Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

‘State-minus’: Biden’s Palestine solution

Three decades after the Oslo Lie, neither the US nor the EU are in any position to dangle the promise of a Palestinian state.

By Stasa Salacanin | The Cradle | February 29, 2024

Is it sadly ironic that the issue of Palestinian statehood – unresolved for over 75 years – has resurfaced only after Israel’s wholesale carpet-bombing of the Gaza Strip, killing over 30,000 civilians, injuring tens of thousands more, and destroying significant swathes of the territory’s infrastructure.

University of California (UCLA) historian James Gelvin states the case plainly:

“There would have been no serious discussion of a two-state solution without [the events of] 7 October. As a matter of fact, putting the Palestine issue back on the front burner of international and West Asian politics was one of the reasons Hamas launched its operation.”

As Gelvin explains it to The Cradle, Hamas has already scored several victories since its Al-Aqsa Flood operation: “The Palestine issue is back on the international agenda, it is negotiating the release of its captives as an equal partner to Israel,” and has demonstrated that it is “more effective in realizing Palestinian goals than its rival, Fatah.”

New ‘Biden Doctrine’

While the unprecedented, brutal Israeli military response has indeed illustrated the urgency for establishing a Palestinian safe haven, it is impossible to ignore that western state backers of the 1993 Oslo Accords – which laid out the essential framework for the establishment of a Palestinian state – have then so assiduously ignored and neglected that responsibility.

Even greater hypocrisy emerges from the fact that these western powers, led by Washington, have now decided to force the discussion of Palestinian statehood in the midst of Gaza’s carnage, with an Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who is infamously opposed to it.

So, why is this debate possible now? Why was it ignored before 7 October – or even prior to Netanyahu’s return to the prime ministership?

After enormous public and international pressure, US President Joe Biden has, at least rhetorically, reopened the issue of Palestinian statehood. According to the New York Times, the Biden White House’s new doctrine would “involve some form of US recognition of a demilitarized Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in return for strong Palestinian guarantees that their institutions could never threaten Israel.”

In addition, the US president’s plan also envisages Saudi–Israeli normalization and a tough military stance against Iran and its regional allies. However, many analysts have already raised questions about the viability of a plan that does not reflect current ground realities.

While Netanyahu rejects the very notion of a Palestinian state, the ‘Biden doctrine’ and its offering of some limited-sovereignty version of a demilitarized Palestinian state is nothing less than humiliating for Palestinians.

Dr Muhannad Ayyash, Professor of Sociology at Mount Royal University, observes that there is no fundamental change of approach by the US on this issue. In short, the Biden administration refuses to clarify what it means by a ‘Palestinian state.’ Its initiative appears mainly to advance a form of a two-state solution that would be palatable to Israel.

Ayyash points out that the key issues related to Palestinian statehood are left unanswered, including the issue of sovereignty, Jewish settlements, the status of East Jerusalem, a necessary West Bank/East Jerusalem connection with the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian right to return, and so forth.

As Israel has firmly insisted on retaining full security control over the entire territory west of Jordan – meaning, over all the territory likely to come under Palestinian (self-)rule – many experts fear that Israel would have the right to militarily enter those territories at will, without Palestinian consent, with the latter banned from assembling its own military force.

This version of ‘statehood’ is not remotely on par with that of other UN member-states, who are entitled, under the UN Charter, to exercise full sovereignty and defend their territorial integrity. Biden’s ‘solution’ of a Palestinian state with limited sovereignty is nothing more than the legalization of Israel’s perpetual occupation of Palestine.

A Palestinian ‘empty shell’

The revived debate on Palestinian statehood is also intricately connected to a big western public relations dilemma. The Atlanticists’ unconditional support for Israel’s illegal, disproportionate military assault against mostly female and child populations has deeply impacted their image and capacity to maneuver in West Asia and beyond.

This is especially true for Washington’s foreign policy objectives in the region, which are facing major, direct resistance on the ground in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

The revival of a two-state solution is, therefore, a “desperate act to salvage some of the credibility or legitimacy of these regimes (both Arab and Western governments),” argues Dr Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Professor and Abdulaziz Said Chair for Peace and Conflict Resolution at the American University in Washington, DC.

For decades, the US has capitulated to Israeli demands on pretty much everything Tel Aviv has ever asked for. In recent years, as Gelvin describes it, the US has mainly focused “on bribing various Arab governments – the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan – to normalize relations with Israel” through the “Abraham Accords,” which, in effect, took the Palestine issue off the table.”

Meanwhile, Arab states managed regional expectations by continuing to pay lip service to Palestinian issues while scuttling any opportunities behind the scenes. With few Arab state allies left, Palestinians themselves had no cards left to leverage – until 7 October.

Now, Israel is doing all it can to negate that day’s gains. Says Ayyash:

“Netanyahu wants to dispense with all pretension about the establishment of the Palestinian state and use this moment to establish full Israeli Jewish sovereignty from the river to the sea, whereas the Biden administration prefers a quieter approach that pretends to care about the aspirations of the Palestinian people in order to maintain its close ties with Arab regimes across the region.”

The two-state solution, according to Professor Abu-Nimer, is, therefore, nothing other than a “fig leaf” to resuscitate the west’s crashing image and should not be viewed as a serious US initiative. The proposed plan is “a skeleton or an empty shell which lacks of any serious form of sovereignty.”

Nathan Brown, an American scholar of Middle Eastern law and politics at George Washington University, largely concurs:

“This is not a step toward statehood but only reviving some provisions of the Oslo Accords. Even at a maximum, it would produce what would have been called a ‘protectorate’ in the nineteenth century, not a state.”

A Palestinian state is not on the cards 

Although the US and the EU could exercise immense leverage over Israel to revive the Oslo agreement and fast-track its provisions, they are doing nothing of the sort.

Today, there is a unique opportunity for Tel Aviv’s western allies to play this hand, given the utter collapse of Israel’s image worldwide and the mass public demand for the protection of Palestinians.

Instead, the Biden administration thinks that it can resurrect the two-state idea by mediating a grand regional deal – one that will deliver everything Israel wants, by dangling the promise of a rump Palestinian state.

The White House believes that the reward of normalizing relations with Saudi Arabia will offset for the Netanyahu government a reversal on the question of Palestinian statehood and withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories.

Gelvin dismisses the plan, saying it simply won’t work on so many levels. For starters, “if Netanyahu commits to a Palestinian state and withdrawal from the occupied territories, his government will collapse and he will go to jail.”

Don’t expect anything spectacular from the European Union either. Although EU High Representative for Foreign Relations Josep Borrell has said that a Palestinian state may need to be imposed from the outside without Israel’s agreement, realistically, the range and reach of European foreign policy is minimal or non-existent. According to Gelvin, “the EU has no more leverage against Israel than Costa Rica.”

Abu-Nimer likely speaks for the majority of regional observers – who have seen this game play out before: these top-down western statehood formulas do not work without genuine engagement with Palestinian political representation – in this case, Hamas and other Palestinian resistance organizations.

Thirty-one years after the Oslo Accords promised a Palestinian state, Israel is ethnically cleansing Gaza and swallowing up the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Almost five months after the start of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, some of the leverage is back in Palestinian resistance hands, and they are unlikely to trade their gains for an unsovereign rump state which diplomats are privately calling a ‘state-minus.’

March 1, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

COVID Cover-Up: Government ‘Forced’ COVID Vaccines to Protect Bioweapons Industry

By Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 27, 2024

Government officials covered up the origins of COVID-19 and “forced” the vaccination of millions of people worldwide to “protect the integrity of the bioweapons industry,” according to a senior research scientist in epidemiology specializing in chronic diseases at the Yale University School of Public Health.

Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., who also is a professor emeritus at Yale, on Monday provided compelling testimony on what he believes accounts for the “crushingly obsessive push to COVID-vaccinate every living person on the planet.”

Risch was among the medical experts, scientists, lawyers, elected officials, journalists, vaccine safety advocates and whistleblowers who participated in Monday’s Senate roundtable discussion on “Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding?”

The roundtable, hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson, focused on vaccine safety, corruption of public health agencies and world governments, and censorship by the media and Big Tech.

Evidence ‘overwhelmingly’ points to Wuhan lab as source of virus

Risch highlighted circumstantial evidence that COVID-19 “leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology” (WIV) in China in fall 2019.

Risch told the panel there is evidence the virus contains a unique genetic sequence “that also exists in Moderna patents from 2017,” while intelligence has “overwhelmingly” indicated the WIV as the source of the virus.

According to Risch, “This work and the WIV leak was what I consider to be the fruit of our bioweapons industry that has been performing secretive and nefarious biological weapons development for the last 70 years.”

