COVID, the flu and other viral infections can re-awaken dormant breast cancer cells, new study in mice shows

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

COVID was one of the common respiratory infections shown to re-awaken breast cancer cells. MIA Studio/ Shutterstock

The worry that breast cancer may someday return is a troubling source of anxiety for many survivors of the disease. It’s understandable why, since most relapses and metastatic cancers (cancers that have spread) aren’t started by new tumours.

Rather, they’re caused by sleeper cancer cells that suddenly awaken. These “dormant” cancer cells usually colonise places such as the lungs or bones, waiting for the optimal conditions to spring back to life.

For a long time, scientists have tried to work out exactly what shakes these cancer cells out of their slumber. There were hints that chronic inflammation – from factors such as smoking or ageing – could play a role, acting as a kind of unintentional alarm clock.

But new research now provides evidence that common respiratory infections, such as the flu or COVID, are capable of stirring dormant cancer cells into action.

The new study used mice which were engineered to have breast cancer cells. These cells were designed to mimic the behaviour of dormant human cancer cells hiding in the lungs. Researchers then infected the mice with either the influenza virus, which causes the flu, or the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID.

What they discovered was both revealing and alarming. Within days of infection, the once-quiet cancer cells started to wake up, multiply rapidly and form new metastatic lesions in the lung.

But what was driving this process? Surprisingly, it wasn’t the viruses themselves. Rather, the researchers discovered that the process was being driven by the immune response that the body mounted to fight the infection.

The body’s immune response is largely driven by a secreted molecule called interleukin-6 (IL-6). Normally, IL-6 helps coordinate the body’s defences against invaders, such as viruses. But when viral infections strike, IL-6 levels can surge.

This temporary spike appears to create the perfect storm for dormant cancer cells to shift from a sleepy, inactive mode to a state that’s highly active where the cells begin to divide.

When the scientists disabled IL-6 in the mice, the dormant cancer cells did not multiply nearly as much when the viral infection was introduced. This suggests that IL-6 acts as a crucial switch for cancer cells between a harmless state and metastasis.

The researchers also found that the reawakening of cancer cells doesn’t last forever. Within about two weeks of infection, the burst of activity settled down and the cancer cells often returned to a dormant state. However, the danger hadn’t passed.

A digital drawing depicting two cancer cells in the process of dividing.
The cancer cells stopped multiplying and returned to their dormant state after two weeks.
Christoph Burgstedt/ Shutterstock

After each infection, there were now dramatically more awakened cancer cells in the lungs, primed to begin multiplying again once triggered. This creates a greater risk for future relapses, as each episode magnifies the threat.

But why doesn’t our immune system just wipe out these cancer cells if they’re no longer dormant? The study hints that another type of immune cell – called “helper T cells” – step in. But instead of destroying the cancer cells, the T cells shield them from other immune attacks. This shows how cancer can cleverly hijack the body’s defences, turning them from destroyers into guardians.




Read more:
Unlocking the body’s defences: understanding immunotherapy


Dormant cancer cells

While these experiments were performed on mice, the researchers also looked at data from thousands of cancer survivors in the UK and US during the COVID-19 pandemic. They found that cancer patients – especially those who’d recently had respiratory infections – faced nearly double the risk of dying from cancer compared to those who did not get infected. This pattern was clearest in the months after infection – matching exactly what was seen in the mouse studies.

The link between viral infection, inflammation, and cancer relapse could help explain why cancer death rates spiked early in the pandemic, especially among those with a history of breast or other cancers. This new understanding is sobering – but also something that we can take action against.

For breast cancer survivors, and potentially survivors of other cancers, the findings highlight the importance of protecting themselves from respiratory infections – not just to avoid the illness itself, but to lower the risk of setting off dormant cancer cells that could lead to life-threatening metastasis. Measures such as vaccination and rapid treatment of infections could become part of the standard toolkit for supporting long-term health after cancer.

There are also drugs that target IL-6 which are already being used for other conditions such as Castleman’s disease and COVID. This raises questions about whether these drugs might also shield vulnerable cancer survivors from relapse during or after severe viral infections.

This recent study reminds us just how interconnected our health truly is. While viral infections are often thought to only affect us temporarily, a growing body of research shows they may exert hidden, long-term effects.

Ultimately, these are early days for translating findings from this work into human therapies. But they offer new hope that by understanding and intercepting the “wake-up calls” for dormant cancer cells, it may one day be possible to prevent cancer relapses before they ever get started – dramatically improving outcomes for survivors everywhere.

The Conversation

Justin Stebbing does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. COVID, the flu and other viral infections can re-awaken dormant breast cancer cells, new study in mice shows – https://theconversation.com/covid-the-flu-and-other-viral-infections-can-re-awaken-dormant-breast-cancer-cells-new-study-in-mice-shows-262464

Why do people riot?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Drury, Professor of Social Psychology, University of Sussex

Just over a year ago, riots swept across parts of the UK following the murder of three schoolgirls in Southport. In 2011, the police killing of Mark Duggan led to five nights of rioting that left five people dead. And in 1981, there were weeks of rioting in cities across the country in response to perceived police discrimination against black people.

In recent weeks, occasionally violent protests at asylum hotels around the country have seen a number of people arrested. Politicians have warned that further unrest is possible.

As a social psychologist specialising in the study of collective behaviour, I know the cliche that “any spark” can cause a riot is untrue. The significant incidents that lead to riots are not arbitrary. They are dramatic emblems of longstanding grievances for particular groups.

And rioting often only takes place days after such incidents, rather than being an immediate “trigger” for mass violence. Communities first discuss the incident and often try other means to achieve their goals.

There are a number of pre-conditions for riots to occur. Collective grievances, often linked with deprivation, are one of them. But not all deprived locations join in when there is a wave of riots.

In addition to grievance, another condition is the collective ability of people in the location to act upon the grievance. This relates to things like how organised people are in the location, what resources they have locally, and the number of people physically available to get involved.

As riots involve a large group of people acting as one, a shared social identity is another necessity. That is, participants must see themselves as an “us”. This sense of being part of an in-group (“us”) is defined in opposition to an out-group (“them”). The presence locally of out-groups seen by participants as linked to the grievance is an important factor in why riots happen where they do.

For example, in 1981 and 2011, poor community relations with police distinguished those locations that rioted from those that did not. In 2024, the out-group that defined the in-group was “asylum seekers and immigrants” in temporary accommodation.




Read more:
The hypocrisy at the heart of racist riots


Sometimes – albeit rarely – peaceful crowds turn into riots. My previous research with Stephen Reicher and Clifford Stott shows that how the police and the crowd interact with each other on the day is crucial in explaining this process.

This research – on student protests and anti-poll tax demonstrations as well as anti-roads direct activists and football supporters – identified a common pattern. In all cases, participants in the crowd saw themselves as acting legitimately, but felt that police were acting in illegitimate and even in dangerous ways towards them – for example threatening their right to protest. This therefore changed their views, legitimising action against police as self-defence or retribution.

At the same time, these participants also experienced the policing as indiscriminate, which enhanced a sense of shared identity in the crowd. This new sense of “we-ness” created the collective ability (support, empowerment) to act upon their new grievance against the police.

In a recent study of the 2024 anti-immigrant riots in three locations – Stoke-on-Trent, Bristol and Tamworth – my colleagues and I found a different pattern of crowd violence.

