Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian says the United States is involved in the expansion of the scope of the Israeli war on Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip to other fronts across the West Asia region.
Amir-Abdollahian stressed that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to widen the Gaza war and involve the United States in a way that goes beyond the all-out support Washington and some of its allies have already provided for Tel Aviv.
“The Americans do not yet have the necessary will to stop the war, but at the same time, they are sending messages expressing their unwillingness to expand its scope because they are well aware of the danger of expanding its scope,” the top Iranian diplomat said.
“On the other hand, they are expanding the scope of the war through their joint aggression with the UK against Yemen.Today in Europe, everyone talks about the necessity of stopping the war, but Britain is playing a double game.”
He made the statement in an interview with Lebanon’s Arabic-language al-Mayadeen television news network in the Swiss city of Geneva on Tuesday,
Amir-Abdollahian added that Washington’s talk of reducing the intensity of the Gaza war, rather than stopping it, is a “mistake and malicious behavior that means giving the green light to Netanyahu” to press ahead with its months-long brutal aggression.
“I told the British foreign minister that the joint British-American aggression against Yemen is a strategic mistake that you are committing,” he said. Yemen has “proven that they do not trifle with any party regarding the security of their lands. They have been able to convey this message and clearly warned that ships carrying military cargo to Israel will be stopped.”
US hypocrisy on Gaza
The Iranian foreign minister also pointed to the US administration’s unswerving support to Israel in its brutal war on the besieged Palestinian territory and its continued supply of weapons and logistics to the occupying regime.
“Our information has it that the process of sending weapons from all American bases in the region and its warships to Tel Aviv is continuing,” he said, adding, “Islamic countries should not be turned into a place to supply weapons to the Israeli entity.”
Denouncing the US hypocrisy in dealing with the Gaza war, Amir-Abdollahian said, “Everyone agrees that if the United States abandons its military support for the occupying entity, Netanyahu will not be able to continue the war against Gaza for even an hour.”
The top Iranian diplomat also stressed that Israel did not achieve any of its declared goals in the war on Gaza, including the elimination of the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas, the group’s disarmament and the arrest of its Gaza-based leader Yahya Sinwar.
“The Lebanese and Palestinian resistance movements are at their best despite all the challenges and difficulties, and that they have the material and human resources and capabilities necessary to continue to withstand a longer war than what we have seen so far,” Amir-Abdollahian said.
Praising the morale and steadfastness of the residents of Gaza and the occupied West Bank, he underlined that the Israeli plans in Rafah “will not translate into reality and the occupation will not be able to forcibly displace people to the Egyptian Sinai.”
UN performance ‘unacceptable’
Elsewhere in his interview, the Iranian foreign minister censured as “unacceptable” the United Nations’ performance regarding the situation on the ground in Gaza and the occupied West Bank, saying the UN Security Council has not fulfilled its duty in light of the United States’ use of its veto.
“The Security Council did not fulfill its duty as the US continuously and unilaterally exploited its veto power. Every prospect and proposal of a Gaza ceasefire has been rejected by the American veto, exhibiting a contradictory behavior to the banners of primary human rights. Even at the UN Human Rights Council, we still have not seen any adequate mobilization in this regard,” he said.
“Does the UNHRC not want to create a special committee that relays the facts and investigations into war crimes, genocide, and human rights violations being committed in Gaza? So far, we have not witnessed a singular decisive measure taken by any of the organizations that fall under the UN.”
Amir-Abdollahian said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had so far taken some good measures but had not been able to help the people of Gaza “in an effective and real way” through the existing mechanisms of the United Nations.
“In the Human Rights Council, we clearly see that everything is subject to the control of politicians and false human rights advocates,” he said.
Israel launched the campaign of death and destruction on October 7, after Hamas-led Palestinian resistance groups conducted the surprise Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against the occupying entity in response to the regime’s decades-long atrocities.
Israel has killed nearly 30,000 people and injured more than 70,000 others in Gaza since that October day.
The Gaza war’s expansion into the Red Sea has created an international maritime crisis involving a host of countries. Despite a US-led bombing campaign aimed at deterring Yemen’s Ansarallah-aligned navy from carrying out missile and drone strikes in the Red Sea, the armed forces continue to ramp up attacks and now are using “submarine weapons.”
As these clashes escalate dangerously, one of the world’s busiest bodies of water is rapidly militarizing. This includes the recent arrival to the Gulf of Aden of a Chinese fleet, including the guided-missile destroyer Jiaozuo, the missile frigate Xuchang, a replenishment vessel, and more than 700 troops – including dozens of special forces personnel – as part of a counter-piracy mission.
Beijing has voiced its determination to help restore stability to the Red Sea. “We should jointly uphold the security on the sea lanes of the Red Sea in accordance with the law and also respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the countries along the Red Sea coast, including Yemen,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasized last month.
As the largest trading nation in the world, China depends on the Red Sea as its “maritime lifeline.” Most of the Asian giant’s exports to Europe go through the strategic waterway, and large quantities of oil and minerals that come to Chinese ports transit the body of water.
The Chinese have also invested in industrial parks along Egypt and Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea coasts, including the TEDA–Suez Zone in Ain Sokhna and the Chinese Industrial Park in Saudi Arabia’s Jizan City for Primary and Downstream Industries.
Chinese neutrality in West Asia
Prior to the sending of the 46th fleet of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy, Beijing’s response to Ansarallah’s maritime attacks had been relatively muted. China has since condemned the US–UK airstrikes against Ansarallah’s military capabilities in Yemen, and refused to join the western-led naval coalition, Operation Prosperity Guardian (OPG).
China’s response to mounting tension and insecurity in the Red Sea is consistent with Beijing’s grander set of foreign policy strategies, which include respect for the sovereignty of nation-states and a doctrine of “non-interference.”
In the Persian Gulf, China has pursued a balanced and geopolitically neutral agenda resting on a three-pronged approach: enemies of no one, allies of no one, and friends of everyone.
China’s position vis-à-vis all Persian Gulf countries was best exemplified almost a year ago when Beijing brokered a surprise reconciliation agreement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, in which it played the role of guarantor.
In Yemen, although China aligns with the international community’s non-recognition of the Ansarallah-led government in Sanaa, Beijing has nonetheless initiated dialogues with those officials and maintained a non-hostile stance – unlike many Arab and western states.
Understanding Beijing’s regional role
Overall, China tries to leverage its influence in West Asian countries to mitigate regional tensions and advance stabilizing initiatives. Its main goal is ultimately to ensure the long-term success of President Xi Jinping’s multi-trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and keep trade routes free of conflict.
Often labeled by the west as a “free rider,” China is accused of opportunistically benefiting from US- and European-led security efforts in the Persian Gulf and the northwestern Indian Ocean without contributing to them.
Beijing’s motivations for staying out of OPG were easy to understand: first, China has no interest in bolstering US hegemony; second, joining the naval military coalition could upset its multi-vector diplomacy vis-à-vis Ansarallah and Iran; and third, the wider Arab–Islamic world and the rest of the Global South would interpret it as Chinese support for Israel’s war on Gaza.
Rejecting the OPG mission has instead bolstered China’s regional image as a defender of the Palestinian cause.
Speaking to The Cradle, Javad Heiran-Nia, director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Iran, said:
[Beijing’s] cooperation with the West in securing the Red Sea will not be good for China’s relations with the Arabs and Iran. Therefore, China has adopted political and military restraint to avoid jeopardizing its economic and diplomatic interests in the region.
Dropping the blame on Washington’s doorstep
Beijing recognizes the Red Sea security crisis to be a direct “spillover” from Gaza, where China has called for an immediate ceasefire.
As Yun Sun, co-director of the China Program at the Washington-based Stimson Center, informed The Cradle :
The Chinese do see the crisis in the Red Sea as a challenge to regional peace and stability but see the Gaza crisis as the fundamental origin of the crisis. Therefore, the solution to the crisis in the Chinese view will have to be based on ceasefire, easing of the tension and returning to the two-state solution.
