The 15 Most Devastating Truths About the PSA Screening Disaster
Lies are Unbekoming | October 26, 2025
The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test has screened 30 million American men annually for over three decades. The man who discovered PSA in 1970, Richard Ablin, now calls mass screening “a public health disaster.” Two landmark 2012 studies found no survival benefit from radical surgery compared to watchful waiting. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concluded PSA screening does more harm than good. Yet the $3 billion annual industry continues largely unabated.
These revelations emerge from three insider accounts: Ablin’s The Great Prostate Hoax, urologist Anthony Horan’s The Rise and Fall of the Prostate Cancer Scam, and oncologist Mark Scholz’s Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers. Together they document how a test meant to monitor existing cancer patients became a screening juggernaut that has left millions of men incontinent, impotent, or dead from unnecessary treatment.
The numbers are staggering. Since 1987, when PSA screening exploded nationwide, over one million American men have undergone radical prostatectomies. Studies show 40 to 50 men must be diagnosed and treated to prevent one death from prostate cancer. The other 39 to 49 men receive no benefit but face permanent side effects. Medicare and the Veterans Administration fund most of this treatment, pouring billions into a system that prominent urologists privately acknowledge has failed.
What follows are the most damaging truths about how PSA screening became entrenched despite overwhelming evidence of harm, why it persists against scientific consensus, and what this reveals about American medicine’s inability to abandon lucrative practices even when they damage patients.
1. The Test’s Creator Calls It a “Public Health Disaster”
Richard Ablin discovered prostate-specific antigen in 1970 while researching cryosurgery’s effects on prostate tissue. He never intended PSA as a screening test for healthy men. The test cannot distinguish between the cancers that kill and those that remain harmless. Ablin has spent decades publicly denouncing mass screening, including a 2010 New York Times op-ed titled “The Great Prostate Mistake.”
Ablin compares PSA screening’s specificity to “a coin toss” – hardly the precision expected from a medical test that determines whether men undergo surgery or radiation. He testified before Congress, published papers, and gave countless lectures warning against screening’s misuse. The medical establishment ignored him. In his book, he writes that watching his discovery become “a hugely expensive public health disaster” has been “painful.” The man who found PSA receives angry emails from men whose lives were destroyed by unnecessary treatment triggered by elevated PSA levels.
2. 75% of Men with Elevated PSA Don’t Have Cancer
A PSA level above 4.0 triggers the treatment cascade, yet three-quarters of these men have no cancer. Infections, enlarged prostates, bicycle riding, and recent ejaculation all elevate PSA. The test measures inflammation as readily as malignancy. This 75% false positive rate means millions undergo invasive biopsies needlessly.
The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial found that 15% of men with PSA under 4.0 – the “normal” range – actually had prostate cancer, including aggressive forms. Meanwhile, only 25% with elevated PSA had cancer at all. No blood test with such poor specificity would gain approval today. Yet once PSA became standard practice, removing it from clinical use proved impossible despite its fundamental unreliability.
3. The $3 Billion Annual PSA Gold Rush
PSA screening generates at least $3 billion annually, with Medicare and the Veterans Administration covering most costs. Each abnormal PSA triggers a cascade: repeat tests, biopsies, imaging, surgery or radiation, plus years of follow-up. A single radical prostatectomy bills $15,000 to $30,000. Radiation therapy can exceed $50,000. These procedures require expensive equipment, specialized facilities, and teams of providers.
Hospital systems depend on this revenue stream. Urology practices built business models around screening and treatment. Medical device companies profit from surgical robots, radiation equipment, and biopsy tools. This economic ecosystem resists evidence showing most treatment is unnecessary. When the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended against routine screening in 2012, medical associations mobilized massive lobbying efforts to preserve the status quo. Money, not medicine, drives the screening machine.
4. 30 Million Tests, 1 Million Unnecessary Biopsies Per Year
Annual PSA screening of 30 million American men triggers approximately one million prostate biopsies. Since most elevated PSAs are false positives, at least 750,000 of these biopsies find no cancer. Each biopsy involves 12 to 18 needle cores punched through the rectal wall into the prostate. Serious infections requiring hospitalization occur in 1-4% of cases. Sepsis can be fatal.
Even negative biopsies don’t end the cascade. Urologists often recommend repeat biopsies for persistently elevated PSA, subjecting men to multiple rounds of needles, infection risk, and anxiety. Some undergo four, five, even six biopsies chasing ghost cancers that either don’t exist or would never threaten their lives. The psychological toll – months of fear between tests, the dread of results, the pressure to “do something” – devastates men and families. This suffering serves no medical purpose for the vast majority subjected to it.
5. The “Arbitrary” 4.0 Cutoff That Changed Everything
The PSA threshold of 4.0 ng/mL that triggers intervention was, according to New York Times reporting, chosen “just sort of arbitrarily.” William Catalona’s influential 1991 New England Journal of Medicine article established this cutoff without reporting false positive rates – a basic requirement for screening tests. The entire world adopted this number uncritically.
No scientific process determined that 4.0 represented a meaningful boundary between health and disease. The number could have been 3.0 or 5.0 or 6.5. Each choice would have swept millions more or fewer men into the treatment vortex. This arbitrary threshold, selected without rigorous validation, has determined the fate of millions. Men with 4.1 undergo biopsies while those with 3.9 are deemed safe, though this 0.2 difference has no biological significance. A random number became medical dogma, and challenging it meant confronting an entire industry built on its foundation.