Risch said that much of this research was banned in 1975, with the enactment of the United Nations Biological Weapons Convention, which prohibited the development of offensive bioweapons. However, a carve-out in the treaty allows “small quantities of offensive bioweapons … to be developed in order to do research on vaccine countermeasures.”

“This was the premise and motivation of the various virology grant applications like [Project] DEFUSE” that supported controversial gain-of-function research at labs such as WIV, funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Risch said.

This “loophole,” as Risch called it, created “a permitted rationale for the development of offensive bioweapons, in that it would lead to work on vaccine countermeasures.”

Risch questioned the value of such research in terms of fulfilling its stated purpose.

“Fast forward to 2019: Many billions of dollars spent on the bioweapons industry over the past decades for all of this work on offensive bioweapons. Where are the successful commercial vaccines to show for it?”

For Risch, the lack of any successful commercial vaccines to arise out of bioweapons research served as the impetus for the development of the COVID-19 vaccines, subsequent vaccine mandates and the “virus origin cover-up” that followed.

He said:

“The COVID vaccines themselves supplied the defense against the charge that the bioweapons industry was not actually dual use, but offensive only, violating the 1975 treaty. So, the vaccines had to be dramatically pushed out to be the universal solution to show that the bioweapons industry was actually working for the public good.

“Once the general public understood the reckless and cavalier behavior of this industry that had operated under a false and misrepresented pretense of vaccine development that has never been successfully commercially realized, it would then clamor to shut down the industry.”

This led to concerted efforts to suppress alternative treatments for COVID-19, such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, according to Risch.

Risch said:

“During the time of the suppression of early treatment hydroxychloroquine and later ivermectin, I thought it was to protect the marketplace for the vaccines, other medications or the vaccines that would eventually come out.

“But now, given what I’ve said, I think the suppression was that if those medications solved the pandemic, then the vaccines wouldn’t have been needed and then the bioweapons treaty would come back in force and there would be no rationale that the vaccines were the end product of the offensive weapons research. So, they had to be suppressed for the same reason.”

Full article

This is the second in a series of articles covering Monday’s U.S. Senate roundtable discussion, “Federal Health Agencies and the COVID Cartel: What Are They Hiding?” hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.). Read earlier coverage here.

February 28, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Osteoporosis

Lies are Unbekoming | February 24, 2024

This is so critically valuable… I am a nursing professor, and a very petite woman. My GYN had me get a DEXA scan when I was in my 50s and it showed osteoporosis and osteopenia. I have a very active lifestyle and exercise as a part of my daily routine. I went to see an endocrinologist, hoping to find out preventative techniques, and he wanted to put me on meds right away… I fired him and amped up my exercise. Something in the depths of my soul said that was not the right thing to do. I am certain that for petite woman. I have very strong bones. I have even taken falls doing very athletic things, and I have not fractured any bones… Thank God. – @littlebitmckee8234

Another chamber of Big Medicine. Another Industrial “Matrix” of untruths woven together to create another mega class of medical “solutions”.

This no longer comes as a surprise.

This one is a beauty.

My wife sent me this article and video, and they are the primary sources of information for this article, plus a Mercola article that you will find within the Q&A.

The Manufacturing of Bone Diseases: The Story of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia

I haven’t come across Dr Peter Osborne before. This short video is great!

Finally!! My PhD is in bone biology. Way back in 1999, I was at a huge medical conference. Abbott was pushing their first generation osteoporosis drug (BiP). I told the rep that they’ll start to see very specific hip fractures. He laughed at me. But these drugs basically kill osteoclasts. Well, that gives you a disease called osteopetrosis (you’re not rebuilding bone because you’re no longer resorbing it to create new bone). You’re literally exchanging a natural phenomenon with a disease by taking BiP’s. – @user-qd7rq2yj9c

This story has all the usual tactics, strategies and suspects that we have come to expect.

We have the WHO and Industry engaged in Disease Branding and Creating Markets.

We have False Baselines against which any variance from natural aging is labelled a Disease.

We have the changing of definitions that expand the “size of the market”.

We have the Test, that diagnoses the “disease”.

And then we have the Solution, and as almost always, it’s a “lifetime solution”.

I know that you know that these people are evil, but you have to give it to them, they are also very good at what they do.

The “diagnosis” happens in an asymptomatic person.

What did we learn from the Covid story? Asymptomatic is just a euphemism for Healthy.

That’s what they are doing here, not only have they medicalized aging, but they have “diseased” a healthy person.

Once the diagnosis is given, that generates the fear, which is the objective.

Fear of what? Well, it’s the fear of “fracture”.

That fear is now ready for the Solution.

But it turns out that the solution makes the bones more brittle and more likely to fracture.

But again, as we learned from Covid, if you end up with a fracture after using their solution, that simply confirms that the original diagnosis was correct!

And you can then find comfort in the knowledge that your doctor was right all along and it “could have been so much worse”.

It is a magnificent formula and completely effective.

Now let’s get look at the details by first looking at the large Untruths in this space and from there we will look at 30 Q&As that gradually educate us on the subject with a range of other material sprinkled in.

Untruths

Here are the main misconceptions or “untruths” related to the subject of bone health, osteoporosis, and the medicalization of aging:

  1. Osteoporosis and Osteopenia Are Primarily Age-related Diseases: The redefinition of osteoporosis and osteopenia by the WHO based on bone mineral density (BMD) scans led to the perception that these conditions are abnormal and primarily diseases of aging. This overlooks the fact that a decrease in bone density is a natural part of the aging process and doesn’t always indicate disease or a significant risk of fracture.
  2. High Bone Density Equates to Healthy Bones: There’s a common misconception that higher bone density is always indicative of healthier, stronger bones. However, bone health is determined by both density and quality, including the microarchitecture of bone and its turnover rate. High bone density might not reflect the actual strength or health of the bone and, in some cases, could be associated with an increased risk of conditions like breast cancer.
  3. Bone Mineral Density Scans Are the Sole Indicator of Bone Health: BMD scans, particularly through technologies like DEXA, are often seen as the definitive test for diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing fracture risk. These scans primarily measure bone quantity and do not provide direct insights into bone quality or the structural integrity of bone, which are also critical to bone health and resilience.
  4. Bisphosphonates Are a One-size-fits-all Solution: Bisphosphonates, a common class of medications prescribed for osteoporosis, are sometimes perceived as a suitable treatment for anyone with low bone density. However, their long-term use is associated with significant side effects, including atypical femur fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw.
  5. Physical Activity Is Only Beneficial for Bone Health in Youth: There’s a misconception that only the physical activity undertaken in youth contributes significantly to peak bone mass and that exercise in later life has minimal impact on bone health. In reality, engaging in regular weight-bearing and resistance exercises at any age can help maintain or even improve bone density and strength, supporting bone health and reducing the risk of fractures.
  1. A Diagnosis of Osteopenia or Osteoporosis Guarantees Fractures: There’s a misconception that being diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis means an individual will definitely suffer from bone fractures. The diagnosis does not guarantee that fractures will occur. Many factors, including bone quality, overall health, and preventive measures taken, influence the actual risk of fractures.
  2. Calcium Intake Alone Can Prevent Osteoporosis: A common belief is that consuming high amounts of calcium, either through diet or supplements, is enough to prevent osteoporosis. While calcium is essential for bone health, other factors such as vitamin D levels, physical activity, and overall diet also play crucial roles. Moreover, excessive calcium intake, especially from supplements, can have health risks, including the potential for heart disease.

30 Questions and Answers (going from Beginner to Expert)

1. What is osteoporosis, and how does it affect the body?

Osteoporosis is a condition characterized by weakened bones that are more susceptible to fractures and breaks. This weakening occurs over time as the density and quality of the bone decrease. Bone is a living tissue that constantly remodels itself, but in osteoporosis, the creation of new bone doesn’t keep up with the removal of old bone. This imbalance leads to bones becoming fragile and more likely to fracture, even from minor falls or, in severe cases, from simple actions like bending over or coughing.

2. What led to the change in the definition of osteoporosis in 1994?

In 1994, the definition of osteoporosis underwent a significant change due to the introduction of bone mineral density (BMD) scanning technology, notably the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan. This technological advancement allowed for the precise measurement of bone density, leading to a reclassification of what constituted normal and abnormal bone density levels. Prior to this, osteoporosis was considered a condition affecting primarily the elderly, with diagnosis often made after the occurrence of a fracture. The new definition allowed for earlier identification of at-risk individuals based on their BMD compared to a standardized reference.

3. What is a bone mineral density (BMD) scan, and how does it work?

A bone mineral density (BMD) scan, particularly through dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), measures the amount of calcium and other minerals present in a segment of bone, most commonly the hip, spine, and forearm. The technology works by emitting two X-ray beams at different energy levels towards the bone. The amount of X-rays that pass through the bone is measured for each beam, allowing the machine to calculate the density of the bone. The results help in assessing an individual’s risk of fractures and diagnosing conditions like osteopenia and osteoporosis.

