Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Israeli Settlers Show Louis Theroux Their Full Colours

Novara Media | April 29, 2025

May 6, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Video | , , , , | Leave a comment

Gender-affirming care for minors under fire in sweeping US report

By Maryanne Demasi, PhD | May 4, 2025

Paediatric gender dysphoria has rapidly emerged as one of the most divisive and urgent issues in medicine today. In the past decade, the number of children and adolescents identifying as transgender or nonbinary has soared.

In the US alone, diagnoses among youth aged 6 to 17 nearly tripled—from around 15,000 in 2017 to over 42,000 by 2021—signalling a seismic shift not only in culture but in clinical practice.

Children diagnosed with gender dysphoria—a condition defined by distress related to one’s biological sex or associated gender roles—are increasingly being offered powerful medical interventions.

These include puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in some cases, irreversible surgeries such as mastectomy, vaginoplasty, or phalloplasty.

An umbrella review from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) states that “thousands of American children and adolescents have received these interventions,” despite a lack of solid scientific footing.

While advocates often claim the treatments are “medically necessary” and “lifesaving” the report concludes “the overall quality of evidence concerning the effects of any intervention on psychological outcomes, quality of life, regret, or long-term health, is very low.”

It also cautions that evidence of harm is sparse—not necessarily because harms are rare, but due to limited long-term data, weak tracking, and publication bias.

This 409-page report delivers a scathing review of the assumptions, ethics, and clinical practices driving gender-affirming care in the US.

An inversion of medical ethics

At the heart of the HHS critique is a reversal of medical norms.

“In many areas of medicine, treatments are first established as safe and effective in adults before being extended to paediatric populations,” the report explains. “In this case, however, the opposite occurred.”

Despite inconclusive outcomes in adults, these interventions were rolled out for children—without rigorous data, and with little regard for long-term, often irreversible consequences.

These include infertility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone development, elevated cardiovascular risk, and psychiatric complications.

“The physical consequences are often irreversible,” the report warns.

Puberty blockers, frequently marketed as a reversible ‘pause,’ actually interrupt bone mineralisation at a critical growth stage—raising the risk of stunted skeletal growth and early-onset osteoporosis.

When followed by cross-sex hormones, as is common, the harms multiply. Known risks include metabolic disruption, blood clots, sterility, and permanent loss of sexual function.

Yet many clinics operate under a “child-led care” model, where a minor’s self-declared “embodiment goals” dictate treatment.

The report notes that some leading clinics conduct assessments “in a single session lasting two hours,” often with no robust psychological evaluation.

Consent and capacity

This raises a critical question: are children capable of consenting to life-altering medical interventions?

According to the HHS, informed consent means more than simple agreement—it requires a deep understanding of risks, alternatives, and long-term impact.

And by definition, children lack full legal and developmental capacity for medical decision-making.

“When medical interventions pose unnecessary, disproportionate risks of harm, healthcare providers should refuse to offer them even when they are preferred, requested, or demanded by patients,” the report states.

Supportive parents cannot shield clinicians from ethical responsibility. Many children who present for transition also have autism, trauma histories, depression, or anxiety—all of which can impair decision-making.

Yet clinicians frequently misread a child’s desire to transition as evidence of capacity.

The report warns that the current affirmation model “undermines the possibility of genuinely informed consent” and that the “true rate of regret is not known.”

This becomes especially urgent when the outcomes—sterility, bone loss, and sexual dysfunction—are permanent. Can a 13-year-old grasp what it means to forgo biological parenthood?

As the report suggests, the system has failed to distinguish between a young person’s wish to transition and their developmental ability to understand what that means long term.

A moral failure

The problem is not only medical—it’s moral.

The HHS accuses the medical establishment of abandoning its core duty: to protect vulnerable patients. Ideology and activism, it argues, have taken precedence over evidence and caution.

“The evidence for benefit of paediatric medical transition is very uncertain, while the evidence for harm is less uncertain,” it states.

Among the most disturbing trends highlighted in the report is the sidelining of mental health support.

Research suggests that most cases of paediatric gender dysphoria resolve without intervention. Yet clinicians continue to proceed with irreversible treatments.

“Medical professionals have no way to know which patients may continue to experience gender dysphoria and which will come to terms with their bodies,” the report explains.

The illusion of consensus

The report also takes aim at the idea that gender-affirming care enjoys universal professional backing. It reveals that many official endorsements come from small, ideologically driven committees within larger organisations.

“There is evidence that some medical and mental health associations have suppressed dissent and stifled debate about this issue among their members,” it warns.

Several whistleblowers have spoken out—often at considerable personal risk.

Jamie Reed, a former case manager at the Washington University Transgender Center, alleged that children were being rushed into medical transition without adequate psychological screening. Her testimony led to a state investigation and Senate hearing.

Clinical psychologist Erica Anderson, a transgender woman and former president of the US Professional Association for Transgender Health, has repeatedly raised concerns about the haste with which children are put on medical pathways.

Dr Eithan Haim, a surgeon in Texas, is now facing prosecution after revealing details about paediatric gender surgeries at a children’s hospital.

Rather than sparking debate, these whistleblowers have faced vilification, career damage, and in some cases legal consequences. The HHS suggests this culture of fear has stifled the scientific inquiry necessary for sound medicine.

Psychotherapy as an alternative

Instead of defaulting to hormones or surgery, the report urges a return to psychotherapy. Gender-related distress, it notes, often overlaps with broader psychological challenges that can be addressed non-invasively.

“There is no evidence that pediatric medical transition reduces the incidence of suicide, which remains, fortunately, very low,” the report finds.

Psychotherapy carries no documented harms and offers space for resolution and support. The HHS calls for greater investment in “psychotherapeutic management” as a safer and more ethical approach.

Restoring scientific integrity

Commissioned under President Trump’s Executive Order Defending Children’s Innocence by Ending Ideological Medical Interventions, the report responds to growing alarm over the medicalisation of minors.

Trump’s Executive Order directed federal agencies to evaluate practices to help “minors with gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other identity-based confusion, or who otherwise seek chemical or surgical mutilation.”

It explicitly criticised “junk science” promoted by groups such as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), calling for a return to evidence-based standards and scientific discipline.

Rather than imposing new mandates, the HHS report focuses on delivering “the most accurate and current information available” to clinicians, families, and policymakers—urging caution and restraint.

“Our duty is to protect our nation’s children—not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions,” said NIH Director Dr Jay Bhattacharya. “We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.”

Reform already underway

The HHS report lands amid a wave of legal reforms.

As of this year, 27 states have passed laws restricting or banning gender-affirming care for minors. These range from full bans on hormones and surgery to tighter consent requirements.