These were not, in the main, protests largely comprising people there simply to voice their concerns, who only became violent after policing interventions. Rather, there was clear evidence that many came to the events intending to physically attack asylum seekers and damage property associated with this out-group. Empowerment probably came from the rioters’ belief that enough other people felt the same way.

Social influence

One of the features of the wave of 2024, just like the waves of 1981 and 2011, is that riots influenced the likelihood of further riots in other towns. This process of social influence and spread can’t be explained by simple mechanisms like contagion.

Most people “exposed” do not join in. And for those who do, the actions they “join in” with in their local areas can be different from the actions of the rioting crowd in the source location.

Our research on multiple waves of riots suggests that rioting in one place prompts expectations and discussions among potential participants in other locations. These are about how their community, networks and peer groups might respond to the rioting in the source location.

Rather than simply mimicking those actions, potential participants are influenced by what they believe local groups relevant to them will do.

Why should people believe that others in their own area intend to riot locally in response to rioting elsewhere? One reason is they believe that enough other people, locally or in their networks and reference groups, have the same grievance as that in the source riot location.

They believe these views are widely shared locally, based on their area’s history, reputation, identity or local campaigns. For example, the presence of an active ongoing local campaign against the housing of asylum seekers in Tamworth contributed to local expectations that Tamworth would be part of the wave of riots in summer 2024.

Believing that “everyone” in one’s local network or neighbourhood will join in empowers people to take part even if there might be some personal risk – because they think they will not be alone.

The solution to events like those of summer 2024 is not only to correct misinformation about potential out-groups. It’s also necessary to challenge what they believe about other people’s beliefs. In an important way, the very large counter-demonstrations at the end of the 2024 wave may have achieved this.

If the anti-immigrant riots had continued unchallenged, observers (and supporters of the rioters) are likely to have drawn the conclusion that public opinion supports or is indifferent to violent attacks on minorities. The chilling effect on those who would otherwise be ready to speak out against racism should be obvious.

But by mobilising in large numbers, a counter-protest can demonstrate that it is anti-racism that is the mainstream, and that public opinion is closer to this view than those of the anti-immigrant rioters.


Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.


The Conversation

John Drury received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (reference ES/N01068X/1). Some of the work described here was funded by the Behavioural Research UK Leadership Hub, which is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (reference ES/Y001044/1).

ref. Why do people riot? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-people-riot-261903

The great unknown romance of writer E.F. Benson’s life – Fred and George, a love story hidden in letters

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sasha Garwood, Assistant Professor, University of Nottingham

George Plank’s illustration of E.F. (Fred) Benson’s character Aunt Georgie, from The Freaks of Mayfair.

In 1915, Edward Frederic (E.F.) Benson – the future bestselling author of comic novel series Mapp and Lucia – was in his late 40s, popular and famously charming. Since adolescence he’d been drawn to men, and his diaries recount passionate romances at Marlborough College and King’s College Cambridge. But, perhaps unsurprisingly for the son of an Archbishop of Canterbury, he was discreet.

George Wolfe Plank was 15 years younger – a scrappy, self-taught American artist whose fantastical Vogue covers defined the look of the era. George had a studio around the corner from Fred in Chelsea and an eye for his handsome neighbour.

For five years they shared houses and holidays – a couple to those who saw clearly, simply “bosom friends” to those who chose not to. The pair inhabited the tensions of queer masculinity in a world where sex between men was illegal and policed.

I found their story while exploring Fred’s schoolboy romance, David Blaize. Until I came across their letters, I didn’t know how important George had been for Fred, or vice versa. Most biographers mention a friendship or, occasionally, unrequited feelings.

E.F. Benson
E.F. Benson is best-known for his Mapp and Lucia series.
Wikimedia

They met in 1915 after George wrote to Fred, calling him “unmarried, worldly and witty” – all coded queer signifiers at the time – and quoting the poet Walt Whitman, whose rhetoric about comrades and love was a touchstone for many men who desired men. It’s the most blatant approach I’ve found in the archives.

Fred invited him to tea and played him Tchaikovsky. Before long they were seeing each other every day, and George told his sister Amy that “I am … so happy I can scarcely realise it is I”.

Their contrasting backgrounds brought conflict and fascination, perhaps bridged by physical attraction. In one letter George declares:

Two people never came from such opposite poles and were better friends; He was born an aristocrat, lived at Lambeth Palace, educated … he goes in for all sorts of sport, which of course makes him a fine physical specimen – and yet, we seem to fit perfectly, which is a miracle!

Fred would drop into George’s studio after evening engagements. Were they sleeping together? Surviving scraps are suggestive, but the archive’s silence here is ambiguous. Letters tell us about love but, for safety, much less about sex.

Regardless, they were very close. When Fred bought 25 Brompton Square in London later that year, he insisted George move in too, and they decorated it together. “I grow fonder of him every day,” wrote George. For Fred, these were “a delight”, “halcyon days”.

They also rented Lamb House in Rye, East Sussex, together, with George saying that he wanted to “stay on here … for always”.

In 1916, they published The Freaks of Mayfair together, with George’s elegant Aubrey Beardsley-esque drawings illustrating Fred’s sharp social satires. This book put queerness at the heart of high society, particularly through the character of maiden-auntish character Aunt Georgie and his preference for “slightly effeminate young men”.

These years saw some notably queer works from Fred – David Blaize, Up and Down – and his first volume of autobiography. George produced Vogue covers, fashion illustrations and theatre scenery with dedication and flair.

Their surviving letters are loving and haunting. Fred burnt piles of correspondence before he died, fearing “mischief” – but his surviving writing to George is poignant.

The Freaks of Mayfair, written by E.F. Benson and illustrated by George Plank.
The Freaks of Mayfair, written by E.F. Benson and illustrated by George Plank.

“This scrawl must go: it carries with it a great many wishes that you were not away, and when the telephone bell rings, I miss your voice,” one letter from Fred reads. “The point is, I wish you were here … I want you.” George is caring, reassuring: “bestest love” and “I thought of you with every step”. Longing drifts from the pages.

Nevertheless, there was sometimes trouble. Fred could be depressive and George wrote, wryly, during a bad patch: “Poor Fred is a mass of nerves … I must look after him as much as he will let me … But he is a queer fish at times and it is hard work.”

When Fred’s mother died in 1918, George rushed to be with him. But having been swept off his feet by this glamorous, successful older man, he now spent months supporting a grieving companion who seemed suddenly old, both needy and unable to say what he needed.

Fred was “huffy” when George’s friends Mildred and Jimmy took him to Paris, upset when George travelled alone, and wanted more of his time than George felt was compatible with his work. Throughout 1920 they were together regularly, indulging in the “perpetual privacy” of Rye.

And then, in 1921, Fred disappears from George’s letters almost entirely.

So often it’s the unknowns that haunt us. What happened? The archives can’t tell us for certain. They were both generous, gregarious, caring – but it seems that Fred’s demands came to strain George’s kindness, unlike the blissful early days when Fred was happy and George dazzled.

One 1922 letter from Fred survives, its yearning subsumed and sad. Something had changed – Fred’s health maybe (rheumatism brought constant pain) but something else too.

In 1923, George’s friend HD (also queer, like many of their friends) told him: “I know you have been through something, have had some sort of psychic wound.” Fred is silent until Final Edition, a reflective autobiography finished ten days before his death, in which “a very intimate friend of mine … an artist of whimsical and imaginative work” makes Lamb House home.

