The article (below) is fairly poorly translated from French. I don't share it because I think it's correct in all its assertions, I disagree with some of it but it does raise a couple of pertinent questions.
Some of it relates to the fact that (imo) Wikileaks hasn't properly set out its Support Julian pages - and also is not great at communicating clearly on the status and care of their founder.
Messages are confusing. On one hand you have Kristinn Hrafnsson saying Assange's weight 'stabilised', accompanied by lawyer Jen Robinson's one bland statement that he's in the health wing (makes it sound like a health spa - but he's actually in a solitary cell probably not much bigger than Mandela's on Robben Island). On the other hand, you have a very worried John Pilger ( a sober man not given to hyperbole) saying Assange is really not well and 'in danger'. Julian's half-brother visited and also reported him looking 'thinner'. Court supporter Emmy Butlin reported that Assange was already looking very thin in court - on the day he was taken out of the Embassy. So, he'd already suffered dramatic weight loss (which is never a good sign, can be a sign of cancer, etc) and he should surely (in terms of human rights) have been taken straight to hospital that afternoon, rather than to a London court?
What rights does Assange have under UK law to free and independent medical assessment, aside from Belmarsh-employee doctors?
Also, those who want to donate funds to Assange, Wikileaks are confronted with a confusing array of donation options and buttons, linked to the Wikileaks shop, the defend.wikileaks.org page, and other pages. Some accounts in the US, other accounts linked to a specific foundation in Germany, others linked to The Courage Foundation which also has other causes. Some funds go to operations, some go to Snowden's cause, etc. No clear donation for Assange's legal costs - in order to afford him the best possible legal team. Does Doughty Chambers offer that team?
Wikileaks remains trustworthy so I don't agree at all with this article's headline. But the article points to problems of representation and support - at a time when Assange has been denied support and his previous financial backers dropped away after the smears. The costs of hiring these lawyers must be huge. Assange is of global importance because WL affects the world. But he reports he's in 'profound isolation' (his own words in a letter) and a larger silence seems to surround him in terms of public communications? Probably as a result of poor strategy, lack of funds ... and perhaps lawyers not wanting to push things too far in order to protect their own brand?
Anyone game-planned whose hands will have blood on them, if the worst happens to Assange?