Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's Blog: The Most Revolutionary Act , page 80
April 29, 2025
Defections Rock UAE-Backed Forces in Yemen as Trump’s War Plan Falters
Ansar Allah supporters chant slogans during an anti-U.S. and anti-Israel rally in Sanaa, Yemen, April 18, 2025. Osamah Abdulrahman
By Robert Inlakesh
Around 100 officers from the UAE-backed National Resistance Forces (NRF) in Yemen have defected to join Ansar Allah, delivering a major blow to U.S. and Gulf-backed efforts inside the country. The development comes amid threats of a U.S.-supported ground offensive and intensified American airstrikes against civilian targets.
On Sunday, approximately 100 officers from Yemen’s United Arab Emirates-backed forces defected to Ansar Allah in the capital, Sanaa. Although the defectors’ identities have not been publicly disclosed, initial reports suggest that much of the group’s high command was among them.
The defections mark a serious setback for the NRF, led by Brigadier General Tareq Saleh, who holds territory along Yemen’s northwestern coast near Taiz.
Tareq Saleh, the nephew of deposed Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh, sits on the Emirati-Saudi backed Presidential Leadership Council, often referred to as Yemen’s internationally recognized government. His NRF forces are aligned with Saudi and U.S.-backed groups that control southern Yemen, headquartered in the port city of Aden.
Meanwhile, protests have erupted across southern Yemen, where residents are demanding the removal of the “pro-coalition government” over worsening economic conditions, collapsing basic services, and 20-hour rolling blackouts. In Aden, the demonstrations against the Saudi-Emirati coalition continue to grow, with citizens accusing local authorities of failing to implement emergency measures to stabilize energy supplies.
Despite backing from wealthy Gulf states and U.S. support, areas under the Presidential Leadership Council’s control suffer from higher poverty rates than the 70% of Yemenis living under Ansar Allah’s Sanaa-based government.
Shortly after U.S. strikes began on March 15, President Trump claimed that Ansar Allah had been “decimated,” while Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth asserted that the military campaign was “devastatingly effective.” Six weeks later, U.S. officials have quietly admitted that the strikes have had limited impact, raising concerns over cost effectiveness and ammunition depletion.
Despite Washington’s early rhetoric, the Yemeni Armed Forces continue to target U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups, fire missiles and drones at Israel, and enjoy mass displays of public support across Yemen.
In Washington, leading think tanks are now scrambling for alternatives. The Atlantic Council recently suggested that assassinating key leaders like Abdul Malik al-Houthi could collapse the Sanaa government. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) argued that “only a ground operation can oust the Houthis.”
Around a week ago, reports emerged that an 80,000-strong Saudi-UAE backed force was preparing to cooperate with U.S. troops to seize Yemen’s strategic Red Sea port city of Hodeidah. However, the NRF defections could significantly complicate those plans.
Growing public discontent in southern Yemen could further jeopardize any ground operation. Massive weekly demonstrations show strong popular support for Ansar Allah’s blockade of the Red Sea and its missile attacks on Israel, actions that many in southern Yemen view as retaliation against U.S. intervention.
Instead of destroying Ansar Allah, Trump’s military escalation may be achieving the opposite: unifying a nation torn by nearly a decade of civil war.
Via https://www.mintpressnews.com/trump-yemen-officer-defections/289460/
Here’s How Much American Billionaires Lost in Trump’s First 100 Days
Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk at the 2025 inauguration of Donald Trump. Getty Images
“This is what victory feels like,” Elon Musk declared the day Donald Trump was sworn in. “I’m super fired up for the future…One of the most American values that I love is optimism.”
Now, as Donald Trump begins his 100th day back in office, much of the optimism has faded as the American stock market has gotten off to its worst start in 50 years, with the S&P 500 and Dow Jones Industrial Average both dropping by nearly 8% amid Trump’s tariff war.
No one has been hit harder than Musk, who is $45 billion poorer than he was on Trump’s second inauguration day. Musk has taken to feuding with Trump tariff hawk Peter Navarro on social media, has said he will step back from leading Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, and has had to refocus on his electric carmaker Tesla, after tariff fears and Musk’s increasingly unpopular political efforts have sent the stock crashing 33%.
He isn’t the only billionaire down big during Trump 2.0. Overall, America’s 800-some billionaires are $300 billion poorer since January 20. Joining Musk among the 10 biggest losers (in sheer dollar terms) are Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Alphabet’s Sergey Brin and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, three tech tycoons who scored prominent seats just behind the first family at Trump’s inauguration—and have since gone on to lose $35 billion, $26 billion and $22 billion in wealth, respectively.
Other prominent Trump backers have dropped billions, too. Oracle’s Larry Ellison—who met with Trump the day after the inauguration as part of a $500 billion an AI infrastructure initiative—is America’s third-biggest loser so far, behind Musk and Bezos, down $28 billion. Blackstone cofounder Stephen Schwarzman, who initially said he would not support longtime friend’s 2024 campaign but soon backtracked, is $11 billion poorer.
Of course some billionaires have managed to get richer despite the shaky markets. Warren Buffett—who called tariffs “an act of war, to some degree” ahead of Trump’s announcement—has kept Berkshire Hathaway steady, stashing a record $334 billion of the conglomerate’s money in cash and cash equivalents. That has helped push shares up 13% since Trump took office, adding nearly $20 billion to the Oracle of Omaha’s net worth.