These men might have lived in a different age, but their story is so familiar: love and grief and money and class, the tension between masculinity and vulnerability. And there are many such stories: queer love and loss buried in the archives, hiding in plain sight. Finding them feels both heartbreaking and heartening. Perhaps, whatever happens, what survives of us is love.


Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.


The Conversation

Sasha Garwood does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The great unknown romance of writer E.F. Benson’s life – Fred and George, a love story hidden in letters – https://theconversation.com/the-great-unknown-romance-of-writer-e-f-bensons-life-fred-and-george-a-love-story-hidden-in-letters-262745

Trump poised to meet Putin to discuss Ukraine – but Zelensky set to be left on the sidelines

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.


The latest news out of the Kremlin is that while Vladimir Putin is keen to tee up a face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump, he thinks it’s unlikely he’ll meet Volodymyr Zelensky. The Russian president was commenting on his three-hour meeting with Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, on August 6, after which the US president reportedly told senior aides he would be meeting Putin next week, followed by a session with both Putin and Zelensky.

But Putin has reportedly poured cold water on this prospect, telling the Russian media: “I have nothing against it in general, it is possible, but certain conditions must be created for this. Unfortunately, we are still far from creating such conditions.”

Perhaps the Russian president feels he can achieve a more favourable result from a one-on-one with Trump than if the Ukrainian president is also in the room. This would be understandable. After all, when the pair met in Helsinki for a summit in 2018, the US president appeared to take Putin’s word over his own intelligence agencies when it came to Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.

What was actually discussed when Putin met Witkoff has not been divulged. Putin’s foreign policy advisor, Yuri Ushakov, said the Russian president had sent “signals” to Trump via Witkoff but declined to comment further – other than saying the meeting had been “highly productive” and “successful” and “great progress had been made”. We’ll find out more next week, if and when the two, perhaps three, leaders meet.

By then, the latest deadline set by a disgruntled US president for Putin to agree to a ceasefire in the conflict in Ukraine will have passed. So the question remains whether the Russian leader is simply buying time. Certainly, the tariffs levelled against India because it has continued to buy Russian oil suggest Trump means business if Putin won’t concede ground. After Witkoff’s meeting, the US president issued an executive order declaring: “The actions and policies of the Government of the Russian Federation continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Trump’s frustration with Putin has built up steadily since March, as Stefan Wolff observes. Wolff, a professor of international security at the University of Birmingham, believes the US president is finally coming to the conclusion that if he wants Putin to give ground on Ukraine, he must apply significant economic and even military pressure on the Russian leader. The tariffs are one sign that Trump is prepared, at least for now, to hit out at the Russian economy. And the US has also secured agreements from Nato’s European member states to buy US weapons for Ukraine’s war effort.

How this might play out in negotiations between the two leaders, if and when they meet next week, remains to be seen. But as Wolff points out: “If the US president wants a good deal, he needs more leverage over Putin. Weakening Russia’s war economy with further sanctions and blunting the effectiveness of its military campaign by arming Ukraine are steps that might get him there.”




Read more:
Trump has finally realised he needs economic and military muscle to force Putin to agree a peace deal


Trump may have told Zelensky in the infamous White House meeting in February that he “does not have the cards” to play against Putin. But that’s not altogether true. And if they do meet, Zelensky may be able to use Ukraine’s innovative and successful use of drone warfare as a bargaining chip.

Marcel Plichta, a PhD candidate at the University of St Andrews, has focused his research on the use of drones by minor powers and non-state actors, and believes that Kyiv’s use of one-way attack drones (OWA) have had a far greater impact on Russian air defences than expected.

Attacks on Moscow itself, as well as oil installations, have affected the Russian public’s morale and driven up fuel prices, providing Ukraine with a potential bargaining chip to use in any ceasefire negotiation, Plichta writes. And Zelensky’s offer to Trump of a drones “mega-deal” – combining advanced, battle-tested technology with tactical knowhow – could be a card Zelensky can play in his dealings with the US.




Read more:
Ukraine’s drone air war has given Zelensky additional bargaining power with Putin – new research


There’s been more nuclear sabre rattling this week, but this time from Trump. Stung by an insulting social media post from former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, which seemed to compare the US president to “Sleepy Joe Biden”, Trump announced he had ordered two nuclear-armed submarines to deploy to “the appropriate regions” – in the same week the world marked 80 years since the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, on August 6 1945.

Nicholas Wheeler, whose work at the University of Birmingham focuses on the role of trust in foreign relations, believes that nuclear weapons were developed first in the US because of an abiding fear that its enemies might get there ahead of it.

In the years since, various combinations of Soviet and American leaders – through the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 to the treaties signed by Leonid Brezhnev and Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev – developed enough trust to reach agreements which made nuclear weapons’ use far more unlikely.

Now, says Wheeler, it’s down to the current inhabitants of the Kremlin and White House to develop the same sense of cooperation and trust to ensure these weapons are never used again.




Read more:
Fear built the nuclear bomb – only trust can ensure it is never used again


The signs are not good, however. This week, Russia announced it would no longer abide by the the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) treaty signed by Gorbachev and Reagan in 1987. Another agreement, the New Start treaty which limits the size of stockpiles of strategic missiles, warheads and launchers, is due to expire next February.

Matthew Powell, an expert in strategic and air power studies at the University of Portsmouth, is worried that the recent downgrading of these vital agreements has made the world more dangerous.




Read more:
Russia’s decision to pull out of nuclear treaty makes the world more dangerous


Israel’s settlers eye Gaza

From Gaza, the daily headlines charting the scores of people killed and wounded, many as they try to get food and water for their families, continue to shock and distress. And the growing numbers of people, often small children, reported to be succumbing to starvation and malnutrition is ever more scandalous.

This week, it has been reported that the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is bidding to get cabinet support for a plan to occupy the Gaza Strip in its entirety.

There’s strong opposition to this – both from the military, which believes occupying Gaza would plunge Israel into a “black hole” with no defined exit plan, and among many ordinary Israelis, who argue such an operation would inevitably mean the death of any hostages who might still be alive.

But Netanyahu will no doubt be able to count on support from the more extreme elements in his coalition including Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, for whom clearing Gaza of its Palestinian population to make way for resettlement by Israelis is a long-held dream.

As Leonie Fleischmann of City St George’s, University of London, points out, many in Israel’s settler movement see Gaza as a Jewish homeland – part of the biblical land of Judea, to which they believe they have a “God-given right” to return. Fleischmann tells the story of Gaza from 1967, when it was captured from Egypt by the Israel Defense Forces at the start of the six-day war, to 2005, when the then-prime minister, Ariel Sharon, ordered the settlers to leave.

Ever since then, she writes, reoccupation of Gaza has been a dream of the settler movement. Now the more extreme elements are making plans to realise that dream, calling for the settlement of areas of the northern Gaza Strip currently occupied by the IDF. Plans to establish new communities have been drawn up and 1,000 families have applied to move in.




Read more:
Israel’s plans for a full occupation of Gaza would pave the way for Israeli resettlement


Yaron Peleg from the University of Cambridge believes the rage with which Israel is pursuing its campaign against Gaza can be explained by a deep dive into the history of Zionism through the 20th century – both before and after the establishment of the state of Israel.

Peleg, a historian of Jewish and Israeli culture who was born on a kibbutz in western Galilee, recently published a book on the issue: New Hebrews: Making National Culture in Zion. He believes the “same vision that built a strong nation also hardwired the divisions and antagonisms now threatening its democracy, security and place in the world”.

