By Geoff Earle

Iran said Saturday that all  countries besides the US and Israel may pass through the Strait of Hormuz, in a desperate attempt at coalition busting less than a day after the US bombed military targets on its oil-critical Kharg Island.

“As a matter of fact, the Strait of Hormuz is open,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.

“It is only closed to the tankers and ships belong[ing] to our enemies, to those who are attacking us and their allies. Others are free to pass,” Araghchi told MS NOW.

President Trump has threatened to destroy Iran’s oil infrastructure on  Kharg Island energy hub — through which  90% of its oil exports pass — if it refuses to allow safe passage.

Araghchi noted that many ships “prefer” not to undertake the journey due to “security concerns,” but insisted, “this has nothing to do with us.”

“And I can say that the Strait is not closed, but it is only closed to American, Israeli, you know, ships and tankers, and not to others.”

[…]

Via https://nypost.com/2026/03/14/world-news/any-country-except-for-us-and-israel-can-pass-through-strait-of-hormuz-iranian-foreign-minister-says/

👍 US-Israel-Iran war | @geopolitics_prime

Jared Kushner is reportedly seeking about $5B for his firm Affinity Partners, courting sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, the New York Times reports, citing people familiar with the matter. Riyadh alone has already poured $2B into the fund.

Affinity Partners, founded in 2021, manages $5B+ and holds stakes tied to Israel’s defense sector, including companies connected to Elbit Systems and Israel Shipyards.

👉 The fundraising push comes as Kushner has increasingly acted as the public face of US diplomacy in the Middle East, representing Washington in regional talks as if the State Department barely exists.

Meanwhile, speculation about his influence in the region (https://t.me/geopolitics_prime/65226) keeps growing. According to reporting cited by The New York Times and other US outlets, Kushner has been among the advisers shaping Washington’s approach to Iran during the current crisis.

War sweeps the region — and apparently also primes fundraising season.

[…]

Via https://t.me/healthimpact/3261

By Brian Shilhavy

It is easy to see why the UAE and western media does not want to show you these images and videos, and instead concentrate on the damage in Tehran (which is extensive also), or in Beirut as the poor Lebanese people, 30% of whom are Christians, just cannot catch a break from Zionist death and destruction.

Could we see attacks like this in American cities?

Absolutely we could. Whether or not they originate from Iran, or are “false flag” attacks from our own government, may not be so easy to determine, however.

But one thing I am sure about: A holy and righteous God will soon run out of patience with the American Christians who are supporting the pedophiles that run this country, and cheering on the death and destruction of people they do not like due to their Zionist Christian belief system.

Here are some of the articles I published on our Telegram channel today.

Grooming the Gulf: How Epstein Forged Emirati Elites Into Tools for Israel

From 21st Century Wire:

Hidden within (the Epstein) documents, leaks, and email excerpts now circulating online, are connections that stretch far beyond Manhattan, Palm Beach, or even Paris.

They reach deep into the Persian Gulf, into Dubai’s executive suites, and into the personal inboxes of officials in the United Arab Emirates.

These emails offer a unique glimpse behind the opulent shadows of Dubai’s towers, where untraceable billions flow like oil.

In that world, a convicted pedophile whispers ministerial appointments to a UAE diplomat while discussing port deals that could move cargo and secrets across continents.

Jeffrey Epstein was not acting alone or merely chasing thrills; he was allegedly operating as a geopolitical asset, cultivating leverage over Gulf elites, with places like Somaliland emerging as potential pawns in a larger strategic game.

Iran’s Kharg Island ‘obliteration’ is Trump’s fantasy and an apparent pullout signal – ex-CIA analyst

From Geopolitics Prime | Iran War Updates Telegram channel

Trump’s bombastic claim of flattening the island exposes his detachment from reality, Larry Johnson writes on Sonar21.

What’s Kharg Island?

Continental island of Iran in the Persian Gulf

About 25 km off Iran’s coast, 483 km northwest of the Strait of Hormuz

One of Iran’s oil export terminals

What’s wrong with Trump’s brag?