Jean-Loup Samaan, a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute, agrees, telling The Cradle:
Chinese diplomats have been carefully commenting on the events, but in Beijing’s narrative, the rise of attacks is a consequence of Israel’s war in Gaza – and perhaps more importantly the US policy in support [of] the Netanyahu government.
But in January, after the US and UK began their bombing campaign of Ansarallah targets in Yemen, China began to weigh in with serious concerns about the Red Sea crisis. Beijing noted that neither Washington nor London had received authorization for the use of force from the UN Security Council, and, therefore, as Sun explained it, the US–UK strikes “lack legitimacy in the Chinese view.”
How the Red Sea Crisis benefits Beijing
China has capitalized on intensifying anger directed against the US from all over the Islamic world and Global South. The Gaza war and its spread into the Red Sea have delivered Beijing some easy soft-power gains and reinforced to Arab audiences the vital importance of multipolarity. This point was drummed home by Victor Gao, vice president of the Center for China and Globalization, when he told the 2023 Doha Forum:
The fact that there is only one single country which [on 8 December, 2023] vetoed the United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine War should convince all of us that we should be very lucky living not in the unipolar World.
Certainly, China has experienced some economic repercussions from the Red Sea crisis, although the extent of this is difficult to calculate. Yet Beijing’s political gains appear to trump any associated financial losses. As Sun explained to The Cradle, “The crisis does affect China, but the loss has been mostly economic and minor, while the gains are primarily political as China stands with the Arab countries on Gaza.”
In some ways, China has actually gained economically from the Red Sea crisis. With Ansarallah making a point of only targeting Israel-linked vessels, there is a widespread view that Chinese ships operating in the area are immune from Yemeni attacks.
After many international container shipping lines decided to reroute around South Africa to avoid Ansarallah’s missiles and drones, two ships operating under the Chinese flag – the Zhong Gu Ji Lin and Zhong Gu Shan Dong – continued transiting the Red Sea.
Chinese-owned merchant ships are getting hefty discounts on their insurance when sailing through the Red Sea, another sign of how Houthi attacks in the area are punishing the commercial interests of vessels with ties to the West.
US officials have since implored Beijing to pressure Iran into ordering the de-facto Yemeni government to halt maritime attacks. Those entreaties have failed, however, largely because Washington incorrectly assumes that Beijing holds influence over Tehran and that Iran can make demands of Ansarallah. Regardless, the fact that the US would turn to China for such help amid escalating tensions in the Red Sea is a boost to Beijing’s status as a go-to power amid global security crises.
China also has much to gain from the White House’s disproportionate focus on Gaza and the Red Sea. Since October–November 2023, the US has had significantly less bandwidth for its South China Sea and Taiwan files. In turn, this frees Beijing to act more confidently in West Asia while the US remains distracted. According to Heiran-Nia:
The developments in the Red Sea will keep America’s focus on the region and not open America’s hand to expand its presence in the Indo–Pacific region, [where] America’s main priority is to contain China. The war in Ukraine has the same advantage for China. While the connectivity of the Euro–Atlantic region with the Indo–Pacific region is expanding to contain China and increase NATO cooperation with the Indo–Pacific, the tensions in [West Asia] and Ukraine will be a boon for China.
Ultimately, the Red Sea crisis and Washington’s failure to deter Ansarallah signal yet another blow to US hegemony. From the Chinese perspective, the growing Red Sea conflict serves to further isolate the US and highlight its limitations as a security guarantor – particularly in light of its unconditional support for Israel’s brutal military assault on Gaza.
It is reasonable to call China a winner in the Red Sea crisis.
The German frigate Hessen, which was deployed to the Red Sea as part of an EU mission, mistakenly fired on an American drone earlier this week, the German Defense Ministry said on Wednesday.
Berlin had previously disclosed the Hessen’s first successful engagement, in which the vessel shot down two Houthi drones within 15 minutes of one another on Tuesday.
On Monday evening, however, the frigate used two SM-2 missiles to target an unidentified drone, but both failed to hit the target, according to German Defense Ministry spokesman Michael Stempfle.
“The case was resolved in the sense that it was not a hostile drone, which only became clear afterwards,” Stempfle said.
Defense Minister Boris Pistorius confirmed Stempfle’s statement while visiting a military base in Bavaria on Wednesday evening, telling reporters that there had been an incident “in which shots were fired, but no one was hit.”
According to the German military blog Augen geradeaus, the US-made missiles failed for “technical reasons,” which prompted the Hessen to use its 76mm main gun to engage the Houthi drones on Tuesday. The German warship then used short-range RAM missiles to shoot down another Houthi drone on Wednesday morning.
The Hessen had tried to identify the drone by reaching out to other friendly ships in the Red Sea, but no country claimed the UAV. It later turned out to be an “unreported” American MQ-9 Reaper, flying with its transponder turned off. Washington had not notified the allied warships of its mission.
The US and several of its allies have sent ships to the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden in an effort to stop the Houthis – the most powerful faction in Yemen – from attackin Israeli-linked shipping along the major global trade route. Houthi attacks on merchant vessels began in late October and the group said they would continue so long as Israel continued attacking the Palestinians in Gaza.
The Hessen is part of the EU’s mission in the Red Sea called “Aspides” (Greek for “shield”), which is intended to involve at least four frigates. It is separate from the US-led “Operation Prosperity Guardian,” also intended to protect merchant ships.
The Houthis initially targeted only “Israeli-linked” vessels, but expanded their interdiction to cargo ships linked to the US and the UK, after ships and planes of the two countries began bombing Yemen in January. Most major global shippers have re-routed their vessels around Africa, as insurance premiums soared due to the increased risk.
A bipartisan group of US senators has slammed President Joe Biden’s handling of the Yemeni army’s attacks against Israeli-linked vessels, as well as American and British ships in the Red Sea.
The senators on Tuesday contended Biden should seek congressional authorization for ongoing military action against the Yemen-based movement.
The United States has been carrying out near-daily strikes against the Houthi Ansarullah movement, who have said their attacks on shipping are in solidarity with Palestinians.
The Houthi Ansarullah movement said Yemen’s attacks against shipping in the Red Sea will only stop after the Israeli regime ends its aggression and blockade on the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
The American strikes have so far failed to halt the Yemeni attacks, which have upset global trade and raised shipping rates.
Democratic Senator Tim Kaine said during a congressional hearing with Pentagon and State Department officials that he had serious concerns about the legal authority the Biden administration was relying on for the strikes but also what impact they were having.
“Trying to re-establish deterrence, I don’t think you’re going to do it if the 200 strikes become 400 strikes, 800 strikes, 1,200 strikes,” Kaine said.
“I think you will re-establish deterrence when we get a hostage deal that leads us to a truce, that leads us to humanitarian aid into Gaza, that leads us to the ability to discuss, whatever that truce period is, can be extended,” he added.
The Pentagon said on Tuesday that its strikes have so far destroyed or degraded 150 missiles and launchers along with radars, weapons storage areas and drones.
Yemen’s Red Sea operations would end in case a ceasefire is reached between the Israeli regime and the Gaza-based Hamas resistance movement, said Mohammed Abdul-Salam, who is also the chief negotiator of the Ansarullah movement.
He added that the situation would be reassessed if Israel ended its siege on Gaza and allowed humanitarian aid to enter the Palestinian territory.
Yemenis have declared their open support for Palestine’s struggle against the Israeli occupation since the regime launched a devastating war on Gaza on October 7 after resistance movements in the territory carried out the surprise Operation Al-Aqsa Storm on Israeli settlers and military forces in occupied Palestine.
The Yemeni Armed Forces have said they will not stop retaliatory strikes until unrelenting Israeli ground and aerial offensives in Gaza, which have killed nearly 30,000 people and wounded around 70,000, come to a complete end.
The maritime attacks have forced some of the biggest shipping and oil companies to suspend transit through one of the world’s most important maritime trade routes.