Other big billionaire winners so far: Peter Thiel (up $4.9 billion) and Alexander Karp ($3.6 billion), whose AI-powered data mining firm Palantir is America’s hottest stock, thanks in part to defense and software contracts with U.S. government agencies. The three surviving children of Walmart founder Sam Walton (d. 1992), meanwhile, are each at least $3 billion richer, as consumers have flocked to the retail giant amid elevated inflation; last week, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon met with Trump to argue against tariffs. And while former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, who has kept much of his wealth in the tech giant’s stock, losing $8 billion so far in the process, founder Bill Gates has diversified his fortune into a wide range of investments, including a 35% stake in waste company Republic Services (up 15%), helping make him a big gainer.
President Trump, meanwhile, has not been kind to businessman Trump. The commander-in-chief’s fortune is down $1.5 billion since he took charge of the U.S. government, as shares of his Trump Media & Technology Group—the parent company of Truth Social—have plunged by 35%, quadruple the broader market’s drop. He’s clearly paying attention to the gyrations. Standing in the Oval Office on April 9, Trump pointed to brokerage billionaire Charles Schwab: “He made $2.5 billion today,” he bragged, then turned to automotive billionaire Roger Penske: “And he made $900 million.” Both fortunes have continued to climb since then, but after racking up huge losses earlier in Trump’s first 100 days, Schwab is only $375 million, or 3%, richer than he was on the last day of Joe Biden’s presidency. Penske, meanwhile, is $1.1 billion poorer.
Here are the 10 biggest American losers and the 10 biggest American winners of Trump’s second presidency, as of his 100th day in office.*Based on U.S. citizens with a majority of wealth held in public companies. Net worth changes measured from the market close on January 17, 2025 to the market close on April 28, 2025.Biggest losers:10. Steve BallmerSource of wealth: MicrosoftNet worth: $117.6 bilLoss since Trump’s inauguration: -$8.4 bilSource of wealth: BlackstoneNet worth: $41.6 bilLoss: -$10.9 bil8. Michael DellSource of wealth: Dell ComputersNet worth: $98.2 bilLoss: -$16.8 bil7. Mark ZuckerbergSource of wealth: FacebookNet worth: $190.3 bilLoss: -$21.5 bil[…]Via https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2025/04/29/the-biggest-billionaire-winners-and-losers-of-trumps-first-100-days/6. Jensen Huang
Source of wealth: NvidiaNet worth: $95.2 bilLoss: $24.9 bil5. Sergey BrinSource of wealth: GoogleNet worth: $128.4 bilLoss: -$25.6 bil4. Larry PageSource of wealth: GoogleNet worth: $134 bilLoss: -$27.4 bil3. Larry EllisonSource of wealth: OracleNet worth: $176.4 bilLoss: -$28.2 bil2. Jeff BezosSource of wealth: AmazonNet worth: $204.6 bilLoss: -$34.8 bil1. Elon Musk Source of wealth: Tesla, SpaceXNet worth: $388.6 bilLoss: -$45.3 bilBiggest gainers:10. Bill Gates
Source of wealth: MicrosoftNet worth: $108.9 bilGain: +$2.5 bil9. Robert DugganSource of wealth: PharmaceuticalsNet worth: $15.4 bilGain: +$2.9 bil8. Alice WaltonSource of wealth: WalmartNet worth: $104.4 bilGain: +$3 bilSource of wealth: WalmartNet worth: $112.2 bilGain: +$3.1 bi6. Rob Walton & familySource of wealth: WalmartNet worth: $113.4 bilGain: +$3.1 bil5. Alexander KarpSource of wealth: PalantirNet worth: $10.6 bilGain: +$3.6 bil4. Lin BinSource of wealth: SmartphonesNet worth: $15 bilGain: +$3.7 bil3. Brad JacobsSource of wealth: LogisticsNet worth: $12.6 bilGain: +$4 bilPeter ThielSource of wealth: Facebook, investmentsNet worth: $19.3 bilGain: +$4.9 bil1. Warren BuffettSource of wealth: Berkshire HathawayNet worth: $165.8 bilGain: +$19.6 bil
BRICS Nations Accelerate Efforts to Establish New International Payment System to Thwart US Tariffs
Original Background Image Source.
by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
Pepe Escobar, the Brazilian international journalist, recently returned from his visit to China where he spent time in Shanghai and Hong Kong, home to the two largest ports in China.
He was interviewed by Danny Haiphong, and I am including the interview here, which I listened to this past weekend.
Escobar states:
Trump managed to do what I would say (is) the impossible, to antagonize 1.4 billion Chinese, at the same time.
And there’s no turning back. So Trump cannot expect a phone call from China.
He explains how BRICS, which will meet this summer in Brazil, is now accelerating their plans to implement a new international payment system so countries can bypass the U.S. banking system and the U.S. dollar, as they begin to exclude the U.S. market due to these high tariffs.
Escobar mentions the analogy that President Trump is using for his tariffs, which is that the U.S. is a “store” and that any country who wants to buy U.S. goods in this “store” has to meet Trump’s pricing based on tariffs.
Escobar responds: “But what he doesn’t realize is that nobody wants to buy anything in this store anymore” as the BRICS nations begin to reshape their supply chains and exports.
