Leaked files from transgender ‘experts’ show callous disregard for medical ethics
By Michael Cook | BioEdge | March 7, 2024
Newly leaked files from within the leading global transgender healthcare body have revealed that the clinicians who shape how “gender medicine” is regulated and practiced around the world consistently violate medical ethics and informed consent.
The leaked files from the internal messaging forum of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) were published this week by the US-based think tank Environmental Progress.
WPATH is considered the leading global scientific and medical authority on “gender medicine,” and in recent decades, its “standards of care” have guided the policies and practices of governments, medical associations, public health systems and private clinics across the world.
However, Environmental Progress claims that leaked files reveal that WPATH does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine, and members frequently discuss improvising treatments as they go along. Members are fully aware that children and adolescents cannot comprehend the lifelong consequences of “gender-affirming care,” and in some cases, due to poor health literacy, neither can their parents.
“The WPATH Files show that what is called ‘gender medicine’ is neither science nor medicine,” said Michael Shellenberger, founder of Environmental Progress. “The experiments are not randomized, double-blind, or controlled. It’s not medicine since the first rule is to do no harm. And that requires informed consent.”
Some of the discussion appears very disturbing. Members appear to ignore long-term patient outcomes despite being aware of the debilitating and potentially fatal side effects of cross-sex hormones and other treatments. Messages in the files show that patients with severe mental health issues, such as schizophrenia and dissociative identity disorder, and other vulnerabilities such as homelessness, are being allowed to consent to hormonal and surgical interventions.
Members dismiss concerns about these patients and characterize efforts to protect them as unnecessary “gatekeeping.”
The leaked files provide clear evidence that doctors and therapists are aware they are offering minors life-changing treatments they cannot fully understand. WPATH members know that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries will cause infertility and other complications, including cancer and pelvic floor dysfunction. Yet they consider life-altering medical interventions for young patients, including vaginoplasty for a 14-year-old and hormones for a developmentally delayed 13-year-old.
The WPATH Files also show how far medical experiments in gender medicine have gone, with discussions about surgeons performing “nullification” and other extreme body modification procedures to create body types that do not exist in nature.
A growing number of medical and psychiatric professionals say the promotion of pseudoscientific surgical and hormonal experiments is a global medical scandal that compares to major incidents of medical malpractice in history, such as lobotomies and ovariotomies.
A section in the report on medical ethics is particularly damning about the notion of autonomy. “In the past, the emphasis on autonomy in medical ethics was meant to act as a shield: there were things a doctor could not do to you without your consent,” says the report. “Nowadays, and especially in gender medicine, autonomy acts as a sword: in its name, there is nothing a doctor may deny you.”
The ”Trans Leaks” have not been reported yet by any major newspapers apart from The Telegraph (London) and Canada’s National Post. Dr Marci Bowers, the president of WPATH, issued a statement in which she contended that trans medicine is scientific and that sceptics aren’t:
“WPATH is and has always been a science- and evidence-based organization whose recommendations are widely endorsed by major medical organizations around the world. We are the professionals who best know the medical needs of trans and gender diverse individuals-and stand opposed to individuals who misrepresent and de-legitimize the diverse identities and complex needs of this population through scare tactics.”
The raw files have been published in a report called The WPATH Files: Pseudoscientific surgical and hormonal experiments on children, adolescents, and vulnerable adults. Journalist Mia Hughes puts the WPATH Files in the context of the best available science on gender distress.
China discovers oil field of proven reserve of 102 million tons in South China Sea: CNOOC
Global Times | March 8, 2024
China has discovered its first deep-water, deep-reservoir oil find in the South China Sea, state-owned oil giant CNOOC announced on Friday.
The Kaipingnan oilfield, 300 kilometers southwest of the waters of Shenzhen in South China, has a proven reserve of 102 million tons of oil equivalent, according to the company.
It is the first oil reserve with a water depth of over 300 meters and a well depth of over 3,000 meters found by China’s own efforts, as well as the largest, said CNOOC. The maximum depth where the oilfield lies is 532 meters and the maximum well depth reached 4,831 meters.
Testing drilling yields over 1,000 tons of oil and gas on a daily basis, which is a new record in China for a deep-water, deep-reservoir oilfield, the company said.
The Kaipingnan oilfield demonstrated the vast potential of deep-water exploration in the South China Sea, and further consolidated the foundation of China’s offshore oil and gas reserve, which is significant toward ensuring the country’s energy security, the company said in a press release on Friday.