4. Why is the data from BMD scans primarily compared to the bone density of younger individuals?

The data from BMD scans are compared to the bone density of younger individuals because peak bone mass (the maximum bone density and strength) is typically reached in the early 30s. By comparing an individual’s bone density to that of a healthy, young adult baseline, healthcare providers can determine how much bone mass has been lost. However, this comparison is misleading as it does not account for the natural decrease in bone density that occurs with aging.


35 Year Old Female

In Peter Osborne’s video, he addresses the significant shift in how osteoporosis is diagnosed, particularly highlighting the change that occurred in 1994 with the introduction of bone mineral density (BMD) scanning technology, such as the DEXA (Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry) machine. This technology became a cornerstone for diagnosing osteoporosis and assessing fracture risk, fundamentally altering the perception and management of bone health.

Osborne points out that the baseline for assessing bone health through BMD scans is set against the bone density of a healthy 35-year-old woman. This comparison is critical because it essentially redefines the understanding of bone health across all ages, particularly for those who are significantly older than 35. By comparing the bone density of individuals, often those in their 50s, 60s, and beyond, to the peak bone density of a much younger person, many are categorized as having osteopenia or osteoporosis based solely on this discrepancy in bone density levels.

He critiques this approach by emphasizing that bone growth and density naturally peak around the age of 35, after which a gradual decline is a normal part of the aging process. Thus, using the peak bone density of a 35-year-old as a universal standard does not account for the natural, physiological changes that occur in bone density with age. This method can lead to a misleading diagnosis, where the natural decrease in bone density associated with aging is pathologized.

Moreover, Osborne argues that this reliance on BMD scans and the comparison to a 35-year-old woman’s peak bone density creates a misleading narrative around bone health. It fails to consider the quality of the bone, which is an essential factor in overall bone health and resilience against fractures. He stresses that bone health is not solely about density but also involves the bone’s ability to regenerate and maintain a balance between breakdown and renewal, aspects that BMD scans do not measure.

In summary, Osborne’s critique revolves around the idea that the baseline set by comparing individuals’ bone density to that of a healthy 35-year-old woman contributes to an overdiagnosis of osteopenia and osteoporosis. This approach overlooks the natural aging process of bones, potentially leading to unnecessary concern and treatment, including the use of medications like bisphosphonates, which come with their own set of risks and side effects.


5. How does age affect bone density, and what is the normal process of bone aging?

As individuals age, their bone density naturally decreases. This process begins after peak bone mass is achieved in the early 30s. The rate of bone remodeling changes, with bone resorption (the process of breaking down bone) gradually outpacing bone formation. This leads to a slow, steady decline in bone density and mass. Factors such as hormonal changes, particularly in women post-menopause, nutritional intake, and levels of physical activity can influence the rate of bone density loss with age.

6. Can you explain the significance of the term “peak bone mass”?

Peak bone mass refers to the maximum strength and density that bones achieve, which usually occurs in the late 20s to early 30s. This level of bone density is considered a crucial determinant of bone health and osteoporosis risk in later life. The higher the peak bone mass, the more bone an individual has “in the bank” and the less likely they are to develop osteoporosis as they age. Factors influencing peak bone mass include genetics, diet, physical activity, and lifestyle choices.

7. What are the implications of comparing older adults’ bone density to that of a 35-year-old?

Comparing the bone density of older adults to that of a 35-year-old can lead to a high number of individuals being diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis, potentially medicalizing the natural aging process. This comparison does not account for the expected, natural decrease in bone density that occurs with age. Consequently, it may result in unnecessary worry for individuals and potentially lead to the over-prescription of medications for those whose bone density is naturally lower due to aging rather than disease.

8. What does a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis based on a BMD scan indicate about bone health?

A diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis based on a BMD scan indicates that an individual’s bone density is lower than the normal reference range for a healthy, young adult. Osteopenia is considered a midpoint between healthy bone density and osteoporosis, signaling a higher risk of bone fractures but not as severe as osteoporosis.

9. How is bone health defined beyond bone density?

Bone health encompasses more than just bone density; it also includes bone quality, which refers to the architecture, turnover, damage accumulation (such as micro-fractures), and mineralization of bone tissue. Healthy bones are strong and flexible, able to withstand normal impacts without fracturing, due to a balanced process of bone resorption and formation. Factors contributing to bone health include adequate calcium and vitamin D, physical activity, especially weight-bearing exercises, and avoiding lifestyle habits that can harm bone health, such as smoking and excessive alcohol consumption.

10. What role does collagen play in bone health and strength?

Collagen is a protein that provides a soft framework for bone tissue, while calcium adds strength and hardens the framework. This combination of collagen (which provides flexibility) and calcium (which provides rigidity) makes bones strong yet flexible enough to absorb impacts. Collagen’s role in bone health is pivotal; without sufficient collagen, bones can become brittle and more susceptible to fractures. The quality of bone collagen and its interaction with mineral components are crucial aspects of bone strength and overall bone health.

11. What are bisphosphonates, and how do they work?

Bisphosphonates are a class of drugs commonly prescribed to prevent the loss of bone density in conditions such as osteoporosis. They work by inhibiting osteoclasts, the cells responsible for bone resorption, thereby slowing down the process of bone loss. While bisphosphonates can effectively increase bone density and reduce the risk of fractures, they do not directly improve the quality of the bone. Their mechanism aims to alter the natural bone remodeling process, potentially leading to an accumulation of older bone and affecting bone quality over long-term use.


Bisphosphonate Consequences

In the context of bisphosphonate treatment, several key effects on bone physiology were discussed in the video above, which include:

  1. Stopping the Breakdown of Old Bone: Bisphosphonates work by inhibiting the activity of osteoclasts, the cells responsible for bone resorption (the process of breaking down bone tissue). While this helps to prevent bone loss and increases bone density, it also means that old, potentially damaged bone is not removed as efficiently. Over time, this can lead to the accumulation of older bone, which may not be as structurally sound or resilient as newer bone.
  2. Increase Mineralization: By slowing the rate of bone resorption, bisphosphonates allow for an increase in bone mineralization. This process leads to a higher concentration of calcium and other minerals in the bone matrix, making the bones denser. While increased mineralization can contribute to an increase in bone density as measured by bone mineral density (BMD) scans, it’s a factor that influences the overall rigidity of the bone.
  3. Makes Bones Harder but More Brittle: The increased mineralization resulting from bisphosphonate treatment makes bones harder. However, there’s a trade-off. While bones may become harder and denser, they can also become more brittle. Brittle bones are less able to absorb the energy from impacts, such as falls, without breaking. This brittleness can increase the risk of atypical fractures, particularly in the femur (thigh bone), which have been observed in long-term users of bisphosphonates. Atypical fractures can occur with minimal or no trauma, often in the shaft of the thigh bone, an unusual site for osteoporotic fractures.

12. What are the potential side effects of bisphosphonates on bone health?

The long-term use of bisphosphonates has been associated with several potential side effects related to bone health, including the risk of atypical femur fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). These side effects are thought to result from the suppression of natural bone remodeling, leading to the accumulation of micro-damages and decreased bone toughness. Additionally, bisphosphonates can cause gastrointestinal issues and are not suitable for everyone, highlighting the importance of a careful assessment by healthcare providers before starting treatment.


Bisphosphonate Side Effects

Bisphosphonates, a class of medications commonly prescribed for osteoporosis, aim to prevent bone loss and increase bone density by inhibiting osteoclasts, the cells that break down bone tissue. They can have several side effects, as discussed here:

  1. Gastrointestinal Issues: Bisphosphonates can cause gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, abdominal pain, esophageal irritation, and even ulcers. These effects are more common with oral bisphosphonates and can be mitigated by taking the medication with plenty of water and remaining upright for at least 30 minutes afterward.
  2. Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (ONJ): A rare but serious condition where the jaw bone starts to die, leading to pain, loose teeth, and exposed bone. ONJ has been associated with the use of bisphosphonates, particularly among cancer patients receiving high doses through intravenous administration.
  3. Atypical Femur Fractures: Long-term use of bisphosphonates has been linked to an increased risk of atypical fractures of the femur. These fractures can occur with minimal or no trauma, often in the shaft of the thigh bone, which is an unusual site for osteoporotic fractures.
  4. Musculoskeletal Pain: Some patients may experience severe and sometimes incapacitating bone, joint, and/or muscle pain. This side effect can occur days, months, or years after starting bisphosphonates.
  5. Hypocalcemia (Low Blood Calcium Levels): Bisphosphonates can lead to a drop in blood calcium levels, especially if vitamin D levels are low or if the patient has kidney function impairment. Symptoms of hypocalcemia include muscle spasms, tingling in the lips or fingers, and seizures.
  6. Renal Impairment: Intravenous bisphosphonates, in particular, can cause deterioration in kidney function, which is why kidney function must be monitored during treatment. This side effect is more relevant in patients with pre-existing kidney disease or those receiving other nephrotoxic drugs.
  7. Eye Problems: Some individuals may experience eye-related side effects, including inflammation and pain, typically presenting as conjunctivitis or uveitis.