Nineteen of those laws were passed in 2023 alone, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Over half of states have enacted laws/policies limiting youth access to gender affirming care

Though many face court challenges, the trend reflects mounting public concern over the medicalisation of gender-distressed youth. The HHS findings are expected to accelerate further scrutiny and legislative action.

Global shifts

The HHS review is part of a broader international movement to re-examine paediatric gender medicine.

In 2024, the UK’s Cass Review, led by paediatrician Dr Hilary Cass, delivered a landmark critique of NHS gender services. Cass concluded that the model had been adopted prematurely “based on a single Dutch study,” and lacked sufficient evidence.

Dr Hilary Cass, paediatrician

In response, the UK banned the routine use of puberty blockers and began closing the Tavistock gender clinic, replacing it with regional centres focused on holistic mental health care.

In Australia, the Queensland government took similar steps earlier this year, pausing all prescriptions of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for minors pending further review.

The move followed the suspension of Dr Jillian Spencer, a senior psychiatrist, from her clinical duties at Queensland Children’s Hospital after she raised concerns about the gender care protocols being used.

Her case has since become a focal point in Australia’s national debate on youth gender medicine.

Dr Jillian Spencer, paediatric psychiatrist, Queensland

A reckoning

The HHS report is more than a policy review—it is a warning.

It reveals that thousands of children—many struggling with underlying psychological issues—have been placed on a path of irreversible medicalisation without the basic safeguards expected in any other area of healthcare.

The report concludes that gender medicine has been practised backwards – treatments were introduced first, and only later did the search for evidence begin.

It calls for a course correction—one that puts evidence before ideology, and ethics above political expediency.

Whether institutions will act on its findings remains to be seen. But for families searching for answers, the report may finally provide the long-overdue clarity that has been obscured by years of activism and politics.

May 5, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | Leave a comment

UCLA Gaza protesters sue over police violence, rubber bullet injuries

Al Mayadeen | May 5, 2025

A new lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court accuses law enforcement of police brutality during a violent crackdown on pro-Palestine protesters at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) in spring 2024.

At the height of nationwide demonstrations against “Israel’s” war on Gaza, the UCLA encampment became a central site of student-led protest. On April 30, a pro-“Israel” mob attacked the encampment for more than four hours. Protesters say that police stood by as counter-demonstrators launched fireworks, sprayed chemical agents, and engaged in harassment and sexual assault, according to The Intercept.

The following day, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, UCLA officials, and multiple law enforcement agencies coordinated plans to dismantle the encampment. On May 1, the encampment was forcibly cleared.

On February 12, 2025, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Graduate Students for Justice in Palestine (GSJP) were placed on interim suspension.

Police response: coordination and forceful dispersal

More than 700 police officers descended on campus, including members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), California Highway Patrol (CHP), Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, University of California Police Department, and private security forces.

During the raid, law enforcement fired over 50 rounds of rubber bullets into the crowd, striking multiple protesters in the head. Several individuals were hospitalized, including one who sustained internal bleeding and another whose hand bones were shattered, requiring surgery and extensive rehabilitation.

Protesters are now suing both the state of California, which oversees CHP, and the city of Los Angeles, which oversees LAPD. The suit argues that the use of rubber bullets by LAPD and CHP amounted to excessive force and violated protesters’ constitutional rights.

Legal violations: restricted rubber bullets and protesters’ rights

Following mass protests in 2020 against the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, California lawmakers passed a law limiting the use of kinetic impact projectiles, commonly known as rubber bullets. The legislation bans their use at protests unless there is an objective and immediate threat to life or serious injury.

The lawsuit states that officers’ actions at the UCLA encampment violated this law. Attorney Becca Brown, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized that the indiscriminate firing of such projectiles is both illegal and dangerous.

“They cannot be used simply because someone is non-compliant,” she explained.

Despite UCLA’s revised protocols following 2020 to minimize reliance on external police forces, CHP, typically less involved in protest response, played a prominent role in the May 1 raid.

An LAPD after-action report later attempted to justify the force used, citing incidents like a protester throwing a traffic cone or removing a police helmet. However, the report admitted communication breakdowns among agencies and recommended improved command clarity.

Chilling effect: trauma, criminalization, and fear of future protest

The lawsuit includes plaintiffs such as a UCLA Ph.D. candidate, an undergraduate student, another student from a different university, and an architectural designer. All were struck with rubber bullets, several in the head. Beyond physical injuries, the plaintiffs say the crackdown has severely impacted their willingness to participate in future demonstrations.

“The encampment clearance by means of violence, excessive force, and kinetic energy projectiles traumatized Plaintiffs,” the complaint reads. “It justifiably made them less willing to engage in any further Palestine-related protest activity.”

One plaintiff, Abdullah Puckett, now fears future retaliation if he returns to protest. The complaint states that he is “more hesitant and afraid,” and has had to reevaluate the extent of his participation in pro-Palestine demonstrations.

Broader implications: political accountability and state repression

More than 200 people were arrested during the UCLA encampment clearance. LAPD later requested over $500,000 in reimbursement for the operation, which included 2,400 overtime hours, according to the Daily Bruin. The arrests resulted in criminal records for many students.

Lawyers say those records are now being used by the Trump administration to conduct background checks on international students and potentially flag them for deportation.

“For international students that may have been arrested at any of these encampments, that got flagged and could be subject to deportation under Trump’s fascist policies,” said Ricci Sergienko, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

Sergienko criticized Democratic leaders such as Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Bass, arguing that their actions laid the groundwork for broader state repression. “These attacks also happened in Democratic-run cities and blue states,” he said.

He also warned of mounting censorship in academia, pointing to a proposed bill in California that targets ethnic studies programs under the pretext of combating antisemitism. “That’s another attack on speech coming from the blue state, the liberal paradise of California,” he said.

During a recent screening of the documentary The Encampments at UCLA, police were once again called in. LAPD officers arrested three students.

May 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture | , , , , | Leave a comment

Hind Rajab’s killers identified

MEMO | May 5, 2025

A human rights organisation has revealed the identity of the Israeli officer directly responsible for the killing of Palestinian child Hind Rajab, her family, and the two medics who tried to save her in the Tel al-Hawa neighbourhood, Gaza City, on 29 January 2024.

In a statement released on Saturday, the Hind Rajab Foundation, an independent NGO based in Brussels, said: “We now publicly name the commander responsible for killing Hind:

Lieutenant Colonel Beni Aharon

Commander of the 401st Armoured Brigade of the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) at the time of the killing.”

The organisation said the identification followed a more than year-long investigation. It also confirmed it had identified the brigade’s soldiers, field commanders, and operations officers who took part in the attack under Aharon’s command.