In recent years, CNOOC made significant discoveries at the Bozhong 26-6 deep-reservoir oilfield in China’s Bohai Sea and the Baodao 21-1 gas field in western South China Sea.
Zhou Xinhuai, CEO of CNOOC, said the company’s continuous discoveries in the eastern part of the South China Sea forged new growth drivers for the company’s offshore oil and gas business, noting the company will continue to pour more efforts in oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea to ramp up energy supply capacity.
Public is Not Being Told the True Cost of Net Zero, Warns Former World Bank Economist

BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | MARCH 6, 2024
Bankrupt, blackout Britain where the ever-expanding ranks of the poor get clobbered, open borders place intolerable burdens on public spending and services, the rich spivs get richer backing heavily-subsidised energy white elephants – and those of a certain age look back to the good old days of the 1970s. That isn’t quite how Professor Gordon Hughes spells it out in his excellent new report that crunches the energy transition numbers of the collectivist Net Zero project, but it might be considered a fair summation of reading between the lines.
The insanity of Net Zero becomes clearer by the day. The idea that hydrocarbons – a natural resource whose use from medicines to reliable energy is ubiquitous in modern industrial society – can be removed within less than 30 years is ridiculous. In his report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Professor Hughes concerns himself with the transition from hydrocarbons to ‘green’ technologies such as wind and solar. Forget all the politically-inspired low-ball figures of transition, he is suggesting. Looking at you, Climate Change Committee. It is likely that the amount of new investment needed for the transition will be a minimum of 5% of gross domestic product for the next 20 years, and might exceed 7.5%. Gordon Hughes is a former World Bank economist, and is Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh.
There is no chance of borrowing such an “astronomical” amount, notes Hughes, and the only viable way to raise the cash for new capital expenditure would be a two decades-long reduction in private consumption of up to 10%. “Such a shock has never occurred in the last century outside war, and even then never for more than a decade,” he notes.
Recent polling in the U.S. has shown that the desire of a majority of citizens to pay for Net Zero barely stretches to more than the ‘chump’ change in their back pockets. “Commitment to the energy transition is a classic ‘luxury belief’ held most strongly by those who are sufficiently well-off not to worry about the costs… Indeed at least some of those who promote the transition most strongly are among those who expect to gain from the business opportunities.” On this latter point, Hughes was possibly recalling the recent activities of rising media star Dale Vince (£110 million in wind subsidies to date, and counting).
Politicians sometimes blather about the pioneering role taken by European countries in Net Zero. Hughes points out that leaders in China and India are not fools. “Posturing about targets that are patently not achievable and might be economically ruinous is unlikely to convince anyone, although most will be too polite to point this out,” he observed.
Writing a foreword, Lord Frost identified a make-believe world inhabited by Net Zero proponents where it is claimed costs will magically come down, new technologies will somehow be invented and promised green growth will pay for everything. “But they never give any evidence for believing this – and, where we can check what they say, for example in the real costs of wind power, we can see that these cost reductions are simply not happening,” he said.
On the immigration front, Hughes notes a 1% increase in the British population every year. He notes that 4% of GDP must be invested every year in new (not replacement) capital per head. Of course nothing like this is being spent and capital per head is falling rapidly. “Just maintaining the amounts of capital per head will eat up an amount of investment equivalent to that required for the energy transition,” he states.
Squeezing domestic consumption, in other words making the already squeezed poor even poorer by removing all their remaining luxuries in life (older cars, cheap foreign holidays, meat), is the only realistic way to fund the enormous sums required for the Net Zero energy transition. Possibly a glimmer of reality is creeping into political circles with the opposition Labour party having gone through “agonies” and ditched its £28 billion a year green deal. “Clearly, they concluded that it was impossible to sell an increase in the tax burden of that magnitude to a reluctant electorate,” he said. In fact, the sums involved in the Labour plan were only a fifth of the estimated cost of transition.
Any future Government wishing to travel the path of Net Zero must make the choices of reducing public services and mandating savage cuts in household expenditure. Needless to say, the general population is in almost total ignorance about these realities. Hughes notes that the electorate has given no indication that they are willing to bear the costs involved. “Indeed until now all they have been told is that there are few or no trade-offs required, and technology will somehow magically solve everything.”
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.