6. 2,600 Post-Surgery Deaths at the 1992 Peak
Radical prostatectomy deaths peaked at 2,600 in 1992, five years after PSA screening exploded nationally. These men died from surgical complications – bleeding, infections, blood clots, anesthesia reactions. They underwent surgery for cancers that, in most cases, would never have threatened their lives. The operation killed them before their cancer could.
Anthony Horan documents how radical surgery was “revived without new evidence” in the 1980s after being largely abandoned. The combination of PSA screening and renewed surgical enthusiasm created a perfect storm. Thousands died on operating tables for a disease that grows so slowly most men die with it, not from it. These deaths represent only immediate surgical mortality – not the men who died months later from complications, or whose lives were shortened by surgical trauma. Each death was preventable had screening not detected their harmless cancers.
7. Radical Surgery Shows No Survival Benefit Over Watchful Waiting
Two randomized controlled trials reported in 2012 found no difference in cancer-specific mortality between radical surgery and watchful waiting. The Prostate Cancer Intervention Versus Observation Trial (PIVOT) followed 731 men for up to 15 years. The Scandinavian trial tracked men for over 20 years. Both reached the same conclusion: surgery doesn’t save lives compared to monitoring.
These studies destroyed the rationale for early detection. If removing the entire prostate doesn’t extend life compared to doing nothing, then finding cancer early serves no purpose except to subject men to treatment side effects. The medical establishment largely ignored these findings. Surgery rates declined modestly but remained far higher than evidence justified. Mark Scholz writes that these studies should have “removed the rationale for early diagnosis with PSA” entirely. Instead, the industry adapted its messaging while continuing essentially unchanged.
8. The FDA Approval Based on 3.8% Detection Rate
The FDA approved PSA for screening in 1994 based primarily on a study showing it could detect 3.8% more cancers than digital rectal examination. This marginal improvement became justification for testing millions annually. The agency relied heavily on this single statistic while downplaying false positive rates and overdiagnosis risks.
Alexander Baumgarten, one of FDA’s own expert advisers, warned officials: “Like Pontius Pilate, you cannot wash the guilt off your hands.” Susan Alpert, who directed FDA’s Office of Device Evaluation during approval, later acknowledged the decision’s problems. The agency never required studies showing screening actually saved lives or improved quality of life. This regulatory failure, approving a test based on detection rates rather than patient outcomes, enabled the disaster that followed. The FDA has never revisited its decision despite overwhelming evidence of harm.
9. Prostate Cancer Grows So Slowly Most Men Die WITH It, Not FROM It
Autopsy studies reveal that 30% of men in their 40s and 70% in their 70s have prostate cancer cells. Most never knew and were never affected. The cancer’s typical growth rate means decades pass between initial cellular changes and potential lethality. A 65-year-old diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer has less than 3% chance of dying from it within 15 years if left untreated.
Men diagnosed at 75 almost certainly will die of something else first – heart disease, stroke, other cancers. Yet screening doesn’t discriminate by age or life expectancy. Elderly men in nursing homes receive PSA tests and undergo biopsies. Some receive radiation or surgery in their 80s for cancers that could never outlive them. This fundamental biological reality – that most prostate cancers are clinically insignificant – undermines screening’s entire premise. Finding these cancers serves only to transform healthy men into cancer patients unnecessarily.
10. The Biopsy Train: 18-Gauge Needles and Serious Infections
Modern prostate biopsy involves 12 to 18 hollow-bore needles, each 18-gauge in diameter, fired through the rectal wall. The needles extract tissue cores while potentially spreading bacteria from the bowel into the prostate and bloodstream. Fluoroquinolone-resistant bacteria have made infections increasingly dangerous. Some men develop sepsis requiring intensive care.
Richard Ablin receives emails from men describing their biopsy experiences as “spinning out of control,” having “panic attacks,” and living in a “nightmare.” The procedure’s violence – needles punching through tissue, the sound of the spring-loaded gun, blood in urine and semen for weeks – traumatizes men regardless of results. Those with negative biopsies face pressure to repeat the procedure if PSA remains elevated. Some endure annual biopsies for years, each carrying infection risk, each failing to find cancer that likely isn’t there or doesn’t matter. The biopsy itself becomes a recurring assault that serves no medical purpose.
11. Incontinence and Impotence: The “Acceptable” Side Effects
Radical prostatectomy leaves 20-30% of men with permanent urinary incontinence requiring pads or diapers. Erectile dysfunction affects 60-80%, depending on age and surgical technique. These rates come from centers of excellence; community hospitals report worse outcomes. Surgeons routinely minimize these risks, calling them “acceptable” trade-offs for cancer treatment.
For men whose cancers would never have threatened them – the majority who undergo surgery – these side effects represent pure harm. They lose sexual function and bladder control to treat a disease that required no treatment. Their marriages suffer. Depression is common. Some become recluses, afraid to leave home without knowing bathroom locations. The medical profession’s casual acceptance of these devastating outcomes reflects a stunning disregard for quality of life. No other medical specialty would tolerate routinely destroying normal function to treat non-threatening conditions.
12. PSA Isn’t Even Prostate-Specific
Despite its name, prostate-specific antigen isn’t specific to the prostate. Breast tissue produces PSA – it’s a normal component of breast milk. Salivary glands make it. Some lymphomas produce PSA. Women have measurable PSA levels. This basic biological fact undermines the test’s fundamental premise.