13. Can you discuss the impact of bisphosphonates on bone density versus bone quality?

While bisphosphonates effectively increase bone density by slowing bone resorption, their impact on bone quality is more complex. By inhibiting the natural bone remodeling process, these medications can lead to the accumulation of older bone, which may not be as structurally sound or resilient as newer bone. Consequently, even though bone density might increase, the bone’s ability to resist fractures in certain situations might not improve proportionally. This underscores the importance of considering both bone density and quality when assessing bone health and treatment efficacy.

14. How do lifestyle and dietary choices affect bone health?

Lifestyle and dietary choices play critical roles in maintaining bone health. Calcium and vitamin D are crucial for bone formation and maintenance. Physical activity, especially weight-bearing exercises like walking, running, and resistance training, stimulates bone formation and increases bone density. Conversely, smoking and excessive alcohol consumption can negatively affect bone health, reducing bone density and increasing fracture risk. A balanced diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and lean proteins can provide essential nutrients for bone health, while maintaining a healthy weight can reduce the strain on bones and joints.

15. What is the significance of the WHO’s redefinition of osteoporosis and osteopenia in the 1990s?

The WHO’s redefinition of osteoporosis and osteopenia in the 1990s marked a significant shift in how bone health is assessed, introducing bone mineral density as a key diagnostic criterion. This redefinition expanded the population considered at risk for bone-related health issues, significantly impacting public health policies, clinical practices, and the pharmaceutical industry. This led to the medicalization of aging and the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of individuals with “lower bone density”.


Let’s take a short detour and look at a Mercola article on the subject from 2022.

Why You Should Avoid Osteoporosis Medications

  1. Global Prevalence and Impact of Osteoporosis: Osteoporosis affects approximately 200 million women worldwide, with the prevalence increasing significantly with age. In the United States, 34 million people have low bone density, known as osteopenia, which can progress into osteoporosis and significantly raises the risk of fractures.
  2. Bisphosphonates Weaken Bones: While prescribed to strengthen bones, bisphosphonate drugs have been shown to cause microcracks and weaken bone structure, thereby increasing the risk for atypical bone fractures.
  3. Important Nutrients for Bone Health: Key nutrients vital for healthy bone growth and strength include vitamin D, vitamins K1 and K2, calcium, magnesium, collagen, boron, and strontium. These nutrients support the bone matrix and contribute to bone density and flexibility.
  4. Inadequacy of Load-Bearing Exercises: Most load-bearing exercises do not produce a sufficient osteogenic load to trigger bone growth. The load needed for bone growth in the hip is identified as 4.2 times one’s body weight, which is typically beyond the capability of conventional strength training.
  5. Bisphosphonate Drugs’ Side Effects: Bisphosphonates, the primary conventional treatment for osteoporosis, are associated with numerous side effects, including a higher risk for thigh bone fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw, liver damage, kidney toxicity, and low blood calcium levels.
  6. Mechanical Weakness from Bisphosphonates: Studies have demonstrated that bisphosphonate-treated bone is mechanically weaker, with increased microcrack accumulation and no improvement in bone volume or microarchitecture, making bones more prone to fractures.
  7. Osteogenic Loading as an Alternative: Osteogenic loading, a type of resistance training that applies sufficient force to stimulate bone growth, is highlighted as an effective alternative to conventional strength training for improving bone density.
  8. Blood Flow Restriction (BFR) Training for Bone Health: BFR training, which involves performing strength exercises with restricted venous blood flow, is presented as a viable and beneficial method for improving bone health, especially for individuals who cannot lift heavy weights, including the elderly.

16. How does the WHO’s definition of osteopenia and osteoporosis transform aging into a disease?

By setting the standard for normal bone density based on the peak bone mass of a young adult, the WHO’s definition implicitly suggests that any decrease from this peak is pathological. This approach can transform the natural aging process, during which some bone loss is expected, into a condition requiring medical intervention. This perspective contributes to the unnecessary medicalization of older adults, leading to overtreatment and an undue focus on bone density at the expense of other factors contributing to overall health and well-being.

17. Why is bone quality important, and how can it differ from bone density?

Bone quality refers to aspects of bone structure and composition that contribute to its strength and resilience, including microarchitecture, turnover rates, mineralization patterns, and the presence of micro-damages. While bone density measures the quantity of bone mineral content, bone quality encompasses the material and structural properties that determine how bones respond to stress and resist fractures. High bone density does not always equate to high bone quality; bones can be dense but brittle if the quality is poor. Thus, assessing bone health requires considering both density and quality to accurately evaluate fracture risk.

18. How does the T-score differ from the Z-score in interpreting BMD results?

The T-score and Z-score are both derived from BMD tests but serve different purposes in interpreting results. The T-score compares an individual’s bone density to the average peak bone density of a healthy young adult of the same sex, providing a measure of how much the individual’s bone density deviates from this reference point. It is primarily used to diagnose osteoporosis. In contrast, the Z-score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of people their own age, sex, and size, indicating how their bone density compares to expected levels. The Z-score is more informative for assessing bone density in children, young adults, and older adults where age-related bone loss is a consideration.

19. What is the controversy surrounding the use of BMD to diagnose osteopenia and osteoporosis?

The controversy stems from concerns that relying solely on BMD to diagnose osteopenia and osteoporosis leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. BMD measurements do not fully capture bone strength or fracture risk, as they do not account for bone quality. Additionally, the use of a young adult reference standard for all ages can pathologize the natural aging process of bone density decline. This has led to debates about the appropriateness of medical interventions for individuals diagnosed based on BMD criteria alone, without considering other factors such as age, sex, history of fractures, and lifestyle.

20. How does the natural decrease in bone density with age compare across different populations?

The rate and magnitude of bone density decrease with age can vary significantly across different populations, influenced by factors such as genetics, diet, lifestyle, and environmental factors. For example, certain ethnic groups may have higher or lower peak bone mass and experience different rates of bone loss. Women generally experience a more rapid decline in bone density after menopause due to hormonal changes. Understanding these variations is important for developing appropriate strategies for bone health maintenance and fracture prevention tailored to the needs of diverse populations.

21. Why might higher bone density not always indicate healthier or stronger bones?

Higher bone density, while generally considered a sign of strong bones, does not always correlate with healthier or more resilient bones. This paradox arises because bone strength and health are determined not just by density but also by quality, including factors like bone architecture, turnover rates, and the presence of micro-damages. Bones that are denser but have poor quality may be more brittle and prone to fractures than bones with lower density but higher quality. For instance, excessive mineralization can make bones denser but also more rigid and susceptible to cracking, similar to how a dried twig snaps more easily than a green one.

22. How do bisphosphonates affect the natural process of bone turnover?

Bisphosphonates affect the natural bone turnover process by inhibiting osteoclasts, the cells responsible for bone resorption. While this reduction in bone resorption can lead to an increase in bone density, it also disrupts the natural balance between bone resorption and bone formation. Over time, this disruption can lead to the accumulation of older bone, which are not as strong or flexible as newer bone. This altered bone remodeling process can affect the long-term quality and health of the bone, potentially making it more susceptible to atypical fractures and other issues.

23. What is osteonecrosis, and how can it be related to bisphosphonate use?

Osteonecrosis, specifically osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ), is a condition characterized by the death of bone tissue due to a lack of blood supply. It has been associated with the use of bisphosphonates, particularly among individuals undergoing dental procedures or those with poor oral health. The exact mechanism by which bisphosphonates contribute to ONJ is not fully understood but is thought to involve the drugs’ effects on bone turnover, leading to impaired healing and regeneration of bone tissue. While the risk of ONJ is relatively low, it is a serious condition that necessitates careful monitoring and preventive measures, especially in patients on long-term bisphosphonate therapy.

24. How does physical activity influence bone health according to Wolff’s law?

Wolff’s Law states that bones adapt to the loads under which they are placed; essentially, bone density increases in response to increased stress or load. Physical activity, especially weight-bearing exercises and resistance training, applies stress to bones in a beneficial way, stimulating the process of bone remodeling and leading to stronger, denser bones. This adaptive response helps improve bone strength and reduce the risk of fractures. Consequently, a sedentary lifestyle can lead to weaker bones, as the lack of physical stress leads to decreased bone formation and increased bone loss.