Also covered in this interview is the amazing announcement from Russia that the Kursk region has now been 100% liberated, as Russia announces, for the first time in public, that they did so with the help of North Korean military forces.
He also explains how Iran is a huge part of BRICS plans for the future, and the implementation of the new Silk Road trade initiatives.
Watch the full interview:
[…]
The Late John Judge on 9/11
The Late John Judge on 9/11
Talking Stick TV (2002)
Film Review
I was fortunate to attend this talk on February 13, 2002, just five months after 9/11. This was the first we learned 9/11 was an inside job – when Judge informed us of the Air Force stand down order (not to intercept the 747 heading for the Pentagon).
Prior to his death in 2014, Judge chaired the JFK Assassination Review Board. The latter was an independent organization created under The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992. It was the Review Board’s responsibility to review the six million pages of classified documents the Act forced the Clinton administration to release. The law was a response to massive popular pressure following the release of Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK.
As Judge explains in the video, prior to 9/11 he was working with congress woman Cynthia McKinney to establish an expert panel to lobby for the release of 600,000-700,000 pages of classified documents related to the Martin Luther King assassination.*
Judge goes on to talk about Secretary of State Colin Powell informing Middle East counterparts in July 2001 about US plans to invade Afghanistan, owing to the refusal by the Taliban (which the US had installed to run Afghanistan) to agree to the proposed Unocal oil pipeline pipeline connecting the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf.
Judge also speaks about Al Qaeda not representing Islam, and how most terrorism is phony terrorism sponsored by Western powers to forward their own political agendas.
*The panel was cancelled after 9-11. By law these records are scheduled to be released in 2026.
April 28, 2025
Google DeepMind workers push for unionization over company’s Israeli ties
Pro-Palestine activists stage a protest outside Google’s office in Central London. (Photo by Middle East Eye)
Press TV
Employees at Google DeepMind’s London office have initiated efforts to unionize in response to the tech giant’s decision to provide its artificial intelligence (AI) technology to defense entities and maintain connections with the Israeli regime.
Reports on Saturday indicated that around 300 workers at DeepMind, the AI division of Google in London, have sought membership with the Communication Workers Union in recent weeks.
DeepMind employees’ decision began when Google updated its approach to AI technology and dropped its militarization clause from its ethical pledge (AI Principles).
In its previous version of AI Principles, Google had included a commitment clause to not pursue AI technologies that “cause or are likely to cause overall harm”, especially in weapons and surveillance that violate “internationally accepted norms.”
The revised version of AI Principles, states that the company pursues AI “responsibly” and in line with “widely accepted principles of international law and human rights”, but does not include the previous language about weapons and surveillance.
Google imports ex-Israeli spies who automated Gaza genocideThe tension between DeepMind and its parent company further increased when a whistle-blower revealed that Israel had been using their technology to generate targets for assassinations and attacks in Gaza, where close to 51,500 Palestinians have been killed so far.
After the revelation about the Israeli regime’s use of DeepMind AI in the Gaza war, several employees quit the company.
“We’re putting two and two together and think the technology we’re developing is being used in the [Gaza war],” said one engineer involved in the unionization effort.
“This is basically cutting-edge AI that we’re providing to an ongoing [war]. People don’t want their work used like this,” he added.
The effort to unionize needs to be recognized by the company through a vote among DeepMind employees in the UK. The company has around 2,000 staff in London.
If the unionization effort succeeds, the employees will demand that Google nullify its military contracts.
If Google still decides to sell its technologies for military purposes, then the employees have the right to go on strike.
“What I hope and what people who are active are hoping is that we stay away from any military contracts,” said one of the organizers of the unionization effort.
The Israeli regime already has a $1.2bn cloud computing agreement with Google and Amazon, called Project Nimbus.
[…]
RIP Five Eyes? Global Spying Network Under Threat
New Zealand’s Five Eyes Spy Operation at WaihopiKit Klarenberg
Ever since Donald Trump’s return to the White House, mainstream speculation has ever-intensified that his second term in office could spell the end of Five Eyes, the international signals intelligence (SIGINT) spying network. Through this connivance, Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the US train an unblinking eye on the public and private communications of the world’s entire population. While few average citizens would mourn the passing of Five Eyes, fear of its demise are pronounced in certain quarters – first and foremost, London.
In February, the Financial Times reported key Trump aide Peter Navarro was pushing for Canada to be excluded from Five Eyes, and the proposal was “being discussed” by senior US officials. While denied by Navarro, the suggestion sparked anxieties among Western intelligence veterans, think tank pundits, and journalists that Ottawa’s removal could precipitate the network’s outright collapse. In March, The Economist enquired, “Could Donald Trump imperil the Five Eyes spy pact?” In April, Politico pondered, “Can Britain live without American intelligence?”
Politico revealed developments such as Trump’s decision to halt intelligence sharing with Ukraine in March had prompted “current and former intelligence officials” to consider whether “it may be necessary for Britain to begin planning for the previously unthinkable,” and undo links between the two nations’ counterpart intelligence agencies. This is despite these ties “[going] so deep that it may be impossible to untangle them” – or at least for London “to replicate the US contribution.”