Anthony Horan notes he personally reported PSA production in B-cell lymphomas. The protein’s presence throughout the body means elevated levels can reflect numerous non-prostatic processes. Yet the medical establishment treats PSA as if it were a precise prostate cancer marker. This scientific sloppiness – naming and using a test based on false assumptions about specificity – exemplifies the intellectual bankruptcy underlying mass screening. If PSA were discovered today with current knowledge, it would never be approved for screening healthy men.
13. The Veterans Administration’s Role in the Screening Epidemic
The Veterans Administration extensively promoted and funded PSA screening, making it routine for millions of veterans. The VA’s electronic medical records prompted doctors to order PSA tests, created quality metrics based on screening rates, and facilitated the treatment cascade. Veterans, trusting their government healthcare, underwent screening at higher rates than the general population.
The VA spent billions on screening, biopsies, and treatment. Veterans suffered disproportionately from overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Many underwent surgery or radiation at VA hospitals with limited experience in these procedures, likely experiencing higher complication rates. The government that sent these men to war later subjected them to medical harm through systematic overscreening. Only after the 2012 USPSTF recommendation did the VA begin moderating its approach, too late for hundreds of thousands of veterans already harmed.
14. Why Urologists Can’t Stop Screening Despite the Evidence
Urologists understand the evidence against screening yet continue promoting it. Professional self-interest explains this cognitive dissonance. Prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment represent major revenue sources for urology practices. Academic urologists depend on prostate cancer research grants. Professional status derives from surgical volume and technical expertise in procedures that shouldn’t be performed.
Mark Scholz describes the “surgeon personality” that sees every problem as requiring surgical solution. Urologists train for years to perform radical prostatectomies. Abandoning these procedures means acknowledging that much of their training and practice caused unnecessary harm. The psychological and economic barriers to accepting screening’s failure prove insurmountable. Even urologists who privately acknowledge the problem continue participating in the system. Professional conferences feature token debates about screening while exhibit halls showcase million-dollar surgical robots. The specialty cannot reform itself when its economic survival depends on perpetuating harm.
15. Active Surveillance Works for 99% of Low-Risk Cases
Multiple studies demonstrate that active surveillance – monitoring without immediate treatment – works for virtually all low-risk prostate cancers. Memorial Sloan Kettering reported that fewer than 1% of men on surveillance die from prostate cancer over 15 years. Johns Hopkins found similar results. These men avoid treatment side effects while maintaining the option to treat if their cancer progresses.
Despite this evidence, most men with low-risk disease still receive immediate treatment. Doctors present surveillance as “doing nothing” rather than an active management strategy. Patients fear leaving cancer untreated, not understanding their cancer’s indolent nature. The medical system’s financial incentives favor treatment over monitoring. Each patient choosing surveillance represents lost revenue. This proven alternative that could spare hundreds of thousands from unnecessary treatment remains underutilized because it threatens the economic foundation of prostate cancer care.
Conclusion
The PSA screening disaster exposes American medicine’s darkest impulses: the primacy of profit over patient welfare, the persistence of harmful practices despite overwhelming evidence, and the medical establishment’s inability to acknowledge error. Thirty years of mass screening has transformed millions of healthy men into cancer patients unnecessarily, subjecting them to treatments that left many incontinent, impotent, or dead.
The men who exposed this scandal from within – Richard Ablin who discovered PSA, Anthony Horan who practiced urology during screening’s rise, Mark Scholz who treats screening’s victims – deserve recognition for their courage in challenging their profession’s orthodoxy. Their accounts reveal not isolated mistakes but systematic failure: arbitrary thresholds adopted without validation, regulatory approval based on minimal evidence, and an entire medical specialty economically dependent on perpetuating harm. Until American medicine can abandon lucrative practices that damage patients, the PSA disaster will repeat in other forms, with other tests, harming other victims who trusted their doctors to first do no harm.
References
Ablin, Richard J., with Ronald Piana. The Great Prostate Hoax: How Big Medicine Hijacked the PSA Test and Caused a Public Health Disaster. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
Horan, Anthony H. The Rise and Fall of the Prostate Cancer Scam. 3rd ed. Broomfield, CO: On the Write Path Publishing, 2019.
Scholz, Mark, and Ralph H. Blum. Invasion of the Prostate Snatchers: An Essential Guide to Managing Prostate Cancer for Patients and Their Families. Revised ed. New York: Other Press, 2021.
Britain and France want to ‘set Europe on fire’ – Hungarian FM
RT | January 11, 2026
Britain and France are risking dragging Europe into an all-out war with Russia, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto has said, condemning plans to deploy Western troops in Ukraine.
On Tuesday, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron signed a declaration of intent with Ukraine to establish “military hubs” in the country after a peace deal with Moscow. UK Defense Secretary John Healey later said during a visit to Kiev that London would spend $270 million on equipping units ready to become part of a “multinational force.”
Hungary has consistently opposed further escalation with Russia and has urged the EU to focus on diplomacy. Speaking at a congress of the ruling conservative Fidesz party on Saturday, Szijjarto said the “war fanaticism” of Western European leaders was “throwing Hungary into the greatest danger.”
“Last weekend, a statement was released in Paris announcing the two European nuclear powers’ decision to send their troops to Ukraine. Essentially, this means that the European nuclear powers are starting a war. Their goal, let us be clear, is to engulf all of Europe in flames,” the diplomat said.
