Gazan woman flown to Italy dies of malnutrition(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Gazan woman flown to Italy dies of malnutrition
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce87n455dvxo
49 comments
and sometimes banana is simply banana:
Hypercatabolic syndrome (HS) is a biochemical state characterized by increased circulating catabolic hormones (eg, cortisol, catecholamines) and inflammatory cytokines (eg, tumor necrosis factors, interleukin–1β), and decreased anabolic insulin effects with consequent insulin resistance. The most important metabolic consequence of HS is the skeletal and cardiac muscle protein breakdown that releases amino acids (AAs), which in turn supports indispensable body energy requirements but also reduces skeletal and cardiac physiologic and metabolic functions. HS occurs in many diseases such as diabetes mellitus, chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal and liver failure, trauma, sepsis, and senescence
Hypercatabolic syndrome (HS) is a biochemical state characterized by increased circulating catabolic hormones (eg, cortisol, catecholamines) and inflammatory cytokines (eg, tumor necrosis factors, interleukin–1β), and decreased anabolic insulin effects with consequent insulin resistance. The most important metabolic consequence of HS is the skeletal and cardiac muscle protein breakdown that releases amino acids (AAs), which in turn supports indispensable body energy requirements but also reduces skeletal and cardiac physiologic and metabolic functions. HS occurs in many diseases such as diabetes mellitus, chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, renal and liver failure, trauma, sepsis, and senescence
From https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18514619/ ?
The bit you left off is pretty telling:
> Macronutrients such as [amino acid] supplements, taken together with conventional therapy, may maintain muscular protein metabolism and cell functions.
We're right back at "not enough protein".
The bit you left off is pretty telling:
> Macronutrients such as [amino acid] supplements, taken together with conventional therapy, may maintain muscular protein metabolism and cell functions.
We're right back at "not enough protein".
the other guy wrote "Starvation causes hypercatabolism; it means your body is eating its own proteins. ".
this is not case of hypercatabolism as result of starvation. this is one of symptoms of diabetes which "may" could help by "amino acid supplements"
so we are not back anywhere.
this is not case of hypercatabolism as result of starvation. this is one of symptoms of diabetes which "may" could help by "amino acid supplements"
so we are not back anywhere.
There is no "other guy". They're both me.
> this is not case of hypercatabolism as result of starvation
This is an assertion made by the Israeli government, an interested party with a history of lying. "Israel's government denies there is malnutrition in Gaza" is a claim even the Trump administration contests (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62nr9rglm9o).
> this is one of symptoms of diabetes
To be clear, they asserted untreated diabetes. Its untreated nature is also something related to the war, Israel having bombed every hospital in Gaza and blockaded all supplies including food.
A diabetic's body eating itself in a blockaded war zone with no food or medicine is… unsurprising. Starving people in a slightly roundabout way is still starving people, even if they have existing medical conditions.
> this is not case of hypercatabolism as result of starvation
This is an assertion made by the Israeli government, an interested party with a history of lying. "Israel's government denies there is malnutrition in Gaza" is a claim even the Trump administration contests (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62nr9rglm9o).
> this is one of symptoms of diabetes
To be clear, they asserted untreated diabetes. Its untreated nature is also something related to the war, Israel having bombed every hospital in Gaza and blockaded all supplies including food.
A diabetic's body eating itself in a blockaded war zone with no food or medicine is… unsurprising. Starving people in a slightly roundabout way is still starving people, even if they have existing medical conditions.
Hypercatabolic syndrome (HS) is a biochemical state characterized by increased circulating catabolic hormones (eg, cortisol, catecholamines) and inflammatory cytokines (eg, tumor necrosis factors, interleukin–1β), and decreased anabolic insulin effects with consequent insulin resistance.
nothing to do with starvation.
in usa iirc,in usa 20k people died in 2022 or so from malnutrition. were they also in blockaded zone ? or is it just happens so that malnutrition is a complex thing that not always affected by food supply
nothing to do with starvation.
in usa iirc,in usa 20k people died in 2022 or so from malnutrition. were they also in blockaded zone ? or is it just happens so that malnutrition is a complex thing that not always affected by food supply
> increased circulating catabolic hormones
AKA stress hormones. I wonder why they're stressed?
