In a case that raises urgent ethical, medical, and systemic questions, a woman in New Mexico, US narrowly escaped having her organs harvested while she was still ALIVE. Her case exposes disturbing gaps in the US organ donation system and has sparked a nationwide debate about the protocols followed when a patient is declared beyond recovery.

Danella Gallegos, 38, was homeless when she suffered a still-unnamed medical crisis in 2022. She fell into a coma and was admitted to Presbyterian Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico. There, doctors told her family that her condition was irreversible and that she would never regain consciousness.

With no apparent hope left, the family made the heartbreaking decision to donate her organs to help others in need. In stepped New Mexico Donor Services, the organ procurement organization (OPO) designated to coordinate the logistics of organ harvesting but in the days leading up to the planned surgery, something didn’t feel right to Gallegos’ family.

According to her family, Danella showed subtle but unmistakable signs of life. Her sisters said they noticed tears running down her cheeks — a deeply human response. When they brought this to the donation coordinator's attention, they were told it was nothing more than a reflex.

On the day of the scheduled operation, one of her sisters claimed she felt Danella move when she held her hand. That alone should have raised immediate red flags. But the real shock came when medical staff observed Gallegos blinking in response to verbal commands — an act that clearly suggested consciousness and awareness.

Despite these signs, the organ donation coordinator present in the operating room allegedly encouraged doctors to go forward with the procedure, recommending they administer morphine and complete the surgery.

Against pressure from the donation organization, the physicians canceled the operation. That move saved Danella Gallegos’ life. In time, she emerged from her coma and ultimately made a full recovery.

Speaking after the ordeal, Gallegos admitted she felt fear while in the coma but has only patchy memories of the experience. “I feel so fortunate,” she said. “But it’s also crazy to think how close things came to ending differently.”

In response to growing scrutiny, New Mexico Donor Services denied any wrongdoing. The organization claimed it does not interfere in clinical decision-making and emphasized that only hospitals are responsible for patient care.

Presbyterian Hospital, however, painted a different picture. They asserted that New Mexico Donor Services oversees “all aspects” of the donation process. The hospital has since launched an investigation into Gallegos’s case.

Neva Williams, a veteran intensive care nurse at the hospital, offered a chilling summary to The New York Times: “All they care about is getting organs. They’re so aggressive. It’s sickening.”

This back-and-forth has laid bare the uncomfortable tension between medical ethics and the demand for transplantable organs. Here’s where it gets complicated, more than 103,000 people in the U.S. are currently on organ transplant waiting lists. Every day, approximately 13 people die waiting.

Organ procurement organizations exist to speed up the donation process and match recipients with available organs. Each donor can potentially save up to eight lives and improve 75 more through tissue and corneal donations.

Because viable organs have a very short shelf life after death, timing is everything. That urgency can create pressure — sometimes overwhelming — on hospitals and families.

The most ethically thorny donations happen under the classification of donation after circulatory death (DCD). Unlike brain death, where all brain activity has irreversibly ceased, patients in a DCD state may still have limited brain function and are typically removed from life support before organ removal begins. Doctors must wait until the heart has stopped beating for at least five minutes before they can begin the transplant process — otherwise, the organ is no longer viable.

In 2024, these DCD cases made up about one-third of all organ donations, according to government data.

What Are The Organ Donation Ethics Globally?

The United Kingdom uses an opt-out system for organ donation — meaning adults are presumed to be donors unless they explicitly say otherwise. Still, the legal framework places strong emphasis on confirming death through strict medical criteria before any organs are taken. Two main types of death are recognized:

• Circulatory death, where the heart stops beating for five continuous minutes.
• Brain stem death, which ensures the individual will never regain consciousness or breathe independently.

Importantly, in the UK, donation coordinators are strictly barred from intervening in any decisions related to life support withdrawal or patient care.

Danella Gallegos’ case has reignited an uncomfortable but necessary conversation: How much pressure is too much? When is a patient truly beyond recovery and who gets to decide? It also casts a spotlight on the increasing corporatization of organ donation, where nonprofits are under growing pressure to deliver results — often quantified in organ procurement rates — not human stories.

As the U.S. continues to rely heavily on OPOs to bridge the gap between donors and recipients, oversight and ethical accountability remain patchy at best.