Szijjarto argued that the EU viewed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban as “the only obstacle” to its plans and was seeking to replace him with a pro-Ukrainian leader in parliamentary elections scheduled for April.
“If we win the election, we will stay out of the war,” he said. “If we do not win, then the Brussels–Kiev plan will be implemented.”
Under the plan outlined in Paris, Britain and France would deploy troops to help build protected weapons facilities and take part in US-led truce monitoring. The US has ruled out sending its own soldiers to Ukraine.
On Thursday, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that Moscow would treat any Western troops or military sites in Ukraine as “a foreign intervention” posing a threat to its security. Russia has listed Ukrainian neutrality, including no foreign troops on the ground, as one of its key conditions for a lasting peace.
Inside Israel’s Support For Reza Pahlavi
Israel Wants The Son Of Iran’s Former Shah In Power After A Regime Change War

The Dissident | January 10, 2026
Recently, Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former U.S./Israeli backs Shah of Iran- who was installed after the U.S. backed a coup against Iran’s democratically elected president Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, and overthrown in the Iranian Revolution in 1979- has been encouraging increasingly violent protests with the goal of regime change in Iran.
Pahlavi, who lives in Washington, has been cheering on pro-regime change protests saying in a message to protestors , “I am certain that by making our street presence more targeted, and at the same time cutting off the financial lifelines, we will completely bring the Islamic Republic and its worn-out and fragile repression apparatus to its knees”.
He went on to call for protestors to seize cities in Iran with the eventual goal of regime change, saying, “In this regard, I invite workers and employees in key sectors of the economy – especially transportation, oil, gas, and energy – to begin a nationwide strike. I also ask all of you today and tomorrow, Saturday and Sunday (January 10 and 11), from 6 p.m., to come to the streets with flags, images, and national symbols and claim public spaces as your own. Our goal is no longer merely to come to the streets; the goal is to prepare for seizing the centers of cities and holding them” adding, “I, too, am preparing to return to the homeland so that at the time of our national revolution’s victory, I can be beside you, the great nation of Iran. I believe that day is very near. Long live Iran”.
What is not as well known is that Reza Pahlavi is deeply connected to Israel, and that Israeli intelligence has run propaganda campaigns in an attempt to promote Pahlavi, who they want to prop up after enacting regime change in Iran.
In 2023, Reza Pahlavi made an official visit to Israel, at the behest of its then Intelligence Minister, Gila Gamlie, where he met with Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli President Isaac Herzog.
During the visit, he called for Iran to move towards Israel and away from supporting Palestinian resistance. As Forward noted, “In April 2023, Pahlavi traveled to Israel, where he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Isaac Herzog, and paid a visit to the Western Wall, where he said he prayed ‘for the day when the good people of Iran and Israel can renew our historic friendship.’ He even consulted Israeli water management scientists, whom he dubbed the ‘best experts in the field,’ to help him develop a plan of action for Iran’s water crisis, which has also been a major point of contention for protestors.”
The Likud-connected Jerusalem Centre for Security and Foreign Affairs wrote at the time of the visit, “The main message of his visit was the possibility and urgency of peace between the two ancient nations of Israel and Iran. However, this will not happen unless the Iranian people can succeed in overthrowing the Islamic Republic, the common enemy that cements the relationship between a majority of Iranians and Israel.”
In other words, Israel wants regime change in Iran and to install Reza Pahlavi, so it can continue it’s ethnic cleansing plan in Gaza and the West Bank and further greater Israel expansion, without facing any roadblocks from Iran, and to cut off a supporter of resistance to Israeli expansion.
During the visit, Reza Pahlavi promised to further this Israeli goal if he were installed in power, saying, “The biblical relationship we have with Israel was long before it became a state”.
Following the visit, Israeli intelligence launched a propaganda campaign online, designed to promote Reza Pahlavi and support for him being installed into power in Iran.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that following the visit, “a large-scale digital influence campaign in Persian was underway, operated out of Israel and funded by a private entity that receives government support,” adding, “The campaign promotes Pahlavi’s public image and amplifies calls for restoring the monarchy. The campaign relies on ‘avatars,’ fake online personas posing as Iranian citizens on social media.”
Haaretz went on to report:
According to five sources with direct knowledge of the project, native Persian speakers were recruited for the operation. Three of the sources confirmed the connection between the project and this specific campaign, and said they witnessed the network advancing pro-Pahlavi messaging.
According to the sources, the campaign included fake accounts on platforms such as X and Instagram and used artificial intelligence tools to help disseminate key narratives, craft its messages, and generate content.
The report added, “While Pahlavi declares that he’s not running for any position, in recent years a social media campaign has been calling for the monarchy’s restoration, with Reza on the throne. According to the sources, part of this effort is based on a network of fake accounts originating in Israel.”
Similarly, before the current unrest in Iran, Israeli intelligence used social media in an attempt to foment violent riots that would lead to regime change in Iran.
The University of Toronto’s Citizen Lab uncovered another social media campaign in Persian operated through Israeli intelligence, which “advanced a narrative of regime change in Iran”.
During the Israel/American bombing of Iran in June of the last year, the Israeli accounts, were, “sharing images and videos of alleged civil unrest and instability in Iran”, “published a series of posts highlighting the alleged economic upheaval in Iran after the first few rounds of bombings” and “told followers to head to ATMs to withdraw money, emphasized that the Islamic Republic was ‘stealing our money to escape with its officials,’ and urged followers to rise up against the regime.”