> nothing to do with starvation.
I assure you, if you have one of these conditions, piling starvation on top absolutely hurts your chances of survival.
> in usa iirc,in usa 20k people died in 2022 or so from malnutrition. were they also in blockaded zone ?
Population-wise, that's the equivalent of 170 in Gaza, and the US numbers are largely elderly people; Gaza is 50% minors.
Starvation is the openly stated goal of the Israeli government. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250416-israel-says-n...
> "Israel's policy is clear: no humanitarian aid will enter Gaza, and blocking this aid is one of the main pressure levers preventing Hamas from using it as a tool with the population," [Defense Minister] Katz said in a statement.
AKA stress hormones. I wonder why they're stressed?
> nothing to do with starvation.
I assure you, if you have one of these conditions, piling starvation on top absolutely hurts your chances of survival.
> in usa iirc,in usa 20k people died in 2022 or so from malnutrition. were they also in blockaded zone ?
Population-wise, that's the equivalent of 170 in Gaza, and the US numbers are largely elderly people; Gaza is 50% minors.
Starvation is the openly stated goal of the Israeli government. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250416-israel-says-n...
> "Israel's policy is clear: no humanitarian aid will enter Gaza, and blocking this aid is one of the main pressure levers preventing Hamas from using it as a tool with the population," [Defense Minister] Katz said in a statement.
Cortisol is a steroid hormone, often referred to as the "stress hormone," that plays a crucial role in regulating various bodily functions and responding to stress. It is produced by the adrenal glands and its release is controlled by the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. While essential for life, imbalances in cortisol levels can lead to various health issues.
adrenal glands disfunction can cause elevated levels of cortisol. adrenal glands also responsible for catecholamines. adrenal glands disfunction can be caused by diabetes, leukamia or number of other conditions.
wait till you learn about auto-immune disorders.
adrenal glands disfunction can cause elevated levels of cortisol. adrenal glands also responsible for catecholamines. adrenal glands disfunction can be caused by diabetes, leukamia or number of other conditions.
wait till you learn about auto-immune disorders.
> wait till you learn about auto-immune disorders
I have one. Even wound up in the hospital for a week with a cytokine storm.
Guess how well I'd have done recovering in a place with every hospital reduced to rubble and no food available?
I have one. Even wound up in the hospital for a week with a cytokine storm.
Guess how well I'd have done recovering in a place with every hospital reduced to rubble and no food available?
Is the title here editorialized? Or did BBC update their title because the old one was incorrect?
It was probably changed under pressure from the Israeli Embassy press office
It's copied from BBC's post on X
It may be editorialized
https://x.com/BBCWorld/status/1956791643413094490
It may be editorialized
https://x.com/BBCWorld/status/1956791643413094490
Or alternatively, the subsequent walk-backs are editorialized.
The changed title is because of something the BBC do repeatedly.
- Put up a factually incorrect article accusing Israel of something
- Let it sit on the front page for a day or two so a lot of people read it
- Take it off the front page and quietly correct it
You can find the same story in plenty of other serious press outlets
user: Fred27m
created: 6 minutes ago
karma: 0
created: 6 minutes ago
karma: 0
That's correct. I normally just read but thought I'd comment today. (I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details.)
You can clearly see that the BBC edited this headline. I've seen them do this a lot, but whether you believe me or want to investigate further yourself is entirely up to you.
You can clearly see that the BBC edited this headline. I've seen them do this a lot, but whether you believe me or want to investigate further yourself is entirely up to you.
> You can clearly see that the BBC edited this headline.