While the CIA and MI6 are well-known for working in lockstep, Five Eyes is the most intimate expression of this transatlantic espionage bromance, exclusion from which would drastically reduce Britain’s already evaporating international status. As Politico notes, the international spying network accounts for “Britain’s status as a comparative heavyweight in the intelligence sphere” today. Its origins date back to 1946, and the signing of the secret UKUSA agreement. This formalised intelligence sharing between London and Washington that began decades earlier.
Ever since, UKUSA has granted Britain an outsized role and influence in international affairs. As this journalist exposed in May 2022, a secret cabal of British military and intelligence veterans – including disgraced former MI6 chief Richard Dearlove – connived to install Boris Johnson as Prime Minister and ensure a ‘hard’ Brexit, due to fears EU military and intelligence integration could torpedo Five Eyes. Now, Trump’s bellicose approach to international affairs could see their nightmare realised once and for all.
‘Sensitive Operations’
As a declassified 1997 briefing document makes clear, UKUSA provides for “unrestricted” exchange between the NSA and GCHQ of SIGINT gathered by both agencies, “except for those areas that are specifically excluded (e.g. US ONLY information) at the request of either party.” The alliance also allows the NSA to circumvent US legislation preventing it from spying on American citizens, by outsourcing this work to GCHQ, and vice versa. The agencies then share their respective intelligence yields with one another.
The sister agencies’ bond extends far further. The same file notes some “GCHQ [redacted] exist solely to satisfy NSA tasking” – the missing word presumably being “teams” or “units”, if not “divisions.” Reinforcing this inference, documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed the NSA funded GCHQ to the tune of at least £100 million in 2010 – 2013 alone, in order to secure access to and influence over the latter’s intelligence-gathering programs.
The files also indicate Britain’s lax surveillance laws and regulations represent a major “selling point” for Washington. London is moreover acutely aware of her need to provide a significant return on the NSA’s investment in GCHQ. One file leaked by Snowden notes the agency “must pull its weight and be seen to pull its weight” by Washington. An undated declassified NSA appraisal offers a lengthy “assessment of the UKUSA relationship”, and is rife with praise for GCHQ’s contributions:
“UKUSA…has been of inestimable value to NSA [sic] and cannot be abandoned…there is no doubt that UKUSA offers NSA much…unique collection from GCHQ conventional sites, use of UK [redacted] where the US has none…the compatibility of US and UK SIGINT systems…an especially competent cryptanalytic workforce…and, perhaps most important, a record of supporting the US as an ally in confronting world problems.”
However, “despite these outstanding areas of success”, the report also expresses significant concerns about certain aspects of the relationship. Markedly, the section detailing these anxieties is heavily redacted, with nine consecutive pages blanked out entirely. Still, an unexpurgated portion discussing the exchange of “large numbers” of staff between GCHQ and the NSA is illuminating. The contents suggest London frequently seeks to surreptitiously overstep UKUSA’s terms, and insert its cyber spies into areas well-beyond their purview.
The section notes many GCHQ secondees to the NSA – particularly those “working sensitive missions” – “assume liaison-like functions”, serving “as lobbyists for [London] in policy matters.” In a “disturbing” cited example of this tendency, a GCHQ official was said to have once “lobbied hard” to parachute one of their operatives into a particular high-level position with its US counterpart. This was “rightly rejected” by the NSA, “as it would give GCHQ insight into certain sensitive operations we do not share.”
‘Closely Monitoring’
GCHQ and the NSA are nonetheless party to “sensitive operations” conducted by other members of the Five Eyes nexus. The quintet’s global SIGINT system, intercepting private and commercial communications the world over, is codenamed ECHELON. Under its auspices, an international constellation of tracking stations hoovers every phone call, text message, email, and more transmitted in its surrounding sphere, amounting to millions every hour. ECHELON also collects data from taps on the internet, and monitoring pods placed on underwater cables by US Navy submarines.
According to a 2001 European Parliament report, around 80% of SIGINT captured by the Five Eyes station in Kojarena, Australia – which employs US and British staff in key posts – is sent automatically to GCHQ and the NSA, without ever being seen or read in Australia. While every Five Eyes member theoretically has the right to veto requests for intelligence collected by another, “when you’re a junior ally like Australia or New Zealand, you never refuse,” journalist Duncan Campbell records.
This blanket acquiescence comes despite apparent worries among members about what their ostensible allies might do with certain intelligence requested from them. However, no such qualms seemingly apply to Five Eyes’ human intelligence operations. In 2017, WikiLeaks revealed the CIA dispatched spies from Australia, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand to extensively infiltrate and surveil political parties running in France’s 2012 elections, which the Agency was “closely monitoring”:
“Of particular interest is President Sarkozy, the Socialist Party (PS), and other potential candidates’ plans and intentions…Analysts assess the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP), the current ruling party, is not assured of winning the presidential election and, as a result, analysts are interested in the electoral strategy of…non-ruling parties. Additional information on these topics will help analysts assess, and prepare key US policymakers for, the post-election French political landscape and the potential impact on US-France relations.”
Covert Five Eyes infiltrators were to “report on deliberations” by the then-French President, identify “rising party leaders, newly developed political parties or movements, and emerging presidential candidates,” root out “major sources of funding for the presidential candidates and registered parties,” and more. That same year, Five Eyes members were also tasked by Washington with intercepting and reporting on all French company negotiations and contracts valued in excess of $200 million. Their findings were shared with various US government entities, including the Treasury and Federal Reserve.