They also, “urged followers to get on their balconies at 8 p.m. each evening and shout ‘Death to Khamenei’” and “appeared to make another push to trigger unrest by questioning the ceasefire”.
Along with this, the Israeli bot accounts shared “several instances of videos edited and shared to mislead viewers about protest activity occurring in Iran” and shared fake news headline that claimed, “Officials flee the country; High-ranking officials leave Iran one after another”.
After the bombing, the Israeli bot accounts, “pivoted to content related to the country’s ongoing water and energy crisis” in an attempt to, “escalate these tensions by creating and sharing content related to these issues”.
The report noted that the bot network is “still consistently posting about both the water crisis and energy shortage, in a likely attempt to continue to escalate tensions between Iranian citizens and their government.”
During the current protests, which began as peaceful protests around Iran’s mismanagement of the economy, but were taken over by a violent regime change element, Israeli and American officials have openly boasted that there are Mossad agents on the ground, attempting to push the protests in a pro-regime change direction.
Israel’s Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu boasted that, “we have some of our people operating there (in Iran) right now”, while a Mossad linked X account claimed that the Mossad was, “with you in the field as well” to Iranian protestors and the former CIA director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote , “Happy New Year to every Iranian in the streets. Also, to every Mossad agent walking beside them.”
Israel’s puppet, Reza Pahlavi, cheering on regime change riots in Iran, needs to be seen as a part of Israel’s broader plan- enacted after the 2023 visit, to install him after carrying out its longtime goal of regime change.
Larry Johnson: End of Negotiations & Launch of Oreshnik
Glenn Diesen | January 10, 2026
Larry Johnson is a former intelligence analyst at the CIA who also worked at the US State Department’s Office of Counterterrorism. Johnson discusses provocations, end of negotiations and launch of the Oreshnink.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
- X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen
- Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/glenndiesen
Support the research by Prof. Glenn Diesen:
- PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/glenndiesen
- Buy me a Coffee: buymeacoffee.com/gdieseng
- Go Fund Me: https://gofund.me/09ea012f
- Books by Prof. Glenn Diesen
Germany Considers Broader Legal Authority for Internet Surveillance and State Hacking

By Ken Macon | Reclaim The Net | January 10, 2026
Germany’s government is preparing to give its foreign intelligence service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), far broader powers over online surveillance and hacking than it has ever had before.
A draft amendment to the BND Act, circulating by German media, would transform the agency’s reach by authorizing it to break into foreign digital systems, collect and store large portions of internet traffic, and analyze those communications retroactively.
At the core of this plan is Frankfurt’s DE-CIX internet exchange, one of the largest data junctions on the planet.
For thirty years, global traffic has passed through this node, and for just as long, the BND has quietly operated there under government supervision, scanning international data streams for intelligence clues.
Until now, this monitoring has been limited. The agency could capture metadata such as connection records, but not the full content of messages, and any data collected had to be reviewed and filtered quickly.
The proposed legal reform would overturn those restrictions.
The BND would be permitted to copy and retain not only metadata but also entire online conversations, including emails, chats, and other content, for up to six months.
Officials expect that roughly 30 percent of the world’s internet traffic moving through German collection points could be subject to capture.
A two-step process would follow. First, the BND would stockpile the data. Later, analysts could open and inspect specific content after the fact.
Supporters in the Chancellery say that this is not a radical expansion but a modernization that brings Germany into alignment with foreign partners. They claim that other countries’ intelligence services already hold data for longer periods, two years in the Netherlands, four years in France, and indefinitely in Britain and Italy.
The government’s view is that the BND must have comparable tools to operate independently rather than relying on allied services for insight.
Yet the amendment goes far beyond storage. It would also legalize direct hacking operations against companies and infrastructure that do not cooperate voluntarily with BND requests.
Under the term “Computer Network Exploitation,” the agency could secretly access the systems of online providers like Google, Meta, or X.
These intrusions would be permitted both abroad and, in some circumstances, within Germany itself, especially if justified as a defense against cyberattacks.
Another provision would sharply reduce existing privacy protections for journalists. At present, reporters enjoy near absolute protection from state surveillance.
The draft law, however, introduces an exception. Employees of media organizations tied to “authoritarian” governments could be monitored, with the justification that such journalists might be acting on behalf of their states rather than as independent observers.
The Chancellery has declined to comment publicly, saying only that the amendment is still under internal review.
But the direction is unmistakable. Germany appears ready to embed mass interception and hacking powers into law, effectively normalizing surveillance once viewed as excessive during the Snowden era.
While the government frames this as a strategic update, the effect would be the routine collection and long-term storage of personal communications flowing through German networks.
Such a structure risks making mass surveillance a permanent feature of the digital world, one that alters the balance of power further away from individual privacy and toward an intelligence system designed to watch nearly everything that passes through its cables.
35,000 ‘Partially or Completely’ Deaf in Gaza Due to Israeli Bombings – Report

The Palestine Chronicle | January 9, 2026
An estimated 35,000 children and adults “have partially or completely” lost their hearing due to bombings during Israel’s two-year genocidal assault on the Gaza Strip, according to a Le Monde report, citing a survey by a local non-profit organization.