Well, sure, but people also commonly believe that they are pressured to do so and eventually relent to the pressure. That they changed something is not strictly evidence that the old version was "factually incorrect".
> I normally just read but thought I'd comment today. (I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details.)
Since we're already on the topic of worthless throwaway accounts, I feel the need to comment on this. This reads like a bit like a "regular internet citizen" phrase of someone who is not that attached to their accounts, which is, of course, a reasonable perspective, but it also reads a lot like someone who's literally paid to read popular discussion sites ("I normally just read") and make accounts they don't care about ("I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details") for the sake of voicing an opinion that benefits their employer if widely believed ("thought I'd comment today"). Just food for thought for the person who is presumably commenting with their genuine opinions. And, of course, readers who are interested in observing sneaky phrases that could potentially cause their thinking to be misdirected.
Well, sure, but people also commonly believe that they are pressured to do so and eventually relent to the pressure. That they changed something is not strictly evidence that the old version was "factually incorrect".
> I normally just read but thought I'd comment today. (I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details.)
Since we're already on the topic of worthless throwaway accounts, I feel the need to comment on this. This reads like a bit like a "regular internet citizen" phrase of someone who is not that attached to their accounts, which is, of course, a reasonable perspective, but it also reads a lot like someone who's literally paid to read popular discussion sites ("I normally just read") and make accounts they don't care about ("I might have commented before on an old account but if so I've forgotten the details") for the sake of voicing an opinion that benefits their employer if widely believed ("thought I'd comment today"). Just food for thought for the person who is presumably commenting with their genuine opinions. And, of course, readers who are interested in observing sneaky phrases that could potentially cause their thinking to be misdirected.
Perhaps, but the effect is what would otherwise be called a "throwaway" account.
What does it have to do with the substance of the comment?
It provides context. The post was a bare claim without context or evidence, But a poster without any history.
I'd say if you post an accusative claim on a controversial topic as your first post with a new account, it should probably include far more information.
I'd say if you post an accusative claim on a controversial topic as your first post with a new account, it should probably include far more information.
I agree that the context is important. However, there is still a problem here:
- The user name already shows in green, which means a new account. Thus, your comment does not give any additional context. - If your goal is to provide context, I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe, right?
- The user name already shows in green, which means a new account. Thus, your comment does not give any additional context. - If your goal is to provide context, I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe, right?
I didn't know that. The shade is so slight I couldn't tell.
> I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe
Why would that be necessary? They wouldn't be "throwaway" in that case.
> I'm sure you do not fail to provide it when an account with a long history and a tons of karma makes a comment that goes contrary to what you want to believe
Why would that be necessary? They wouldn't be "throwaway" in that case.
So? I've seen BBC do this before. Not to mention posting much much worse things and just quietly taking it down without offering some apology or article to try to set the record straight.
> I've seen BBC do this before.
So n=2?
How about examples?
So n=2?
How about examples?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/07/bbc-breached-gui... is pretty damning
What a surprise… a UK lawyer who lives in Jerusalem and is a member of the Israeli Bar, founded an organisation named BBCWatch to “analyse BBC media coverage of the Middle East” wrote a report that was critical of the BBC
If anything Israel gets pretty much a free ride in the UK press and particularly on the BBC
If anything Israel gets pretty much a free ride in the UK press and particularly on the BBC
Truth obviously hurts some on HN
Well that's clearly bs. https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c2vdnvdg6xxt is 100% against Israel. It even openly cites a Hamas source as if they can be trusted to tell the truth.
> The research, led by British lawyer Trevor Asserson, also found that Israel was associated with genocide more than 14 times more than Hamas in the corporation’s coverage of the conflict.
That hardly seems surprising, given the way the war is going.
> It cites several examples, including a podcast last November in which Mr Bowen stated “Hamas ...an Islamic resistance movement...we’ve seen in the past few weeks has a military strategy” and a News at Ten report last October in which he said: “Hamas will try to use hit-and-run guerrilla tactics against a much more powerful army.”
