a serotonin imbalance.”

But that’s a lie.

There’s no solid evidence that depression is caused by low serotonin.

So what’s the real mechanism at play here?

SSRIs alter brain wiring. And obviously not always in good ways.

SSRI users describe feeling like their “personality changed” after starting the drug.

The reports are endless and absolutely chilling.

Some were left numb for years. Others became aggressive, impulsive, or dissociated from reality.

Many say they don’t recognize who they became after taking SSRIs.

Excuse me… what?!

And of course, patients and their families are rarely warned about these effects.

Most say they were never told about the risks. There was no informed consent.

How can you not inform depressed people that their medication might make them suicidal? How is it even possible that we can be asking that question?

They experienced these things and talked to their doctors.

They were gaslit every step of the way.

If you or someone you love is taking SSRIs or is considering taking them, I urge you to read the full report from A Midwestern Doctor

How many more people have to suffer before this ends?

How many more people who reach out to their doctor because something is off and they’re looking for help are going to be hurt, sometimes permanently?

It’s time to expose the cover-up and end Big Pharma’s abuse and gaslighting once and for all.

RFK Jr. is right—this could finally be the turning point.

For 40 years, this tragedy was hidden behind slick ads and corrupted science.

But now it’s in the light and MAHA is ready to fight.

If you know anyone considering starting an SSRI, be sure to forward them this information. Because if you wait until after, it might be too late.

Share

Thanks for reading!

This information was based on a report originally published by A Midwestern Doctor. Key details were streamlined and editorialized for clarity and impact.

Read the original report here.