Trump “admits that the oil terminals were not attacked, just some unidentified military targets,” Johnson writes. “All bark, no bite.”

Only one of Iran’s five operational oil export terminals is located on Kharg Island

International firm Kpler’s data shows Kharg’s oil loadings jumped 1.5‑fold last month, implying Iran may have been drawing down storage ahead of the attack

Trump claimed the US destroyed all military targets and air defenses on Kharg Island, but air defense activity an hour later proved otherwise

Imagine if Kharg’s oil infrastructure were damaged. That could trigger retaliation on US allies’ oil facilities across the Gulf—is that what Trump wants?

Johnson details the likely paths of Iranian missiles:

♦️ Saudi Arabia: Ras Tanura – world’s largest marine oil loading center (6M b/d); Ras Al-Ju’aymah – second key terminal (3–3.6M b/d)

♦️ UAE: Fujairah – largest regional fueling hub; Jebel Ali – crude & petrochemical exports

♦️ Qatar: Ras Laffan – world’s largest LNG export facility

♦️ Kuwait: Mina Al-Ahmadi – main crude export terminal with deep docks

♦️ Bahrain: Sitra Terminal – refined oil exports

According to the CIA veteran, Trump’s brag can be seen two ways:

“Perhaps Trump’s lie about devastating Kharg Island is the start of his PR campaign to gaslight the American public into believing Iran is defeated, which would allow Trump to declare victory and start withdrawing US forces”

“Alternatively, he really believes the lie and is convinced that this latest strike will convince the Iranians to surrender.”

Panic is slowly gripping the stock market. Expect the selling to pick up next week.

From MarketWatch:

Options traders are signaling trouble, and systematic funds are expected to cut their exposure to U.S. stocks

Excerpts:

Storm clouds are gathering over Wall Street.

U.S. stocks drifted lower in a slow grind over the past two weeks, as the conflict with Iran stoked worries about inflation and interest ​rates as oil prices shot higher. And investors are bracing for what could be a painful leg lower next week.

The pace of the selling could pick up next week as systematic trend-following funds are poised to cut $36 billion worth of exposure to U.S. stocks, according to a Friday report from Goldman Sachs. If the market moves sharply lower, those funds could be forced to unwind their positions even more aggressively.

[…]

Via https://healthimpactnews.com/2026/iran-is-destroying-dubai-the-billionaires-paradise-and-financial-center-in-the-middle-east-built-by-epstein/

Peter C Goetzsch

I dedicate this article to all women invited to mammography screening and those who love them because the public has consistently been lied to, for over 40 years. In invitations to screening, women have been told that by detecting cancers early, screening saves lives and leads to less invasive surgery.^1,2 I shall demonstrate that all three statements are wrong.

Women are still being told these lies, by professional associations, screening advocates, screening researchers, cancer charities, and national boards of health.^3-5 The American Cancer Society declares in a headline that “Mammography Saves Lives”⁴ and claims, with no references, that results from many decades of research clearly show that women who have regular mammograms are less likely to need aggressive treatments like surgery to remove the entire breast (mastectomy).⁵

Screening Does Not Save Lives

In the randomised trials of mammography screening, the risk ratio for overall mortality after 13 years of follow-up was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.03) for those trials with adequate randomisation.⁶ The estimate happened to be the same for the other trials, some of which were so poorly randomised that the average age in the two compared groups was not the same, which makes an analysis of overall mortality unreliable.

For two of the three adequately randomised trials, those from Canada and the UK, there are follow-up data after 25 and 23 years, respectively.^7,8 The risk ratio for overall mortality was 1.01 (95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.03) for all three trials (both with a fixed effect and a random effects model, Comprehensive Meta Analysis Version 3.0). In the table, the year means the year the trial started:

This is a very strong result as it is derived from a total of 25,046 deaths. We can therefore say with great confidence that mammography screening does not save lives.