This activity – targeted at a putative ally – is particularly perverse given that in 2014, then-US Attorney General Eric Holder declared Washington “categorically denounces” any and all corporate espionage, and “[does] not collect intelligence to provide a competitive advantage to US companies, or US commercial sectors.” Conversely, British laws on foreign intelligence-gathering overtly state one of GCHQ’s purposes is the promotion of London’s “economic well-being…in relation to the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.”
‘An Outrage’
The capabilities of ECHELON were scrutinised by a European Parliament committee in 2000, which published its final report the next year. As the probe was nearing completion, investigators travelled to Washington to meet with representatives of the US intelligence community, including the CIA and NSA. Upon arrival though, their assorted summits were abruptly cancelled, which “concerned and dismayed” the European delegation. Officially, ECHELON remained completely secret until 2015, following Edward Snowden’s disclosures.
Such obfuscation and concealment is par for the course for Five Eyes. UKUSA’s existence wasn’t publicly admitted until 2005, and only five years later was the full text of its seven-page founding document publicly released. Amply testifying to the intense veil of secrecy surrounding the spying network, Australia’s Prime Minister Gough Whitlam remained unaware of his country’s involvement in it until 1973, 17 years after Canberra became a member. This followed police raids on the offices of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
Launched due to ASIO withholding information from the Australian government, James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s then-counterintelligence chief, was so perturbed by the arrangement’s exposure Down Under he sought to have Whitlam ousted from office via cloak-and-dagger tactics. So it was in November 1975, the popular premier was toppled from power, removed from his democratically elected post upon the orders of Queen Elizabeth II’s representative, Governor General John Kerr, as a result of CIA and MI6 connivance.
Meanwhile, David Lange, New Zealand’s Prime Minister 1984 – 1989, was likewise in the dark as to the “international integrated electronic network” to which his country was committed throughout his time in government. He only learned about the operations of Five Eyes after reading Secret Power, a book published in 1996 detailing the activities of Wellington’s Government Communications Security Bureau. He chillingly remarked in the work’s foreword:
“It is an outrage that I and other ministers were told so little, and this raises the question of to whom those concerned saw themselves ultimately answerable.”
[…]
How chemotherapy creates toxic time bombs in your body called CELL-KILLING PARTICLES
Dr Eddy Betterman
Chemotherapy triggers the release of cell-killing particles (cfChPs) that damage healthy cells years after treatment ends, leading to heart failure, neurodegenerative diseases, and cancer relapse.New research exposes these particles as major culprits behind “chemo brain,” organ failure, and secondary cancers—side effects that kill 25% of patients and remain “unexplained” by doctors.Natural compounds like resveratrol and copper neutralize toxic cfChPs, but major cancer centers ignore this science to protect billion-dollar chemotherapy profits.The toxic paycheck behind “Miracle” cancer careWhen Jane Doe, a 58-year-old breast cancer patient, signed on for chemotherapy, she trusted her oncologist’s promise of battling tumors “without long-term harm.” Four years later, McGoodwill Hospital’s chemotherapy survivor now has stage 3 cardiomyopathy, accelerating cognitive decline, and a new diagnosis of treatment-induced leukemia. This tragic journey mirrors the experiences of millions: chemotherapy isn’t simply “killing cancer cells.” It’s unleashing a biological time bomb hidden within patients’ own bloodstream.
A groundbreaking study in BJC Reports reveals that chemotherapy’s real danger lies in its secondary effects. Instead of simply targeting tumors, chemo drugs trigger the release of cell-free chromatin particles (cfChPs) from dying cells—both cancerous and healthy. These fragments of DNA and histones surge into the circulatory system, penetrate distant organs, and trigger inflammation, DNA fragmentation, and cell death. The longer you survive chemo, the higher your risk of delayed organ failure—because your body is still cleaning up the toxic cfChP debris.
The hidden pathways of destruction — How chemo’s true casualties are your healthy cellsTraditional oncology framed chemo’s side effects as collateral damage from drugs “killing rapidly dividing cells.” The cfChP revelation shatters this myth.
In lab studies, dying cancer cells drenched in chemo shed cfChPs like shrapnel, which haunt patients’ bodies long after treatment ends:
DNA fragment invaders: cfChPs slip into healthy cells via actin filaments, splintering their DNA and triggering self-destruct cascades without direct drug exposure.Inflammation thermal gratuitement: cfChPs bind to immune receptors like TLR9, igniting chronic inflammation. This explains why chemo survivors have double the risk of heart disease and neurodegenerative conditions like Parkinson’s.Cancer recurrence loophole: cfChPs rewrite genes in remaining tumor cells, fueling genetic chaos and treatment-resistant cancers—essentially, chemo unleashes the very enemies it seeks to destroy.This mechanism explains why 6.8% of chemo patients develop secondary leukemias from radiation particles, or why nearly 75% suffer “chemo brain” months after finishing treatment. Yet, the FDA’s guidelines remain unchanged, and oncologists routinely dismiss these outcomes as “unavoidable collateral damage.”