25. Can you explain the paradox of high bone density and increased risk of certain health issues, such as breast cancer?

Research has shown that women with higher bone density may have an increased risk of breast cancer. This paradoxical relationship might be due to higher levels of estrogen, which can both increase bone density and stimulate the growth of certain types of breast cancer cells. High bone density, in this context, could be an indicator of higher cumulative exposure to estrogen, which is a known risk factor for breast cancer. Thus, while high bone density is often seen as a positive indicator of bone health, it may also signal an increased risk for breast cancer, underscoring the complex interplay between different aspects of health.


Analogy

Let’s pause and consider an analogy to bring this all together before we look at the last few questions.

This analogy captures the medicalization of aging in bone health: a natural process redefined as a disease, based on unrealistic standards, leading to interventions that may not only be unnecessary but harmful, all serving the interests of those who stand to profit from the widespread adoption of these standards and solutions.

Forest Management Corporation (FMC)

Imagine you’re part of a community living in a vast, beautiful forest, where each person is tasked with nurturing a unique tree—your tree represents your bone health. This forest thrives on diversity, with trees at various stages of growth, each contributing to the ecosystem’s balance. However, a powerful group, the Forest Management Corporation (FMC), steps in with a new vision for “optimal forest health.”

1. The False Baseline – The Ideal Tree Myth: FMC declares that the most robust and youthful trees—those at their peak summer vitality—are the standard. Every tree not matching this ideal is labeled as “underperforming” or “diseased.” This false baseline disregards the natural growth cycles and maturity of trees, painting a picture that aging trees are failing, despite their natural progression and contribution to the forest’s ecology.

2. The Control and Changing Definition of Disease: FMC then redefines forest health based on this youthful peak. Trees that once flourished under the wisdom of natural cycles are now seen as problematic. The corporation’s narrow criteria turn the natural aging process into a widespread “disease,” ignoring the intrinsic value of each tree’s unique life stage.

3. The False Test – The Health Indicator Tool (HIT): FMC introduces HIT, a tool designed to measure a tree’s shadow against the midday summer sun—the longest shadow of the year. Trees casting shorter shadows (those not in their summer peak) are marked for intervention. This test, however, fails to consider the full spectrum of light and seasons, misleadingly signaling a “false disease” in otherwise naturally aging trees.

4. Creation of a Disease for Natural Aging: The community, now anxious about their “failing” trees, turns to FMC for solutions. The natural aging process, a once-celebrated cycle of life and renewal, becomes a source of fear. Aging trees, regardless of their health and beauty, are labeled as diseased, leading to unnecessary interventions.

5. The Solution That Makes Things Worse – The Growth Enhancer (GE): FMC offers GE, a treatment promising to restore trees to their peak shadows. While GE initially seems to thicken and darken the canopy, it rigidifies the branches, making them brittle and prone to snapping even under gentle breezes. The natural flexibility and resilience of the trees to weather storms are compromised, ironically increasing the risk of damage—the very issue GE claimed to prevent.

6. Benefiting Industrial Corporate Interests: As the community becomes dependent on GE to maintain their trees at this unnatural standard, FMC profits immensely. The true cost, however, is the loss of the forest’s natural diversity and resilience. Trees that would have naturally aged into sturdy, majestic beings are now at risk, and the forest as a whole suffers from a misguided attempt to halt the natural cycle of growth and renewal.


26. What are the limitations of DXA scans in assessing overall bone health?

DXA scans, while useful for measuring bone mineral density, have limitations in assessing overall bone health. They provide a two-dimensional measure of bone density but do not capture bone quality factors such as bone structure, microarchitecture, or the quality of bone collagen. DXA scans also do not account for the distribution of bone mass or the differences in bone size among individuals. Therefore, DXA scans do not provide a complete picture of bone health and strength.

27. How have definitions and treatments for osteoporosis impacted women’s health care?

The definitions and treatments for osteoporosis have significantly impacted women’s health care by shifting the focus toward early detection and intervention for bone health issues. This shift has led to increased screening, the widespread use of BMD testing, and the development of medications like bisphosphonates aimed at preventing bone loss. However, it has also raised concerns about the overmedicalization of natural aging processes and the potential for overtreatment with medications that have significant side effects. The emphasis on bone density over other aspects of health has sparked a debate about the best approaches to maintaining bone health and preventing fractures in women as they age.

28. What role do vitamins and minerals play in maintaining bone health?

Vitamins and minerals play crucial roles in maintaining bone health. Calcium and vitamin D are particularly important; calcium is a primary component of bone, providing structure and strength, while vitamin D enhances calcium absorption from the diet and is necessary for proper bone formation. Other nutrients like magnesium, vitamin K, and phosphorus also contribute to bone health by supporting bone density and quality.

29. How does the concept of “use it or lose it” apply to maintaining bone density and strength?

The “use it or lose it” concept underscores the importance of physical activity for bone health. Just as muscles grow stronger with use, bones also become denser and stronger in response to the stresses placed on them through weight-bearing and resistance exercises. When bones are not subjected to sufficient physical stress, such as in a sedentary lifestyle, they can lose density and strength, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and fractures. Regular physical activity stimulates bone remodeling, helping to maintain or even increase bone density and strength throughout life.

30. What are the implications of medicalizing the natural aging process of bone loss?

Medicalizing the natural aging process of bone loss has significant implications for public health and individual patients. It can lead to an increased focus on bone density as a primary indicator of health, potentially overshadowing other important factors such as bone quality, overall physical fitness, and lifestyle choices that contribute to healthy aging. This perspective results in the overdiagnosis of osteopenia and osteoporosis, leading to anxiety and unnecessary treatment with medications that have potential side effects. Recognizing bone density changes as a part of the natural aging process while focusing on comprehensive strategies to maintain bone health can help balance the benefits and risks of medical intervention.

February 28, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | Leave a comment

Hunter’s Associate: Biden Scion Planned Global Hedge Fund to Benefit Poppa Joe

Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 27.02.2024

As Hunter Biden braces for deposition in the US Congress on Wednesday, his former business associate has spilled the beans about the first family’s plan to build a global hedge fund.

US president Joe Biden’s son Hunter plotted to set up a shadowy fund to cash in on his influence — so says a former business partner.

Independent US media outlet Just the News has obtained a recent statement by Hunter Biden’s business associate Jason Galanis to the House impeachment inquiry.
He said Hunter and his business buddies planned to build a global hedge fund with Joe Biden as its “central asset.”

“The entire value-add of Hunter Biden to our business was his family name and his access to his father, Vice President Joe Biden,” Galanis told the House impeachment investigators. “Our objective was to build a diversified private equity platform, which would be anchored by a globally known Wall Street brand together with a globally known political name.”

Hunter Biden sought “strategic relationships to the venture” with tycoons from all over the world, including from post-Soviet space.

Just the News quoted emails from Hunter Biden’s infamous “laptop from hell” which allegedly confirm the ambitious plan.

“This is a global cooperation group that will assist each other in our respective regions in whatever manner possible,” Hunter’s other associate, Jeff Cooper, wrote in March 2014. The younger Biden proposed a list of billionaire investors for the new venture, including tycoons from China, Spain, Kazakhstan, Russia, South America, Africa and the Middle East.

One of Hunter’s partners, Chinese businessman Xuejun “Henry” Zhao, showed interest in the plan based on the prospect that Joe Biden would join the venture after his vice presidential term ended.

“Mr. Zhao was interested in this partnership because of the game-changing value add of the Biden family, including Joe Biden, who was to be a member of the Burnham-Harvest team post-vice presidency, providing political access in the United States and around the world,” Galanis said.

Galanis’s lawyer provided a draft email backing up the businessman’s testimony.

“Michael, please also remind Henry [Zhao] of our conversation about a board seat for a certain relation of mine,” Hunter reportedly wrote. “Devon [Archer] and I golfed with that relation earlier last week and we discussed this very idea again and as always he remains very very keen on the opportunity.”

According to Galanis, the “certain relation” was none other than Joe Biden. Even though the phrase was removed from the final email, it remained in Galanis’ records.

The group’s plan to assemble a “dream team” of international billionaires and create a global Biden business empire took a serious knock when Archer and Galanis were charged and convicted of a plot to steal $43 million in tribal bonds.

Hunter Biden avoided scrutiny despite “then-available documentation that we were partners, were involved in the decision making that involved illegal self-dealing, and all of us had financially benefited from these schemes,” Galanis claimed.

Galanis told House investigators that the illegal tribal bond scheme was part of a larger effort to create a financial platform for the Biden hedge fund.