Biden’s pier for Gaza is a hollow gesture that will change almost nothing
By Jonathan Cook | March 8, 2024
A few observations on President Biden’s building of a “temporary pier” – or what his officials are grandly calling a “port” – to get aid into Gaza:
1. Though no one is mentioning it, Biden is actually violating Israel’s 17-year blockade of Gaza with his plan. Gaza doesn’t have a sea port, or an airport, because Israel, its occupier, has long banned it from having either.
Israel barred anything getting into Gaza that didn’t come through the land crossings it controls. Israel stopped international aid flotillas, often violently, from reaching Gaza to bring in medicine. The blockade also created a captive market for Israel’s own poor-quality goods, like damaged fruit and veg, and allowed Israel to skim off money at the land crossings that should have gone to the Palestinians in fees and duties.
2. It will take many weeks for the US to build this pier off-shore and get it up and running. Why the delay? Because every western capital, including the United States, has supported the blockade for the past 17 years.
The siege of Gaza caused gradual malnutrition among the enclave’s children, rather than the current rapid starvation. By helping Israel inflict collective punishment on Gaza for all those years, the US and Europe were complicit in a gross and enduring violation of international law, even before the current genocide.
With his pier, Biden isn’t reversing that long-standing collusion in a crime against humanity. He has stressed it will be temporary. In other words, it will be back to business as usual in Gaza afterwards: any children who survive will once again be allowed to starve in slow-motion, at a rate that doesn’t register with the establishment media and put pressure on Washington to be seen to be doing something.
3. Biden could get aid into Gaza much faster than by building a pier, if he wanted to. He could simply insist that Israel let aid trucks through the land crossings, and threaten it with serious repercussions should it fail to comply. He could threaten to withhold the US bombs he is sending to kill more children in Gaza. Or he could threaten to cut off the billions in military aid Washington sends to Israel every year. Or he could threaten to refuse to cast a US veto to protect Israel from diplomatic fallout at the United Nations. He could do any of that and more, but he chooses not to.
4. Even after Biden buys Israel a few more weeks to further aggressively starve Palestinians in Gaza, while we wait for his temporary pier to be completed, nothing may actually change in practice. Israel will still get to carry out the same checks it currently does at the land crossings but instead in Lanarca, Cyprus, where the aid will be loaded on to ships. In other words, Israel will still be able to create the same interminable hold-ups using “security concerns” as the pretext.
5. Biden isn’t changing course – temporarily – because he suddenly cares about the people, or even the children, of Gaza. They have been suffering in their open-air prison, to varying degrees, for decades. If he had cared, he would have done something to end that suffering after he became president. If he had done something then, October 7 might never have happened, and all those lives lost on both sides – lives continuing to be lost on the Palestinian side every few minutes – might have been saved.
And if he really cared, he wouldn’t have helped Israel in its efforts to destroy UNRWA, the UN relief agency for Palestinians and a vital lifeline for Gaza, by freezing its funding, based on unevidenced claims against the agency by Israel.
No, Biden doesn’t care about Palestinian suffering, or about the fact that, while he’s been busy eating ice cream, many, many tens of thousands of children have been murdered, maimed or orphaned – and the rest starved. He cares about the polls. His timetable for helping Palestinians is being strictly dictated by the schedule of the presidential election. He needs to look like Gaza’s saviour when Democrats are deciding who they are voting for.
He and the Democratic party are betting voters are dumb enough to fall for this charade. Please don’t prove them right.
New Law Would Make COVID Vaccine Makers Liable for Injuries, Deaths
By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | March 6, 2024
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) on Tuesday introduced a bill that would allow Americans to sue the manufacturers of COVID-19 vaccines for vaccine-related adverse events, including deaths by removing the vaccine makers’ liability shield.
The Let Injured Americans Be Legally Empowered Act, or the LIABLE Act, would “allow Americans who took vaccines that were misleadingly promoted and forced onto many Americans via federal mandates to pursue civil litigation for their injuries,” according to a summary of the bill publicized by Fox News.
“These vaccines were given emergency use authorization unilaterally and did not go through the normal FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] approval process,” the summary stated.
Commenting on the proposed legislation, Children’s Health Defense (CHD) President Mary Holland said:
“The damages and fatalities caused by the COVID-19 vaccine demand accountability. This legislation represents a critical milestone in rectifying these injustices and paving the way for a more accountable future. This legislation is crucial for holding vaccine manufacturers accountable.”
CHD is among the organizations supporting the legislation.