Nature’s antidote — Why resveratrol and copper are ignored by Big PharmaThe same team behind this cfChP discovery is already testing resveratrol + copper (R-Cu),** a nutrient combo that dismantles cfChPs safely.** Studies show:
R-Cu triggers oxygen radicals that “unzip” cfChPs, rendering their DNA harmless.In trials, R-Cu cut chemo-induced intestinal inflammation by 60%,It also slashed damage to heart mitochondria, and reduced chemotherapy-mandated hospitalizations due to toxicity by 40%.These findings are non-negotiable—and yet patients face impossible roadblocks accessing them.
Why the Silence?The 150 billion global chemotherapy industry thrives by silencing the truth. BigPharma’s stock is high, so what’s 3 million in resveratrol supplements compared to $1 billion in taxol sales? Dr. Zhao, the study’s lead author, notes: “Pharma giants control ‘evidence’ standards by demanding randomized clinical trials. But they refuse to fund research that undermines their profit streams.”
In 2022, Merck produced a “precision oncology” report downplaying the cfChP mechanism as “hypotheses needing more studies”—the same tactic the tobacco industry used to dismiss lung cancer links.
A system in denial — When science is a business, patients pay the priceOncologists are prescribers, not profit drivers, but their careers depend on compliance. “Call it inertia, call it greed—the system ignores solutions that threaten the status quo,” says author and cancer patient advocate Linda Chen. “They’d rather pay $5,000/month for taxpayer-funded chemo than admit broccoli sprouts could alleviate half their patients’ organ damage.”
This parallels the 1950s tobacco cover-ups, where industry-funded “research” discredited peer-reviewed links between smoking and cancer. Today, the FDA still demands genes therapies undergo a decade-long approval process while green-lighting $60k/year drugs without Phase III data.
Ignore your oncologist’s dismissals and take these active steps:
Neutraceutical pre-onco care: Two weeks before chemo, start a regime of resveratrol (200mg), quercetin (500mg), and NAC (600mg) daily. Studies show this triples glutathione levels–your body’s cfChP cleansing system.**Mouthwash preventive: Mix chlorhexidine (antibacterial) and a pinch of spirulina before and after treatments to preemptively neutralize cell debris in your oral microbiome (a major cfChP depot post-chemo).Demand post-treatment scans: Insist on cardiac MRI and genomic panels to spot cfChP-driven mutations early.Chemotherapy’s cfChP time bombs are ticking louder with each clinical trial. For 37 years, the Charlotte Gerson Institute has documented hundreds who reversed cancer through detox and plant-based diets. Now science confirms their methods were right—and mainstream medicine is too invested in profit to admit it.
This isn’t just about supplements. It’s about your right to thrive past diagnosis. The pharmaceutical empire profits when you don’t ask questions. But every dollar spent on natural defenses weakens their grip. Will you be a casualty of the system’s silence? Or a pioneer in reclaiming health?
[…]
Via https://dreddymd.com/2025/04/28/how-curative-treatments-create-toxic-time-bombs/
Kellogg framework disaster for Trump
Trump envoy retired general Keith Kellogg
Alastair Crooke
All of Kellogg’s underlying assumptions lacked any basis in reality. Yet Trump seemingly took them on trust.
Political warfare in Washington is endemic. But the body count at the Pentagon has started to rise precipitously. Three of Secretary of Defence Hegseth’s top advisors were placed on leave, and then fired. The war continues, with the Secretary now in the firing line.
Why this matters is that the Hegseth attrition comes amid fierce internal debates in the Trump administration about Iran policy. Hawks want an definitive elimination of all Iran’s nuclear and weapons capabilities, whilst many ‘restrainers’ warn against military escalation; Hegseth reportedly was amongst those warning against an intervention in Iran.
The recent Pentagon dismissals have all been identified as restrainers. One of the latter, Dan Caldwell, formerly Hegseth’s Top Adviser and an army veteran, wrote a post slamming the ‘Iran Hawks’ – and subsequently was fired. He was later interviewed by Tucker Carlson. Notably, Caldwell describes in scathing terms America’s wars in Iraq and Syria (“criminal”). This adverse sentiment concerning America’s earlier wars is a rising theme, it seems, amongst U.S. Vets today.
The three Pentagon staffers essentially were fired, not as ‘leakers’, but for talking Hegseth out of supporting war on Iran, it would appear; the Israeli-Firsters, have not given up on that war.
The inflamed fault lines between hawks and traditionalist ‘Republicans’ bleed across into the Ukraine issue, even if the faction membership may alter a tad. Israeli-Firsters and U.S. hawks more generally, are behind both the war on Russia and the maximalist demands on Iran.
Conservative commentator Fred Bauer observes that when it comes to Trump’s own war impulses, they are conflicted:
“Influenced by the Vietnam War of his youth … Trump seems deeply averse to long-term military conflicts, yet, at the same time, Trump admires a politics of strength and swagger. That means taking out Iranian generals, launching airstrikes on the Houthis, and boosting the defence budget to $1 trillion”.
Hegseth’s potential exit – should the campaign for his removal succeed – could cause the struggle to grow fiercer. Its first casualty is already apparent – Trump’s hope to bring a quick end to the Ukraine conflict is over.
This week, the Trump team (including both warring factions, Rubio, Witkoff and General Kellogg) met in Paris with various European and Ukrainian representatives. At the meeting, a Russian-Ukrainian unilateral ceasefire proposal was mooted by the U.S. delegation.