“The Constitution requires Congress to authorize acts of war. … We swore an oath to follow the Constitution. If we believe this is a just military action and I do, then we should authorize it,” Senator Chris Murphy, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Middle East subcommittee.
Murphy, a Democrat, said he would be in talks with his colleagues to introduce such an authorization.
Senator Todd Young, the subcommittee’s senior Republican, also questioned the Biden administration’s strategy.
“It’s imperative that the administration respond to these actions while demonstrating it is both a strategy for deterring aggression and appropriate legal doctrine,” said Young. “To date, I have not seen such a strategy put forward.”
The US Constitution gives Congress the right to authorize war, but US law gives the White House the authority to launch limited foreign military action.
The United States and the United Kingdom have been carrying out strikes against Yemen since early January after Washington and its allies offered Israel their full support amid attacks by Yemeni forces on Israeli-linked ships sailing to and from the occupied territories through the Red Sea.
Separately on Tuesday, the US military’s Central Command (CENTCOM) said in a statement that US “preemptive” strikes on Yemen on Monday had destroyed two anti-ship cruise missiles, three unmanned surface vessels and a drone in the Arab country.
It claimed that the destroyed missiles were being prepared to launch toward the Red Sea.
Two days earlier, the US and the UK said that they had targeted at least 18 military sites in eight locations across Yemen. The attacks included strikes against underground weapons and missile storage facilities, air defense systems, radars and a helicopter, they added.
Efforts of the US-led coalition to thwart Houthi attacks on Israeli-linked shipping in the Gulf of Aden have been recently backed by Germany which deployed one of its warships, frigate Hessen, to aid Washington’s effort.
The frigate’s deployment came as part of an “EU-wide operation that includes other countries as well,” said Nikolas Kosmatopoulos, assistant professor of public policy and international affairs at the American University of Beirut.
“I know that my country, Greece, also sent off frigates only a few days ago. So this is a major escalation. This is a very dangerous major escalation,” he told Sputnik. “[It is] A decision that’s made by the EU to interfere in the conflict that has been raging in the Sea of Aden and the coast of Yemen.”
According to Kosmatopoulos, this a “very worrisome development” as the European Union’s decision to join the US conflict with the Houthis leads to “extreme militarization of the waters” in the region, not to mention the EU becoming a “party to the regional war waging in Israel –Palestine.”
He also suggested that it is hard to tell whether the Hessen’s deployment came as a result of US pressure on Germany or as part of an EU effort to unblock the waterway in question.
On one hand, Kosmatopoulos noted, the US does seek to have other NATO members “share the burdens of the collective security under the NATO alliance,” including all of the associated costs and risks.
On the other hand, “the current European governance and current European leadership seems to be willingly going in this direction.”
“We saw it also in the case of the Ukraine-Russia conflict that it has been more or less unified front, consolidated front that makes it difficult to decide whether it’s just the US pressure or is also a collective decision of the West to close ranks and show strength in multiple fronts,” Kosmatopoulos said.
Regarding the reason why the US seeks to drag more of its NATO allies into the confrontation with the Houthis, the scholar postulated that Washington “wants to share the responsibility, wants to make others partake in this, wants them to dirty their hands and to show what they got,” just like they did by compelling European nations to back Kiev.
The ensuing escalation in the Middle East, he reasoned, “allows the US and its allies to ask for more and more intensive engagement that might also mean active military action against the Ansar Allah and Houthis in Yemen” as the West seeks to “reestablish its hegemony.”
“Perhaps the Ukraine fiasco made it necessary to have victory somewhere else,” Kosmatopoulos. “I hope that this is not understood as a zero-sum game in the Western elites. But it might look like that from the outset. So in that case, we’re in for a regional flare-up, if not – bigger than that. And this is an extremely worrisome development.”
Predominantly Russian-speaking Transnistria, 60 percent of whose ethnic population are Russians and Ukrainians, declared its independence from Moldova during the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Transnistrian lawmakers have asked Russia for assistance over mounting economic pressure from Moldova.
The legislators put forward a request to both the Federation Council and State Duma of Russia, urging them to implement measures to safeguard Transnistria, especially in light of Moldova’s growing pressure. This request is backed up by the fact that over 220,000 Russian citizens reside in Transnistria.
The bill’s authors pointed to the unique and positive experience of Russia’s peacekeeping work in the region and highlighted that Moscow has served as a mediator in negotiations.
“The critical situation requires urgent and maximum active international intervention in order to prevent an escalation of tensions and not allow the situation to develop into a crisis,” the document says.
As of January 1, 2024, Moldova launched a compulsory customs duty on goods imported to Transnistria. In reality, this amounts to multimillion-dollar losses for export-import companies operating in Transnistria, since they are required to pay a double tax: one to Transnistria and the other to the Moldovan budget.
French President Emmanuel Macron wants to send NATO ground troops into Ukraine to defeat Russia.
Only a delusional fool could make such a crass proposal which goes to show that Macron is brain-dead. NATO troops deployed to fight Russian forces would mean an all-out war, which most likely would spiral into a nuclear conflagration.
Ironically, the French leader made headlines a while back when he labeled the US-led NATO alliance as being “brain-dead”. He’s now competing for the same epithet.
When Macron made those harsh remarks about NATO in an interview with the Economist in November 2019, some observers thought that he was being intelligently critical of the transatlantic military organization and how it was no longer fit for purpose in the modern age.
But, no, Macron wasn’t offering constructive criticism of NATO or American leadership. He was simply being a conceited charlatan, trying to promote himself as the “strong leader” of Europe and peddling his hobby horse of building up a European army by appearing to bad mouth NATO.
This week, the former Rothschild banker was at it again, indulging in his grandiose fantasies of leading the rest of Europe.
Macron hosted 25 European heads of state or government at the Conference in Support of Ukraine. In the grandeur of the Elysee Palace, he warned that Russia “must not win the war in Ukraine” otherwise, he claimed, the whole of Europe would succumb to Russian aggression.
This is reckless and dangerous fantasy by the French president indulging in the most unhinged Russophobia. Moscow has categorically stated that it has no interest in anything beyond denazifying the NATO-sponsored regime in Kiev and protecting its national security.
To offset such a purported nightmarish outcome of Russian tanks rolling over Europe, Macron told European leaders that they should not rule out deploying NATO ground troops to assist the Kiev regime.
“Nothing should be excluded. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war,” the French president said in front of approving European leaders.
Among the conference attendees were German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and British Foreign Minister David Cameron. Germany and France earlier this month signed bilateral security pacts with Ukraine, which could be invoked for sending military forces officially to prosecute the U.S.-led proxy war against Russia.
NATO officers in the guise of private mercenaries are already heavily participating in the Ukraine conflict against Russia. Last month, more than 60 French servicemen were killed in a Russian missile strike near the Ukrainian city of Kharkov.
French media reported of the event in Paris this week: “The conference [in Paris] signaled Macron’s eagerness to present himself as a European champion of Ukraine’s cause, amid growing fears that American support could wane in the coming months.”
As well as calling for the deployment of NATO troops, Macron also pledged to send more long-range missiles to the Kiev regime for “deep strikes” in Russia.
French cruise missiles have already been used to strike the Russian territory of Crimea. Now the French leader wants a NeoNazi regime to have the capability to hit deep into Russia. How much longer can Moscow tolerate this outrageous provocation without reciprocal strikes?
No doubt the French president sees an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. Macron is obsessed with notions of his self-importance and restoring France’s international image to some imaginary glorious past.
With the Americans squabbling in Congress about whether to send Ukraine another $60 billion in military aid and with the possible election of NATO-skeptic Donald Trump to the White House later this year, Macron sees an opening to show Western leadership by stepping up Europe’s support for Ukraine.
Macron’s egotism and delusions of grandeur are liable to start World War Three.
He is doing all this by telling blatant lies about the conflict in Ukraine.