If we restrict the analysis to the two trials with a very long follow-up, the result is the same, a risk ratio of 1.01 (0.99 to 1.04).

Breast Cancer Mortality Is a Seriously Flawed Outcome

It will surprise most people to learn that we cannot trust what has been reported in the randomised trials about the effect of screening on breast cancer mortality but this is an objective fact.⁶

A minority of the women who died were autopsied, and in several trials, cause of death was not assessed blindly.⁶ I have documented that assessment of cause of death was seriously biased.^6,9 If we include all trials in the analysis, we would expect to see the greatest reduction in breast cancer mortality in those trials that were most effective in lowering the rate of node-positive cancers (cancers that had metastasised) in the screened group.

This was indeed the case, but the regression line was in the wrong place. It predicts that a screening effectiveness of zero (i.e. the rate of node-positive cancers is the same in the screened groups as in the control groups) results in a 16% reduction in breast cancer mortality (95% confidence interval 9% to 23% reduction).^6,9 This can only happen if there is bias, and further analyses showed that assessment of cause of death and of the number of cancers in advanced stages were both biased in favour of screening.

Systematic reviews that include all the trials, also the poorly randomised ones, have reported that mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 16-19%.^6,10 As this estimate is of the same size as the bias in the regression analysis, this suggests that screening does not lower breast cancer mortality.

Another reason why breast cancer mortality is a flawed outcome is that screening leads to overdiagnosis, which is the detection of cancers and precursors to cancer (carcinoma in situ), which would not have come to the attention of the woman in her remaining lifetime and therefore would not have become a problem without screening. Since it is not possible to distinguish between harmless cancers and dangerous ones, they are all treated, and radiotherapy and chemotherapy given to women who are healthy increase their mortality.⁶

If we take into account the cardiac and lung cancer deaths caused by the type of radiotherapy used when the screening trials were carried out and generously assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 20% and results in only 20% overdiagnosis of healthy women, then there is no mortality benefit from screening.¹¹

Finally, it is noteworthy that the most unreliable trials were those that reported the greatest reductions in breast cancer mortality.⁶ The difference in the effect estimates between the adequately randomised trials and the poorly conducted trials was statistically significant, both after 7 and 14 years of follow-up (P = 0.005 and P = 0.02, respectively).¹²

Total Cancer Mortality

Since misclassification of cause of death often concerns deaths from other cancers,⁶ total cancer mortality is a less biased outcome than breast cancer mortality.

Some trialists have not reported what the total cancer mortality was but we have data from the three adequately randomised trials.^6,8 There was no effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, risk ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.04. There were two different age groups in the Canadian trial, 40-49 (a) and 50-59 years (b):

Since total cancer mortality is less biased than breast cancer mortality, it is of interest to see what the expected cancer mortality (including breast cancer mortality) would have been if the reported reduction in breast cancer mortality of 29% after 7 years in the poorly randomised trials⁶ were true.

It would have been a risk ratio of 0.95, which is significantly lower (P = 0.02)⁶ than what was actually found. This provides further evidence that assessment of cause of death was biased in favour of screening.

Breast Cancer Is Not Detected Early but Very Late

If we assume that the observed doubling times in longitudinal tumour studies are constant from initiation till the tumour becomes detectable, the average woman has harboured the cancer for 21 years before it acquires a size of 10 mm and becomes detectable on a mammogram.¹³

Given this large time span, it is misleading to call it “early detection” also because the effect of screening is trivial, namely to advance the diagnosis by less than a year.¹³

Yet all authorities repeat this mantra. As it is impossible that everyone working with cancer is unaware of the basics of tumour biology, we can draw the conclusion that the public all over the world is being misinformed. This is fraud because it is deliberate and because women think “early detection” will save their lives.