Peleg traces the way a secular culture of strength and self-reliance in the first half of the 20th century, with a focus on agriculture and community, gradually became more militaristic – often through necessity as Arab resistance grew. After the second world war, the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust and Arab opposition to Israeli statehood became indelibly linked in the minds of many in Israel. He writes:

This may be one explanation for the country’s overreaction in Gaza. This is not an excuse, but an explanation that calls for the next evolutionary step in the history of Zionism – one in which Israel understands that it has achieved the goal for which it was established. Israel must realise it has power – that it is a power – and that with power comes responsibility.




Read more:
How Israel’s self-image changed from self-reliance to aggressive militarism



Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


The Conversation

ref. Trump poised to meet Putin to discuss Ukraine – but Zelensky set to be left on the sidelines – https://theconversation.com/trump-poised-to-meet-putin-to-discuss-ukraine-but-zelensky-set-to-be-left-on-the-sidelines-262836

Weight loss jabs and cancer risk: here’s what you need to know about the research so far

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nadine Wehida, Senior Lecturer in Genetics and Molecular Biology, Kingston University

Haberdoedas Photography, CC BY-SA

So many people in western countries are turning to weight loss drugs such as Wegovy/Ozempic and Mounjaro that concerns have started to emerge about maintaining ready supplies. But with popularity comes scrutiny, and rising demand isn’t the only potential problem with weight loss jabs.

Gastrointestinal side-effects such as nausea, vomiting and constipation are common across these drugs, which are known as GLP-1 receptor agonists. Then there’s the now infamous “Ozempic face” – a gaunt, aged appearance that can result from rapid weight loss.

More serious concerns have also begun to surface, including possible links to eye disease, reduced libido and a potential increased risk of certain cancers. However, we’re still in the early days of understanding what the risks might be and the evidence for them is limited.

The most significant cancer-related worry is thyroid cancer. Studies in rodents found that high doses of GLP-1 drugs caused thyroid tumours, although this hasn’t been definitively proven in humans.

Still, a large-scale French study did find a potential link between GLP-1 use and thyroid cancer, especially in patients who used the drug for more than a year. As a precaution, these medications are not recommended for people with a personal or family history of thyroid cancer or specific genetic conditions that increase the risk of thyroid tumours.

There have also been concerns about pancreatic cancer, mostly because of early reports of pancreatitis: inflammation of the pancreas, which can, in some cases, be fatal. However, current studies have not confirmed a direct link between GLP-1 drugs and pancreatic cancer.

Concerns here are particularly relevant because of how the drugs work. Wegovy and Ozempic are brand names for a type of GLP-1 receptor agonist known as semaglutide. Originally developed to treat type 2 diabetes, it works by activating receptors in the pancreas to increase insulin release and reduce glucagon – a hormone that raises blood sugar.

Together, these effects help lower blood-sugar levels. The weight loss effects come from the drug’s ability to act on receptors in the brain as well as in gut and fat cells, to help to reduce appetite.

Mounjaro (the brand name for the compound tirzepatide) takes things a step further. It works not only on the GLP-1 receptor but also on a second one – the GIP (glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide) receptor.

By stimulating both, tirzepatide boosts the pancreas’s ability to produce insulin and improves insulin sensitivity – meaning the body’s cells respond more effectively to insulin, helping regulate blood sugar more efficiently. This dual action results in even greater weight loss than semaglutide alone, making Mounjaro the latest star in the fight against obesity.

Tirzepatide has not been associated with increased cancer risk in clinical trials so far. However, like other GLP-1 drugs, it still carries the thyroid cancer warning based on earlier animal research. Interestingly, preliminary studies in animals suggest tirzepatide might even shrink certain tumours, including breast cancer, but these findings are still very early and not yet applicable to humans.

Obesity is also a cancer risk

It’s important to remember that obesity itself is a well established risk factor for several cancers, including breast, colon, liver and uterine cancers. By helping people lose significant amounts of weight and improve their metabolic health, GLP-1 drugs could indirectly reduce the risk of developing these conditions.

In fact, some population studies have found lower rates of obesity-related cancers in people using GLP-1 medications compared to those taking other treatments. However, it’s still unclear whether the reduced cancer risk comes from the drug’s action or from the weight loss itself. More research is needed to fully understand this connection.

So, the current picture is reassuring, yet tinged with uncertainty. The overall cancer risk associated with GLP-1 drugs and tirzepatide appears to be low.

But it’s important to emphasise that these medications are not recommended for people with a personal or family history of certain types of thyroid cancer, or also endocrine conditions such as multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome, because these conditions may increase sensitivity to hormone-related tumour growth.

Weight-loss injections are not risk free, but they also hold enormous potential. It remains to be unravelled whether they’re miracle cures or just the latest chapter in the long saga of weight loss. One thing is certain: the conversation is far from over.

These drugs are rewriting the rules on how we think about weight, health, and risk. In the battle to outsmart the scales, they offer hope, science and a fair bit of gamble amidst the hype.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Weight loss jabs and cancer risk: here’s what you need to know about the research so far – https://theconversation.com/weight-loss-jabs-and-cancer-risk-heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-research-so-far-262146

Elon Musk’s plans for a new political party will likely be derailed by a US political system hostile to new voices

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Thom Reilly, Professor and Co-Director of the Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy, Arizona State University

Two-party control of U.S. politics runs contrary to the vision of the Constitution’s framers. Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

As dissatisfaction with the two-party system grows in the United States, the idea of an alternative, however unlikely, gains traction. Elon Musk’s recent call for an America Party may be unserious, but it speaks to something real.

Surveys consistently show that millions of American voters feel they lack real choices. They believe the two major parties don’t reflect their values, and they are exhausted by the constant polarization.

The bigger question isn’t whether Musk succeeds. As a public policy scholar, I think it’s why the U.S. political system is so hostile to new voices and ideas in the first place.

Why third parties rarely succeed

If he follows through on his idea, can Musk’s America Party actually take off? Probably not. History isn’t on his side.

That’s because the U.S. political system is structurally rigged against third parties, with deeply entrenched legal and procedural barriers that make it nearly impossible for new parties to gain traction.

In most states, getting a new party on the ballot is a formidable task. It involves gathering thousands of signatures, meeting stringent deadlines and complying with obscure filing requirements.

Even if a party gets on the ballot in one state, replicating that effort nationally is extremely hard. Each state has different laws, deadlines, signature requirements and legal demands.

Ballot access, campaign finance, media coverage and election rules overwhelmingly favor the existing Republican and Democratic parties. Even the Federal Election Commission is designed for partisan deadlock with an even number of members from each of the two major parties.

In a 2025 article on election administration in America, my colleagues and I analyzed all 50 state election codes. We found widespread legal and administrative barriers that systematically exclude independents and minor parties.

In 45 states, only major party members can serve on election boards, local or state bodies responsible for overseeing the administration of elections. In 27 states, judges must be registered with a major party. Campaign finance laws, access to voter data and registration rules also tilt the field to the major parties.

These structural barriers exist in both red and blue states. We found no statistical correlation between partisan leanings and these restrictions. That’s telling. It suggests that both parties, regardless of their ideological differences, are united in protecting their duopoly.

A profile view of a man looking toward his right.
Elon Musk announced in July 2025 that he is launching a new political party.
Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

The founders’ warning

This entrenched two-party control runs contrary to the vision of the U.S. Constitution’s framers, who intentionally excluded political parties from the founding document.