Macron is indulging the Kiev puppet president Vladimir Zelensky in pretending that Ukraine has a chance of defeating Russia. Zelensky also addressed the conference in Paris via video link and made his tiresome appeal for more weapons. He asserted with barefaced lies that Ukrainian military deaths amounted to 31,000 troops since the conflict erupted two years ago. The most realistic figure is that over 400,000 and perhaps as many as 500,000 Ukrainian military have been killed by far superior Russian forces.
That’s the implicit admission made by Macron. Why would NATO troops be required in Ukraine if it was not for replacing Ukrainian ranks that have been devastated?
Macron justifies his lies by compounding the more outrageous lie that Russia is intent on invading other European nations once it defeats the Ukrainian army.
This bogeyman version of geopolitics ignores the reality that the United States and NATO fomented a proxy war against Russia using a NeoNazi regime.
Macron wants to start World War Three based on sheer lies and vanity. He’s not only brain-dead. He’s soul-dead too.
French President Macron hosted over 20 fellow European leaders in Paris on Monday to discuss their next moves in Ukraine, including the possibility of a conventional NATO intervention, which he said they hadn’t ruled out for reasons of “strategic ambiguity” despite not reaching a consensus on this. His Polish counterpart Duda also confirmed that this subject was the most heated part of their discussions. The very fact that this scenario is being officially considered shows how desperate NATO has become.
Russia’s victory in Avdeevka, which was the natural result of it winning the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with NATO, prompted policymakers to contemplate what they’ll do in the event that it achieves a breakthrough across the Line of Contact (LOC) and starts steamrolling through the rest of Ukraine. They hadn’t previously considered this to be a serious possibility until last summer’s failed counteroffensive exposed the weakness of their military-industrial complex and tactical-strategic planning.
It’s now a credible scenario that’s reviving speculation about a Polish-led intervention aimed at drawing a red line in the sand for halting any potential Russian breakthrough before it gets too far. This would preserve the G7’s “sphere of (economic) influence” in Ukraine while preventing that former Soviet Republic’s collapse and thus averting another Afghan-like foreign policy disaster for the West. The problem, however, is that Poland also doesn’t want to be put up to this only to be hung out to dry.
These concerns could explain why there wasn’t any consensus during Monday’s meeting on this issue since other members wisely won’t want to take the chance of catalyzing an apocalyptic scenario, ergo the reason why the West might be plotting a false flag in Poland to blame on Russia and Belarus. President Lukashenko warned about that in late February, and if it comes to pass, then it could serve as the trigger for pushing Poland into leading a Western intervention in Ukraine without full NATO backing.
Warsaw could be misled to believe without any written guarantees that it has the bloc’s support and Article 5 would be activated if its forces clash with Russia’s there, but only to be hung out to dry if that happens so as to stave off World War III by miscalculation for the greater good. Nevertheless, it would still serve the purpose of drawing a red line in the sand that could halt Russia’s advance since NATO might escalate via brinksmanship afterwards by promising to activate Article 5 if the clashes continue.
Poland would also be left to pick up the tab in that event by having to pay the financial and physical costs of this de facto NATO intervention, thus representing an amoral form of “burden-sharing” that would fall solely on its taxpayers instead of the rest of the bloc’s. The farmers’ protests that are rocking that country right now could lead to a full-blown rebellion if that happens since others could join in, however, which the ruling liberal-globalists would prefer not to unfold since they fear that they’d risk losing power.
That’s why they’re reluctant to lead a Western intervention in Ukraine since there’s a high chance that it’ll backfire on them in particular and Poland’s national interests in general despite being to the benefit of Western hegemony as a whole. Whatever ends up happening, the takeaway from Monday’s meeting in Paris and the details that were revealed about their discussions is that NATO is planning for a possible Russian breakthrough across the LOC later this year but isn’t yet sure how to react if that happens.
Poland could either be pushed to preempt that voluntarily or after being manipulated by the false flag that President Lukashenko warned last week is being plotted, with the second option also potentially being employed right after any breakthrough. If this occurs before NATO’s “Steadfast Defender 2024” drills wrap up in June, then those of the bloc’s forces that are presently training in Poland for its largest continental exercises since the Old Cold War could play a pivotal support role or possibly join in as well.
Should a breakthrough occur after those war games end as part of the Russian offensive that Zelensky claimed is being planned for as early as May, however, then Poland probably couldn’t count on as much NATO support and would likely be pressured to go it alone (at least at first) with only vague promises. Another possibility is that the exercises are extended, whether in whole or in part, including through the semi-permanent stationing of some other NATO forces like Germany’s there until the offensive ends.
That might give Poland enough reassurance to take a leap of faith in plunging head-first into Ukraine with the expectation that the rest of NATO will follow even if they purposely lag behind in order to avoid World War III with Russia by miscalculation as was previously explained. It remains to be seen what’ll happen, but as Macron himself said, “we will do everything needed so Russia cannot win the war” and this therefore means that NATO will certainly intervene to some extent if Russia breaks through the LOC.
The bloc can’t afford another Afghan-like disaster, let alone on European soil in the most geostrategicallysignificantconflict since World War II, which is why it won’t sit idly on the sidelines as Ukraine collapses if there’s a credible chance of that happening and Russia steamrolling through the ruins. The only reason why they’re now planning for this is because Russia’s victory in the “race of logistics”/“war of logistics” makes it conceivable sometime later this year, though it of course can’t be taken for granted either.
Government officials covered up the origins of COVID-19 and “forced” the vaccination of millions of people worldwide to “protect the integrity of the bioweapons industry,” according to a senior research scientist in epidemiology specializing in chronic diseases at the Yale University School of Public Health.
Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., who also is a professor emeritus at Yale, on Monday provided compelling testimony on what he believes accounts for the “crushingly obsessive push to COVID-vaccinate every living person on the planet.”
The roundtable, hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, focused on vaccine safety, corruption of public health agencies and world governments, and censorship by the media and Big Tech.
Evidence ‘overwhelmingly’ points to Wuhan lab as source of virus
Risch told the panel there is evidence the virus contains a unique genetic sequence “that also exists in Moderna patents from 2017,” while intelligence has “overwhelmingly” indicated the WIV as the source of the virus.
According to Risch, “This work and the WIV leak was what I consider to be the fruit of our bioweapons industry that has been performing secretive and nefarious biological weapons development for the last 70 years.”
Risch said that much of this research was banned in 1975, with the enactment of the United Nations Biological Weapons Convention, which prohibited the development of offensive bioweapons. However, a carve-out in the treaty allows “small quantities of offensive bioweapons … to be developed in order to do research on vaccine countermeasures.”
“This was the premise and motivation of the various virology grant applications like [Project] DEFUSE” that supported controversial gain-of-function research at labs such as WIV, funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Risch said.
This “loophole,” as Risch called it, created “a permitted rationale for the development of offensive bioweapons, in that it would lead to work on vaccine countermeasures.”
Risch questioned the value of such research in terms of fulfilling its stated purpose.
“Fast forward to 2019: Many billions of dollars spent on the bioweapons industry over the past decades for all of this work on offensive bioweapons. Where are the successful commercial vaccines to show for it?”
For Risch, the lack of any successful commercial vaccines to arise out of bioweapons research served as the impetus for the development of the COVID-19 vaccines, subsequent vaccine mandates and the “virus origin cover-up” that followed.
He said:
“The COVID vaccines themselves supplied the defense against the charge that the bioweapons industry was not actually dual use, but offensive only, violating the 1975 treaty. So, the vaccines had to be dramatically pushed out to be the universal solution to show that the bioweapons industry was actually working for the public good.
“Once the general public understood the reckless and cavalier behavior of this industry that had operated under a false and misrepresented pretense of vaccine development that has never been successfully commercially realized, it would then clamor to shut down the industry.”
This led to concerted efforts to suppress alternative treatments for COVID-19, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, according to Risch.
Risch said:
“During the time of the suppression of early treatment hydroxychloroquine and later ivermectin, I thought it was to protect the marketplace for the vaccines, other medications or the vaccines that would eventually come out.