I once asked a famous tumour biologist, Keld Danø, during a coffee break at an international meeting, whether he agreed with me that it was impossible to lower breast cancer mortality by 30% with screening, based on our knowledge of tumour biology.¹⁴ He agreed. When I asked why people like him didn’t participate in the scientific debate, he didn’t reply and it is not difficult to imagine why. It is not wise to point out that your colleagues are wrong when you are on the receiving end of major funds from a cancer charity that touts screening.

The women suffer while everyone else prospers.

The earliest cell changes, carcinoma in situ, are not detected unless the women get a mammogram. In our systematic review of countries with organised screening programmes, we found an overdiagnosis of 35% for invasive cancer and 52% when we included carcinoma in situ.¹⁵

Although less than half of carcinoma in situ cases progress to invasive cancer,^16,17 the women are nevertheless routinely treated with surgery, drugs, and radiotherapy.

The deep irony is that the surgery is often mastectomy because the cell changes may be diffusely spread in the breast, and sometimes even in both breasts. In New South Wales, one-third of women with carcinoma in situ had a mastectomy,¹⁸ and in the UK, carcinoma in situ was more often treated by mastectomy than invasive cancer,¹⁹ and the number of women treated by mastectomy almost doubled from 1998 to 2008.²⁰

This brings us to the third big falsehood in the propaganda about mammography screening.

Screening Does Not Decrease but Increases Mastectomies

Because of the substantial overdiagnosis of invasive cancer and carcinoma in situ, and because screening only advances detection of invasive cancers slightly,¹³ it is inevitable that screening increases mastectomies.

In the randomised trials of screening, we found 31% more mastectomies in the screened groups than in the control groups.⁶

Denmark is a unique country to study this in practice as we had a period of 17 years (1991-2007) where only about 20% of potentially eligible women were invited to screening because some counties did not have screening.²¹ When screening starts, more breast cancer diagnoses than usual will be made and there will be more mastectomies. However, as can be seen on the graphs, the huge increases in mastectomies are not compensated by a drop in mastectomies later where there was a similar decline in mastectomies in non-screened areas as in screened areas:²²

Moreover, as the next graph shows, there is no compensatory drop in old age groups:²²

Yet women are told that screening leads to less invasive surgery, with fewer mastectomies. This is disinformation in the extreme.

The most commonly used trick used to disinform the women about this issue is to report percentages instead of numbers.³ Imagine a town with a certain level of crime. You divide the crimes into serious and less serious ones. Over a period of time, the rate of serious crime increases by 20% and the rate of less serious crime by 40%. This is a development for the worse. But although more people are exposed to serious crime and more people are exposed to less serious crime as well, a trickster would say that, as there are now relatively fewer cases of serious crime, the situation has improved.

It is deplorable that people who know better – screening researchers, cancer charities, national boards of health, etc – have lied to the public this way³ and still do, in direct contrast to logic and the scientific evidence.

I dryly remarked in my book that if they continued their line of research for other diseases, they may find the recipe for eternal life.³ I also noted that the problem with lying is that

sooner or later people usually contradict themselves, which they did in relation to a study they had published in The Lancet.³

A common way of duping the readers is to say that early detection of breast cancer “reduces mortality”³⁴ without specifying what kind of mortality this is, which makes the reader believe that screening saves lives.

The most common error in the screening literature could be that people falsely translate a recorded effect on mortality from a cancer into an effect on all-cause mortality. We see claims everywhere that common cancer screening tests save lives but a systematic review of the randomised trials found that the only screening test with a significant lifetime gain was sigmoidoscopy. It extended life by 110 days on average, and as the 95% confidence interval went from 0 to 274 days, this result was on the verge of not being statistically significant.³⁵

Another common trick is to use hypothetical statements when we have certain knowledge. For example, authors may write – even in our most esteemed medical journals – that overdetection “may” occur for invasive cancers and that it “may” cause harm through unnecessary labelling and treatment of patients who, without screening, “might” never have been diagnosed.³⁴ These are not hypothetical possibilities; they are inevitable consequences of screening.

[…]

Via https://brownstone.org/articles/the-three-big-lies-about-mammography-screening/