The foundation asserted that it “has filed a war crimes complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague” to issue an arrest warrant for Lt. Col. Beni Aharon, adding, “we are preparing additional legal complaints against the battalion’s officers.”

The Hind Rajab Foundation is a legal and human rights branch of the March 30 Movement. It was established in memory of Hind Rajab and focuses on bringing Israeli soldiers accused of war crimes against Palestinians to justice.

Israeli military operations in Gaza, fully backed by the United States, have continued by land, sea, and air since 7 October 2023. More than 170,000 Palestinians have been killed or injured so far, with many still trapped under the rubble.

May 5, 2025 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Trump pushes for ‘total dismantlement’ of Iran’s nuclear program

RT | May 5, 2025

US President Donald Trump has said he wants Iran to completely scrap its nuclear program, as negotiations between the two countries have been postponed.

The president was asked by Kristen Welker on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday whether he was aiming to limit or completely abolish Iran’s nuclear program.

“Total dismantlement. Yes, that is all I would accept,” Trump said. He questioned the necessity of the Islamic Republic having nuclear technology for electricity generation.

“They have so much oil – why do they need it? … Civilian [nuclear] energy often leads to military wars. And we don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon. It’s a very simple deal,” he said.

“I just don’t want them to have a nuclear weapon because the world will be destroyed,” Trump added.

He made his remarks after Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi announced that the fourth round of indirect, mediated US-Iran talks, planned for Saturday, had been postponed indefinitely “for logistical reasons.”

The negotiations, previously described by both sides as constructive, have been overshadowed by tensions in Yemen, where the US and Britain have ramped up airstrikes against the Houthi militants.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to retaliate after a Houthi ballistic missile landed near Ben Gurion Airport outside Tel Aviv on Sunday, injuring eight people.

The Houthis said they were aiming for a “comprehensive air blockade” of Israel in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza. Iran denied directing the attacks, calling such claims “misleading.”

Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 UN-backed deal on Iran’s nuclear program during his first term in office, accusing the Islamic Republic of secretly violating the agreement. Tehran has denied any wrongdoing but has since rolled back its own commitments under the deal and increased its stockpile of enriched uranium.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned last month that the country would resist any “pressure and threat” from the US.

May 5, 2025 Posted by | Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Nuclear Deterrence Requires Only Dozens Of Warheads — Not Thousands

America’s doomsday arsenal is as risky as it is wasteful

Stark Realities with Brian McGlinchey | April 30, 2025

Over the next decade, the US government plans to spend nearly $1 trillion on its nuclear arsenal — with the actual cost certain to run even higher than that. The huge outlay is driven in part by the sheer size of America’s doomsday-weapon collection, which comprises an estimated 3,700 deployed or stockpiled nuclear warheads, not counting another 1,500 that are purportedly “retired” and awaiting dismantlement.

Though Americans have been conditioned to think it’s reasonable to maintain such a large arsenal, the idea that thousands of warheads are required to deter nuclear aggression rests on flawed thinking about the nature of deterrence. While defense contractors and military bureaucracies enriched by the status quo will tell you otherwise, the truth is that an adequate arsenal of nuclear warheads can be measured not in thousands, but mere dozens.

During the Cold War, two successive doctrines guided nuclear war strategy. First came Massive Retaliation, which rested on the threat of a disproportionate, devastating nuclear response to either conventional or nuclear aggression. That gave way to Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), in which any nuclear attack was guaranteed to escalate to the point where both countries are completely destroyed.

Both doctrines shared a cornerstone premise — that effective, credible deterrence requires the capability to completely destroy the opposing country. That’s the wrong yardstick. Deterrence is achieved by the ability to impose an intolerable level of retaliatory destruction on a country that’s contemplating a nuclear first-strike — a threshold far lower than border-to-border annihilation.

For perspective, in World War II, Russia and China each suffered roughly 20 million total civilian and military deaths. The same unfathomable fatality counts that spanned several years in World War II can be achieved in mere minutes with only 20 modern nuclear warheads — 15 striking Russian cities and only five hitting the more densely-populated cities of China, according to calculations by University of Maryland professor Steve Fetter.

If the United States chose to opt against the morally-repugnant targeting of population centers with little military significance (that is, cities similar to Hiroshima and Nagasaki), a second-strike could instead vaporize the enemy’s economy, targeting power generation, refinery complexes and vital ports (though even these nuclear attacks would inflict civilian death on a huge scale, not only from the blasts but also the economic destruction). Here, Fetter calculates 100 detonations would suffice.

The fatalities and destruction associated with either of those two targeting scenarios that pursue some level of societal devastation — so-called “countervalue targeting” — are well beyond what any foreign ruler would consider tolerable, suggesting that the anticipation of even one or two second-strike warheads would be sufficient to deter an adversary from striking first.

Note, this approach to deterrence, which focuses on the power to retaliate and inflict “intolerable” destruction, does not require adversaries with high moral character. It matters little whether an opposing ruler regards his citizens with loving empathy or depraved indifference. Rulers are ultimately driven by self-interest — and no leader can expect his hold on power to survive a nuclear gamble that brings about the vaporization of cities or irreplaceable economic assets in his own country. (Indeed, there may be no “power” to hold on to.) As political scientist Kenneth Waltz wrote in a milestone 1990 paper that promoted the peacekeeping value of nuclear weapons while making the case that small arsenals are sufficient, “Rulers like to continue to rule.”

Given these realities of deterrence, the size of an adversary’s nuclear arsenal has no bearing on the appropriate size of America’s. “So long as two or more countries have second-strike forces, to compare them is pointless,” wrote Waltz. “If no state can launch a disarming attack with high confidence, force comparisons become irrelevant…beyond a certain level of capability, additional forces provide no additional coverage for one party and pose no additional threat to others.”

In contrast to countervalue targeting, “counterforce targeting” aims to inflict military defeat by destroying a large, diverse array of military targets, such as missile silos, bomber and submarine bases, command and control facilities, and conventional forces.

Counterforce-targeting is what led both America and Russia to amass far larger arsenals than that of any other nuclear-armed country. Beyond the elevated general risk associated with securing, transporting, maintaining and training with these large volumes of warheads, the mutual targeting of nuclear weapon delivery platforms pursuant to counterforce doctrine encourages first strikes — launched out of fear that an opponent’s first strike would render one’s own weapons unusable.

Aside from the heightened risk of miscalculations during crises and accidental explosions during peace, America’s outsized nuclear arsenal threatens national security in a way that has nothing to do with mushroom clouds — by nudging the United States further along its path to financial catastrophe. As then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mike Mullen warned in 2010, “The most significant threat to our national security is our debt.” His statement came when the national debt was only about a third of its current $36.8 trillion.