According to Roy’s office, “COVID-19 vaccines are considered ‘countermeasures’ under the Public Readiness and Preparedness (PREP) Act, which broadly shields their manufacturers from civil liability related to losses stemming from the vaccines.”
“Instead, injured Americans must seek relief under the onerous Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) — but only 11 COVID-19-related claims have been paid out of CICP.”
Holland said the CICP is “wholly inadequate and inconsistent with constitutional principles in providing just redress.”
The proposed legislation would remove all federal liability protections for the COVID-19 vaccine, preserve the ability of injured Americans to access pre-existing compensation programs, such as the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), and would be retroactive, allowing Americans vaccinated and injured before the bill’s passage to sue.
In a statement, Roy said, “The long train of abuses committed by the government and public health establishment in response to COVID-19 will continue to impact the American people for years to come.”
As a result, Roy said he is “introducing the LIABLE Act to empower Americans to remove crony federal liability protections for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers and empower injured Americans. The American people deserve justice for the infringement on their personal medical freedom and those medically harmed deserve restitution.”
React19, a nonprofit organization that advocates on behalf of vaccine injury victims, also welcomed the proposed legislation. Dr. Joel Wallskog, a Wisconsin orthopedic surgeon who no longer practices due to injuries he sustained from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, is co-chair of the organization. He told The Defender:
“React19 supports the LIABLE Act. The COVID-19 public health emergency ended in 2023. Despite this, pharmaceutical companies, the government, and health care organizations are still protected from all liability through the PREP Act until at least Dec. 31, 2024.
“This blanket immunity provided by the PREP Act robs the American public injured by the COVID-19 shots of their right to due process and jury trial. We are relegated to CICP, which is an obvious failure.”
‘Hindsight will show this was absolutely necessary’
According to Fox News, the PREP Act “limits liability for the manufacturing, development and distribution of medical countermeasures related to a public health emergency.” COVID-19 vaccines were distributed in the U.S. on this basis.
In turn, the PREP Act created CICP, “which has a one-year statute of limitations and only provides compensation in the event of death or serious injury,” Fox News reported. As a result, COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers “are mostly immune from civil lawsuits, even if those seeking money damages have medical proof of their vaccine-related injuries.”
“Millions of Americans were forced to take a COVID-19 shot out of fear of losing their livelihoods and under false pretenses,” Roy told Fox News on Tuesday, contrasting the 11 claims compensated by CICP with the 700 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines which have been administered in the U.S.
Wallskog said CICP “has a 98% denial rate” and, as of Jan. 1, has issued a total “of about $41,000” for the 11 claims it has compensated — an average of approximately $3,700 per claim.
Ray Flores, senior outside counsel for CHD, is an expert on the PREP Act and CICP. He told The Defender he “would be thrilled” to see PREP Act manufacturer protection removed. “Someday, hindsight will show this was absolutely necessary,” Flores said.
Flores noted that U.S. government guarantees made to vaccine manufacturers early during the pandemic prohibited the government from “using or authorizing COVID-19 vaccine” unless they were “protected from liability under a declaration issued under the PREP Act, or a successor COVID-19 PREP Act declaration of equal or greater scope.”
“If this bill proceeds, this will be the battleground,” Flores said.
Lawsuits will help determine if COVID vaccines were as ‘safe and effective’ as claimed
Big Pharma did not welcome the proposed legislation. In a statement shared with Fox News, Andrew Powaleny, senior director of public affairs for PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], an industry trade group, said:
“COVID-19 has been a reminder of why we need safe and effective vaccines. All vaccines, including those for COVID-19, are subject to a rigorous safety and efficacy review process and post-market monitoring.
“By upending the existing liability framework manufacturers rely upon to provide predictable vaccine development, our ability to address future public health threats will be at risk.”
But other experts disagreed. Writing Tuesday in The Blaze, commentator and author Daniel Horowitz asked, “Should a product that is completely funded, marketed, monopolized, and then mandated by government be less liable than Toyota is for its airbags?”
Horowitz added, “Ideally, the NCVIA [the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986] and the PREP Act should be repealed entirely.”
Still, he welcomed Roy’s proposed legislation. “Giving consumers their day in court will be the perfect way to sort out whether Pfizer’s and Moderna’s products are as safe and effective as they claim,” he wrote.
“It’s highly likely that tens of millions of people are currently without recourse for compensation from a product that was fraudulently foisted upon the American people by these companies in collusion with the federal government,” Horowitz said. “Knowing that, Roy’s bill comes as welcome relief.”