While most organ donation cases proceed ethically and save countless lives, the outliers like Gallegos remind us that getting it wrong isn’t just a procedural misstep. It’s a near-death experience. For now, Gallegos is alive and healing but her experience stands as a stark reminder of what’s at stake when assumptions are made about comatose patients and when time-sensitive procedures begin to edge into dangerous ethical territory.

As hospitals and OPOs continue to work in high-pressure environments, there’s a pressing need for standardized safeguards, better oversight, and a renewed focus on what should always be the top priority, the living patient’s right to be heard, even in silence.

The spread of COVID-19 is picking up speed this summer in the US. The key indicator of the virus shows that it's becoming more active, according to the latest data released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

How Are The Levels Of COVID Being Measure?

The CDC has a great way of tracking viruses: by checking our wastewater. This is a very helpful tool because it can find signs of the virus spreading in a community even before people start feeling sick and go to the doctor. In a recent update, the CDC reported that the amount of COVID-19 found in wastewater across the country has gone up from a "low" level to a "moderate" level.

This is a clear sign that the virus is becoming more common. The data also shows that the highest levels of the virus are currently in the Western part of the country. States like Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah are seeing the most activity. If you live in one of these areas, it's a good idea to be a little more careful, as the risk of getting infected is higher.

Other data also confirms the increase in cases. As of Tuesday, the CDC estimates that infections are growing or likely growing in 45 states, a jump from 40 states the previous week.

This late-summer rise is being driven in part by a new variant, XFG, or "Stratus," which is now the third-most common strain in the U.S. The variant was first found in Southeast Asia in January but didn't become a major presence in the U.S. until May. By late June, it was estimated to account for up to 14% of cases.

What Is The Current Strain Of COVID Affecting The US?

The World Health Organization explains that a new COVID-19 variant, called XFG, is now being watched closely by health experts around the world. Gavi vaccine alliance explains that Two new variants are now getting attention from scientists: NB.1.8.1, nicknamed "Nimbus," and XFG, nicknamed "Stratus."

Both variants are spreading very quickly. Since early 2025, they have spread across the globe. For example, XFG accounted for 25% of cases in Europe by late May, while NB.1.8.1 was at 11% in late April.

However, despite their rapid spread, experts say there's no evidence that these variants cause more severe illness, hospitalizations, or deaths than other versions of the virus.

XFG ("Stratus") is good at evading our immune system. It has specific mutations that help it dodge antibodies, making it harder for our bodies to fight off. However, it doesn't seem to be as good as NB.1.8.1 at infecting cells.

Is Stratus COVID Strain Dangerous?

WHO explains that the number of XFG cases is rising around the world. It’s now found in 38 countries and is growing quickly, especially in parts of Asia, the Americas, and Europe. In some countries, like India, XFG has become the main variant.

Despite this increase, experts believe the global risk of XFG is low. Early data suggests that this variant doesn’t cause more severe illness or lead to more deaths than other variants currently spreading.

Do Vaccines Work for Stratus COVID Strain?

Experts believe that the current COVID-19 vaccines will still be effective against XFG. They are expected to protect people from getting seriously sick or needing to go to the hospital.

While some countries in Southeast Asia have seen more cases and hospitalizations at the same time as XFG became more common, it's not clear if the variant itself is causing this. It's too early to say for sure how big this new wave of cases will get.

What Are The Key Symptoms of Stratus?

Doctors have reported that a standout symptom some patients with XFG have experienced a "hoarseness" feeling of scratchiness in their throat. Other symptoms include common issues like fever, chills, dry cough, fatigue, muscle ache, nasal congestion, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea.

Although XFG is spreading quickly, it doesn't appear to be more dangerous. The WHO continues to monitor them closely to see if that changes.

DFA Dairy Brands, LLC has recalled 324 cartons of Friendly’s 48 fl. oz. Cookies & Cream ice cream after they were incorrectly packaged in Vanilla Bean cartons that did not list soy and wheat as ingredients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that people with allergies to soy or wheat risk serious or potentially life-threatening reactions if they consume the product.

The recalled products, stamped with a best-by date of November 26, 2025, made their way to stores in Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

This Is Not Just a Label Problem

Wheat Allergy

Wheat can hide in places you would not expect, from soy sauce and hot dogs to ice cream. It is also possible for some people to only react if they exercise within a few hours of eating wheat, a rare but dangerous condition known as wheat-dependent, exercise-induced anaphylaxis.