Of the trillion dollars to be spent on nuclear weapons through 2034, $460 billion will be spent on a “modernization” program that encompasses warheads, missiles and silos and submarines. Of that, the Pentagon expects to spend $120 billion to replace the current generation of land-based, Minuteman III ICBMs with Sentinel ICBMs made by Northrop Grumman. Last year, the Air Force notified Congress that the Sentinel program would cost 37% more than the previous estimate, and take two years longer to implement. If the history of Pentagon weapon procurement is any guide, we can count on more such announcements in the coming years.

Considered in the context of second-strike deterrence, the Sentinel program is particularly exasperating. Given their fixed locations in satellite-observable silos, land-based ICBMs represent the most vulnerable leg in the nuclear-arms triad, which also includes bombers and submarine-launched missiles. Put another way, it’s the leg that does the least to convince a nuclear adversary that the United States has a guaranteed second-strike capacity — which is the only strike capacity that matters. At the same time, land-based ICBMs are a magnet for enemy missiles, with one study suggesting nuclear strikes on US ICBMs could kill 300 million people across North America.

In February, President Trump expressed dismay at the ongoing development of new nukes. “There’s no reason for us to be building brand new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over. And here we are building new nuclear weapons, and they’re building nuclear weapons.”

Trump’s remarks came as he expressed interest in opening new arms control negotiations with Russia and China. That’s a noble pursuit, but when a second-strike capability is all the United States needs for defense, a case can be made for blazing a unilateral path toward rational and frugal nuclear deterrence — particularly when you consider the dangerously destabilizing nature of a huge arsenal built for counterforce targeting.

“There is no compelling military or strategic rationale for linking the size of U.S. nuclear forces to those of other nuclear weapon states,” wrote Fetter. “As long as the United States has enough survivable warheads to deter and respond to nuclear attacks, it should not matter how many weapons other countries have.” That’s not to discount the risk-reducing value of a far smaller Russian arsenal.

Alas, any move toward a dramatically slimmer US nuclear warhead inventory will face fierce opposition from those who benefit from today’s emphasis on numerical superiority. The status quo is a prime example of the principle of “concentrated benefits and diffused costs.” Via both taxation and inflation, the $1 trillion cost of sustaining and upgrading the arsenal over the next 10 years will be spread across hundreds of millions of Americans, including many who haven’t been born yet. Shuffled into the $90 trillion the US government is projected to spend over that same period, the cost flies under the radar of everyday Americans, precluding major political opposition.

The financial benefits, on the other hand, accrue to a relatively small number of stakeholders, from arms manufacturers to Pentagon and Department of Energy bureaucracies. The enjoyment of concentrated benefits incentivizes these stakeholders to fiercely defend the status quo, deploying a formidable influence arsenal that includes lobbyists, campaign contributions, the promises of jobs in 50 states and hundreds of congressional districts, and financial sponsorship of national security think tanks that steer policy.

While those who are enriched by America’s excessive nuclear arsenal have the upper hand, the status quo is so dangerous and wasteful that Americans of all political leanings should unite in challenging it.

May 5, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism, Timeless or most popular | , | Leave a comment

Did the Israeli Embassy Order My Arrest?

Richard Medhurst | May 3, 2025

Emails show Israeli foreign influence in UK’s legal system: the Attorney General’s Office provided the Israeli Deputy Ambassador with contact information of UK prosecutors and counterterrorism police, in the same period that journalist Richard Medhurst and other British reporters and activists were arrested by CT police in a government crackdown. This raises questions about the impartiality of the Crown Prosecution Service and the degree of foreign meddling in the UK’s judiciary.

Support the show on Patreon: patreon.com/richardmedhurst

Donate on PayPal: https://paypal.me/papichulomin

Donate on GoFundMe: http://tiny.cc/GoFundMe-Richard

Bitcoin address: bc1qnelpedy2q6qu67485w4wnmcya5am873zwxxvvp

Subscribe to Richard Medhurst on other platforms here: Rumble: https://rumble.com/richardmedhurst

Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/richardmedhurst

Odysee: https://odysee.com/@richardmedhurst

Substack: https://richardmedhurst.substack.com/

Richard Thomas Medhurst (1992) is an independent journalist, political commentator, and analyst from the United Kingdom with a focus on international affairs, US politics, and the Middle East. Medhurst is known for his coverage of the Julian Assange extradition case in London, as one of the only journalists to report on the trial of the WikiLeaks founder from inside the court.

He has also covered the Iran nuclear deal talks on the ground in Vienna. Medhurst was born in Damascus, Syria.

His father is English and mother is Syrian. Both his parents served in United Nations Peacekeeping and Observer missions and were among the UN Peacekeepers awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1988. Owing to his parents’ professional mobility, he has lived in Syria, Pakistan, Switzerland, and Austria. He speaks four languages fluently: English, Arabic, French, and German.

As an independent journalist, Medhurst regularly hosts live broadcasts and video reports on his YouTube channel. Previous guests include the Foreign Minister of Venezuela, the Dep Foreign Minister of Iran; the Palestinian, Russian and Cuban ambassadors to the United Nations in Vienna; the former British Ambassador to Syria; and various UN officials, journalists, and more. Medhurst’s reports and analysis on Yemen, Ukraine, Syria, Niger, Lebanon, Iran, the Israeli occupation in Palestine and its genocide in Gaza have gone viral countless times, racking up millions of views.

Richard Medhurst has a combined following of roughly one million people online, and appears regularly on international news outlets including Al Jazeera, WikiLeaks, Black Agenda Report, Al Mayadeen, The Times, LBC, and others.

May 5, 2025 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Video | , , , | Leave a comment

Tesla picked up $595,000,000 in regulatory credits for Q1 2025

By Jennifer Mahorasy | April 25, 2025

Tesla had a 71% drop in first quarter profits compared to last year, but those losses were minimised because they picked up $595,000,000 US in regulatory credits for the quarter.

Indeed, according to Tesla’s Q1 2025 earnings, net income fell 71% to $409 million from $1.39 billion the previous year, driven by a 13% drop in vehicle deliveries (336,681 vehicles) and a 20% decline in automotive revenue to $14 billion.

Regulatory credits, however, did bring in $595 million, up from $442 million the prior year, which was critical—without those credits, Tesla would’ve posted a loss for the quarter.

So, the credits acted like a financial lifeboat, keeping Tesla in the black despite weak sales and operational challenges, like updating factory lines for the refreshed Model Y and lower average selling prices due to discounts.

What Are Regulatory Credits, and Are They “Free Cash Ripped Off” from Petrol Car Makers?