“But now, given what I’ve said, I think the suppression was that if those medications solved the pandemic, then the vaccines wouldn’t have been needed and then the bioweapons treaty would come back in force and there would be no rationale that the vaccines were the end product of the offensive weapons research. So, they had to be suppressed for the same reason.”
This is the second in a series of articles covering Monday’s U.S. Senate roundtable discussion, “Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding?” hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). Read earlier coverage here.
“While the AMA is a strong advocate for the effectiveness and safety of vaccines, we recognize that some members of the public may have historical, cultural or religious reasons to distrust the vaccination process.”
When it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine, new research led by Dr. Mark Skidmore at Michigan State University indicates that vaccine safety and severe side effects occurring in close contacts (friends or family members) are the main drivers for opposition to vaccine mandates and passports.
Perceived Experience in Social Circles with COVID-19 Injections and COVID-19 “Vaccine” Mandates: An Online Survey of the United States Population. (2024).
“The survey was completed by 2,840 participants between December 18 and 23, 2021. Twenty-two percent (612 of 2,840) of respondents reported that they knew at least one person who had experienced a health problem following COVID-19 injection. Respondents who knew someone who experienced a health problem following COVID-19 injection were more likely to oppose injection mandates (OR: 2.040, 95% CI: 1.635-2.254, and passports (OR: 1.691, 95% CI: 1.361-2.101)) Perceptions of COVID-19 injection safety based on personal experiences appear to be an important determinant of opposition to injection mandates and passports.”
Considering the survey was done in 2021, one would infer that resistance is even greater in 2024 as more injuries, disabilities, and deaths have been reported as a result of the novel genetic products. When it comes to COVID-19 vaccination, hesitancy is a good thing demonstrating the population is concerned about consumer product safety of the mRNA and adenoviral DNA technology. The AMA’s views on the determinants of vaccine hesitancy do not apply and attempts to overcome vaccine hesitancy are likely to be harmful.
This is so critically valuable… I am a nursing professor, and a very petite woman. My GYN had me get a DEXA scan when I was in my 50s and it showed osteoporosis and osteopenia. I have a very active lifestyle and exercise as a part of my daily routine. I went to see an endocrinologist, hoping to find out preventative techniques, and he wanted to put me on meds right away… I fired him and amped up my exercise. Something in the depths of my soul said that was not the right thing to do. I am certain that for petite woman. I have very strong bones. I have even taken falls doing very athletic things, and I have not fractured any bones… Thank God. – @littlebitmckee8234
Another chamber of Big Medicine. Another Industrial “Matrix” of untruths woven together to create another mega class of medical “solutions”.
This no longer comes as a surprise.
This one is a beauty.
My wife sent me this article and video, and they are the primary sources of information for this article, plus a Mercola article that you will find within the Q&A.
I haven’t come across Dr Peter Osborne before. This short video is great!
Finally!! My PhD is in bone biology. Way back in 1999, I was at a huge medical conference. Abbott was pushing their first generation osteoporosis drug (BiP). I told the rep that they’ll start to see very specific hip fractures. He laughed at me. But these drugs basically kill osteoclasts. Well, that gives you a disease called osteopetrosis (you’re not rebuilding bone because you’re no longer resorbing it to create new bone). You’re literally exchanging a natural phenomenon with a disease by taking BiP’s. – @user-qd7rq2yj9c
This story has all the usual tactics, strategies and suspects that we have come to expect.
We have the WHO and Industry engaged in Disease Branding and Creating Markets.
We have False Baselines against which any variance from natural aging is labelled a Disease.
We have the changing of definitions that expand the “size of the market”.
We have the Test, that diagnoses the “disease”.
And then we have the Solution, and as almost always, it’s a “lifetime solution”.
I know that you know that these people are evil, but you have to give it to them, they are also very good at what they do.
The “diagnosis” happens in an asymptomatic person.
What did we learn from the Covid story? Asymptomatic is just a euphemism for Healthy.
That’s what they are doing here, not only have they medicalized aging, but they have “diseased” a healthy person.
Once the diagnosis is given, that generates the fear, which is the objective.
Fear of what? Well, it’s the fear of “fracture”.
That fear is now ready for the Solution.
But it turns out that the solution makes the bones more brittle and more likely to fracture.
But again, as we learned from Covid, if you end up with a fracture after using their solution, that simply confirms that the original diagnosis was correct!
And you can then find comfort in the knowledge that your doctor was right all along and it “could have been so much worse”.
It is a magnificent formula and completely effective.
Now let’s get look at the details by first looking at the large Untruths in this space and from there we will look at 30 Q&As that gradually educate us on the subject with a range of other material sprinkled in.
Untruths
Here are the main misconceptions or “untruths” related to the subject of bone health, osteoporosis, and the medicalization of aging:
Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Are Primarily Age-related Diseases: The redefinition of osteoporosis and osteopenia by the WHO based on bone mineral density (BMD) scans led to the perception that these conditions are abnormal and primarily diseases of aging. This overlooks the fact that a decrease in bone density is a natural part of the aging process and doesn’t always indicate disease or a significant risk of fracture.
High Bone Density Equates to Healthy Bones: There’s a common misconception that higher bone density is always indicative of healthier, stronger bones. However, bone health is determined by both density and quality, including the microarchitecture of bone and its turnover rate. High bone density might not reflect the actual strength or health of the bone and, in some cases, could be associated with an increased risk of conditions like breast cancer.
Bone Mineral Density Scans Are the Sole Indicator of Bone Health: BMD scans, particularly through technologies like DEXA, are often seen as the definitive test for diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing fracture risk. These scans primarily measure bone quantity and do not provide direct insights into bone quality or the structural integrity of bone, which are also critical to bone health and resilience.
Bisphosphonates Are a One-size-fits-all Solution: Bisphosphonates, a common class of medications prescribed for osteoporosis, are sometimes perceived as a suitable treatment for anyone with low bone density. However, their long-term use is associated with significant side effects, including atypical femur fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw.
Physical Activity Is Only Beneficial for Bone Health in Youth: There’s a misconception that only the physical activity undertaken in youth contributes significantly to peak bone mass and that exercise in later life has minimal impact on bone health. In reality, engaging in regular weight-bearing and resistance exercises at any age can help maintain or even improve bone density and strength, supporting bone health and reducing the risk of fractures.
A Diagnosis of Osteopenia or Osteoporosis Guarantees Fractures: There’s a misconception that being diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis means an individual will definitely suffer from bone fractures. The diagnosis does not guarantee that fractures will occur. Many factors, including bone quality, overall health, and preventive measures taken, influence the actual risk of fractures.
Calcium Intake Alone Can Prevent Osteoporosis: A common belief is that consuming high amounts of calcium, either through diet or supplements, is enough to prevent osteoporosis. While calcium is essential for bone health, other factors such as vitamin D levels, physical activity, and overall diet also play crucial roles. Moreover, excessive calcium intake, especially from supplements, can have health risks, including the potential for heart disease.
30 Questions and Answers (going from Beginner to Expert)
1. What is osteoporosis, and how does it affect the body?
Osteoporosis is a condition characterized by weakened bones that are more susceptible to fractures and breaks. This weakening occurs over time as the density and quality of the bone decrease. Bone is a living tissue that constantly remodels itself, but in osteoporosis, the creation of new bone doesn’t keep up with the removal of old bone. This imbalance leads to bones becoming fragile and more likely to fracture, even from minor falls or, in severe cases, from simple actions like bending over or coughing.
2. What led to the change in the definition of osteoporosis in 1994?
In 1994, the definition of osteoporosis underwent a significant change due to the introduction of bone mineral density (BMD) scanning technology, notably the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan. This technological advancement allowed for the precise measurement of bone density, leading to a reclassification of what constituted normal and abnormal bone density levels. Prior to this, osteoporosis was considered a condition affecting primarily the elderly, with diagnosis often made after the occurrence of a fracture. The new definition allowed for earlier identification of at-risk individuals based on their BMD compared to a standardized reference.
