A claim has gone viral saying “Germany invented a patch that dissolves tumors,” often naming the Max Planck Institute and adding dramatic details like “healthy tissue untouched” and “67% of pancreatic tumors eliminated.” Right now, those specific headline-style claims are widely circulating on social media and repost sites, but they are not backed by a clearly identifiable, primary scientific paper or a credible institute press release matching those exact statements. LinkedIn+2Facebook+2

What is real is that “patch” technologies for cancer are a serious area of research, especially microneedle patches and dissolvable delivery systems that can place drugs closer to tumors and reduce whole-body exposure. These devices are being studied in animals, and in some cases in early human studies, but they are usually aimed at targeted delivery or assisting treatment—not instantly “dissolving tumors” as a universal cure. Nature+2PMC+2

One example in a top-tier journal is a wearable, flexible ultrasound microneedle patch platform tested in lab and animal models, designed to improve localized delivery and anti-tumor effects with added stimulation. That kind of work supports the general idea that patches can help deliver therapy in a more focused way, but it does not equal a proven “tumor-dissolving patch” for broad human use. Nature

Another example making the rounds in healthcare trade reporting is a microneedle patch approach that aims to deliver chemotherapy into tumors through dissolving needles, with early-phase results described as encouraging. Even in this more grounded reporting, it is still early-stage and not the same as “Germany solved cancer with a patch.” Managed Healthcare Executive

There are also patches and tiny-needle devices being developed for cancer-related testing and monitoring, including work on nanoneedle patches that could reduce the need for traditional biopsies. That is a different use case (diagnosis/monitoring) but shows how fast “needle patch” tech is moving in medicine. ScienceDaily

If you’re trying to judge the viral Germany claim fairly, here are the key “missing pieces” that would normally be easy to point to if it were as described: the exact journal citation, the author list, the institution announcement, a registered clinical trial entry, and an independently reported news article from a major science or medical outlet describing the results. In the materials spreading online, those pieces are either absent or too vague to verify. LinkedIn+2670 AM KIRN - Persian News Talk and Info+2

Bottom line: the core concept (a dissolvable microneedle patch delivering cancer therapy locally) is plausible and actively researched, including in high-quality journals and early clinical development, but the specific viral “Germany invented a patch that dissolves tumors” claim is not currently substantiated in a way that meets normal proof standards for a major medical breakthrough. Nature+2Managed Healthcare Executive+2

Photos and videos (available now):

1. Journal figures and visuals for a microneedle patch cancer therapy platform (Nature Communications page): Nature

2. Explainer-style coverage of a microneedle cancer patch entering serious regulatory discussion (article page): Managed Healthcare Executive

3. Nanoneedle patch visuals related to replacing biopsies (ScienceDaily page): ScienceDaily

Sources and links:

1. Social posts repeating the Germany/Max Planck “tumor-dissolving patch” claim (examples): LinkedIn+2Facebook+2

2. Wearable flexible ultrasound microneedle patch for cancer therapy (Nature Communications): Nature

3. Trade report on a dissolving microneedle chemotherapy patch and early study results: Managed Healthcare Executive

4. Nanoneedle patch research aimed at replacing biopsies (ScienceDaily): ScienceDaily

5. Review-style overview of microneedles for melanoma therapy (background on the field): PMC

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Short answer: that claim is misleading on both parts.

Let’s break it down in plain language.

1. Are ~85% of the world’s refugees Muslim?

No.

Different estimates over the years have shown a high share of refugees coming from Muslim-majority countries (Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, etc.), but not 85%.

• A commonly cited older UNHCR-based estimate from around 2010 put the share of refugees originating from Muslim-majority countries at about 70%, not 85%. IHRC

• Today, a huge proportion of refugees also come from places like Ukraine and Venezuela, which are not Muslim-majority at all, so the Muslim share is lower than it was when wars in Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia dominated the numbers. World Migration Report+1

So: many refugees are Muslim, but the “85%” figure is an overstatement and not supported by current global data.

2. “They do not seek asylum in the 56 Muslim countries”

That’s simply false. A very large share of the world’s refugees are hosted in Muslim-majority states.

• The UN says just over one-third of all refugees and others needing protection are hosted in countries of the Islamic world (OIC states). United Nations

• Major refugee-hosting countries include several Muslim-majority states:

  • Türkiye (hosting around 3.3 million refugees/asylum seekers as of mid-2024) UN Refugees+1

  • Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan, Uganda, etc., all of which are OIC members and/or have large Muslim populations hosting millions of refugees from neighbors. UNHCR+2World Population Review+2

• UNHCR data shows 67% of refugees remain in neighboring countries, and many of those neighbors are in fact Muslim-majority (e.g., Syrians to Türkiye/Jordan/Lebanon, Afghans to Iran/Pakistan, Rohingya to Bangladesh). UNHCR+1

So Muslims do seek and receive asylum in Muslim-majority countries, in very large numbers.

3. Where does this talking point come from?

It usually mixes or distorts several ideas:

• Confusing “refugees from Muslim-majority countries” with “refugees who are personally Muslim,” and then rounding up aggressively.

• Ignoring the millions of refugees hosted in OIC states and focusing only on applications in Europe/North America.