“Hearing loss can result from injuries to the head or neck, brain trauma causing ruptured eardrums and damage to the auditory system. But it can also be caused by exposure to sound waves, even if a person was not physically injured,” Dr. Ramadan Hussein, an audiologist working with the Atfaluna Society for the Deaf, reportedly said.
“These hearing disorders are, most often, irreversible,” he stressed.
‘Power of Explosion’
One such child whose hearing was affected by the bombings is a 12-year-old girl by the name of Dana. She was resting in her room in Gaza City when an Israeli missile hit the building just across from hers, the report said.
Dana’s father stressed that the explosion “was extremely violent”, with the door to her room torn off and the windows blown out. Although she survived the blast, Dana lost her hearing.
Specialists at the Atfaluna organization confirmed that Dana is suffering from “a very severe hearing loss”.
They said that “Because of the power of the explosion, the auditory nerve was severely damaged, perhaps even completely destroyed.”
Five-Day-Old Baby
In another case, a baby who was just five days old was thrown and buried under the sand when an Israeli missile struck one meter from his family’s tent in the al-Mawassai area of Khan Yunis, the report said.
His mother, Safa al-Qara, said, “We found him thanks to his feet sticking out. He was in a terrible state; we thought he was going to die.” Four months after his birth, his mother noticed that “something was wrong.”
She said that only movement “got his attention, not sounds.” He was subsequently diagnosed with a zero level of hearing.
The report stated that he urgently requires a hearing aid or cochlear implant to avoid sever developmental delays – an impossible task in the besieged enclave with Israel having blocked the entry of some medical equipment and medicines.
“For nearly a year, not a single hearing aid has entered the Gaza Strip,” Dr. Hussein warned, adding that “even those who already have them will soon be unable to use them, because batteries are also banned.”
Infrastructure Destroyed
In addition to the shortages, laboratories to make custom ear molds and much of the infrastructure needed to treat hearing disorders has been destroyed by Israel’s ground offensive, the report stated. Many specialists in this field have also already left the enclave due to the genocidal war.
Dr. Hussein warned that “Forced displacements, continuous bombings, famine and the lack of medicine affect pregnant women and fetuses and can lead to the birth of children with disabilities, including hearing loss.”
At the same time, with the worsening conditions in displacement camps, malnutrition and the lack of primary care, there is the risk of infections.
Fady Abed, the director of Atfaluna, warned that even minor infections, “like ear infections, can cause permanent hearing loss if not treated in time,” the report stated.
Staggering Death Toll
Starting on October 7, 2023, the Israeli military, with American support, launched a genocidal war against the people of Gaza. This campaign has so far resulted in the deaths of over 71,300 Palestinians, with more than 171,000 wounded. The vast majority of the population has been displaced, and the destruction of infrastructure is unprecedented since World War II. Thousands of people are still missing.
In addition to the military assault, the Israeli blockade has caused a man-made famine, leading to the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians—mostly children—with hundreds of thousands more at risk.
Despite widespread international condemnation, little has been done to hold Israel accountable. The nation is currently under investigation for genocide by the International Court of Justice, while accused war criminals, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are officially wanted by the International Criminal Court.
Wary US Oil Giants Dodge Venezuela Investment Pitch
Sputnik – 10.01.2026
American oil majors left a White House meeting without signing up for a fast money push into Venezuela’s oil sector following the capture of the country’s legitimate President Nicolas Maduro, reports Axios.
The Trump administration has floated a $100 billion investment figure, promising “security” and “direct deals” with the US. But executives kept their distance.
- Exxon CEO Darren Woods bluntly called Venezuela “uninvestable” under current legal and commercial conditions
- ConocoPhillips’s Ryan Lance stressed the need to talk with banks — likely including the US Export-Import Bank – on how to restructure debt “to deliver the billions of dollars that are required to restore their energy infrastructure”
- Chevron — the only US major still operating in Venezuela — stuck to cautious language, focusing on employee safety and “compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to its business, as well as the sanctions frameworks provided for by the US government”
A handful of independents reportedly signaled interest, but with Venezuela’s output at around 800,000 barrels per day – still far below its past peaks – and legal risks front of mind, Wall Street’s oil titans aren’t exactly racing back in.
Getting back to the 3.5 million barrels per day level of the late 1990s could require much more than $100 billion worth of investment over a significant number of years, according to analysts cited by the outlet.
Oil prices are currently low, with WTI crude hovering around $59 per barrel, which also plays a significant factor in the reluctance — major investments in Venezuela’s heavy crude projects would require much higher sustained prices to justify the risks and capital investments.
Starmer’s Looking for an Excuse to Ban X
“All options” on the table now includes silencing a global network; an idea once unthinkable in a “democracy”

By Cam Wakefield | Reclaim The Net | January 10, 2026
Keir Starmer has signaled he is prepared to back regulatory action that could ultimately result in X being blocked in the UK.
The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has suggested, more or less, that because Elon Musk’s AI chatbot Grok has been generating images of women and minors in bikinis, he’ll support going as far as hitting the kill switch and blocking access to the entire platform.
“The situation is disgraceful and disgusting,” Starmer said on Greatest Hits Radio; the station best known for playing ABBA and now, apparently, for frontline authoritarian tech policy announcements.
“X has got to get a grip of this, and Ofcom has our full support to take action… I’ve asked for all options to be on the table.”