This was no accident. The founders viewed parties as “factions” that had no legitimate place in the republic.

George Washington in 1796 warned that parties would inflame animosity and that the nation could not do enough to protect itself from this. John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” Likewise, Alexander Hamilton feared parties as “the most fatal disease” of government and hoped America could dispense of such groups.

An appetite for alternatives

Enter Elon Musk. His suggestion to create the America Party taps directly into a growing national frustration with the two-party entrenchment.

Public trust in major political parties is at historic lows, particularly among young voters and independents, who do not identify with any major party and may register as “no party preference,” “unaffiliated” or “independent” depending on state laws.

Despite Musk being widely unpopular, prone to conspiracy theories and exhibiting erratic and unpredictable politics, his proposal resonates with many Americans. An October 2024 poll found that 58% of U.S. adults say a third party is needed.

Additionally, the number of American voters identifying as politically independent continues to exceed each of the major political parties.

What do Americans really want?

Even if Musk never follows through, the idea of a new party highlights how undemocratic U.S. elections have become. It opens the door to conversations about reforms that give independents and third parties a fair shot and reflects the growing demand for alternatives to the two-party system.

Voters are frustrated by limited choices that fail to capture their full range of political views.

There are models to learn from. Most democracies use a nonpartisan election administration and don’t let political parties control the rules.

In the U.S., partisans referee contests in which members of their party directly compete. That conflict of interest would be unacceptable in business or sports. So why is it tolerated in elections?

A view of the U.S. Capitol, with a U.S. flag flying in the foreground.
Positive views of U.S. political institutions are at historic lows.
Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

Structural reforms and designs have been implemented to varying degrees in the U.S. with a goal of making democracy more responsive, fair, transparent and representative.

Reforms such as open primaries, which allow voters of any party affiliation to participate in any party’s primary election, proportional representation in places such as Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Portland, Oregon, where political parties gain seats in proportion to the number of votes they receive, and independent redistricting commissions have helped create more competitive electoral districts by reducing partisan gerrymandering.

So, too, have ranked-choice voting and fusion voting. In ranked-choice voting, voters rank candidates by preference. If no one gets a majority, the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated and votes are redistributed until someone wins. In fusion voting, multiple political parties can endorse the same candidate, who then appears on the ballot under each endorsing party’s line.

However, implementation of such reforms has been limited. Opposition to these reforms by the Democratic and Republican parties has, in many cases, been fierce.

It’s the system

The two-party system has insulated itself from competition.

The consequence is that today America has an impenetrable two-party system, the very scenario the framers and reformers feared most. Rather than focusing solely on Musk’s ambitions, the more pressing question is how to build an electoral system that reflects a modern, diverse democracy.

If Americans want more choices, and polling suggests they do, then they may want to examine the legal and procedural barriers that lock in the current system, which fails to address and accommodate their political preferences.

The Conversation

Thom Reilly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Elon Musk’s plans for a new political party will likely be derailed by a US political system hostile to new voices – https://theconversation.com/elon-musks-plans-for-a-new-political-party-will-likely-be-derailed-by-a-us-political-system-hostile-to-new-voices-261334

La diplomatie donnant-donnant de Donald Trump en Ukraine, un échec pour arrêter l’agression russe

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Renéo Lukic, Professeur titulaire de relations internationales, Université Laval

Six mois après l’intronisation du président Donald Trump à la Maison-Blanche, son effort d’arrêter la guerre en Ukraine a échoué.

Sa promesse électorale d’y mettre fin « en 24 heures » n’a rien à voir avec la réalité diplomatique présente. Un cessez-le-feu entre la Russie et l’Ukraine, une proposition américaine et ukrainienne, est constamment refusé par la Russie.

Quant à la « paix durable et juste » tant souhaitée par le président Volodymyr Zelensky et ses alliés européens, elle est hors de la portée des acteurs impliqués dans ce conflit.

Tandis que les alliés européens de l’Ukraine et le gouvernement canadien mènent une politique d’endiguement à l’égard de la Russie depuis son agression contre l’Ukraine, le 24 février 2022, celle du président Trump depuis le début de son mandat politique est diamétralement opposée. Il tente l’apaisement.

Contre toute base factuelle, le président américain a refusé de nommer la Russie comme étant l’État agresseur dans la guerre en Ukraine. Il est même allé jusqu’à accuser l’Ukraine d’être responsable de cette guerre.

Lors d’une réunion à la Maison Blanche, le 28 février dernier, le président et son vice-président, J.D. Vance, ont humilié Zelensky en le traitant de « petit dictateur » qui ne possède « aucune carte diplomatique à jouer », contrairement au président russe, Vladimir Poutine. Même si les relations personnelles entre Trump et Zelensky se sont améliorées par la suite, l’attitude de la politique américaine envers l’Ukraine est restée volatile et mitigée.

Professeur titulaire de relations internationales au département d’histoire de l’Université Laval, j’ai co-écrit cet article avec Sophie Marineau, doctorante à l’Université catholique de Louvain en histoire. Depuis 2014, la guerre en Ukraine et la réaction internationale vis-à-vis du conflit sont au centre de nos recherches respectives.

Une diplomatie transactionnelle

Depuis le début du nouveau mandat de Trump, l’aide américaine à l’Ukraine s’inscrit donc dans une dynamique résolument transactionnelle. Cette approche ne repose plus sur des principes de solidarité, de défense des valeurs démocratiques ou de sécurité collective, mais sur une logique d’échange, où toute assistance doit générer un retour concret pour les États-Unis.

Loin de la tradition multilatérale qui caractérisait les engagements occidentaux durant les premières années du conflit russo-ukrainien, cette diplomatie est structurée autour du concept de deal, dans lequel chaque concession – qu’elle soit militaire, économique ou politique – doit être compensée.

Le premier tournant majeur se produit en mars 2025 – à la suite de la rencontre Trump – Zelensky – lorsque Washington suspend sans avertissement l’aide militaire à l’Ukraine. Les États-Unis bloquent des livraisons déjà en cours, dont des systèmes antiaériens essentiels et des munitions de précision.

Cette décision, prise de manière unilatérale, vise à faire pression sur le gouvernement ukrainien pour l’inciter à accepter un cessez-le-feu temporaire avec la Russie, dans des conditions jugées inacceptables par Kyiv. Ce geste provoque un choc diplomatique en Europe et soulève de vives inquiétudes quant à la fiabilité de l’engagement américain.

Mais au-delà du geste lui-même, ce que révèle cette suspension est la vision profondément transactionnelle des relations internationales portées par Trump : l’aide devient un levier, non un engagement moral ou stratégique.

Un accès aux ressources naturelles

Un exemple encore plus explicite de cette logique apparaît quelques semaines plus tard, avec la proposition controversée d’un accord sur les ressources naturelles.




À lire aussi :
Le projet d’accord sur les métaux stratégiques Ukraine-États-Unis repose-t-il sur une méprise ?


Selon ce projet, l’Ukraine aurait cédé jusqu’à 50 % des revenus issus de l’exploitation de ses minerais stratégiques – lithium, titane, terres rares – à un fonds américain, en échange de la reprise de l’aide militaire. L’accord, signé fin avril 2025, aboutit à la création d’un fonds d’investissement conjoint entre Kyiv et Washington, destiné à exploiter les ressources naturelles ukrainiennes : minéraux rares (terres rares, lithium, titane, uranium), pétrole et gaz naturel.


Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.


L’Ukraine conserve la propriété et le contrôle exclusifs de ses ressources, bien que l’exploitation soit encadrée par le partenariat. L’un des buts affichés est de garantir un soutien à long terme des États‑Unis à l’effort de guerre ukrainien, en échange d’un accès prioritaire aux ressources, sans engagements formels en matière de garanties de sécurité pour Kyiv.

Négocier toute forme d’aide

Cette logique transactionnelle s’exprime aussi à travers des actions plus discrètes, mais tout aussi révélatrices, comme le gel temporaire de la livraison de missiles Patriot au mois de juillet, officiellement justifié par une « révision des capacités stratégiques » américaines.

En pratique, cette suspension a été perçue comme un moyen de pression implicite, destiné à inciter l’Ukraine à adopter certaines lignes politiques plus conciliantes, voire à ouvrir la voie à une redéfinition des objectifs militaires.

Au final, cette diplomatie transforme l’aide humanitaire ou militaire en monnaie d’échange. Chaque cargaison devient une pièce de négociation, chaque soutien, un contrat implicite.

Une approche qui fragilise les alliances et redéfinit les règles

La guerre en Ukraine, loin d’être perçue comme un affrontement idéologique entre démocratie et autoritarisme, est reconfigurée comme un théâtre où se négocient des intérêts économiques et politiques à court terme.

Cette approche fragilise les alliances, introduit une incertitude structurelle dans la relation transatlantique et redéfinit les règles du jeu international autour d’une logique marchande assumée, où l’engagement moral est subordonné au bénéfice direct.

Le Canada poursuit des objectifs différents

Face à la tendance américaine à instrumentaliser l’aide à l’Ukraine selon des logiques transactionnelles, le Canada adopte une posture claire : Ottawa rejette fermement l’idée d’une assistance conditionnée à des concessions politiques, économiques ou stratégiques.

À la différence des États-Unis sous l’administration Trump, qui ont suspendu des aides militaires en échange de contreparties, le Canada reste attaché à un soutien fondé sur la solidarité démocratique, le droit international et un engagement multilatéral stable. À plusieurs reprises, le gouvernement canadien a réaffirmé publiquement la fiabilité du Canada comme partenaire, insistant sur l’impartialité et la cohérence des engagements envers l’Ukraine.

Parallèlement, Ottawa renforce son rapprochement avec l’Union européenne. Le sommet UE‑Canada du 23 juin 2025 a abouti à la signature d’un partenariat stratégique en matière de sécurité et défense, première alliance de ce genre entre l’UE et un pays américain. Cet accord établit une coopération élargie sur le soutien à l’Ukraine, la cybersécurité, la mobilité militaire, les matières critiques et les chaînes industrielles stratégiques, tout en offrant au Canada l’accès au fonds européen SAFE de 150 milliards €.

Cet alignement confirme une volonté d’Ottawa de diversifier ses partenariats, de réduire sa dépendance militaire vis-à-vis des États-Unis, et de consolider un pilier euro-atlantique indépendant. Ce repositionnement renforce la crédibilité canadienne comme acteur fiable dans un ordre international fondé sur les règles, et témoigne d’une vision stratégique plaçant l’UE comme partenaire central de longue durée.

La Conversation Canada

Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.

ref. La diplomatie donnant-donnant de Donald Trump en Ukraine, un échec pour arrêter l’agression russe – https://theconversation.com/la-diplomatie-donnant-donnant-de-donald-trump-en-ukraine-un-echec-pour-arreter-lagression-russe-262375

Is western influence over Ukraine colonial meddling or a vital way to prevent corruption?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University

Ukraine’s former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko recently called for an end to what she called the western “colonial model” of interference in Ukraine’s domestic politics.

In a speech to the Ukrainian parliament in July, she welcomed the passage of a law bringing two anti-corruption bodies under greater government control (which led to protests across the country and eventually government backtracking). She described it as the first step towards the restoration of the country’s sovereignty and called for lawmakers to go further.

Tymoshenko was referring to the role played by foreigners – mainly representatives of western donors supporting Ukraine’s political reforms – in approving appointments to key Ukrainian state institutions.

This practice is one of the measures that Ukraine has introduced to tackle corruption. Its purpose is to introduce external scrutiny to ensure the independence of the organisations and especially the judges who deal with allegations of corruption.

One example of this is the Ethics Council. Created in 2021 by a law passed by Ukraine’s parliament, it is composed of six members: three Ukrainians and three foreigners.

The council vets nominations for the High Council of Justice (HCJ), which is the most important institution in Ukraine’s judiciary. The HCJ not only appoints judges but also makes decisions on their suspension and arrest when they are accused of wrongdoing.

While the membership of the Ethics Council is equally divided between Ukrainian and foreign members, in practice the votes of the foreigners are weighted more heavily than those of the Ukrainians. This means that its foreign members can veto any nomination that comes before the council.

Why would this be?

At first glance, Tymoshenko’s critique of this type of international oversight seems reasonable. Why should a sovereign state subject its own internal processes – especially processes of such sensitivity as judicial appointments – to close scrutiny by foreign citizens?

In a recent interview with the Times newspaper, Tymoshenko elaborated on her speech, arguing that these measures exist because of pressure from western governments and international organisations. She also pointed to “threats” to withdraw support, especially financial support, if Ukraine does not comply.

Ukraine’s international donors have certainly made it clear that they expect Kyiv to undertake judicial reform and other meaningful measures to tackle corruption. The International Monetary Fund routinely reviews Ukraine’s progress in these areas when it decides whether to release of the next tranche of funding. Since the start of Russia’s full scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has received approximately US$12.8 billion (£9.3 billion) from the IMF.

Ukraine’s former prime minister argues that there’s too much western involvement in domestic affairs in her country.

Similarly, the European Union has made addressing corruption and ensuring the independence of the judiciary key conditions for Ukraine to progress towards full EU membership.

Volodymyr Zelensky’s government cannot afford to risk losing the money Ukraine receives from international donors such as the IMF, which helps to keep the country’s economy functioning while it is at war. Neither can he afford to ignore the requirements of EU membership.

Joining the European Union is a goal that Zelensky has championed for Ukraine. It is also very popular among Ukrainians. According to a May 2024 opinion survey, 90% of Ukrainians would like to see Ukraine join the EU by 2030.

Foreign oversight?

But western pressure is not the only reason for foreign oversight of key institutions and processes in Ukraine. It is a step that has received strong support from Ukrainian civil society.

The Dejure Foundation, a Ukrainian legal organisation which promotes the rule of law and judicial reform, regards the involvement of international experts as essential to ensure a professional and independent legal system.

External scrutiny is also regarded as a way of increasing public trust in the judiciary. A December 2024 opinion poll found that only 12% of Ukrainians trust the courts, mainly because of perceptions that judges are corrupt.

To be sure, the involvement of foreign experts is not a magic bullet. Even supporters of the measure claim that foreigners lack the knowledge of the local context and can be manipulated into supporting bad decisions. But supporters argue that international scrutiny should be supplemented by greater involvement of Ukrainian civil society organisations, not removed.

The issue of corruption and how to address it remains a live one in Ukraine, and has no straightforward solution. The introduction of international legal experts into the process of scrutinising key appointments has not eliminated the problem or restored public faith in the judiciary.