Regulatory credits aren’t exactly “free cash” handed to Tesla like a government cheque, but they’re not pure market magic either. Here’s how they work:

The System: In places like the U.S., EU, and China, governments set emissions standards for automakers. Companies that sell zero-emission vehicles (like Tesla’s EVs) earn credits. Automakers who miss emissions targets—often those heavily reliant on gas-powered cars—must buy credits to avoid fines or bans. Tesla, producing only EVs, generates surplus credits and sells them to legacy automakers (e.g., Stellantis, GM, or Volkswagen). In Q1 2025, Tesla earned $595 million this way.

All prefaced on the need for an energy transition because apparently we have a climate catastrophe.

May 4, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Malthusian Ideology, Phony Scarcity | Leave a comment

The Great Spillover Hoax

By Jeffrey A Tucker | Brownstone Institute | April 27, 2025

Why precisely were Anthony Fauci and his cohorts so anxious to blame SARS-CoV-2 on bats and later pangolins in wet markets? It was not just to deflect attention from the possibility that the novel virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan doing gain-of-function research. There was a larger point: to reinforce a very important narrative concerning zoonotic spillovers.

It’s a fancy phrase that speaks to a kind of granular focus that discourages nonspecialists from having an opinion. Leave it to the experts! They know!

Let’s take a closer look.

For many years, there has been an emerging orthodoxy in epidemiological circles that viruses are jumping from animals to humans at a growing rate. That’s the key assertion, the core claim, the one that is rarely challenged. It is made repeatedly and often in the literature on this subject, much like climate claims in that different literature.

The model goes as follows.

Step one: assert that spillover is increasing, due to urbanization, deforestation, globalization, industrialization, carbon-producing internal combustion, pet ownership, colonialism, icky diets, shorter skirt lengths, whatever other thing you are against, or some amorphous combination of all the above. Regardless, it is new and it is happening at a growing rate.

Step two: observe that only scientists fully understand what a grave threat this is to human life, so they have a social obligation to get out in front of this trend. That requires gain-of-function research to mix and merge pathogens in a lab to see which ones pose the most immediate threats to our existence.

Step three: in order to protect ourselves fully, we need to deploy all the newest technologies including and especially those which allow for fast production of vaccines that can be distributed in the event of the pandemics that are inevitably coming, probably just around the corner. Above all, that requires testing and perfecting mRNA shots that deliver spike protein through lipid nanoparticles so they can be printed and distributed to the population widely and quickly.

Step four: as society breathlessly awaits the great antidote to the deadly virus that comes to us via these vicious spillovers, there is no choice but to enact common-sense public-health measures like extreme restrictions on your liberty to travel, operate a business, and gather with others. The top goal is disease monitoring and containment. The top target: those who behave in ways that presume the existence of anachronisms like freedom and human rights.

Step five: these protocols must be accepted by all governments because of course we live in a globalist setting in which otherwise no pathogen can possibly be contained. No one nation can be permitted to go its own way because doing so endangers the whole. We are all in this together.

If that way of thinking strikes you as surprising, ridiculous, and scary, you have clearly not attended an academic conference on epidemiology, a trade show for pharmaceutical companies, or a planning group feeding information to the United Nations and the World Health Organization.

This is conventional wisdom in all these circles, not even slightly unusual or strange. It is the new orthodoxy, widely accepted by all experts in this realm.

The first I had heard of this entire theory was the August 2020 article in Cell written by David Morens and Anthony Fauci. Written during lockdowns that the authors helped shepherd, the article reflected the apocalyptic tone of the times. They said humanity took a bad turn 12,000 years ago, causing idyllic lives to face myriad infections. We cannot go back to a Rouseauian paradise but we can work to “rebuild the infrastructures of human existence.”

I was obviously stunned, reread the piece carefully, and wondered where the evidence for the great spillover – the crucial empirical assertion of the piece – could be found. They cite many papers in the literature but looking at them further, we find only models, assertions, claims rooted in testing bias, and many other sketchy claims.

What I found was a fog machine.

You see, everything turns on this question. If spillovers are not increasing, or if spillovers are just a normal part of the complicated relationship between humans and the microbial kingdom they inhabit alongside all living things, the entire agenda falls apart.

If spillovers are not a pressing problem, the rationale for gain-of-function evaporates, as does the need for funding, the push for the shots, and the wild schemes to lock down until the antidote arrives. It’s the crucial step, one that has mostly evaded serious public attention but which is nearly universally accepted within the domain of what is called Public Health today.

Who is challenging this? A tremendously important article just appeared in the Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health. It is: “Natural Spillover Risk and Disease Outbreaks: Is Over-Simplification Putting Public Health at Risk?” by the Brownstone-backed team at REPPARE. It’s something of a miracle that this piece got through peer review but here it is.

They present the core assumption: “Arguments supporting pandemic policy are heavily based on the premise that pandemic risk is rapidly increasing, driven in particular by passage of pathogens from animal reservoirs to establish transmission in the human population; ‘zoonotic spillover.’ Proposed drivers for increasing spillover are mostly based on environmental change attributed to anthropogenic origin, including deforestation, agricultural expansion and intensification, and changes in climate.”

And the observation: “If a genuine misattribution bias regarding spillover risk and consequent pandemic risk is arising, this can distort public health policy with potentially far-reaching consequences on health outcomes.”

Then they take it on with a careful examination of the literature generally footnoted as proof. What they find is a typical game of citation roulette: this guy cites this guy who cites this guy who cites that guy, and so on in spinning circles of authoritative-seeming apparatus but fully lacking in any real substance. They write: “We see a pattern of assertive statements of rapidly rising disease risk with anthropogenic impacts on ecology driving it. These are cited heavily, resting largely on opinion, which is a poor substitute for evidence. More concerningly, there is a consistent trend of misrepresenting cited papers.”

We’ve seen this movie many times before. What’s more, there does exist a largely ignored literature that closely examines many of the supposed causal factors that drive spillovers that reveals grave doubts about any causal connection at all. The authors then place the skeptical papers against the opinion papers usually cited and conclude that what has emerged is an evidence-free orthodoxy designed to back an industrial project.

“There are several potential reasons for this tendency to reference opinion as if it is fact. The field has been relatively small, with authorship shared across many papers. This risks the development of a mechanism for circular referencing, reviewing and reinforcement of opinion, shielding claims from sceptical inquiry or external review. The increased interest of private-sector funders in public health institutions including WHO, and its emphasis on commodities in health responses, may deepen this echo chamber, inadvertently downgrading or ignoring contrary findings while emphasizing those studies that support further funding.”