According to Fox News, “Roy has led the charge against those vaccine mandates, including leading efforts to roll back COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the U.S. military.”
Co-sponsors of the bill include Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.), Eric Burlison (R-Mo.), Michael Cloud (R-Texas), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), Bob Good (R-Va.), Clay Higgins (R-La.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Mary Miller (R-Ill.), Barry Moore (R-Utah), Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), Randy Weber (R-Texas), Troy Nehls (R-Texas), Andy Harris (R-Md.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho), Scott DesJarlais (R-Tenn.) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.).
“Americans injured by the COVID-19 shots deserve better,” Wallskog said. “They did what they thought was the right thing for themselves, their families and the nation. Now, they are left abandoned. This legislation gives them a chance at fair and just compensation.”
“The time has come for our nation to recognize these injuries and allow them legal recourse,” he added.
Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D., based in Athens, Greece, is a senior reporter for The Defender and part of the rotation of hosts for CHD.TV’s “Good Morning CHD.”
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.
Pre-crime: Canada’s Justice Minister defends “Online Harms Bill” powers to place people under house arrest, cut internet access
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 5, 2024
Canada is facing stiff competition from many countries around the world, some of them labeled as “authoritarian,” in the race to institutionalize and normalize, and write into law, some distinctly dystopian concepts, like “pre-crime.”
And unfortunately for Canada’s democracy, its government seems to be doing very well in this aspect.
Justice Minister and Attorney General Arif Virani is currently defending a bizarre provision contained in the country’s “online harms” (C-63) bill that allows the authorities to place people under house arrest out of “fear” they could, at some point in the future, commit a “hate crime.”
Alternatively, citizens singled out in this way will be made to wear a tracking device – an electronic tag.
“Awful and unlawful” is how critics might describe the bill, which, judging by the minister’s comments, the government wants to rush through the parliament. However, Virani is trying to put a positive spin on it by suggesting it is some kind of democratic breakthrough that finds a balance that allows “awful but lawful” content to be kept online.
Meanwhile, what about the people who post it? Some of them will be kept at home or surveilled around the clock, which is the sum total of the provision. And Virani – who, in his role as attorney general, along with a judge, will be the one to decide who qualifies for this treatment – sees nothing wrong with any of it.
“(If) there’s a genuine fear of an escalation, then an individual or group could come forward and seek a peace bond against them and to prevent them from doing certain things,” Virani said of the “suspected future suspects.”
In Canada, according to the Criminal Code, a peace bond is issued “when a person appears likely to commit a criminal offense, but there are no reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has actually been committed.”
Virani explained that such a peace bond could impose restrictions on people approaching “a synagogue or a mosque” (presumably, also a church). Or, their use of the internet, but also somehow behavior could get “restricted,” he continued.
“That would help to deradicalize people who are learning things online and acting out in the real world violently, sometimes fatally,” said the official.
C-63 also seeks to introduce the life sentence for those who commit “a hate crime offense” along with another type of crime.
Such is the messaging and the climate created by this type of legislation that the Canadian press finds it necessary to reassure people while reporting about C-63’s life imprisonment provision, that it will not apply in cases of “mischief to a garage door.”
But if it did – one might be amazed, but at this point in time, hardly surprised.
UK media chiefs defend coverage of Gaza war as study exposes pro-Israel bias
Press TV – March 7, 2024
UK news chiefs have defended their biased coverage of Israel’s brutalities in Gaza even as a new report has exposed significant distortions in the Western coverage of the war.
The report, Media Bias Gaza 2023-24, by Center for Media Monitoring (CFMM) was launched on Wednesday and analyzed data from 28 UK online media websites for a period of one month starting from October 7, 2023.
The study that examined more than 200,000 articles and TV reports said the British media had failed to represent the conflict in Gaza in a fair manner.
Speaking at the event hosted by CFMM in the House of Parliament, Richard Burgess, director of news content at the BBC, said it was unlikely that there would be no mistakes made by a 24-hour news channel.
“It’s impossible not to make mistakes, we will make mistakes,” Burgess said while justifying their coverage.
The CFMM report, however, found that “many prominent media personalities, senior editors and journalists regurgitated Islamophobic tropes about Muslim belief and identity, with the aim of undermining the Palestinian cause and/or Palestinian advocates.”
The study also found “how some media outlets and commentators have framed the conflict as being between Muslims and Jews.”