Every word in that last sentence is accurate. Where's the bias?
> It claims Mr Bowen has also compared Israel’s offensive in Gaza to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including in a BBC article in November last year in which he stated: “Israel is on course to have killed as many Palestinian civilians in just over a month as Russia has killed in Ukraine since February 2022.”
Again, entirely accurate?
> In one example, the report cites Ms Doucet stating in a radio dispatch in February this year: “And from the beginning of this Israel Gaza War, which erupted on October 7, it has been clear that both the United States and Iran do not want to be dragged into a direct confrontation”
Accurate again?
That hardly seems surprising, given the way the war is going.
> It cites several examples, including a podcast last November in which Mr Bowen stated “Hamas ...an Islamic resistance movement...we’ve seen in the past few weeks has a military strategy” and a News at Ten report last October in which he said: “Hamas will try to use hit-and-run guerrilla tactics against a much more powerful army.”
Every word in that last sentence is accurate. Where's the bias?
> It claims Mr Bowen has also compared Israel’s offensive in Gaza to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including in a BBC article in November last year in which he stated: “Israel is on course to have killed as many Palestinian civilians in just over a month as Russia has killed in Ukraine since February 2022.”
Again, entirely accurate?
> In one example, the report cites Ms Doucet stating in a radio dispatch in February this year: “And from the beginning of this Israel Gaza War, which erupted on October 7, it has been clear that both the United States and Iran do not want to be dragged into a direct confrontation”
Accurate again?
Israel is condemned in the UN for "human rights abuses" more than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Rwanda. Combined.
The BBC reporting is the same. "Starving children" with a picture of a child with an disease that made that child look starved before the war. I saw that same false picture in the news just today!
The bias against Israel is striking if you open your eyes.
The BBC reporting is the same. "Starving children" with a picture of a child with an disease that made that child look starved before the war. I saw that same false picture in the news just today!
The bias against Israel is striking if you open your eyes.
> Israel is condemned in the UN
This is the BBC’s fault?
> I saw that same false picture in the news just today!
Even Trump agrees kids are starving in Gaza.
This is the BBC’s fault?
> I saw that same false picture in the news just today!
Even Trump agrees kids are starving in Gaza.
Even Trump repeats things he heard without thinking? Hmm.. yea that's a strong argument :P
Trump is one of the least likely people to side with Palestinians on this sort of issue. That even he's able to notice it (along with other Israeli allies, a former Israeli prime minister, and plenty of Israeli intelligence folks) is telling.
Think tank slop rarely is.
[deleted]
Israeli government is using famine to kill people in Gaza. It's a genocide, all countries should condemn Israeli government and demand to stop the ethnic cleansing.
article says ....she had suffered from leukaemia......????
Then rest of article does not discuss it ... need more analysis it seems....
Then rest of article does not discuss it ... need more analysis it seems....
I mean, does it matter?
Patients with conditions like leukemia (and children, and the elderly) are going to suffer first from malnutrition. Even if the hospitals hadn't all been blown up.
Patients with conditions like leukemia (and children, and the elderly) are going to suffer first from malnutrition. Even if the hospitals hadn't all been blown up.
See "cancer-related cachexia". Malnutrition can be secondary to advanced cancer. It is common in advanced leukemia and lymphoma.
> Malnutrition can be secondary to advanced cancer.
Advanced cancer can be secondary to blown up hospitals.
Advanced cancer can be secondary to blown up hospitals.
Blown up hospitals can be secondary to firing rockets from the parking lot and using them as ammo dumps and military headquarters. You can take this line of reasoning back to the big bang without addressing the quality of evidence of a severe food shortage.