“All options,” for those who don’t speak fluent Whitehall euphemism, now apparently includes turning Britain’s digital infrastructure into a sort of beige North Korea, where a bunch of government bureaucrats, armed with nothing but Online Safety Act censorship law and the panic of a 90s tabloid, get to decide which speech the public is allowed to see.
Now, you might be wondering: Surely he’s bluffing? Oh no. According to Downing Street sources, they’re quite serious.
And they’ve even named the mechanism: the Online Safety Act; that cheery little piece of legislation that sounds like it’s going to help grandmothers avoid email scams, but actually gives Ofcom the power to block platforms, fine them into oblivion, or ban them entirely if they don’t comply with government censorship orders.
Ofcom, the country’s media regulator, is now in “urgent contact” with both X and xAI, Grok’s parent company, after reports that users were using the chatbot to generate images of real people in bikinis.
UK Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology Liz Kendall told Ofcom it should consider blocking X in the UK, that she expects action in “days not weeks,” and that Ofcom would have the “full backing of the government” if it used blocking powers.
But here’s the problem. In the government’s fury over Grok and its users, they’re now open to ban an entire global communications platform. The equivalent of bulldozing the post office because someone sent a rude postcard.
People have been using Photoshop to create fake, explicit, deeply creepy images for decades. If you had a PC, half a clue, and a little too much time in the early 2000s, you could slap a celebrity’s face onto anything you wanted; with results that ranged from ridiculous to criminal.
And nobody suggested shutting down Adobe, or banning Microsoft Paint, or arresting the paperclip from Word for aiding and abetting. Because, and this used to be common sense: the tool is not the crime.
But now, with AI, all that reason goes out the window. Grok, Midjourney, DALL·E; you name it. These systems don’t wake up in the morning and decide to be pervy. They generate what they’re told to generate. That’s it.
They don’t have taste, they don’t have shame, and they certainly don’t have a moral compass. They have some restraints, but they can easily be overcome if people know how to prompt. This will always be true.
They’re glorified suggestion boxes that vomit out whatever the user types in. If someone prompts an AI to produce a woman in a bikini and you think that’s a problem, that someone is the problem; not the platform, not the algorithm, and not the wires it’s running on.
You can do the exact same thing with a pencil and paper. In fact, some of the most disturbing imagery ever created didn’t come out of a neural net. It came from human hands, in basements, bedrooms, and badly lit studios. But we’re not banning Bic pens. We’re not raiding Staples because someone bought a sketchpad and had dark thoughts.
Predictably, Elon Musk is not thrilled. He has accused the UK government of attempting to “suppress the people.”
“Anyone using Grok to make illegal content will suffer the same consequences as if they upload illegal content,” Musk added, putting the blame on the users, not the tool.
It’s not just Elon either. Sarah B Rogers, the US Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, warned: “Erecting a ‘Great Wall’ to ban X, or lobotomizing AI, is neither tailored nor thoughtful.”
President Trump has previously referred to the UK’s online censorship law as “not a good thing,” and while Keir Starmer is playing Internet Emperor, Anna Paulina Luna, a Republican congresswoman who sits on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, is calling out the UK’s absurd overreach and threatening to bring legislation to sanction both Starmer and the country if he goes ahead with his tantrum.
Some of the images in question are inappropriate. Some are satire. But they’re not being created by X itself. They’re being created by users. People. And even with guardrails on Grok, there are always ways to prompt your way around them.
So even though there are likely millions of tools that can put a woman in a bikini, why is Starmer threatening to support the blocking of the entirety of X?
When BBC News host Huw Edwards was convicted of having actual images of child abuse and only received a suspended sentence, Starmer famously said: “As far as the sentence is concerned, I mean, that is for the court to decide.”
Without even getting into the hypocrisy of Starmer, his duplicity means what we’re looking at here is less about child protection and more about a government flailing in the age of AI, social media, and digital speech it no longer understands or controls.
The government is looking for any excuse to suppress one of the biggest thorns in its side.
It’s political theater; the kind that looks strong on morning television but crumbles under scrutiny.
What makes that clear is that plenty of other AI systems can do the exact same thing Grok’s being dragged over the coals for.
OpenAI’s image models have slipped up. Some AI image generators have whole fanbases built around photorealistic deepfakes of celebrities.
There are dodgy Discord bots out there generating worse in seconds, with less scrutiny and zero accountability. But none of those platforms are being threatened with a national ban.
And let’s not kid ourselves here: X is one of the last places online where you can still talk about [some] things Keir Starmer would really, really rather you didn’t.
Ever since Elon Musk got his hands on Twitter, the platform has become a giant headache for the political establishment, and not just because people keep replying to their speeches with clown emojis. The real reason they hate it is that it’s torched their grip on the flow of information.
X moves faster than the official narrative. Way faster. Before a newsroom has even had time to spin up a headline, the footage is already out there; raw, unedited, and usually filmed by someone on the ground with a phone and zero interest in protecting anyone’s PR strategy.
Leaks, whistleblowers, inconvenient facts: they don’t wait for permission to speak anymore, they just hit “post.”
It’s also true that the major platform Keir Starmer’s government is gearing up to punish, with the full force of Ofcom and the legal system revving like a bulldozer, is also the only major platform where he gets roasted in real time.
X is where Starmer gets community-noted, quote-tweeted, and ratio’d into orbit every time he opens his mouth. So now the platform isn’t only a tech problem. It’s a PR problem. And in modern politics, that’s the only kind anyone actually takes seriously.