“In an effort to build this financial platform, I engaged in unlawful conduct. Our companies were entrusted with $11 billion of union members’ pension fund money whose trust I betrayed,” Galanis stated. “I pleaded guilty. I have had eight years in federal custody to reflect on my actions and I am profoundly sorry for my role.”

Hunter Biden is expected to appear before the Oversight Committee on Wednesday and testify to the Republican-led impeachment hearing about his family’s business dealings and Joe Biden’s role in his son’s financial schemes.

Congressional investigators argue that Joe Biden was used by his son as a “brand” due to his vice presidential position. They say he not only knew about Hunter’s deals but participated in them, likely profiting. Biden has so far denied being aware of his son’s business operations.

House Republicans have been running their investigation into the Biden family’s apparent influence-peddling for several years.

According to US media, Hunter’s testimony will take place behind closed doors — even though he previously insisted on a public hearing — and will not be video-taped, although the transcript will be released to the public.

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | | Leave a comment

Houthis Refute Claims They’ve Sabotaged Underwater Cables in Red Sea

By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 27.02.2024

Israeli media reported on Monday that the Yemeni militia had targeted “four submarine communication cables” in the area between Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Djibouti.

The Houthis’ Telecommunications Ministry has denied reports by “Zionist-linked media” claiming that they have sabotaged major underwater telecommunications cables connection, Europe, Africa and Asia.

“The Ministry of Telecoms and Information Technology denies what has been published by the Zionist-linked media outlets and also what has been published by other media outlets and the social networks, on allegations as to what [has] been caused to Red Sea submarine cables,” the militia said in an English-language statement Tuesday, a day after an Israeli Hebrew-language newspaper reported that the militia had caused “serious disruption” to internet cables between Europe and Asia.

“Yemen Telecom affirms its pivotal role to continue and build up and develop the international and regional telecom and internet networks which are provided by the submarine cables running within the Yemeni territorial waters and will keep up to facilitate the passage and implementation of the submarine cables projects through the Yemeni territorial waters, inclusive the projects into which the Yemen Republic participated, by Yemen International Telecom Co – TeleYemen,” the statement added.

The Ministry pointed to recent statements by Houthi movement leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi committing the militia to keeping underwater cables and its relevant services “away from any possible risks,” and said the militia’s campaign “to ban the passage of Israeli ships” through Red Sea waters “does not pertain [to] the other international ships which have been licensed to execute submarine works within the Yemeni territorial waters.”

Houthi Politburo member Khuzam al-Assad told Sputnik that the militia undertook “no actions… aimed at damaging internet cables, and we have repeatedly confirmed this.”

Al-Assad said the claims of Houthi attacks on the cables were insinuations being pushed by Tel Aviv, Washington and London to try to turn global public opinion against the Houthis instead of “stopping the crimes of genocide committed by the Israeli Army with the support of the United States and the West against Gaza residents.”

The Israeli media report said four major cables, including AAE-1 (connecting East Asia to Europe via Egypt), Seacom (linking Europe, Africa and India), EIG (linking India and the Gulf to Africa and Europe) and TGN (linking France to India) had been hit, with most of the immediate damage expected to be felt by India and the Gulf States.

Western reporting on possible Houthi operations to sabotage underwater internet cables began to surface in January, with the BBC running a story in early February saying the Houthis “almost certainly would” target the cables “if they could,” while admitting that “the fiber cables, which carry 17% of the world’s internet traffic, lie on the seabed mostly hundreds of meters below the surface – well below the reach of divers.” Only a handful of countries, including the US and Russia, have the capability to sabotage this infrastructure using deep sea submersibles, the outlet said.

The Houthis began a months-long maritime campaign of ship hijackings, drone strikes and missile launches targeting Israel-affiliated commercial vessels in the Red Sea in November in solidarity with Gaza amid Israel’s ground assault into the enclave. The US announced the creation of a naval ‘coalition of the willing’ against Yemen in December, and started bombing the country in January to try to degrade the militia’s missile and drone capabilities. The Houthis responded by banning all American and British ships from passing through the strategic waterway, and launching attacks on US and British warships operating in the area.

The Yemeni militia has effectively shut the Red Sea down to up to 40 percent of its normal commercial traffic, adding tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to global shipping costs and disrupting supply chains worldwide.

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Wars for Israel | , , , , | Leave a comment

Leaked Gaza ceasefire proposal US ‘psychological warfare’: Hamas

The Cradle | February 27, 2024

Hamas official Ahmad Abdul Hadi stated on 27 February that a leaked proposal for a ceasefire deal in Gaza is part of a “psychological warfare” campaign being carried out by the US.

Details of the alleged proposal were leaked to Reuters on Monday, the same day US President Joe Biden said he hoped a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas could be reached by 4 March.

“My national security adviser tells me that they’re close. They’re close. They’re not done yet. My hope is by next Monday we’ll have a ceasefire,” Biden claimed during an appearance on a late-night US talk show.

But Abdul Hadi, the Hamas representative in Lebanon, stated that the resistance movement is not satisfied with the proposal and will not compromise on any of its demands, particularly “on a ceasefire and reaching an honorable, serious deal.”

Hamas is seeking a permanent end to the war and the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Israel is seeking the release of the 136 captives held by Hamas in Gaza and a temporary ceasefire that would allow it to resume the war after a pause.

“We are open to any ideas posed by mediators but are also keen on preserving our key demands,” Abdul Hadi told Al-Mayadeen, adding that Israel is “seeking to hold Hamas accountable for any later failures in talks, planning to use this as an excuse to pave the way for the invasion of Rafah.”

He said the leaks were not part of the Paris negotiations but a US and Israeli attempt to give the public an illusion that Hamas had approved of them. He reiterated that “everything being shared is not serious, but a ploy to maneuver and press on the Resistance.”

The proposal leaked to Reuters outlined plans for a 40-day truce during which Hamas would free around 40 captives – including female soldiers, those under 19 or over 50 years old, and the sick – in return for about 400 Palestinians held captive in Israel.

Israel would withdraw its troops from populated areas of Gaza. Displaced Gaza residents, excluding men of fighting age, would be permitted to return to their homes. Israel would be required to allow additional humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the strip are on the verge of starvation.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) also responded to leaked Paris proposal.

“The leaks are an attempt to pressure the Palestinians and incite them against the resistance.

They are pushing for a ceasefire before Ramadan in anticipation of what might happen in Al-Quds.

The enemy believes that it can deceive the resistance with different methods in order to achieve a victory it has failed to achieve on the ground,” PIJ Political Bureau member Ihsan Ataya told Al-Mayadeen.

In Gaza, residents speaking to Reuters expressed mixed feelings about possible outcomes.

“We don’t want a pause, we want a permanent ceasefire, we want an end to the killing,” said Mustafa Basel, a father of five from Gaza City, now displaced in Rafah.

“Unfortunately, people’s conditions are so grim that some may accept a pause, even [just] during Ramadan,” he said. “They want a permanent end to the war, but the dire conditions make them want a pause even for a month or 40 days in the hope it becomes permanent.”

February 27, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , , | Leave a comment

Kremlin comments on Denmark dropping Nord Stream probe

RT | February 26, 2024

The Danish decision to end its investigation into the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea was probably motivated by Copenhagen’s unwillingness to establish the truth about the crime, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has suggested.

The energy links built to bring Russian natural gas directly to Germany were ruptured by unknown perpetrators in a series of explosions in September 2022. Germany as well as Denmark and Sweden, in whose economic zones the sabotage took place, had each launched separate inquiries. Sweden closed its probe earlier this month.

The Copenhagen Police do not see “sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case in Denmark” over the incident, they said on Monday in a statement announcing the development. The probe, conducted jointly with the Danish Security and Intelligence Services (PET), was “complex and comprehensive” and resulted in a conclusion that the incident was deliberate sabotage. Nothing was said about possible suspects in the press-release.

The situation is “close to absurd,” Peskov told journalists when asked about the news.

“Apparently, they were getting closer to, as they call it, outing their closest allies,” he suggested. “One can only express absolute astonishment and nothing else.”

Denmark said investigators cooperated with “relevant foreign partners,” but Peskov stressed that Russian law enforcement was not among those.

“In the early stages of the investigation, we consistently asked the Danes for information about what had happened, but the requests were rejected,” he said.

A German government spokesman said Berlin remained very interested in getting to the bottom of the crime.

Western media initially rushed to accuse Russia of disabling its own critical infrastructure. Subsequent reports said European investigators found no evidence to support this theory. Leaks to the press identified a “pro-Ukrainian group” and a specific Ukrainian officer currently held in Kiev’s custody under a separate case as potential culprits.