If you are allergic, your best defence is total avoidance, which sounds simple until you discover wheat proteins lurking in crackers, couscous, natural flavourings, and even certain cosmetics.

Soy Allergy

Reactions can be fast (IgE-mediated) or delayed (non-IgE-mediated). Quick reactions can trigger symptoms like hives, tightness in the throat, coughing, nausea, or anaphylaxis—a rapid, potentially fatal drop in blood pressure and breathing capacity. Slower reactions might mean stomach cramps, indigestion, or skin irritation over hours or days.

And soy is everywhere: tofu, soy sauce, vegetable broth, miso, protein powders, nut butters, and yes, even some ice creams. Avoiding it takes a sharp eye on labels, which is why a misprint like this is more than a minor oversight.

Anaphylaxis in the Middle of Dessert

Why This Recall Matters

For manufacturers, this case is a stark reminder that packaging checks must be airtight. For consumers, it is proof that allergen vigilance is not optional. Double-checking labels, even on trusted brands, can make the difference between a safe snack and a health crisis.

If You Bought the Affected Ice Cream

Of course, we all love a cup of creamy, rich coffee made with that full-fat milk, but a sweeping Norwegian study, following nearly 74,000 people for over three decades, has revealed something coffee lovers would not be quite happy about. The 33-year study says that when it comes to heart health and long-term survival, low-fat milk seems to edge out its creamier version.

How the Study Came About

Back in the 1970s, Norway was a nation of whole milk drinkers. If you wanted low-fat milk, good luck; it was not yet the trend. Fast-forward to the 1980s, and the shelves began to change. Low-fat milk started making its way into fridges across the country, creating a natural split in drinking habits.

This shift turned out to be the perfect accidental experiment. Health experts collected cardiovascular screening data between 1974 and 1988 from 73,860 adults, with an average age of 41. Then, they tracked these individuals for a whopping 33 years, noting who drank what and how it correlated with long-term health outcomes.

Over the course of the study, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, there were 26,393 recorded deaths, including 8,590 from cardiovascular disease. That may sound grim, but these numbers offered an invaluable treasure trove of insight into how milk type might influence longevity.

What They Found

When the data was churned, the pattern was hard to ignore. Those who drank full-fat milk regularly had a higher risk of dying from all causes, particularly heart-related issues, compared to those who drank low-fat milk.

Specifically:

Low-fat milk drinkers had an 11 per cent lower risk of death from any cause compared to full-fat milk drinkers.

They also had a 7 per cent lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.

And when milk quantity was factored in, the numbers got even more telling. People who drank the most milk overall, particularly full-fat, had a 22 per cent higher risk of death from any cause and a 12 per cent higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease compared to those who drank the least.

In short, the richer the milk, the less forgiving the statistics.

Why Full-Fat Milk Might Be Riskier

The study’s conclusions align perfectly with NHS guidelines, which encourage limiting saturated fat from dairy and other sources. The logic is simple: less saturated fat in your diet, less pressure on your heart.

It is Not All About the Milk

However, even after adjusting for such factors, the milk-fat connection remained. This means that while lifestyle habits do matter, the fat content of your milk still independently influenced health outcomes.

Lessons From Norway’s 33-Year Dairy Diary

• Switching from full-fat to low-fat milk can modestly improve your chances of living longer.
• The benefit applies not only to your overall lifespan but also specifically to reducing the odds of dying from heart disease.
• While lifestyle factors like smoking can skew results, the link between saturated fat in milk and heart risk holds firm even after accounting for them.

The Burning Question: Should You Completely Stop Consuming the Full-Fat Milk?

If you are healthy and active and drink full-fat milk occasionally, the occasional indulgence would not single-handedly be problematic for your heart. But if it is a daily staple, the data suggests it is worth making the switch or at least alternating with low-fat options.

Note that it was not a quick lab experiment or a small-scale survey. The study was an over-three-decade-long national health record, meticulously followed, revealing that when it comes to milk and heart health, the lighter choice has the upper hand.

Now every time you choose low-fat milk over full-fat, you are quietly voting in favour of your heart and your future. And unlike fad diets or fitness crazes, this is not advice that will likely change with next year’s headlines, it is backed by decades of real-world evidence.