Zelensky and his government are coming under increasing pressure from Tymoshenko and her supporters’ attempts to make political capital out of the issue. In particular her call to remove foreigners from these roles and replace them with war veterans is a clear appeal to nationalist sentiment.

On the other hand, Ukrainians do not seem to object to meeting the requirements of western organisations. More than 70% of Ukrainians surveyed in 2023 agreed that it was right that the EU should require political reforms before opening negotiations for Ukraine’s accession.

Moreover, protests erupted in July in cities across Ukraine against the legislation that would have brought Ukraine’s national anti-corruption bodies under the direct control of the government-appointed prosecutor general. Zelensky has now submitted a new bill to reinstate the agencies’ independence.

These demonstrations revealed a strength of feeling against any dilution of the independence of those who are charged with dealing with corruption. This suggests that Tymoshenko may not gain much traction in any attempts to dismantle existing systems, however imperfect they may be.

The Conversation

Jennifer Mathers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Is western influence over Ukraine colonial meddling or a vital way to prevent corruption? – https://theconversation.com/is-western-influence-over-ukraine-colonial-meddling-or-a-vital-way-to-prevent-corruption-262648

How Israel’s self-image changed from self-reliance to aggressive militarism

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Yaron Peleg, Kennedy-Leigh Professor of Modern Hebrew Studies, University of Cambridge

When the Zionist movement began to gather pace a century ago, many Jewish supporters wanted not just to create a political state for themselves, but to initiate a cultural revolution that would forge a new kind of Jewishness. Proud, self-reliant and resilient, the “new Jew” was a reaction to centuries of bullying, culminating in the virulent antisemitism of the modern era.

But, as I argue in my book, New Hebrews: Making National Culture in Zion, as Zionists set out to invent themselves anew, they also sowed the seeds of self sabotage. Early pride and defiance, paired with disregard for the native Arabs of Palestine, bred both a survival instinct and a dangerous militarism.

A look back at some of the principles of the Zionist revolution in the 20th century uncovers the cultural backstory to Israel’s current situation. It shows how the same vision that built a strong nation also hardwired the divisions and antagonisms now threatening its democracy, security and place in the world.

In this way, I argue the logic behind Israel’s alarming actions in Gaza, the rage with which it continues to come down on the Gazans following the October 7 attack almost three years ago, may be found in the country’s history.

The cultural revolution Zionists staged was an intensive project. It was a revolution so fervent that it altered the course of Jewish history and set in motion one of the most enduring transformations in a century crowded with radical changes.

Many of the Zionist innovations were truly impressive. The ancient Hebrew of the Bible was used to create a completely modern literature and was later turned into a spoken language. The socialist leanings of early Zionists led them to experiment with new communal forms, such as the kibbutz. The old Jewish festival calendar was creatively updated in the spirit of modern nationalism.

Zionists also created new artistic sensibilities in visual art and in music. They tapped into rich and diverse Jewish cultural traditions that spanned geographic regions.

The ‘new Jewish body’

One innovation in particular, the physical transformation of the Jewish image, had profound consequences that continue to reverberate today as we see in the tragic war on Gaza. At the heart of the Zionist cultural revolution lay a determination to overturn centuries-old stereotypes of Jews as outcasts: weak, passive, cowardly. Drawing on European nationalist ideals Zionists wanted to disprove these slanders by forging new Jewish men (men in particular): strong, productive, and self-reliant.

Young Israeli men and women with their harvest.
Israeli kibbutzim celebrate ‘Bikurim’, also known as the Festival of First Fruits, 1951.
Israel Preker via the PikiWiki via Wikimedia Commons

This remaking of the Jewish body was not merely symbolic. It was a deliberate strategy to reclaim visibility, dignity and respect. It was a quest that would have far-reaching consequences for Jews and non-Jews alike.

The obsession with manual labour was both a necessity and an ideological cornerstone of Zionist ideology. It was the engine behind the remarkable growth of the Yishuv – (literally: settlement) – the Jewish community that developed in Palestine in the first half of the 20th century.

Commonly referred to in quasi-military terms as the “conquest of labour,” it romanticised agriculture and construction work as a moral and spiritual renewal. It was a rebuttal to the negative stereotype of Jews.

But I believe it had a more problematic side. As Arab resistance to Zionist settlement grew, the new Jewish farmers evolved a military side as well.

The inspiration for it came from two sources, from the fighting culture of local Bedouins, and from the Ukrainian Cossacks. This was an ironic twist given the violence Cossacks often directed at Jews. By 1948, both farmers and soldiers became two of Zionism’s most distinct symbols, national ideals of productivity and physical force.

Four men in military uniform, one is spotting with binoculars, another has a rifle.
Jewish defence forces (Haganah) training in March 1948, two months before the creation of the state of Israel.
Kluger Zoltan/GPO, CC BY-SA

But something unexpected happened to that evolution somewhere along the way. In their effort to create a new kind of Jew, Zionists in Israel distanced themselves from life in the Jewish diaspora – sometimes by internalising antisemitic notions of that life.

One sad example was the chilly reception Holocaust survivors received in 1950s Israel. Some Jews born in what is now Israel, who were referred to as sabras (prickly pears), were arrogant enough to believe they would have fared better under the same circumstances than those caught up by the Holocaust, who they called sabonim (soap).

Return of victimhood

By the 1980s, attempts to leave behind the so-called “lachrymose history” of Jews – which viewed Jewish history primarily as a narrative of suffering and persecution – began to be supplanted. During and after the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolph Eichmann in 1961, Nazi persecution of Jews was linked first by Israeli prime minister Ben-Gurion and then journalists and academics with Arab resistance to the state of Israel.

Both were eventually presented as examples of congenital hatred and used as a powerful argument for the establishment of the state and its right to exist. It was a dramatic combination, hard to resist, that connected the creation of the Jewish state with the near destruction of the Jews in the Holocaust – even if Zionism emerged long before that catastrophe.

The baggage that was put aside in the rush to statehood, was now being opened. A reminder for Zionists that utopias are more easily written about than created – and that the pull of Jewish history is stronger than they thought.

The resulting new mix was alarming: a combination of the Jewish power Zionism obtained with the old sense of Jewish victimhood that early Zionists had fought hard to eradicate.

Consider this: in the aftermath of the October 7 2023, attack many people in Israel referred to it as a pogrom, a word that describes the sporadic massacres of Jews in eastern Europe. Think about it. Israel, a rich and powerful country, well-connected and – until recently at least, generally well-liked – compared itself to a small, vulnerable and isolated Jewish shtetl (small settlement in eastern Europe) in a bygone world where Jews were utterly powerless.

That one word, pogrom, explains it all. It wipes away 100 years of Zionist history and resurrects old Jewish grievances.

This may be one explanation for the country’s overreaction in Gaza. This is not an excuse, but an explanation that calls for the next evolutionary step in the history of Zionism – one in which Israel understands that it has achieved the goal for which it was established. Israel must realise it has power – that it is a power – and that with power comes responsibility.


This article contains references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and this may include links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

The Conversation

Yaron Peleg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. How Israel’s self-image changed from self-reliance to aggressive militarism – https://theconversation.com/how-israels-self-image-changed-from-self-reliance-to-aggressive-militarism-262657

The science of starvation: this is what happens to your body when it’s deprived of food

Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Ola Anabtawi, Assistant Professor Department of Nutrition and Food Technology, An-Najah National University

Hunger exists on a spectrum. On the one end is food insecurity, where people are forced to adjust to fewer meals. As food becomes scarce, the body consumes its own reserves. The journey from hunger to starvation starts with a drop in energy levels, then the body breaks down fat, then muscle. Eventually, critical organs begin to fail.