After the meeting, at the airport, Rubio plainly said that the ceasefire plan was ‘a take-it-or-leave-it’ U.S. initiative. The various sides – Russia, Kiev and the European members of the ‘coalition of the willing’ – had only days to accept it, or else the U.S. was ‘out’, and would wash its hands of the conflict.
The framework presented, as reported, is almost (maybe 95%) unadulteratedly that previously proposed by General Kellogg: i.e. it is his plan, first aired in April 2024. It appears that the ‘Kellogg formula’ was adopted then as the Trump platform (Trump was at the time in mid-campaign, and unlikely to have been following the complicated minutiae of the Ukraine war too closely).
General Kellogg is also the likely source for Trump’s optimism that the ending to the Ukraine war could come with a click of Trump’s fingers – through the limited application of asymmetric pressures and threats on both belligerents by Trump – and with the timing decided in Washington.
In short, the plan represented a Beltway consensus that the U.S. could implement a negotiated end-state with terms aligned to U.S. and Ukrainian interests.
Kellogg’s implicit assumptions were that Russia is highly vulnerable to a sanctions threat (its economy perceived as being fragile); that it had suffered unsustainably high casualties; and that the war was at a stalemate.
Thus, Kellogg persuaded Trump that Russia would readily agree to the ceasefire terms proposed – albeit terms that were constructed around patently flawed underlying assumptions about Russia and its presumed weaknesses.
Kellogg’s influence and false premises were all too evident when Trump, in January, having stated that Russia had lost one million men (in the war) then went on to say that “Putin is destroying Russia by not making a deal, adding (seemingly as an aside), that Putin may have already made up his mind ‘not to make a deal’”. He further claimed that Russia’s economy is in ‘ruins’, and most notably said that he would consider sanctioning or tariffing Russia. In a subsequent Truth Social post, Trump writes, “I’m going to do Russia – whose Economy is failing – and President Putin, a very big FAVOR”.
All of Kellogg’s underlying assumptions lacked any basis in reality. Yet Trump seemingly took them on trust. And despite Steve Witkoff’s subsequent three lengthy personal meetings with President Putin, in which Putin repeatedly stated that he would not accept any ceasefire until a political framework had been first agreed, the Kellogg contingent continued to blandly assume that Russia would be forced to accept Kellogg’s détente because of the claimed serious ‘setbacks’ Russia had suffered in Ukraine.
Given this history, unsurprisingly, the ceasefire framework terms outlined by Rubio this week in Paris reflected those more suited to a party at the point of capitulation, rather than that of a state anticipating achieving its objectives – by military means.
In essence, the Kellogg Plan looked to bring a U.S. ‘win’ on terms aligned to a desire to keep open the option for continuing attritional war on Russia.
So, what is the Kellogg Plan? At base, it seeks to establish a ‘frozen conflict’ – frozen along the ‘Line of Conflict’; with no definitive ban on NATO membership for Ukraine, (but rather, envisaging a NATO membership that is deferred well into the future); it places no limits on the size of a future Ukrainian army and no restrictions on the type or quantity of armaments held by the Ukrainian forces. (It foresees, contrarily, that after the ceasefire, the U.S. might re-arm, train and militarily support a future force) – i.e. back to the post-Maidan era of 2014.
In addition, no territory would be ceded by Ukraine to Russia, save for Crimea which alone would be recognised by the U.S. as Russian (the unique sop to Witkoff?), and Russia would only ‘exercise control’ over the four Oblasts that it currently claims, yet only up to the Line of Conflict; territory beyond this line would remain under Ukrainian control (see here for the ‘Kellogg map’). The Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant would be neutral territory to be held, and managed, by the U.S. There is no mention made of the cities of Zaporozhye and Kherson that have been constitutionally incorporated into Russia, but lie beyond the contact line.
Nothing about a political solution apparently was outlined in the plan, and the plan leaves Ukraine free to pursue its claim to all Ukraine’s former territories – save for only Crimea.
Ukrainian territory west of the Dnieper River however, would be divided into three zones of responsibility: British, French and German zones (i.e. which NATO forces would manage). Finally, no American security guarantees were offered.
Rubio subsequently passed details of the plan to Russian FM Lavrov, who calmly stated that any ceasefire plan should resolve the underlying causes to the conflict in Ukraine as its first task.
Witkoff flies to Moscow this week to present this ‘pig’s ear’ of a plan to Putin – seeking his consent. The Europeans and Ukrainians are set to meet next Wednesday in London to give their riposte to Trump.
What’s next? Most obviously, the Kellogg Plan will not ‘fly’. Russia will not accept it, and likely Zelensky will not either, (though the Europeans will work to persuade him – hoping to ‘wrong-foot Moscow’ by presenting Russia as the essential ‘spoiler’). Reportedly, Zelensky already has rejected the Crimea provision.
For the Europeans, the lack of security guarantees or backstop by the U.S. may prove to be a killer for their aspiration to deploy a tripwire troop deployment to Ukraine, in the context of a ceasefire.
Is Trump really going to wash his hands of Ukraine? Doubtful, given that the U.S. neo-conservative institutional leadership will tell Trump that to do so, would weaken America’s ‘peace through strength’ narrative. Trump may adopt supporting Ukraine ‘on a low flame’ posture, whilst declaring the ‘war was never his’ – as he seeks a ‘win’ on the business front with Russia.