They can be, but given how many times Israel's made the assertion only to go "oopsie doodle, our multibillion dollar intelligence apparatus made a boo-boo and it turns out that there actually was not an installation under this civilian infrastructure", this isn't as robust a premise as you think it is. Anyway, the quality of evidence seems to suffice for doctors, NGOs, human rights watchdogs, practically anyone who isn't an Israeli official or an apologist thereof, probably something worth considering.
The fact that the two highest profile examples of starvation in Gaza have confounding conditions makes me suspect otherwise. If it is as widespread as feared, it should be easier to find pictures of starving Gazans than fat Gazans.
It is notable that in the same famous photo of the emaciated Mohammed Zakaria al‑Mutawaq in the NYT article, his not-malnourished looking brother Joud was cropped out. And their mother is not emaciated. Is she supposed to be starving her younger child to feed herself and her other son? To me this is evidence of press cooperation with a propaganda campaign.
I submit that if you find either side in this propaganda war to be credible by default, you do the other side a disservice.
It is notable that in the same famous photo of the emaciated Mohammed Zakaria al‑Mutawaq in the NYT article, his not-malnourished looking brother Joud was cropped out. And their mother is not emaciated. Is she supposed to be starving her younger child to feed herself and her other son? To me this is evidence of press cooperation with a propaganda campaign.
I submit that if you find either side in this propaganda war to be credible by default, you do the other side a disservice.
>The fact that the two highest profile examples of starvation in Gaza have confounding conditions makes me suspect otherwise. If it is as widespread as feared, it should be easier to find pictures of starving Gazans than fat Gazans.
Sure, if Israel wasn't actively targeting journalists and cutting off telecoms from within the strip, and the case for starvation rested entirely on a couple of photographs in mainstream US broadsheets.
>It is notable that in the same famous photo of the emaciated Mohammed Zakaria al‑Mutawaq in the NYT article, his not-malnourished looking brother Joud was cropped out. And their mother is not emaciated.
You're right, just like it's notable that in the retraction, they didn't mention that his 'confounding condition' was caused by her malnutrition during pregnancy, per the same report that was used to force said retraction. Also, emaciation is not present in all cases of malnutrition.
>To me this is evidence of press cooperation with a propaganda campaign.
But, not say, calling it the 'Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry' to diminish the credibility of the casualty figures which were good enough for the WHO and UN? Odd.
>I submit that if you find either side in this propaganda war to be credible by default, you do the other side a disservice.
If you were sincere about this standard, you would apply it to yourself. Even this statement is implicitly propagandistic, if not conspiratorial.
Sure, if Israel wasn't actively targeting journalists and cutting off telecoms from within the strip, and the case for starvation rested entirely on a couple of photographs in mainstream US broadsheets.
>It is notable that in the same famous photo of the emaciated Mohammed Zakaria al‑Mutawaq in the NYT article, his not-malnourished looking brother Joud was cropped out. And their mother is not emaciated.
You're right, just like it's notable that in the retraction, they didn't mention that his 'confounding condition' was caused by her malnutrition during pregnancy, per the same report that was used to force said retraction. Also, emaciation is not present in all cases of malnutrition.
>To me this is evidence of press cooperation with a propaganda campaign.
But, not say, calling it the 'Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry' to diminish the credibility of the casualty figures which were good enough for the WHO and UN? Odd.
>I submit that if you find either side in this propaganda war to be credible by default, you do the other side a disservice.
If you were sincere about this standard, you would apply it to yourself. Even this statement is implicitly propagandistic, if not conspiratorial.
The BBC have updated the article, changed the title and removed the X post, but HN wont, alas
https://xcancel.com/Israel/status/1950259113948070197 / https://www.instagram.com/p/DMs4qUlInQE/
> 41-year-old Mohammad al-Hasanat didn’t die of starvation — he suffered from untreated diabetes and died from complications of severe hypercatabolism.
Starvation causes hypercatabolism; it means your body is eating its own proteins. Statements all the way up to Netanyahu that no starvation is happening in Gaza are deeply, profoundly absurd.