See the pattern here? Anyone who has followed sociology of “the science” over these last five years can. It’s groupthink, the acceptance of doctrine believed because all their peers believe it. In any case, the gig pays well.

Now we can better explain why it is that Fauci and the rest were so emphatic that the coronavirus of 2019 did not originate in a lab for which they had arranged the funding but instead leapt from a bat or something else from a wet market.

The wet market narrative was not only designed to cover up their scheme and avoid blame for a global pandemic of any level of severity. It was also to deploy the potentially catastrophic consequences and resulting public panic as a rationale for continuing their own biological experimentation and funding grift.

“Sadly, it appears we have a leak from a lab.”

“No worries. We’ll find some scientists and steer some grant money to prove the pathogen in question originated from zoonotic spillover, thus proving the point that we need more funding.”

“Brilliant Dr. Fauci! Do we have contacts in the media?”

“We do. We’ll get on that.”

May 4, 2025 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment

HHS, NIH Launch $500 Million Project to Develop Universal Vaccines to Protect Against ‘Pandemic-Prone’ Viruses

By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. | The Defender | May 1, 2025

The Trump administration is investing $500 million into research that will use an existing, traditional vaccine technology to develop vaccines that protect against multiple strains of “pandemic-prone viruses,” according to a joint press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The investment will fund in-house development of universal vaccines for influenza, coronaviruses and multiple strains of viruses like H5N1 avian influenza and coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV.

The new research program, Generation Gold Standard, appears to be a revamp of the Biden administration’s Project NextGen, according to The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the story.

Project NextGen, a $5 billion effort to fund new COVID-19 vaccines, was the successor program to Operation Warp Speed, a partnership between HHS and the U.S. Department of Defense. Several Project NextGen studies have been halted in recent weeks.

“Generation Gold Standard is a paradigm shift,” said NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya. “It extends vaccine protection beyond strain-specific limits and prepares for flu viral threats — not just today’s, but tomorrow’s as well — using traditional vaccine technology brought into the 21st century.”

HHS said the platform is adaptable for future use against RSV or respiratory syncytial virus, metapneumovirus and parainfluenza.

The project will focus on producing vaccines from chemically inactivated whole viruses, which is how flu viruses were made in the past, the WSJ reported.

According to the joint press release, researchers will develop the “next-generation, universal vaccine platform,” using a mechanism called a beta-propiolactone (BPL)-inactivated, whole-virus platform.

Dr. Meryl Nass expressed some skepticism about the announcement. “This holy grail in vaccinology has been sought for decades, so far unsuccessfully,” she told The Defender.

Nass said that BPL technology has been used in vaccine development for at least 70 years, and its value in producing vaccines is not a new discovery.

“The press release fails to tell us how this method is suddenly going to produce the holy grail that has long been sought of a universal flu or corona pandemic vaccine,” Nass said.

Epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher from the McCullough Foundation also advised caution in interpreting the announcement. Hulscher said:

“These BPL-inactivated whole-virus vaccines represent a return to more traditional technology — likely offering broader and more durable protection than the narrow, spike-only focus of mRNA shots.

“However, it’s important to remember that any injectable product delivering toxic antigens — even if inactivated — can still result in serious adverse events, especially if distributed at scale without rigorous long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials.”

HHS confirmed Wednesday that going forward, all vaccines will be required to undergo placebo-controlled trials.

‘A transparent vaccine platform will change the pharmacology world’

Other experts said that although it remains unclear at this point how this proposed vaccine development will play out, the news is encouraging because it directs payments to government researchers rather than to Big Pharma.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) Senior Scientist Karl Jablonowski said the news that the agencies were committed to transparency was encouraging. Because of how private industry funds regulators, there has been an “inherent conflict” in vaccine development for some time, he said.

“The NIH could only promise transparency on a wholly government-owned product and process, as most of what transpires in private pharmaceutical companies lies beyond a citizen’s freedom of information rights,” Jablonowski said. “A transparent vaccine platform will change the pharmacology world.”

The Generation Gold Standard project includes research on a universal flu vaccine co-developed by NIH flu vaccine researchers Drs. Matthew Memoli and Jeffery Taubenberger, according to the WSJ. It will also research another universal flu vaccine and universal coronavirus vaccines.

CHD CEO Mary Holland said that the announcement was “interesting,” given that it doesn’t direct payments to Big Pharma and in light of the HHS announcement yesterday that all new vaccines will have to be tested against a placebo.

Clinical trials for universal influenza vaccines are scheduled to begin in 2026, with U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval targeted for 2029.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

May 4, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

Fauci’s Replacement at NIAID a Cheerleader for Gain-of-Function Research

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | April 29, 2025

A virologist who supports gain-of-function research and believes COVID-19 evolved naturally is the new acting director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the agency Dr. Anthony Fauci led for 38 years.

Jeffery Taubenberger, M.D., Ph.D., a 19-year veteran of NIAID and chief of the institute’s Viral Pathogenesis and Evolution Section, replaced Dr. Jeanne Marrazzo, who was placed on leave last month by the Trump administration.

Citing an email from Dr. Matthew Memoli, deputy director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Science reported that Taubenberger’s first day as acting director was April 25. Taubenberger will head an institute with a $6.56 billion budget, making it the second-largest NIH branch, overseen by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Several researchers told Science that Taubenberger has a commendable track record, highlighting his work sequencing the Spanish flu virus of 1918.

Adolfo Garcia-Sastre, Ph.D., a virologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said Taubenberger “has made many critical contributions to the field of influenza, both in pathogenesis, animal models, human data, and vaccines.”

But critics point to Taubenberger’s public support of gain-of-function research and the zoonotic theory of COVID-19’s origins, which holds that the virus crossed over naturally from animals to humans.

They also criticized his past ties to Fauci and other controversial virologists, and his prior work on COVID-19 vaccines.

Gain-of-function research, which increases the transmissibility or virulence of viruses, is often used in vaccine development. Such research was conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China, prompting fears that the virus was developed at the lab and subsequently leaked.

Concerns over the safety of gain-of-function research previously led the U.S. government to implement a moratorium on such projects between 2014 and 2017.

“Gain-of-function research, if made safe, is a tremendous tool for forecasting the evolution of pathogens,” said Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist for Children’s Health Defense. “The problem is that there is no such thing as a leak-proof laboratory, just as there is no such thing as an unsinkable ship. A lab leak is not inevitable, but it is a risk — one that we witness surprisingly often.”

Rutgers University molecular biologist Richard Ebright, Ph.D., a critic of gain-of-function research, said, “Taubenberger is part of the problem at NIAID, not part of the solution.”