The bottom line is that Kellogg has not well-served his patron. The U.S. needs effective working relations with Russia. The Kellogg contingent has contributed to Trump’s egregious misreading of Russia. Putin is a serious actor, who says what he means, and means what he says.
Colonel Macgregor sums it up thus:
“Trump tends to view the world through the lens of dealmaking. [Ending the Ukraine war] is not about dealmaking. This is about the life and death of nations and peoples. There’s no interest in some sort of short-fused deal that is going to elevate Trump or his administration to greatness. There will be no win for Donald Trump personally in any of this. That was never going to be the case”.
[…]
Via https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/04/28/kellogg-framework-disaster-for-trump/
White House preparing for possible Trump-Kim talks
FILE PHOTO: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets US President Donald Trump inside the demilitarized zone (DMZ), June 30, 2019. © Dong-A Ilbo handout via Getty Images/Getty ImagesRT
Pyongyang has grown stronger since the historic summits of the previous decade.
US President Donald Trump’s team is considering a new strategy for North Korea, potentially mirroring the diplomatic engagement of his first term, according to sources cited by Axios.
Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in person multiple times, including in Singapore in 2018, Hanoi in 2019, and within the demilitarized zone on the Korean Peninsula later that same year. He is the first sitting US president ever to sit down at the negotiating table with his North Korean counterpart.
Trump has told his team that he wants to reconnect with Kim, potentially face-to-face, Axios reported on Sunday. The administration is “convening agencies to understand where the North Koreans are today,” said a senior official speaking on condition of anonymity. “A lot has changed in the last four years. We are evaluating, diagnosing and talking about potential avenues, including engagement.”
Currently, this initiative is not among the White House’s top priorities and involves consultations with external experts, including former officials and think tanks, the outlet said. Axios suggested that Washington holds less leverage over Pyongyang now than it did in the late 2010s, as North Korea has bolstered its military capabilities, including nuclear forces, and forged stronger ties with China and Russia.
Last year, North Korea and Russia signed a bilateral treaty that includes mutual defense provisions. Shortly thereafter, Ukraine started an offensive into Russia’s Kursk Region, aiming to gain leverage over Moscow in future negotiations.North Korean troops were deployed to Russian territory to assist Moscow in repelling Ukrainian forces, culminating in the complete liberation of the region last week, according to Moscow. Over the weekend, President Vladimir Putin acknowledged the contribution of North Korean troops, commending their bravery and referring to them as brothers in arms.
The Trump administration is seeking a compromise deal to end the Ukraine conflict. Trump has accused Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky of undermining his efforts by publicly challenging key aspects of what media outlets describe as his peace plan.
The two leaders met on the sidelines of Pope Francis’ funeral in the Vatican on Saturday, with Zelensky pleading for more US weapons, according to Trump.
[…]
April 27, 2025
Hegseth Vows Course Correction As Report Finds Two-Thirds Of Reserve Troops Overweight
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth participates in a morning physical training session with troops stationed in Warsaw, Poland, on Feb. 14, 2025. DoD photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander C. KubitzaZero Hedge
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth expressed his dismay on April 25 after a new report found that more than two-thirds of U.S. military reserve personnel are overweight.
Washington-based think tank American Security Project (ASP) published a white paper this week that found that nearly 68 percent of reserve troops are overweight or obese.
In 2018, when the Department of Defense last surveyed obesity rates in the reserve military components, it found that around 65 percent of reserve troops were considered overweight or obese.
“The number of young adults interested in military service remains sufficient to maintain current force strength. However, as overweight and obesity disqualify thousands of applicants each year, services are incentivized to violate body composition enlistment standards to meet recruitment goals,” the new ASP report reads.
Hegseth took to social media platform X on Friday to call the report’s findings “completely unacceptable.”
“This is what happens when standards are IGNORED — and this is what we are changing. REAL fitness & weight standards are here,” the defense secretary said. “We will be FIT, not FAT.”
Fitness standards remain a multi-faceted challenge for the military.
The Army rolled out its Future Soldier Preparatory Course in 2022 as a means of helping prospective recruits meet the minimum fitness and academic standards to serve. The Navy launched a similar preparatory course in 2024.
While pre-ascension courses can help prospective recruits get in shape to serve, the ASP report raises concerns about current active and reserve component members.
“Although the reserve component’s obesity-related challenges are similar to those in the active component, commanders and policymakers will not be able to combat these trends with a uniform approach,” it reads.
The report notes that reserve components face unique challenges in keeping their troops in shape.
“Armed with far less data and public attention, the reserve component faces an uphill battle reconciling complex systems of duty status-dependent health care benefits, a force spread all over the world and across 54 states and territories, and critical medical records siloed between DOD and private providers,” it reads.
Last month, the defense secretary ordered a military-wide review of fitness standards.
Hegseth had been outspoken about his concerns with fitness standards in the military even before taking on his current role as the defense secretary. Several of his past comments have focused on whether women should serve in combat roles.
During his confirmation process, senators asked Hegseth to elaborate on his views on women in combat and other issues concerning military fitness standards.
“It’s not about the capabilities of men and women, it’s about standards,” he said.
[…]
The Most Revolutionary Act
- Stuart Jeanne Bramhall's profile
- 11 followers