Russian President Vladimir Putin pointed the finger at the CIA, claiming that the Americans were behind the sabotage, when he discussed Nord Stream with journalist Tucker Carlson in a recent interview. He declined to say what evidence led him to that conclusion.

Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said in February of 2023 that, according to his source, US President Joe Biden personally ordered the bombing of the pipelines. The journalist claimed Biden was seeking to cement Germany’s antagonism towards Russia in the Ukraine conflict and ensure the EU’s long-term reliance on Western energy. The White House denied the allegation, but Putin has said he found Hersh’s reasoning plausible.

February 26, 2024 Posted by | Deception | , , , , | Leave a comment

“On Call”: Dr. Fauci’s Forthcoming Memoir

Bizarre book description on Amazon

BY JOHN LEAKE | COURAGEOUS DISCOURSE | FEBRUARY 25, 2024

Over coffee this morning, I found myself wondering what Dr. Fauci is up to these days. I was already aware that he’d joined the Georgetown School of Medicine faculty as a “distinguished professor” last summer. More recently in the news is the announcement that his memoir—titled On Call: A Doctor’s Journey in Public Service—will be published by Viking on June 18, 2024.

The following is the publisher’s description of the book on Amazon:

The memoir by the doctor who became a beacon of hope for millions through the COVID pandemic, and whose six-decade career in high-level public service put him in the room with seven presidents

Anthony Fauci is arguably the most famous – and most revered – doctor in the world today. His role guiding America sanely and calmly through Covid (and through the torrents of Trump) earned him the trust of millions during one of the most terrifying periods in modern American history, but this was only the most recent of the global epidemics in which Dr. Fauci played a major role. His crucial role in researching HIV and bringing AIDS into sympathetic public view and his leadership in navigating the Ebola, SARS, West Nile, and anthrax crises, make him truly an American hero.

His memoir reaches back to his boyhood in Brooklyn, New York, and carries through decades of caring for critically ill patients, navigating the whirlpools of Washington politics, and behind-the-scenes advising and negotiating with seven presidents on key issues from global AIDS relief to infectious disease  preparedness at home. ON CALL will be an inspiration for readers who admire and are grateful to him and for those who want to emulate him in public service. He is the embodiment of “speaking truth to power,” with dignity and results.

It’s notable that Dr. Fauci hasn’t been “on call” as a treating physician since he joined NIAID as a clinical associate in 1968.

Downright astonishing is the fact that, within the same country, public perceptions of a man can be so diametrically opposed. It’s probably true that, during the COVID pandemic, Dr. Fauci was “a beacon of hope for millions,” even though he did the following:

1). Oversaw grants to the key players who were responsible for creating SARS-CoV-2 in a lab.

2). Concealed the true (lab) origin of SARS-CoV-2.

3). Undermined President Trump’s advocacy of early treatment modalities such as hydroxychloroquine, and was generally dismissive of early treatment.

4). Strongly advocated the widespread use of Remdesivir, in spite of clear data that it causes kidney damage, especially in patients with already compromised kidney function.

5). Was a key actor pushing mass vaccination with mRNA gene transfer shots that are neither safe nor effective.

Especially bizarre in the book description is the final sentence: “He is the embodiment of “speaking truth to power,” with dignity and results.

In fact, Dr. Fauci is the embodiment of overarching, illegitimate power that has no place in a constitutional republic.

February 26, 2024 Posted by | Book Review, Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Schools in German capital ordered to distribute leaflets describing 1948 Nakba Day as ‘myth’

Palestinians flee the village of Qumiya during the Nakba in 1948
Press TV – February 24, 2024

Schools in the German capital Berlin have been ordered to distribute leaflets describing the Nakba Day as a “myth”, 76 years after Zionist paramilitaries forcibly removed two-thirds of the Palestinian population from their ancestral homes.

Germany’s leading Social Democratic Party (SPD) – German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s party – and the opposition Christian Democratic Party (CDU) have asked high schools in Berlin’s borough of Neukolln to distribute brochures titled “The Myth of Israel #1948”, the London-based Middle East Eye website said in a report on Friday.

The report cited a motion that was passed during a public meeting of the borough’s council on Wednesday stating that “the district office is asked to advocate the use of the brochure ‘Myths#Israel1948’ in Neukolln’s secondary schools to confront existing anti-Semitic narratives within the educational framework of the school.”

“The expanded definition of anti-Semitism of the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) and the German government should also be communicated,” the motion further read.

More than 750,000 Palestinians were forcibly removed from their ancestral homes in Palestine and 500 villages and towns were destroyed by Zionist militias before the Israeli regime declared its illegal establishment. Palestinians are still enduring the repercussions of this catastrophe to this day. The systematic ethnic cleansing occurred between 1947 and 1949.

The incident is known among Palestinians as the Day of Nakba, or the Day of Catastrophe, and it is commemorated every year on May 15.

The leaflet distributed among high school students in Berlin’s Neukolln borough flatly rejected, among others, this catastrophe as a “myth” despite the fact that ample credible evidence in favor of the occurrence of the incident are impossible to ignore.

Based on such overwhelming evidence, the United Nations, for the first time in its history, commemorated the 75th anniversary of Nakba Day back on May 15 last year.

The UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP), at the time, organized a high-level special meeting.

It was presided over by the chairman of the committee, Ambassador Cheikh Niang of Senegal, and included a keynote address by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Senior UN officials and representatives of regional groups and civil societies also made statements to commemorate Nakba.

The leaflet stresses that criticism of illegal Israeli settlements is anti-Semitic.

According to the report, while Germany stands out with its unwavering political and military support for Israel, the German left is split over its stance on Palestine.

February 24, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

Talks With US on Space Weapons ‘Completely Unproductive’ – Moscow

Sputnik – 24.02.2024

MOSCOW – The recent contact between Russia and the US over claims Moscow alleged plans to deploy anti-satellite nuclear weapons in space turned out to be unproductive, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Ryabkov said.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing US officials, that Washington had privately warned Moscow not to deploy a new nuclear-armed anti-satellite weapon which would allegedly violate the Outer Space Treaty and threaten US national security interests.

“There is no and cannot be any progress on this issue,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told reporters. “The reason is clear – the absurdity of US’ accusations against us of allegedly intending to deploy some systems with weapons-grade nuclear components in space.”

“As it has been continuously said recently, and as [Russian] President [Vladimir Putin] said, we have no such intentions,” Ryabkov added. “The Americans pursue the goal of demonizing Russia by making accusations of this kind. Therefore, the contact on this issue is completely unproductive.”

The deputy minister stressed that Russia had no intention of withdrawing from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that bans the deployment of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in space.

“No, we do not consider [the possibility of withdrawal from the treaty],” Ryabkov said.

He also called it unacceptable that the US side had leaked details of the talks held between US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and Russian Presidential Foreign Policy Advisor Yury Ushakov, which Moscow and Washington agreed to keep confidential.

Russia has repeatedly warned against an arms race in space, and advocated for its use for purely peaceful purposes. President Vladimir Putin reiterated on February 20 that Moscow has always opposed the deployment of nuclear weapons in space.

The Russian Foreign Ministry has noted that that the United States and its allies are taking steps to place weapons in space and use outer space for combat operations, not only for defensive purposes.

The West continues to regard space as a new arena of rivalry and conflicts between countries, in which Russia and China are identified as the main opponents, the ministry said.

The US created its first foreign space force under its command in the Indo-Pacific region in 2022, following the establishment of the space force in 2019 under the pretext of threats from Russia and China. According to estimates, the United States has 4,723 satellites in orbit, while China has 647, Russia has 199, and the rest of the world has 1,527 combined.

February 24, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Russophobia | | Leave a comment

Wikileaks Reveals Alexei Navalny’s US Funding as Washington Exploits His Death

By Brian Berletic – New Eastern Outlook – 24.02.2024 

News of the death of Alexei Navalny in a Russian prison very quickly spread across the Western media, while condemnation of Russia over his death emanated from behind the podiums of Western leaders. Before any investigation could possibly be mounted, the collective West concluded that the Russian state was responsible for Navalny’s death.

The disproportionate concern US President Joe Biden showed for a Russian citizen dying in a Russian prison versus President Biden’s silence over the death of American citizen Gonzalo Lira in a Ukrainian prison, raises questions over the motivation behind this “concern.”

Far beyond hypocrisy, the US and its allies are less concerned about Navalny’s death than they are about how it can be leveraged to advance their foreign policy objectives vis-à-vis Russia.

The New York Times, in an article titled, “Navalny’s Death Raises Tensions Between U.S. and Russia,” would claim:

President Biden blamed President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia personally on Friday for the reported death of the imprisoned Russian dissident Aleksei A. Navalny, and cited the case in pressing House Republicans to approve military aid to Ukraine in its war with Moscow.