European Politics in Crisis as Right-Wingers Fear for Safety – Ex-Austrian Minister
Sputnik – 10.01.2026
European politics are in a deep crisis as many people, particularly in right-wing parties, are afraid to enter the spotlight due to concerns for their personal safety, former Austrian Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl told Sputnik.
“Most right-wing parties, with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban being a special case, such as Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France or the Freedom Party of Austria, are running short on qualified personnel. All parties struggle to recruit skilled people, but today many are unwilling to risk their personal safety. If you engage in politics, you are under constant threat,” she said.
In Europe, having ties to those considered to be on the right of the political spectrum comes with a price such as a threat of physical violence, Kneissl said.
“There are many who have already paid a high price. As soon as you have even the most minimal contact with the right, you get serious problems. Members of the AfD [Alternative for Germany] have been attacked. There are also party officials whose bank accounts have been closed and whose children have been harassed at school,” she said.
The lack of capable personnel is also linked to a decline in the quality of Europe’s elites, Kneissl said. The education system that is meant to cultivate those elites no longer serves as a competitive environment for the skilled and talented.
Trump, Greenland, and the colonialism Europe pretends not to see
Neither Washington nor Copenhagen: Greenland belongs to the Inuit people
By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | January 10, 2026
The recent resurgence of controversy surrounding Donald Trump’s interest in annexing Greenland has reignited debates over imperialism, sovereignty, and self-determination in the Arctic. The European response – particularly from Denmark and the European Union – has been marked by a moralizing discourse against “American expansionism.” This discourse, however, deliberately ignores Denmark’s own colonial history in the region – a history that has been profoundly violent toward the Inuit people of Kalaallit Nunaat, the territory’s true name.
Recently, Russia-based Irish journalist Chay Bowes wrote an excellent piece on the history of European colonialism in Greenland. As he said, Denmark’s presence in Greenland was never the result of Indigenous consent. Beginning in 1721 under the religious pretext of “rescuing” supposed Norse descendants, colonization quickly became a systematic project of cultural domination and economic exploitation. When no Europeans were found, Danish missionaries turned their efforts against the Inuit, criminalizing their spiritual and cultural practices, dismantling traditional social structures, and imposing Lutheranism as a tool of control.
With the establishment of a trade monopoly in 1776, Denmark began treating the island as a profitable hub for natural resources, deliberately keeping the Indigenous population isolated and dependent. This colonial logic intensified throughout the twentieth century. In 1953, seeking to evade new UN decolonization guidelines, Copenhagen annexed Greenland as a “county.” Lacking adequate international scrutiny, the lives of Inuit natives increasingly became a nightmare.
Among these policies were the abduction of Inuit children to be “reeducated” in Denmark – the infamous “Little Danes” experiment – and the forced removal of entire communities from their ancestral lands into urban housing complexes, aimed at creating cheap labor for Danish-controlled industries. Even more severe was the secret imposition of contraceptive devices on thousands of Inuit women and girls between the 1960s and 1970s, without consent, in an explicit attempt at population control.
Although Greenland gained administrative autonomy in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, real power remains concentrated in the “Danish Crown.” Key areas such as foreign policy, defense, and much of the economy remain outside Inuit control. International bodies continue to pressure Denmark to acknowledge and repair colonial crimes, but progress has been minimal.
In this context, European indignation over potential U.S. expansionist moves sounds hypocrite. This does not mean absolving Washington of its own imperialist history – the United States has an equally disastrous record in its treatment of Indigenous peoples. However, for many Inuit, life under American rule would hardly be worse than centuries of European subjugation have already been. The difference is that the U.S., at least, does not pretend to be a “progressive benefactor” while maintaining intact colonial structures.
The true alternative, however, lies neither in Washington nor in Copenhagen. The most coherent and reasonable solution would be the construction of an independent Inuit state, grounded in self-determination, cultural restoration, and sovereign control over the territory. An Inuit ethnic state – understood as a project of Indigenous national liberation, not of ethnic or racial exclusion – would represent a historic rupture with centuries of external domination.
Obviously, in a world marked by violent disputes and the rule of force, it is naïve to think that the political will of Greenland’s native population alone would be sufficient to secure any real sovereignty. It will be necessary to engage in alliances and strategic diplomacy with countries that also oppose U.S. and European imperialism and expansionism – especially those with shared ethnic and cultural ties. Russia would be an excellent example of a potential partner for an independent Greenland, given the large presence of Arctic peoples in Russian territory – including Inuit – and Russia’s historical experience with respect for plurinationality.
Greenland is not a strategic asset to be bargained over by rival Western powers. It is the homeland of a people who have survived colonization, social engineering, and population control. Before denouncing “American imperialism,” Denmark and the European Union should confront their own colonial past—and recognize that Inuit self-determination remains the only truly right path forward for Kalaallit Nunaat.
FLU FEAR VS. FLU FACTS
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | January 8, 2026
Alarmist media coverage and public health messaging have branded this season’s flu a so-called “super flu,” but surveillance data from both the U.K. and the U.S. tell a more measured story. While reports of influenza-like illness (ILI) have risen—as they typically do during winter—rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza remain within normal seasonal levels. The distinction is often blurred in headlines, with ILI frequently conflated with confirmed flu infections. Even public health officials acknowledge these limitations, along with the well-documented constraints of flu vaccine effectiveness, raising questions about whether the current narrative reflects the data.