• Using “56 Muslim countries” as shorthand for “they’re skipping their own region,” when in reality most refugees don’t have the money, documents or safety to travel far, so they stop in the nearest country they can reach — which is often another Muslim-majority state.

4. The real picture, in one sentence

A large share of the world’s refugees come from conflict zones that happen to be in Muslim-majority countries; many of those refugees are indeed Muslim, and a huge proportion of them are hosted by other Muslim-majority countries nearby—so the “85% Muslim and they don’t go to Muslim countries” line is not accurate.

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 DEC. 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.

Let's get the right Facts

Is it true that Hilary Clinton supplied Iran with uranium for their nuclear program?

No, the claim that Hillary Clinton supplied Iran with uranium for their nuclear program is false and has been repeatedly debunked by fact-checkers and official records.

As much as I can't stand the woman, the truth must be the most important thing here.

Where the Rumor Came From

This conspiracy theory often stems from a distorted interpretation of the “Uranium One” deal, a 2010 transaction in which the U.S. government—via the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)—approved the partial sale of a Canadian mining company (Uranium One) to Russia’s Rosatom, a state-owned nuclear energy firm.

Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, was one of nine CFIUS members involved in the review, and there’s no evidence she played a special or decisive role in the approval.

The uranium mined under Uranium One’s U.S. operations never left the country for Iran—or even Russia. U.S. law prohibits uranium exports without a special license, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission confirmed that no uranium from the deal was exported abroad.

As for Iran:

• Iran’s nuclear program used uranium enriched within its own territory and previously acquired materials, many predating modern agreements.

• The Obama administration, which Hillary Clinton served in, did enter the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015—a nuclear deal designed to limit Iran's enrichment activities, not fuel them.

• There is no documented evidence that Clinton or any U.S. official transferred uranium to Iran.

 Conclusion

There is no factual basis for the claim that Hillary Clinton supplied Iran with uranium. The rumor appears to be a misrepresentation of complex events—chiefly the Uranium One deal—distorted to suggest secret collusion where none has been proven.

That claim is misleading. Here’s what actually happened:

 What the $1.7 Billion Was

• In January–February 2016, the Obama administration transferred $1.7 billion in cash to Iran. This was not a gift—it paid off a decades-old arbitration claim related to a 1979 arms deal and the value of the funds with interest accruing over time brookings.edu+10apnews.com+10latimes.com+10.

• About $400 million was the original principal; the remaining $1.3 billion was interest latimes.com+3apnews.com+3armscontrolcenter.org+3.

• The cash delivery aligned with Iran’s release of four American prisoners, but officials said the payments were tied to the arbitration, not a direct ransom brookings.edu+10apnews.com+10ballotpedia.org+10.

What It Was Not

• It was not directed toward Iran’s nuclear program.

• It was not a reward for compliance with the JCPOA, though media often conflate the two.

• It was not secret funding—the transaction was fully acknowledged by U.S. agencies at the time en.wikipedia.org.

In Summary

• Yes, Obama’s administration paid $1.7 billion—but as a settlement for a legal arbitration, not as funding for nuclear development.

• No, it was not intended to support Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The claim that President Biden “unfroze $16 billion for Iran” is a misleading interpretation of what actually happened.

✅ What Actually Occurred

1. Unfrozen Assets Belong to Iran

   • Since the early 2000s, Iran had revenues (from oil sales and energy payments) held in foreign banks—most notably $7 billion in South Korea, $6 billion in Iraq, and additional funds in countries like China, Japan, Luxembourg, and the U.S. factcheck.org+10en.wikipedia.org+10reddit.com+10.

   • Those were Iran’s own assets, not U.S. funds.

2. Release Was Legal and Narrow in Scope

   • $6 billion was unfrozen in September 2023 as part of a prisoner swap—Americans held in Iran were released in exchange for Iranians in U.S. custody factcheck.orgfactcheck.org+7cbsnews.com+7iranintl.com+7.

   • A Trump-era waiver (extended under Biden) allowed access to around $10 billion more, layered with restrictions and controls factcheck.org+1iranintl.com+1.

   • Total access—not a U.S. payment—was roughly $16 billion; funds are restricted to humanitarian uses like food and medicine factcheck.org+2factcheck.org+2mast.house.gov+2.

3. Money Was Not Given by the U.S.

   • It’s inaccurate to say the U.S. “gave” the money. The U.S. facilitated access to Iran’s own funds, stored in non-U.S. banks.

   • Several fact-checkers emphasize the difference between unfrozen access and a transfer of U.S. taxpayer money politico.com+3mast.house.gov+3reddit.com+3en.wikipedia.org+9factcheck.org+9reddit.com+9.

4. No Evidence It Funded Iran’s Nuclear Program

   • There’s no indication these funds went toward nuclear development. The releases were tied to hostage diplomacy and restricted humanitarian spending en.wikipedia.org+6factcheck.org+6jns.org+6.

 Summary Comparison

 Bottom Line

• Biden did not give Iran any U.S. money.

• Approximately $16 billion of Iranian-owned assets were made accessible, but this was not a gift—and it was strictly limited to humanitarian purposes under legal agreements.

The Brutal Truth June 2025

The Brutal Truth Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.