HHS Decertifies Organ Procurement Network Over Harvesting Allegations
The Kentucky-based nonprofit Network for Hope, which focuses on organ donation, has been decertified by the HHS following serious allegations of harvesting organs from living patients. This decision, involving Robert F. Kennedy Jr., stems from a federal investigation that revealed 73 cases of premature harvesting. Among the most shocking incidents was one in 2021 where a patient reportedly regained consciousness during surgery.
Furthermore, newly acquired public records reveal that Cercle Allocation Services charged a UCLA research program a fee of $765 for each liver and thymus specimen procured. In internal communications, they expressed concerns that certain billing phrasing could mistakenly indicate the tissue was being sold, which is a significant issue.
These records came to light following a California Public Records Act request initiated on behalf of David Daleiden, the founder of the Center for Medical Progress. They also include various purchase orders and exchanges between UCLA and Cercle Allocation Services.
One purchase order from UCLA’s Division of Hematology-Oncology identifies the procurement as related to the “Mouse Core” and lists multiple specimens along with their prices. However, it’s important to note that there’s no evidence from these records indicating any illegal or unethical behavior by UCLA or its staff regarding the transactions.
The documents reviewed do not confirm the classification of the specimens as fetal tissue. They’ve been referred to in general terms without specifically stating their origin as such. Yet, some commentary surrounding the payments has raised questions regarding their legality, particularly the uniform fee of $765, which many see as potentially problematic.
While federal law does have strict regulations about transferring human fetal tissue for valuable consideration, it does allow for “reasonable payments” related to costs for transportation and processing. But the records suggest that the nature of the payments and the language used therein have prompted some concerns.
Daleiden questioned whether the consistent pricing indicated compliance with procurement-related cost regulations. He remarked that the uniform charge across various specimens could raise red flags regarding legality under federal statutes.
It was noted that upon receiving Concerns from Cercle regarding the tax implications of their invoices, UCLA acted to modify the purchase orders to clarify payments were for services and not sales of the specimens themselves. The latter would be illegal to sell under prevailing laws.
As for the relationship between UCLA and Cercle, it appears it extended into 2025, with records showing ongoing interactions and inquiries related to various tissue requests. However, the specifics about whether any fetal tissue was ultimately procured remain unclear.
Overall, while the investigation continues to scrutinize various aspects of fetal tissue donation and procurement, neither UCLA nor Cercle has faced any official accusations or charges linked to potential violations. Their actions have, at least for now, been deemed compliant with federal regulations.
Requests for comments from both UCLA and Cercle Allocation Services went unanswered.