As part of the process of exploiting Navalny’s death, not only are the circumstances surrounding it being distorted, so too are the events of Navalny’s life.

Many news articles ran with headlines like CNN’s article, “Putin saw an existential threat in Navalny, the opposition leader whose name he dared not mention,” the BBC’s article, “Alexei Navalny, Russia’s most vociferous Putin critic,” or Al Jazeera’s article, “Alexey Navalny: An archenemy Putin wouldn’t name and Kremlin couldn’t scare.” These articles all contain different variations of virtually the same narrative that Navalny was a prominent opposition figure, a successful politician, and an “existential” threat to the current Russian administration.

Yet, in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Despite being active in Russia, Navalny’s largest support base was actually located in Washington, D.C. And it is the Western media itself that has revealed this.

Even with Al Jazeera’s recent article attempting to convince readers Navalny was the “archenemy” of the Russian government, further down in the article it admits:

Only 19 percent of Russians approved of Navalny’s work and 56 percent disapproved of what he did, according to a February 2021 survey by the Moscow-based Levada Center polling organisation.

How does an opposition figure with only a 19% approval rating in any way threaten a government whose leader, President Vladimir Putin, enjoys an approval rating over 80%?

Some may question the polling data, after all, the Levada Center producing both numbers is based in Moscow. However, the Levada Center is actually funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), according to the NED’s own website.

The US NED funds political opposition groups around the globe with the ultimate objective of achieving regime change in targeted countries and producing resulting client regimes that pursue US interests, even at the cost of the targeted country’s own interests.

We know this because the Western media admitted this as well.

The Guardian in a 2004 article titled, “US campaign behind the turmoil in Kiev,” in regard to street protests in Ukraine admitted:

… the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes.

Funded and organised by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milošević at the ballot box.

Richard Miles, the US ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze.

Ten months after the success in Belgrade, the US ambassador in Minsk, Michael Kozak, a veteran of similar operations in Central America, notably in Nicaragua, organised a near identical campaign to try to defeat the Belarus hardman, Alexander Lukashenko.

The article admits that the US government used the National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute, both subsidiaries of the NED, to organize this political interference.

If the US government was funding organizations all along Russia’s borders, the next question is: Who was the US government funding inside Russia itself?

The answer is Alexei Navalny and the network of political opposition surrounding him. The many obituaries published recently across the Western media list the names of political organizations Navalny founded, including “Democratic Alternative” or “DA!”

US diplomatic cables, made available by Julian Assange and his Wikileaks project, revealed “Democratic Alternative” was being funded by the US government through the National Endowment for Democracy.

In a November 2006 cable titled, “A Guide to Russian Political Youth Groups: Part 1 of 2,” it’s admitted that:

Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection.

“Democratic Alternative,” founded by Navalny, headed by Gaydar, was funded by the US government through the NED, and was part of opposition networks the US was setting up to do in Russia what the Western media admits the US already did in neighboring Belarus, Ukraine, and Georgia.

“Part 2 of 2” of the US diplomatic cable would even mention Russian government efforts to “hasten to irrelevancy” opposition groups, including NED-funded “Democratic Alternative,” because Moscow was “intent on avoiding the orange- and rose-colored revolutions of its neighbors,” in reference to the US government regime change operations in Ukraine and Georgia.

The Western media itself admits that Alexei Navalny founded “Democratic Alternative.” US cables admit “Democratic Alternative” was being funded by the US government through the NED. The Western media itself admits the US government funded organizations like this to implement regime change inside targeted countries – in this case Russia.

Alexei Navalny was aiding in Russia what the US government had already done in Georgia in 2003, leading eventually to NATO-trained troops attacking Russia in 2008, and did again in Ukraine in 2014, leading to NATO-armed and trained forces killing Russian-speaking Ukrainians along Russia’s borders and threatening to attack Crimea following a 2014 referendum resulting in its return to Russia.

Another key element of the West’s attempts to exploit Navalny’s death is an effort to depict him as a pro-democracy, progressive liberal activist, when in reality – and again – according to the Western media itself – he was nothing of the sort.

In fact, this is admitted even by US government-funded media like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. In their 2021 article, “Navalny’s Failure To Renounce His Nationalist Past May Be Straining His Support,” they admit:

On February 23, the prominent NGO Amnesty International withdrew Navalny from its list of “prisoners of conscience,” a designation reserved for people imprisoned for who they are or what they believe. Amnesty said Navalny, who is in prison on what he and his supporters call trumped-up charges aimed at silencing him, fell short of its criteria because of past statements the rights watchdog perceived as reaching the “threshold of advocacy of hatred.”

Much of the attention focuses on Navalny’s unabashed endorsement of nationalist causes in the late 2000s, including his appearances at the Russian March, an annual event that gathers ultranationalists of all stripes in Moscow but has dwindled in size in recent years. In response, the liberal Yabloko party expelled Navalny from its ranks, but under the banner of a new group called the National Russian Liberation Movement in 2007 he released YouTube videos describing himself as a “certified nationalist” and advancing thinly veiled xenophobia.

And by “ultranationalists,” the US government-funded media organization means Neo-Nazis.

This is the very unflattering reality of Navalny’s politics and “activism,” a reality the Western media previously admitted, and a reality the same Western media is now trying to paper over.

The true story of Navalny’s political life was one of unpopular and unsuccessful foreign-funded sedition using toxic ideologies incompatible to the values the West claims it represents. Following Navalny’s death, his US sponsors are attempting to wring out any remaining value Navalny might serve in advancing the US policy of encroaching upon, encircling, and eventually overthrowing the current Russian government – a policy not of “freedom and democracy,” but one of violence, interference, and subjugation.

Only by papering over the truth, can the collective West hope to successfully use Navalny’s death to depict Russia as a threat to the civilized world. By exposing who Navalny really was in life, the West’s attempts to exploit him in death can instead serve as a warning against US foreign policy as the real threat to the civilized world.

February 24, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

US intelligence casts doubt on Israel’s accusations against UNRWA

Press TV – February 23, 2024

A US intelligence assessment has cast doubt on Israel’s accusations against the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), citing the regime’s bias against the UN agency.

A National Intelligence Council (NIC) report released last week assessed with “low confidence” that a handful of UNRWA staffers had taken part in the October 7 operation launched by Hamas resistance movement against the occupying entity.

The four-page intelligence report indicated that the NIC could not independently confirm the allegations.

Earlier this year, the Israeli regime claimed that 12 employees of the UNRWA were involved in the attack.

Tel Aviv also alleged that 10% of all UNRWA’s 12,000 workers have links to Hamas.

Noting that UNRWA does coordinate with Hamas, which governs Gaza, in order to deliver aid and operate in the besieged strip, the NIC said there was a lack of evidence to suggest that the UN agency was collaborating with the resistance movement in a wider way.

The NIC report added that Israel has not “shared the raw intelligence behind its assessments with the US.”

The Wall Street Journal cited two sources familiar with the report as saying that it highlighted Israel’s dislike towards the UNRWA.

“There is a specific section that mentions how Israeli bias serves to mischaracterize much of their assessments on UNRWA and says this has resulted in distortions,” one source told the WSJ.

Last week, Philippe Lazzarini, the commissioner general of the UNRWA, said Israel was waging a concerted campaign aimed at destroying the main UN agency in the besieged Gaza Strip.

“It is believed that if the aid agency is abolished, the status of the Palestinian refugees will be resolved once and for all — and with it, the right of return,” Lazzarini told the Swiss newspaper group Tamedia.

The regime’s allegations against UNRWA, which were not publicly backed by evidence, have prompted more than 10 donor countries, including the United States, Germany, the European Union, Canada, and Japan, to suspend financial support.

The funding from these countries makes up the bulk of all funding received by the UN agency.

UNRWA said being cut off in this way means the agency will run out of money altogether within weeks.

“The grossly disproportionate decision to suspend funding by some of the largest donor states defies the basic principle of humanity, and goes against states’ commitment to leave no one behind,” several UN experts said in a statement earlier this month.

Nearly the entire population of Gaza now relies on UNRWA for basics, including food, water, and hygiene supplies.

Since the regime started its war on Gaza in early October, 1.9 million people – 85 percent of Gaza’s population – have been internally displaced.

Israel launched the war on Gaza on October 7 after the Palestinian resistance movement Hamas waged the surprise Operation Al-Aqsa Storm against the occupying entity in response to the Israeli regime’s decades-long campaign of bloodletting and devastation against Palestinians.

Since the start of the offensive, the Tel Aviv regime has killed at least 29,410 Palestinians and injured more than 69,465 others.

Thousands more are also missing and presumed dead under the rubble in Gaza, which is under “complete siege” by Israel.

February 23, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , , , | Leave a comment