3. What is a bone mineral density (BMD) scan, and how does it work?
A bone mineral density (BMD) scan, particularly through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), measures the amount of calcium and other minerals present in a segment of bone, most commonly the hip, spine, and forearm. The technology works by emitting two X-ray beams at different energy levels towards the bone. The amount of X-rays that pass through the bone is measured for each beam, allowing the machine to calculate the density of the bone. The results help in assessing an individual’s risk of fractures and diagnosing conditions like osteopenia and osteoporosis.
4. Why is the data from BMD scans primarily compared to the bone density of younger individuals?
The data from BMD scans are compared to the bone density of younger individuals because peak bone mass (the maximum bone density and strength) is typically reached in the early 30s. By comparing an individual’s bone density to that of a healthy, young adult baseline, healthcare providers can determine how much bone mass has been lost. However, this comparison is misleading as it does not account for the natural decrease in bone density that occurs with aging.
35 Year Old Female
In Peter Osborne’s video, he addresses the significant shift in how osteoporosis is diagnosed, particularly highlighting the change that occurred in 1994 with the introduction of bone mineral density (BMD) scanning technology, such as the DEXA (Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry) machine. This technology became a cornerstone for diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing fracture risk, fundamentally altering the perception and management of bone health.
Osborne points out that the baseline for assessing bone health through BMD scans is set against the bone density of a healthy 35-year-old woman. This comparison is critical because it essentially redefines the understanding of bone health across all ages, particularly for those who are significantly older than 35. By comparing the bone density of individuals, often those in their 50s, 60s, and beyond, to the peak bone density of a much younger person, many are categorized as having osteopenia or osteoporosis based solely on this discrepancy in bone density levels.
He critiques this approach by emphasizing that bone growth and density naturally peak around the age of 35, after which a gradual decline is a normal part of the aging process. Thus, using the peak bone density of a 35-year-old as a universal standard does not account for the natural, physiological changes that occur in bone density with age. This method can lead to a misleading diagnosis, where the natural decrease in bone density associated with aging is pathologized.
Moreover, Osborne argues that this reliance on BMD scans and the comparison to a 35-year-old woman’s peak bone density creates a misleading narrative around bone health. It fails to consider the quality of the bone, which is an essential factor in overall bone health and resilience against fractures. He stresses that bone health is not solely about density but also involves the bone’s ability to regenerate and maintain a balance between breakdown and renewal, aspects that BMD scans do not measure.
In summary, Osborne’s critique revolves around the idea that the baseline set by comparing individuals’ bone density to that of a healthy 35-year-old woman contributes to an overdiagnosis of osteopenia and osteoporosis. This approach overlooks the natural aging process of bones, potentially leading to unnecessary concern and treatment, including the use of medications like bisphosphonates, which come with their own set of risks and side effects.
5. How does age affect bone density, and what is the normal process of bone aging?
As individuals age, their bone density naturally decreases. This process begins after peak bone mass is achieved in the early 30s. The rate of bone remodeling changes, with bone resorption (the process of breaking down bone) gradually outpacing bone formation. This leads to a slow, steady decline in bone density and mass. Factors such as hormonal changes, particularly in women post-menopause, nutritional intake, and levels of physical activity can influence the rate of bone density loss with age.
6. Can you explain the significance of the term “peak bone mass”?
Peak bone mass refers to the maximum strength and density that bones achieve, which usually occurs in the late 20s to early 30s. This level of bone density is considered a crucial determinant of bone health and osteoporosis risk in later life. The higher the peak bone mass, the more bone an individual has “in the bank” and the less likely they are to develop osteoporosis as they age. Factors influencing peak bone mass include genetics, diet, physical activity, and lifestyle choices.
7. What are the implications of comparing older adults’ bone density to that of a 35-year-old?
Comparing the bone density of older adults to that of a 35-year-old can lead to a high number of individuals being diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis, potentially medicalizing the natural aging process. This comparison does not account for the expected, natural decrease in bone density that occurs with age. Consequently, it may result in unnecessary worry for individuals and potentially lead to the over-prescription of medications for those whose bone density is naturally lower due to aging rather than disease.
8. What does a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis based on a BMD scan indicate about bone health?
A diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis based on a BMD scan indicates that an individual’s bone density is lower than the normal reference range for a healthy, young adult. Osteopenia is considered a midpoint between healthy bone density and osteoporosis, signaling a higher risk of bone fractures but not as severe as osteoporosis.
9. How is bone health defined beyond bone density?
Bone health encompasses more than just bone density; it also includes bone quality, which refers to the architecture, turnover, damage accumulation (such as micro-fractures), and mineralization of bone tissue. Healthy bones are strong and flexible, able to withstand normal impacts without fracturing, due to a balanced process of bone resorption and formation. Factors contributing to bone health include adequate calcium and vitamin D, physical activity, especially weight-bearing exercises, and avoiding lifestyle habits that can harm bone health, such as smoking and excessive alcohol consumption.
10. What role does collagen play in bone health and strength?
Collagen is a protein that provides a soft framework for bone tissue, while calcium adds strength and hardens the framework. This combination of collagen (which provides flexibility) and calcium (which provides rigidity) makes bones strong yet flexible enough to absorb impacts. Collagen’s role in bone health is pivotal; without sufficient collagen, bones can become brittle and more susceptible to fractures. The quality of bone collagen and its interaction with mineral components are crucial aspects of bone strength and overall bone health.
11. What are bisphosphonates, and how do they work?
Bisphosphonates are a class of drugs commonly prescribed to prevent the loss of bone density in conditions such as osteoporosis. They work by inhibiting osteoclasts, the cells responsible for bone resorption, thereby slowing down the process of bone loss. While bisphosphonates can effectively increase bone density and reduce the risk of fractures, they do not directly improve the quality of the bone. Their mechanism aims to alter the natural bone remodeling process, potentially leading to an accumulation of older bone and affecting bone quality over long-term use.
Bisphosphonate Consequences
In the context of bisphosphonate treatment, several key effects on bone physiology were discussed in the video above, which include:
Stopping the Breakdown of Old Bone: Bisphosphonates work by inhibiting the activity of osteoclasts, the cells responsible for bone resorption (the process of breaking down bone tissue). While this helps to prevent bone loss and increases bone density, it also means that old, potentially damaged bone is not removed as efficiently. Over time, this can lead to the accumulation of older bone, which may not be as structurally sound or resilient as newer bone.
Increase Mineralization: By slowing the rate of bone resorption, bisphosphonates allow for an increase in bone mineralization. This process leads to a higher concentration of calcium and other minerals in the bone matrix, making the bones denser. While increased mineralization can contribute to an increase in bone density as measured by bone mineral density (BMD) scans, it’s a factor that influences the overall rigidity of the bone.
Makes Bones Harder but More Brittle: The increased mineralization resulting from bisphosphonate treatment makes bones harder. However, there’s a trade-off. While bones may become harder and denser, they can also become more brittle. Brittle bones are less able to absorb the energy from impacts, such as falls, without breaking. This brittleness can increase the risk of atypical fractures, particularly in the femur (thigh bone), which have been observed in long-term users of bisphosphonates. Atypical fractures can occur with minimal or no trauma, often in the shaft of the thigh bone, an unusual site for osteoporotic fractures.
12. What are the potential side effects of bisphosphonates on bone health?
The long-term use of bisphosphonates has been associated with several potential side effects related to bone health, including the risk of atypical femur fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). These side effects are thought to result from the suppression of natural bone remodeling, leading to the accumulation of micro-damages and decreased bone toughness. Additionally, bisphosphonates can cause gastrointestinal issues and are not suitable for everyone, highlighting the importance of a careful assessment by healthcare providers before starting treatment.
Bisphosphonate Side Effects
Bisphosphonates, a class of medications commonly prescribed for osteoporosis, aim to prevent bone loss and increase bone density by inhibiting osteoclasts, the cells that break down bone tissue. They can have several side effects, as discussed here:
Gastrointestinal Issues: Bisphosphonates can cause gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, abdominal pain, esophageal irritation, and even ulcers. These effects are more common with oral bisphosphonates and can be mitigated by taking the medication with plenty of water and remaining upright for at least 30 minutes afterward.
Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (ONJ): A rare but serious condition where the jaw bone starts to die, leading to pain, loose teeth, and exposed bone. ONJ has been associated with the use of bisphosphonates, particularly among cancer patients receiving high doses through intravenous administration.
Atypical Femur Fractures: Long-term use of bisphosphonates has been linked to an increased risk of atypical fractures of the femur. These fractures can occur with minimal or no trauma, often in the shaft of the thigh bone, which is an unusual site for osteoporotic fractures.
Musculoskeletal Pain: Some patients may experience severe and sometimes incapacitating bone, joint, and/or muscle pain. This side effect can occur days, months, or years after starting bisphosphonates.
Hypocalcemia (Low Blood Calcium Levels): Bisphosphonates can lead to a drop in blood calcium levels, especially if vitamin D levels are low or if the patient has kidney function impairment. Symptoms of hypocalcemia include muscle spasms, tingling in the lips or fingers, and seizures.
Renal Impairment: Intravenous bisphosphonates, in particular, can cause deterioration in kidney function, which is why kidney function must be monitored during treatment. This side effect is more relevant in patients with pre-existing kidney disease or those receiving other nephrotoxic drugs.
Eye Problems: Some individuals may experience eye-related side effects, including inflammation and pain, typically presenting as conjunctivitis or uveitis.
13. Can you discuss the impact of bisphosphonates on bone density versus bone quality?
While bisphosphonates effectively increase bone density by slowing bone resorption, their impact on bone quality is more complex. By inhibiting the natural bone remodeling process, these medications can lead to the accumulation of older bone, which may not be as structurally sound or resilient as newer bone. Consequently, even though bone density might increase, the bone’s ability to resist fractures in certain situations might not improve proportionally. This underscores the importance of considering both bone density and quality when assessing bone health and treatment efficacy.
14. How do lifestyle and dietary choices affect bone health?
Lifestyle and dietary choices play critical roles in maintaining bone health. Calcium and vitamin D are crucial for bone formation and maintenance. Physical activity, especially weight-bearing exercises like walking, running, and resistance training, stimulates bone formation and increases bone density. Conversely, smoking and excessive alcohol consumption can negatively affect bone health, reducing bone density and increasing fracture risk. A balanced diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins can provide essential nutrients for bone health, while maintaining a healthy weight can reduce the strain on bones and joints.
15. What is the significance of the WHO’s redefinition of osteoporosis and osteopenia in the 1990s?
The WHO’s redefinition of osteoporosis and osteopenia in the 1990s marked a significant shift in how bone health is assessed, introducing bone mineral density as a key diagnostic criterion. This redefinition expanded the population considered at risk for bone-related health issues, significantly impacting public health policies, clinical practices, and the pharmaceutical industry. This led to the medicalization of aging and the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of individuals with “lower bone density”.
Let’s take a short detour and look at a Mercola article on the subject from 2022.
Global Prevalence and Impact of Osteoporosis: Osteoporosis affects approximately 200 million women worldwide, with the prevalence increasing significantly with age. In the United States, 34 million people have low bone density, known as osteopenia, which can progress into osteoporosis and significantly raises the risk of fractures.
Bisphosphonates Weaken Bones: While prescribed to strengthen bones, bisphosphonate drugs have been shown to cause microcracks and weaken bone structure, thereby increasing the risk for atypical bone fractures.
Important Nutrients for Bone Health: Key nutrients vital for healthy bone growth and strength include vitamin D, vitamins K1 and K2, calcium, magnesium, collagen, boron, and strontium. These nutrients support the bone matrix and contribute to bone density and flexibility.
Inadequacy of Load-Bearing Exercises: Most load-bearing exercises do not produce a sufficient osteogenic load to trigger bone growth. The load needed for bone growth in the hip is identified as 4.2 times one’s body weight, which is typically beyond the capability of conventional strength training.
Bisphosphonate Drugs’ Side Effects: Bisphosphonates, the primary conventional treatment for osteoporosis, are associated with numerous side effects, including a higher risk for thigh bone fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw, liver damage, kidney toxicity, and low blood calcium levels.
Mechanical Weakness from Bisphosphonates: Studies have demonstrated that bisphosphonate-treated bone is mechanically weaker, with increased microcrack accumulation and no improvement in bone volume or microarchitecture, making bones more prone to fractures.
Osteogenic Loading as an Alternative: Osteogenic loading, a type of resistance training that applies sufficient force to stimulate bone growth, is highlighted as an effective alternative to conventional strength training for improving bone density.
Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) Training for Bone Health: BFR training, which involves performing strength exercises with restricted venous blood flow, is presented as a viable and beneficial method for improving bone health, especially for individuals who cannot lift heavy weights, including the elderly.
16. How does the WHO’s definition of osteopenia and osteoporosis transform aging into a disease?
By setting the standard for normal bone density based on the peak bone mass of a young adult, the WHO’s definition implicitly suggests that any decrease from this peak is pathological. This approach can transform the natural aging process, during which some bone loss is expected, into a condition requiring medical intervention. This perspective contributes to the unnecessary medicalization of older adults, leading to overtreatment and an undue focus on bone density at the expense of other factors contributing to overall health and well-being.
17. Why is bone quality important, and how can it differ from bone density?
Bone quality refers to aspects of bone structure and composition that contribute to its strength and resilience, including microarchitecture, turnover rates, mineralization patterns, and the presence of micro-damages. While bone density measures the quantity of bone mineral content, bone quality encompasses the material and structural properties that determine how bones respond to stress and resist fractures. High bone density does not always equate to high bone quality; bones can be dense but brittle if the quality is poor. Thus, assessing bone health requires considering both density and quality to accurately evaluate fracture risk.
18. How does the T-score differ from the Z-score in interpreting BMD results?
The T-score and Z-score are both derived from BMD tests but serve different purposes in interpreting results. The T-score compares an individual’s bone density to the average peak bone density of a healthy young adult of the same sex, providing a measure of how much the individual’s bone density deviates from this reference point. It is primarily used to diagnose osteoporosis. In contrast, the Z-score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of people their own age, sex, and size, indicating how their bone density compares to expected levels. The Z-score is more informative for assessing bone density in children, young adults, and older adults where age-related bone loss is a consideration.
19. What is the controversy surrounding the use of BMD to diagnose osteopenia and osteoporosis?
The controversy stems from concerns that relying solely on BMD to diagnose osteopenia and osteoporosis leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. BMD measurements do not fully capture bone strength or fracture risk, as they do not account for bone quality. Additionally, the use of a young adult reference standard for all ages can pathologize the natural aging process of bone density decline. This has led to debates about the appropriateness of medical interventions for individuals diagnosed based on BMD criteria alone, without considering other factors such as age, sex, history of fractures, and lifestyle.
20. How does the natural decrease in bone density with age compare across different populations?
The rate and magnitude of bone density decrease with age can vary significantly across different populations, influenced by factors such as genetics, diet, lifestyle, and environmental factors. For example, certain ethnic groups may have higher or lower peak bone mass and experience different rates of bone loss. Women generally experience a more rapid decline in bone density after menopause due to hormonal changes. Understanding these variations is important for developing appropriate strategies for bone health maintenance and fracture prevention tailored to the needs of diverse populations.
21. Why might higher bone density not always indicate healthier or stronger bones?
Higher bone density, while generally considered a sign of strong bones, does not always correlate with healthier or more resilient bones. This paradox arises because bone strength and health are determined not just by density but also by quality, including factors like bone architecture, turnover rates, and the presence of micro-damages. Bones that are denser but have poor quality may be more brittle and prone to fractures than bones with lower density but higher quality. For instance, excessive mineralization can make bones denser but also more rigid and susceptible to cracking, similar to how a dried twig snaps more easily than a green one.
22. How do bisphosphonates affect the natural process of bone turnover?
Bisphosphonates affect the natural bone turnover process by inhibiting osteoclasts, the cells responsible for bone resorption. While this reduction in bone resorption can lead to an increase in bone density, it also disrupts the natural balance between bone resorption and bone formation. Over time, this disruption can lead to the accumulation of older bone, which are not as strong or flexible as newer bone. This altered bone remodeling process can affect the long-term quality and health of the bone, potentially making it more susceptible to atypical fractures and other issues.
23. What is osteonecrosis, and how can it be related to bisphosphonate use?
Osteonecrosis, specifically osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), is a condition characterized by the death of bone tissue due to a lack of blood supply. It has been associated with the use of bisphosphonates, particularly among individuals undergoing dental procedures or those with poor oral health. The exact mechanism by which bisphosphonates contribute to ONJ is not fully understood but is thought to involve the drugs’ effects on bone turnover, leading to impaired healing and regeneration of bone tissue. While the risk of ONJ is relatively low, it is a serious condition that necessitates careful monitoring and preventive measures, especially in patients on long-term bisphosphonate therapy.
24. How does physical activity influence bone health according to Wolff’s law?
Wolff’s Law states that bones adapt to the loads under which they are placed; essentially, bone density increases in response to increased stress or load. Physical activity, especially weight-bearing exercises and resistance training, applies stress to bones in a beneficial way, stimulating the process of bone remodeling and leading to stronger, denser bones. This adaptive response helps improve bone strength and reduce the risk of fractures. Consequently, a sedentary lifestyle can lead to weaker bones, as the lack of physical stress leads to decreased bone formation and increased bone loss.
25. Can you explain the paradox of high bone density and increased risk of certain health issues, such as breast cancer?
Research has shown that women with higher bone density may have an increased risk of breast cancer. This paradoxical relationship might be due to higher levels of estrogen, which can both increase bone density and stimulate the growth of certain types of breast cancer cells. High bone density, in this context, could be an indicator of higher cumulative exposure to estrogen, which is a known risk factor for breast cancer. Thus, while high bone density is often seen as a positive indicator of bone health, it may also signal an increased risk for breast cancer, underscoring the complex interplay between different aspects of health.
Analogy
Let’s pause and consider an analogy to bring this all together before we look at the last few questions.
This analogy captures the medicalization of aging in bone health: a natural process redefined as a disease, based on unrealistic standards, leading to interventions that may not only be unnecessary but harmful, all serving the interests of those who stand to profit from the widespread adoption of these standards and solutions.
Forest Management Corporation (FMC)
Imagine you’re part of a community living in a vast, beautiful forest, where each person is tasked with nurturing a unique tree—your tree represents your bone health. This forest thrives on diversity, with trees at various stages of growth, each contributing to the ecosystem’s balance. However, a powerful group, the Forest Management Corporation (FMC), steps in with a new vision for “optimal forest health.”
1. The False Baseline – The Ideal Tree Myth: FMC declares that the most robust and youthful trees—those at their peak summer vitality—are the standard. Every tree not matching this ideal is labeled as “underperforming” or “diseased.” This false baseline disregards the natural growth cycles and maturity of trees, painting a picture that aging trees are failing, despite their natural progression and contribution to the forest’s ecology.
2. The Control and Changing Definition of Disease: FMC then redefines forest health based on this youthful peak. Trees that once flourished under the wisdom of natural cycles are now seen as problematic. The corporation’s narrow criteria turn the natural aging process into a widespread “disease,” ignoring the intrinsic value of each tree’s unique life stage.
3. The False Test – The Health Indicator Tool (HIT): FMC introduces HIT, a tool designed to measure a tree’s shadow against the midday summer sun—the longest shadow of the year. Trees casting shorter shadows (those not in their summer peak) are marked for intervention. This test, however, fails to consider the full spectrum of light and seasons, misleadingly signaling a “false disease” in otherwise naturally aging trees.
4. Creation of a Disease for Natural Aging: The community, now anxious about their “failing” trees, turns to FMC for solutions. The natural aging process, a once-celebrated cycle of life and renewal, becomes a source of fear. Aging trees, regardless of their health and beauty, are labeled as diseased, leading to unnecessary interventions.
5. The Solution That Makes Things Worse – The Growth Enhancer (GE): FMC offers GE, a treatment promising to restore trees to their peak shadows. While GE initially seems to thicken and darken the canopy, it rigidifies the branches, making them brittle and prone to snapping even under gentle breezes. The natural flexibility and resilience of the trees to weather storms are compromised, ironically increasing the risk of damage—the very issue GE claimed to prevent.
6. Benefiting Industrial Corporate Interests: As the community becomes dependent on GE to maintain their trees at this unnatural standard, FMC profits immensely. The true cost, however, is the loss of the forest’s natural diversity and resilience. Trees that would have naturally aged into sturdy, majestic beings are now at risk, and the forest as a whole suffers from a misguided attempt to halt the natural cycle of growth and renewal.
26. What are the limitations of DXA scans in assessing overall bone health?
DXA scans, while useful for measuring bone mineral density, have limitations in assessing overall bone health. They provide a two-dimensional measure of bone density but do not capture bone quality factors such as bone structure, microarchitecture, or the quality of bone collagen. DXA scans also do not account for the distribution of bone mass or the differences in bone size among individuals. Therefore, DXA scans do not provide a complete picture of bone health and strength.
27. How have definitions and treatments for osteoporosis impacted women’s health care?
The definitions and treatments for osteoporosis have significantly impacted women’s health care by shifting the focus toward early detection and intervention for bone health issues. This shift has led to increased screening, the widespread use of BMD testing, and the development of medications like bisphosphonates aimed at preventing bone loss. However, it has also raised concerns about the overmedicalization of natural aging processes and the potential for overtreatment with medications that have significant side effects. The emphasis on bone density over other aspects of health has sparked a debate about the best approaches to maintaining bone health and preventing fractures in women as they age.
28. What role do vitamins and minerals play in maintaining bone health?
Vitamins and minerals play crucial roles in maintaining bone health. Calcium and vitamin D are particularly important; calcium is a primary component of bone, providing structure and strength, while vitamin D enhances calcium absorption from the diet and is necessary for proper bone formation. Other nutrients like magnesium, vitamin K, and phosphorus also contribute to bone health by supporting bone density and quality.
29. How does the concept of “use it or lose it” apply to maintaining bone density and strength?
The “use it or lose it” concept underscores the importance of physical activity for bone health. Just as muscles grow stronger with use, bones also become denser and stronger in response to the stresses placed on them through weight-bearing and resistance exercises. When bones are not subjected to sufficient physical stress, such as in a sedentary lifestyle, they can lose density and strength, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Regular physical activity stimulates bone remodeling, helping to maintain or even increase bone density and strength throughout life.
30. What are the implications of medicalizing the natural aging process of bone loss?
Medicalizing the natural aging process of bone loss has significant implications for public health and individual patients. It can lead to an increased focus on bone density as a primary indicator of health, potentially overshadowing other important factors such as bone quality, overall physical fitness, and lifestyle choices that contribute to healthy aging. This perspective results in the overdiagnosis of osteopenia and osteoporosis, leading to anxiety and unnecessary treatment with medications that have potential side effects. Recognizing bone density changes as a part of the natural aging process while focusing on comprehensive strategies to maintain bone health can help balance the benefits and risks of medical intervention.
I’ve been following Jennifer Bilek’s reporting on the Transgender Agenda for the last year.
In my opinion, she is doing the best investigative journalism, in the world, on the top-down nature of this society deforming “input” and “normalization”.
What we don’t understand is the scale of money behind this push, and the individuals controlling this weaponized capital. These are questions that go to the heart of Jennifer’s work. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 