Ebright said Taubenberger’s track record is at odds with HHS’ “Make America Healthy Again” agenda:

“Taubenberger’s views on the need for transparency and accountability at NIAID management, on the need for re-prioritization of NIAID funding to match disease burden, on the cause and cover-up of COVID, on reckless gain-of-function research and pathogen-resurrection research, and on biosafety, biosecurity, and biorisk management all appear to be diametrically opposed to those of HHS Secretary Kennedy.

“As such, Taubenberger’s appointment as acting director of NIAID is baffling.”

In a 2014 interview with the journal EMBO Reports, Taubenberger downplayed the risks of gain-of-function research, claiming it’s what “virologists have done for a hundred years.”

In a 2013 letter to the journal mBio, Taubenberger suggested that gain-of-function research replicates natural processes. He argued that Influenza A viruses “continually undergo ‘dual use experiments’ as a matter of evolution and selection.”

According to the American Society for Microbiology, dual-use research is a type of gain-of-function research that raises “important biosafety and/or biosecurity concerns.” It requires “a higher level of review” and is “subject to strict protocols.”

Jablonowski said Taubenberger’s dismissal of concerns over the safety of gain-of-function research overlooks its inherent risks.

“The problem with the argument is actually a problem with the policy it argues — it assumes an ill-willed actor intent on ‘deliberate misuse’ as the risk. Recent history has taught us that lab leaks pose a real and serious risk, no ill-willed actor needed. … Advocates of gain-of-function research do not include a realistic assessment of pathogen escape as part of a risk-benefit balance,” Jablonowski said.

While Taubenberger has been lauded for his role in sequencing the 1918 Spanish flu virus, some scientists were critical of this work, with Ebright calling the reconstruction of the 1918 virus “reckless.”

“Taubenberger … exhumed victims of the 1918 Spanish flu from the Alaskan permafrost to sequence and reconstruct the virus,” Jablonowski said. “It is a virus that killed 50 million people in two short years, and with its resurrection, could have reinitiated a pandemic.”

Taubenberger downplayed connections between COVID, lab leak

Taubenberger has sought to downplay any connection between gain-of-function research and the origins of COVID-19, instead claiming the virus emerged naturally.

In July 2020, Taubenberger and Fauci associate Dr. David Morens co-authored an op-ed in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, suggesting that COVID-19 is “a virus that emerged naturally.”

In a later email to a Science reporter, on which Taubenberger was copied, Morens described the article as a publication that “defends Peter and his Chinese colleagues” — referring to zoologist Peter Daszak, Ph.D., former president of the EcoHealth Alliance, which collaborated with Wuhan scientists on gain-of-function research.

Jablonowski said the authors of the 2020 op-ed “are unfit for office at a scientific institution — not because they got the origins of COVID-19 wrong, but because they played the game of deceiving the world. One of the villains of COVID-19 was EcoHealth Alliance, and Taubenberger’s narrative casts it as the hero.”

In their op-ed, Fauci and Morens called for the development of “broadly protective vaccines” and suggested that the role of organizations like the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) “should be extended and strengthened.”

In 2021, CEPI launched its “100 Days Mission” to develop infrastructure capable of delivering a vaccine for a future pandemic within 100 days. CEPI’s supporters include the Gates Foundation, World Economic Forum and Wellcome Trust.

According to his NIAID biography, Taubenberger has overseen research aimed at developing “broadly-protective coronavirus vaccines in pre-clinical animal studies.”

“Taubenberger is wrong about the dangers of gain-of-function research and also about the ‘zoonotic theory,’” said immunologist and biochemist Jessica Rose, Ph.D. “He needs to read EcoHealth Alliance’s DEFUSE proposal.”

Project DEFUSE, a 2018 grant developed by Daszak and co-authored by U.S. and Wuhan scientists, proposed engineering high-risk coronaviruses of the same species as SARS-CoV-2.

Although the U.S. government’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency rejected the proposal, some scientists have likened DEFUSE to a blueprint for generating SARS-CoV-2 in the lab, noting the similarities between the proposed work and key characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 that are not found elsewhere in nature.

Last year, HHS suspended all funding for EcoHealth Alliance after finding the organization failed to properly monitor risky coronavirus experiments.

The suspension came two weeks after a U.S. House of Representatives committee investigating the COVID-19 pandemic called for a criminal investigation of Daszak and a month after the U.S. Senate launched an investigation into 15 federal agencies that were briefed about Project DEFUSE in 2018 but said nothing.

Taubenberger collaborated closely with Fauci

According to U.S. Right to Know, “Most of the NIAID employees who helped Daszak maintain funding amid the pandemic still retain positions of influence at NIAID” — including Taubenberger and Morens, formerly a key aide to Fauci who is under investigation for allegedly using his personal email address to evade Freedom of Information Act requests for communications related to the origins of COVID-19.

Ebright said that Taubenberger has maintained longstanding collaborations with such figures, noting that he co-authored 14 papers with Fauci and 66 papers with Morens.

According to U.S. Right to Know, Taubenberger also collaborated with researchers who played a key role in promoting the zoonotic theory of COVID-19’s origins — including Daszak and several co-authors of “The proximal origin of SARS-Cov-2,” a March 2020 editorial published in Nature Medicine promoting the natural origin of COVID-19 that was later used to discredit proponents of the lab-leak theory.

Earlier this month, the Trump administration launched a revamped version of the government’s official COVID-19 website, presenting evidence that COVID-19 emerged following a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The CIA, FBI, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Congress and other intelligence agencies have endorsed this theory.

In a 1998 interview on PBS’ “American Experience,” Taubenberger suggested that a flu pandemic was inevitable. “The odds are very great, practically a hundred percent, that another pandemic will occur,” he said.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

May 4, 2025 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , | Leave a comment

‘Israeli pride’ – Celebrating rape in the Zionist entity

By David Miller | Al Mayadeen | May 4, 2025

Shoshana Strook, the daughter of far-right Israeli settlements minister Orit Strook who has accused both of her parents and one of her brothers of raping her as a child, has published a video alleging that they filmed her rape for use as child pornography and that criminals have threatened her with the publication of the video for accusing them. Ms Strook travelled to Italy to disclose her allegations but has now returned to “Israel”, where she asks Israeli police to protect her from her parents and from the blackmailers.

Settler, genocidal racist, abuser?

But who is Orit Strook?

Orit Strook helped to spread the totally false fabricated claims that the Palestinian Resistance committed sexual assaults during Al-Aqsa Flood. She, of course, has stated there is ‘no such thing’ as a Palestinian people. Strook is part of the fascist Jewish Power party (led by Itamar Ben-Gvir) and sits in the Knesset as part of the National Religious Party–Religious Zionism.