“Muslim opposition to Israel has been framed as anti-Semitic by some publications and commentators,” the study said
Defending the distortion of facts while reporting the war, Jonathan Levy, managing director and executive editor at Sky News, disputed criticism of a number of points made in the report, including reducing the conflict to “Israel-Hamas” war.
The study showed Israelis were 11 times more likely to be referred to as “victims of attacks” compared to the Palestinians, while 76 percent of online articles framed the conflict as an “Israel-Hamas war.” Only 24 percent mentioned “Palestine/Palestinian,” which they said indicated a lack of context.
Marwan Yaghi, a Palestinian diplomat in the UK, described the media coverage as “appallingly biased.”
Right wing news channels and right-wing British publications were at the forefront of misrepresenting pro-Palestinian protesters as anti-Semitic, the report said.
It also mentioned that pro-Palestinian voices faced misrepresentation and vilification by media outlets, with allegations of anti-Semitism and terrorism weaponized to discredit legitimate advocacy efforts.
It highlighted the lack of scrutiny around a number of stories perpetuated in the press, noting 361 mentions of the false “beheaded babies” story.
China’s foreign minister calls Israeli war on Gaza “disgrace for civilization”
Palestinian Information Center – March 7, 2024
BEIJING – China’s foreign minister Wang Yi has condemned Israel’s war in Gaza as a “disgrace for civilization” and reiterated Beijing’s calls for an “immediate ceasefire.”
“It is a tragedy for humankind and a disgrace for civilization that today, in the 21st century, this humanitarian disaster cannot be stopped,” Wang told journalists at a press conference on Wednesday.
“No reason can justify the continuation of the conflict, and no excuse can justify the killing of a civilian population,” Wang said.
“The international community must act urgently, making an immediate ceasefire and the cessation of hostilities an overriding priority, and ensuring humanitarian relief an urgent moral responsibility.”
Beijing’s top diplomat also said China supports “full” UN membership for a Palestinian state. “We support Palestine becoming a formal UN member,” Wang said.
“The catastrophe in Gaza once again reminds the world that the fact that the Palestinian territories have been occupied for a long time can no longer be ignored,” he said.
“The long-cherished wish of the Palestinian people to establish an independent country can no longer be evaded, and the historical injustice suffered by the Palestinian people cannot continue for generations without being corrected,” he added.
Beijing has been calling for an immediate ceasefire since the start of the current Israel war on Gaza in October 2023.
China has historically been sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and supportive of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Zelensky critic claims Spain ignoring ‘assassination attempt’

RT | March 7, 2024
YouTuber Anatoly Shariy has accused the police in Catalonia of trying to ignore Wednesday’s drive-by shooting, which he alleges targeted him and his wife. Ukraine had banned his political party in mid-2022.
Shariy and his wife Olga were driving towards their home in Roda de Bera near Tarragona – southwest of Barcelona – on Wednesday morning when a masked man pointed a “machine gun” at their car.
“They tried to kill us in broad daylight, in the middle of the street,” Olga told the outlet El Diario on Wednesday evening. Since then, however, Shariy has lambasted the police for dragging their feet.
“Day concluded. The police did not question witnesses who saw the [would-be] murderer escape from the crime scene,” Shariy posted on X (formerly Twitter) on Wednesday evening, in Spanish. “They want me to be killed. There are no more doubts.”
He continued to criticize the police on Thursday, pointing out that they had failed to question the postman who witnessed the shooting. “No action was taken to search for the killer,” Shariy added in another post.
According to El Diario, the Shariys have faced “threats and harassment” ever since “neo-Nazi groups” from Ukraine discovered their location. Last October, someone threw Molotov cocktails at their home.
Earlier this week, Olga told the outlet, the Shariys received a tip – which included recordings of phone conversations – that someone had offered money for Anatoly’s death and asked organized crime groups for his exact location. They reported this to the police, she said, but nothing was done.
Shariy was detained by the Spanish authorities in May 2022 on Ukrainian charges of “treason”, but was released soon thereafter. Spain eventually rejected Ukraine’s extradition request.
A frequent critic of the Ukrainian government, Shariy runs a popular YouTube channel with almost 2.9 million subscribers. He founded a libertarian-leaning party in 2019, the same year Vladimir Zelensky became president, and while it fell short of getting into the Ukrainian parliament, it won several seats on regional councils. Zelensky’s government banned it in early 2022 and rejected all its appeals in October that year.