From undernourishment, to acute malnutrition and finally starvation, the process reaches a point where the body can no longer sustain life. In Gaza today, thousands of children under five and pregnant or lactating women are experiencing acute malnutrition. In Sudan, conflict and restricted humanitarian access have pushed millions to the brink of starvation, with famine warnings growing more urgent by the day.

We asked nutritionists Ola Anabtawi and Berta Valente to explain the science behind starvation and what happens to your body when it’s deprived of food.

What is the minimum nutrition a body needs to survive?

To survive, people need more than clean water and safety. Access to food that meets daily energy, macronutrient and micronutrient requirements is essential to preserve health, support recovery and prevent malnutrition.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), adults require different amounts of energy depending on age, sex and level of physical activity.
A kilocalorie (kcal) is a measure of energy. In nutrition, it tells us how much energy a person gets from food or how much energy the body needs to function. Technically, one kilocalorie is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one kilogram of water by one degree Celsius. The body uses this energy to breathe, digest food, maintain body temperature, and – especially in children – to grow.

Total energy needs come from three sources:

  • resting energy expenditure: the energy used by the body at rest to maintain vital functions such as breathing and circulation

  • physical activity: may vary during emergencies depending on factors like displacement, caregiving, or survival tasks

  • thermogenesis: the energy used to digest and process food.

Resting energy expenditure usually forms the biggest portion of energy needs, especially when physical activity is limited. Other factors including age, sex, body size, health status, pregnancy, or cold environments also influence how much energy a person requires.

Energy needs vary throughout life. Infants require approximately 95kcal to 108kcal per kilogram of body weight per day during the first six months and between 84kcal and 98kcal per kilogram from six to 12 months. For children under the age of ten, energy needs are based on normal growth patterns without distinction between boys and girls.

For example, a two-year-old child typically requires about 1,000kcal to 1,200kcal daily. A five-year-old needs about 1,300 to 1,500 and a ten-year-old generally requires between 1,800 and 2,000 kilocalories per day. From age ten onward, energy requirements begin to differ between boys and girls due to variations in growth and activity, and allowances are adjusted based on body weight, physical activity and rate of growth.

For adults with light to moderate physical activity, the average daily energy requirement for men aged 19 to 50 is about 2,900kcal, while women in the same age group require roughly 2,200kcal per day. These values include a range of plus or minus 20% to account for individual differences in metabolism and activity. For adults over 50 years, energy needs decrease slightly, with men requiring about 2,300kcal and women around 1,900kcal daily.

In humanitarian emergencies, food aid provision needs to guarantee the widely accepted minimum energy intake to maintain basic health and function, which was set to 2,100kcal per person per day. This level aims to meet fundamental physiological needs and prevent malnutrition when food supply is limited.

This energy must come from a balance of macronutrients, with carbohydrates supplying 50%-60% (such as rice or bread), proteins 10%-35% (like beans or lean meat), and fats 20%-35% (for example, cooking oil or nuts).

Fat requirements are higher for young children (30%-40%), as well as for pregnant and breastfeeding women (at least 20%).

In addition to energy, the body requires vitamins and minerals, such as iron, vitamin A, iodine and zinc, which are critical for immune function, growth and brain development. Iron is found in foods like red meat, beans and fortified cereals. Vitamin A comes from carrots, sweet potatoes and dark leafy greens. Iodine is commonly obtained from iodised salt and seafood. Zinc is present in meat, nuts and whole grains.

When food systems collapse, this balance is lost.

What physically happens when your body is starved?

Physiologically, the effects of starvation on the human body unfold in three overlapping stages. Each reflects the body’s effort to survive without food. But these adaptations come at great physiological cost.

In the first stage, which lasts up to 48 hours after food intake stops, the body draws on glycogen stored in the liver to keep blood sugar levels stable.

This process, called glycogenolysis, is a short-term solution. When glycogen runs out, the second stage begins.

The body shifts to gluconeogenesis, producing glucose from non-carbohydrate sources like amino acids (from muscle), glycerol (from fat), and lactate. This process fuels vital organs but results in muscle breakdown and increased nitrogen loss, especially from skeletal muscle.

By day three, ketogenesis becomes the dominant process. The liver starts converting fatty acids into ketone bodies – molecules derived from fat that serve as an alternative fuel source when glucose is scarce. These ketones are used by the brain and other organs for energy. This shift helps spare muscle tissue but also signals a deeper metabolic crisis.

Hormonal changes – including reduced insulin, thyroid hormone (T3), and nervous system activity – slow the metabolic rate to conserve energy. Over time, fat becomes the main energy source. But once fat stores are exhausted, the body is forced to break down its own proteins for energy. This accelerates muscle wasting, weakens the immune system, and increases the risk of deadly infections.

Death, often from pneumonia or other complications, typically occurs after 60 to 70 days without food in an otherwise healthy adult.

As the body enters prolonged nutrient deprivation, the visible and invisible signs of starvation intensify. Physically, individuals lose substantial weight, and experience muscle wasting, fatigue, slowed heart rate, dry skin, hair loss, and compromised wound healing. Immune defences weaken, increasing vulnerability to infections, particularly pneumonia – a frequent cause of death in starvation.

Psychologically, starvation creates profound distress. People report apathy, irritability, anxiety and a constant preoccupation with food. Cognitive abilities decline, and emotional regulation deteriorates, sometimes leading to depression or withdrawal.

In children, long-term effects include stunted growth and impaired brain development. Both can become irreversible.

During starvation, the body adapts in stages to survive. Initially, it uses glycogen storage for energy. As starvation continues, it begins to break down fat, and eventually, muscle tissue. This gradual shift explains both the physical weakness and psychological changes like irritability or depression.

But starvation does not stop at the individual. It fractures families and communities. As energy declines, people are unable to care for others or themselves. In humanitarian crises like Gaza and Sudan, starvation compounds the trauma of violence and displacement, creating a total collapse of social and biological resilience.

What are the steps to break the cycle?

After a period of starvation, the body is in a fragile metabolic state. Sudden reintroduction of food, especially carbohydrates, causes a spike in insulin and a rapid shift of electrolytes like phosphate, potassium, and magnesium into cells. This can overwhelm the body, leading to what’s known as refeeding syndrome, which may result in serious complications such as heart failure, respiratory distress, or even death if not carefully managed.

Standard protocols begin with therapeutic milks called F-75, specially designed to stabilise patients during the initial phase of treatment for severe acute malnutrition, followed by ready-to-use therapeutic food, a specially formulated peanut-butter paste or biscuit with the power to bring a malnourished child from the brink of death to full nutritional recovery in just four to eight weeks, oral rehydration salts, and micronutrient powders.

These must be delivered safely. Consistent humanitarian access is essential.

Airdrops are not part of food security. Survival requires sustained, coordinated efforts that restore food systems, protect civilians and uphold humanitarian law. Anything less risks repeating cycles of hunger and harm.

When food assistance falls short in quality or quantity, or when clean water is unavailable, malnutrition rapidly worsens.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The science of starvation: this is what happens to your body when it’s deprived of food – https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-starvation-this-is-what-happens-to-your-body-when-its-deprived-of-food-262355