In 2007, Orit Strook’s son, Zviki Strook and his friends had entered a Palestinian neighbourhood, captured a 15-year-old boy, handcuffed and beat him, stripped him, and allegedly hit him with an ATV (all-terrain vehicle) before leaving him tied up in a field. The victim escaped hours later, suffering from severe injuries.

Zviki was also reported to have killed a newborn goat at the scene by kicking it to death. He was convicted on charges related to the attack and served 30 months in an Israeli prison.

But the Strook family is not the only one in the Zionist colony seemingly addicted to abuse. And nor is abuse confined to the far right, the settler movement, or ultra-orthodox Haredi sects. There is a sickness which permeates the whole settler society.

Most Israeli men say forced sex with acquaintance is not rape, as reported in an academic survey. Six out of 10 men said forced sex was not rape – and so did four out of 10 women. The results illustrated, the author said, the Israeli public’s “tolerant attitude to rape by an acquaintance”.

System failure

The Association of Rape Crisis Centers in “Israel” reports that police responses to sexual offences exhibit ‘Systematic failure’: Most complaints are not investigated by police – over 80% of sex offense cases in “Israel” are closed without action.

Gang rapes are a common feature of Israeli life. In one particularly awful case in Eilat in 2020 a 16 year old was raped by 30 men who reportedly stood in line waiting for their turn.

Amid a rise in high-profile gang rape cases in schools, The report found that most victims (63%) of reported gang rapes in 2018 were girls between the ages of 12 and 18.

In one case in the southern town of Netivot of the settler colony in 2019, a 13-year-old girl reported that she was repeatedly raped by four boys who were three or four years above her at the school. In another case in the North the same year, eight suspects between 14 and 16 were investigated for multiple rapes of an eleven year old girl.

If anything rape is seen as a sort of right for the Jewish supremacists who run the colony.

Who can forget the heroes’ welcome for a gang of Jewish rapists returning from Cyprus after their crimes had been revealed back in 2019. Haaretz ran the headline “Sex-party Boys Cleared of Rape in Cyprus Get Heroes’ Welcome in Israel.” There were shouts of ‘Israeli pride!’ from friends and family at Ben-Gurion Airport, “then they opened a bottle of Champagne”.

Of course, in that particular case, the victim was effectively bullied into recanting her testimony and was then convicted of lying about the events in Cyprus. It took years before the legal system admitted that it was wrong, by which time the perpetrators were long gone.

Meanwhile yet another case of young Jewish rapists occurred in Cyprus in 2023. As The Times reported, “On September 3, 2023, a week after arriving at the party hotspot popular with British teenagers, she was allegedly abducted, pinned down and raped by five Israeli men after being dragged from a pool party into their hotel room.” But they got off, “judges returned a not guilty verdict and the five defendants were free to return home to the northern Israeli town of Majd al-Krum, about 11 miles from the Lebanon border.”

In April this year, however, the Cypriot Attorney General appealed the acquittal.

Zionists love rape

Zionists, in other words, love rape. They don’t have any real concept that it is abuse, or if they do, they glory in their ability – their right – to commit abuse. Even the former President of “Israel”, Moshe Katsav, has been convicted of rape.

Zionist entity haven for child rapists

Many accused American pedophiles have reportedly fled to “Israel”, taking advantage of the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to Jews, with minimal barriers.

Jewish Community Watch (JCW), an American organization tracking these paedophiles, reports over 60 suspects fleeing from the US to “Israel”, though the actual number is certainly higher due to limited resources and knowledge.

The Matzof Association, which monitors paedophilia in “Israel”, estimates that tens of thousands of offenders operate each year, affecting around 100,000 victims annually.

It’s even been suggested by some Zionists that the regime is attempting to legislate to make the rape of children easier.

According to the government of the Zionist entity, there was “a 24 percent increase in children and teenagers treated by authorities after being sexually abused from 2019 to 2020, according to Welfare Ministry figures released Tuesday.”

According to the data, “10% of the victims were aged 3-6, 44% were 7-12 and 46% were 13-17.” About “half the cases of abuse were allegedly committed by family members. Some victims were abused by several people. Actual abuse numbers are thought to be much higher as many cases go unreported, according to experts.”

Paedophiles appear to be liberally spread throughout the global zionist movement. A former leader of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the World Jewish Congress, as well as a long-time Labour MP, Greville Janner was alleged by more than thirty complainants to be a serial paedophile, but the police failed to properly investigate.

Strikingly, his three children all defended him, claiming that the allegations were all invented for nefarious purposes. His daughter, Laura Janner Klausner, is a Rabbi, and not just any old Rabbi. She is the former senior rabbi of Reform Judaism.

Reform Judaism – or to give it its full name, ‘The Movement for Reform Judaism‘ – is the notionally reform-minded sect within Judaism, which, however, remains, in its own words, ‘unequivocally Zionist’. It is closely allied with Liberal or Progressive Judaism in the World Union for Progressive Judaism (which is also Zionist) and has had its own case of an abusive Rabbi.

In other words, we should be clear that the alleged practice of paedophilia (and denial of it) is not confined to the ultra-orthodox, but also manifested among mainstream Zionists (the United Synagogue, also Zionist, to which Janner senior adhered) and on the liberal end of the spectrum.

What is true for their own children and for their women in general is, of course, magnified when it comes to non-Jews and in particular Palestinians: Women, Children, and men too.

The testimony of Ibrahim Salim revealed that sexual torture is routine, including the rape of children. He reported: ”For sexual torture they used to call out prisoners individually. When we were at Sde [Teiman] we heard that they raped someone. We went crazy when we heard that… When we heard that they actually raped him. They even raped children. I swear to God, there was a young guy from Zeitoun who was raped. Not a young man, a child. He was 15 years old.”

In the rape and torture camp at Sde Teiman, even the Western media have reported the mass rape of Palestinian hostages. And when video evidence was released there was a virtual insurrection to prevent the rapists being arrested or prosecuted.

“Israel” appears to be the only place in the world where there are actual demonstrations defending rapists as national heroes precisely because of their crimes.

So, of course, the Western media has been full of allegations about sexual crimes by the Palestinian Resistance for the past 18 months. All of these have been proven to be false, many of them actually invented and spread by the rescue group Zaka. The founder of Zaka, Yehuda Meshi Zahav, who died in 2022, attempted suicide in 2021, after accusations of rape and pedophilia emerged in the daily Haaretz. Several people “testified that they were sexually assaulted by him days after he received the Israel Prize for his contribution to Israeli society. He then refused the prize because of the charges against him.”

Every Zionist accusation is a confession.

May 4, 2025 Posted by | War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »