Trump Uses Nukes: VT Teams Rush to Site of Nuclear Bunker Buster in Afghanistan

Will collect soil samples, witness statements as Trump’s professed love of nukes becomes a reality


Trump’s first use of nuclear weapons, soon to be unleashed on Syria Arab Army, according to NSC sources:

For those within 15 miles of the blast area or downwind:  Please remove yourself from the area for 72 hours or up to 2 weeks.  Bring no food or water, wash throughly, wash clothing in water from well outside the blast area.  Wear a dust mask  More information to come:

Control of the press and the puppet government in Kabul makes this possible.  Afghanistan has become a testing ground for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons by the United States.

This is the cover story, one America has used over and over, first its fuel-air bombs or “daisy-cutters” and now the MOAB, a weapon Trump would never touch as nuking Afghanistan is an old neocon play used many times.  Our investigations in Afghanistan have revealed the nuclear poisoning of that country from not only indiscriminate use of semi-depleted uranium munitions but the use, on at least 8 occasions, of tactical nuclear weapons.  This is the cover story:

The US military has dropped the largest non-nuclear bomb in the American arsenal on an area of eastern Afghanistan known to be populated by Daesh (ISIL) terrorists, according to the US Defense Department.

A GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb (MOAB), also known as the “mother of all bombs,” was dropped at 7 pm local time Thursday, the Pentagon confirmed.

A GBU-43/B on display at the US Air Force Armament Museum in Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

The Pentagon confirmed the strike was the first time the enormous bomb had been used in combat.

Now hear the truth from Press TV 2012

US Used Micro Nukes in Afghanistan and Iraq Wars:  An interview with Gordon Duff, Senior Editor of Veterans Today

…the US has produced approximately 600 micro nukes, some of them smaller than a soccer ball, with the capability as low as a single ton of TNT dialable up to 40 tons of TNT. There is evidence that those weapons have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Studies have found uranium 235 to be in the bodies of the population there.”

The United States’ use of powerful genetic weapons such as depleted uranium on the battle field is in violation of every conceivable international law, says an analyst.

Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years and has thus earned the title “The silent killer that will never stop killing”.

Shells, bombs and cruise missiles tipped with depleted uranium and tungsten easily pierce through heavy armor and fortifications. Air, water and soil are also contaminated when such weapons are used.

Dr. Doug Rokke, the ex-director of the Pentagon’s Depleted Uranium Project, says there is no way to totally decontaminate an area hit with uranium. (Editor:  Comprehensive video from 2002, demonstrating our decade plus DU cover up.  Please forward and watch as much as possible.)

YouTube – Veterans Today –

Serious long-term health problems caused by the use of depleted uranium in bombs can range from cancer to leukemia and genetic mutations.

The United Nations has prohibited the manufacture, testing, use, sale and stockpiling of depleted uranium weapons.

The US dropped thousands of depleted uranium bombs on the Iraq city of Fallujah in 2003, which killed thousands of people.

A great proportion of all births in Fallujah since the strike have suffered from abnormalities and the rate of mutation among newborns is higher than what was found in Japan after America attacked the Asian country during the Second World War.

Press TV has conducted an interview with senior editor of Veterans Today (VT) website, Gordon Duff, to further discuss the issue.

The video also offers the opinions of two other guests: political analyst and writer Linh Dinh, and peace activist Max Obuszewksi.

The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Gordon Duff, when we are speaking about the reasons why not a single country has gotten rid of its nuclear weapons, some people are saying this is about nuclear superiority, a kind of deterrence as our guest Linh Dinh there was saying as well, the issue of guaranteeing the security of a nation when it comes to how officials describe it. Basically what do you think are the reasons and could you say that there is any strategic value in keeping nuclear weapons?

Duff: Well there are a couple of different levels to look at this. We left two nations out, Pakistan and India, and they are of the highest risk of nuclear war than any two nations on earth.Most people don’t know that since 1982 Brazil has held between ten and twenty nuclear weapons that they have developed.

Japan has an interim nuclear capability in that they are sitting on tons of enriched uranium at a facility in a…prefecture…and bombs that are ready to assemble but not assembled.

They have decided though that they have the capability not to exercise that capability, which is in interim standing, that some have suggested would be a position that they could live with involving Iran.

The issue that is brought up by a previous speaker, however, is that we have thoroughly seen in the last year that nuclear power itself can be as harmful as nuclear weapons.

That although nuclear weapons supposedly have secured peace through mutual assured destruction, every nuclear facility in the world leaks radiation and the nuclear industry is so powerful it suppresses bad news…



Paul Gauguin’s Advice on Overcoming Rejection, Breaking Free of Public Opinion, and Staying True to One’s Creative Vision

Self-Portrait with Portrait of Émile Bernard (Les misérables), Paul Gauguin, 1888 (via Van Gogh Museum)

“One day, you will feel a joy in having resisted the temptation to hate, and there is truly intoxicating poetry in the goodness of him who has suffered.”

The French post-impressionist painter Paul Gauguin (June 7, 1848–May 8, 1903) left an indelible mark on creative culture as a major influence of Picasso and Matisse, and the person whom Van Gogh considered his greatest kindred spirit. He arrived at art via a bittersweet path — after the early trauma of his father’s death, the young Gauguin turned to painting as a way of transmuting sorrow into beauty, but the specter of suffering never left him.

This, perhaps, is why he was able to meet with remarkable sympathy the suffering of other artists, particularly those whom he saw as courageous innovators breaking with the status quo and paying the price — the same disposition of daring for which E.E. Cummings would be so hideously condemned by traditionalists a generation later before becoming one of the most beloved artists in his own field of poetry.

Among those young mavericks was the French painter, poet, essayist, and playwright Émile Bernard.

In 1888, at the age of twenty, Bernard walked more than 500 kilometers from Paris to Pont-Aven to see Gauguin, his artistic hero. The elder painter, twenty years his senior, quickly came to admire Bernard’s creative bravery and innovative technique. The two formed a warm friendship, which would later unravel into artistic rivalry, but the alchemy of their relationship forever altered both of their aesthetics and the course of modern art itself, planting the seed of Symbolism.

Self-Portrait with Portrait of Gauguin, Émile Bernard, 1888 (via Van Gogh Museum)

In the autumn of 1889, 41-year-old Gauguin received a distraught letter from his young friend after a particularly harsh critical reception of Bernard’s paintings. In a reply found in Paul Gauguin: Letters to His Wife and Friends (public library), the painter writes to his 21-year-old friend:

Your disconsolate letter reaches a countryside as sorrowful. I understand the bitterness which sweeps over you at the foolish reception of you and your works… What would you rather have? a mediocrity which pleases everybody or a talent which breaks new ground. We must choose if we have free will. Would you have the power of choice if choosing leads to suffering — a Nessus shirt which sticks to you and cannot be stripped off? Attacks on originality are to be expected from those who lack the power to create and shrug their shoulders.

In a sentiment that calls to mind young Beethoven’s joy of suffering overcome, Gauguin adds:

As for me, I own myself beaten — by events, by men, by the family, but not by public opinion. I scorn it and I can do without admirers. I won’t say that at your age I was like this, but by the exertion of sheer will power, that is what I am like to-day. Let them study carefully my last pictures and, if they have any feelings at all, they will see what resigned suffering is in them — a cry wrung from the heart… But you, why do you suffer, too? You are young, and too early you begin to carry the cross. Do not rebel; one day, you will feel a joy in having resisted the temptation to hate, and there is truly intoxicating poetry in the goodness of him who has suffered.

Complement with the illustrated story of Gauguin’s childhood, then revisit Janis Joplin on creativity and rejection, Ben Shahn on nonconformity, Henri Rousseau’s heartening tale of success after a lifetime of rejection, and Van Gogh — who was also an ardent champion of the young Bernard — on taking risks and how inspired mistakes propel us forward.


What the Rat Brain Tells Us About Yours


The evolution of animal models for neuroactive medicine.

Alittle more than a decade ago, Mike Mendl developed a new test for gauging a laboratory rat’s level of happiness. Mendl, an animal welfare researcher in the veterinary school at the University of Bristol in England, was looking for an objective way to tell whether animals in captivity were suffering. Specifically, he wanted to be able to measure whether, and how much, disruptions in lab rats’ routines—being placed in an unfamiliar cage, say, or experiencing a change in the light/dark cycle of the room in which they were housed—were bumming them out.

He and his colleagues explicitly drew on an extensive literature in psychology that describes how people with mood disorders such as depression process information and make decisions: They tend to focus on and recall more negative events and to judge ambiguous things in a more negative way. You might say that they tend to see the proverbial glass as half-empty rather than half-full. “We thought that it’s easier to measure cognitive things than emotional ones, so we devised a test that would give us some indication of how animals responded under ambiguity,” Mendl says. “Then, we could use that as a proxy measure of the emotional state they were in.”

First, they trained rats to associate one tone with something positive (food, of course) and a different tone with something negative (hearing an unpleasant noise). They also trained them to press a lever upon hearing the good tone. Then, for the test, they’d play an intermediate tone and watch how the animals responded. Rats have great hearing, and the ones whose cage life wasn’t disturbed were pretty good judges of where the new tone fell between the other two sounds. If it was closer to the positive tone they’d hit the lever, and if it was closer to the negative one they’d lay off. But the ones whose routine had been tweaked over the past two weeks judged this auditory information more negatively. Essentially, their negative responses bled into the positive half of the sound continuum.

Since Mendl published his so-called judgment bias task in 2004, it’s been shown to work in at least 15 other species, including dogs, sheep, bees, and even us humans. Some scientists—himself included—have begun to ask whether there’s a role for it beyond animal welfare. Considering that it probes one of the core clinical measures of depression, could it be used to evaluate the efficacy of much-needed new medicines for that condition?

RAT FUNK: For years the pharmaceutical industry depended on the “forced swim test” to validate antidepressants. It showed rats given the drug would paddle longer in water before giving up than rats not doped.Frank Greenaway / Getty Images

Drug discovery in neuroscience has hit a wall, with just 1 in 10 drugs tested in the final stage of clinical trials reaching the finish line of approval. With very few exceptions, no new types of drugs for mind disorders have been approved for decades. You might think drugs fail because they’re found to be toxic, but most die in clinical trials because they aren’t shown to work. Trace that back to the root of the problem, and one big stumbling stone along the drug development pathway is the point where animal tests—and most are done in rodents—wrongly predicted they would.

“We have lots of experience with this—15 to 20 years of failure,” says Ricardo Dolmetsch, the global head of neuroscience at the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research. “I can name 14 or 15 examples [of tested drugs] that were just fantastic in animals and did not do anything at all in humans.”

Even as these failures have accrued, neuroscientists armed with increasingly potent tools for pinpointing the genes that play a role in psychiatric disorders and the brain circuits those genes control are getting closer to understanding the pathologies of these illnesses. As drug companies—which had largely abandoned or strongly curtailed their efforts in neuroscience and mental health over the past several years—begin to dip their toes back into the water, it seems a fitting time to ask whether modeling aspects of the human mind in rodents is even possible.

One word explains why testing neuropsychiatric drugs in animal models is hard, and that word is language. If we want people to tell us how they feel, we ask them. Animals, of course, have to show us—and it turns out some of our widely used methods for guiding them to do so haven’t been that great. That’s particularly true for depression. How do we know a rat is depressed?

An experiment called the “forced swim test” or “Porsolt test,” after its founder Roger Porsolt, has been widely used since the late 1970s, at least by pharmaceutical companies and drug regulators.

It’s a remarkable story. Before the mid 20th century, treatments for mental or psychiatric disorders consisted primarily of psychotherapy or interventions like sleep cures, insulin shock therapy, surgeries such as lobotomy, or electrical brain stimulation—most prominently, electroconvulsive therapy. Quite suddenly, spurred by the accidental discovery of an antipsychotic drug called chlorpromazine in 1952, these conditions were re-imagined as chemical imbalances that could be corrected with a well-designed pill…



Here’s All the Exercise Advice That Requires No Exercise

Illustration by Carly Jean Andrews

After all, working out can kill you

As a native son of L.A., I have a complicated relationship with exercise. Growing up in a city notorious for its driving culture, I, like most of my fellow purebreds, prefer to drive as little as one block rather than to walk the same distance. On the other hand, everyone here looks like they’ve just left the gym — a sort of citywide form of peer pressure to be in the best possible shape at all times.

So when I come across a study or article that tells me do less with my body, I can’t help but grin like a comic-book villain. And believe it or not, there are a lot of these kinds of studies out there. More than you would ever think, actually. Here are my six favorites:

1. Last week, TheNew York Times published an article that explained “Why You Shouldn’t Walk on Escalators.” Though walking on an escalator hardly counts as exercise, the author’s insistence on not even doing that made laziness endorphins flood my body. In an experiment done in 2015 at New York City’s Penn Station during the morning rush, researchers found that standing on both sides of an escalator reduced congestion by about 30 percent. Better yet, the “time in system” — or how long it took to stand in line to reach an escalator and then ride it — dropped sharply when everyone stood (not walked), according to a blog post by the researchers.

2. In 2015, Forbes published a piece that detailed the injury risks associated with high-intensity weights and nonstop pace workouts such as CrossFit. This makes sense considering that CrossFit’s founder, Greg Glassman, was quoted in a 2005 New York Times story as admitting “it can kill you.” At Vox, Julia Belluz cited several studies that “have revealed alarming trauma rates” among CrossFit athletes. “Of the 132 people who responded to the survey, 97 (or nearly three-quarters) reported getting hurt during CrossFit training, and most injuries involved the shoulders and spine. These respondents reported a total of 186 injuries; nine led to surgeries.” The obvious answer to these problems: Don’t do CrossFit.

3. Also in 2015, the Times covered a study that suggested frequent exercise causes “profound changes in cardiac physiology and structure.” These changes can mimic heart damage, with cardiac cells often becoming “leaky” after strenuous workouts or events, releasing proteins into the bloodstream that, in other circumstances, could indicate a heart attack. Again, my takeaway: No exercise = no heart attack.

4. In 2011, British researchers set out to study the heart health of a group of fit older athletes. The results, published a few weeks ago in The Journal of Applied Physiology, were rather disquieting. None of the younger athletes (or better still, the older nonathletes) had fibrosis in their hearts. But half of the older lifelong athletes showed some heart muscle scarring. The affected men were, in each case, those who’d trained the longest and hardest. In other words: Spending years exercising strenuously or completing more marathons was associated with a greater likelihood of heart damage…



Depression Now the Number 1 Worldwide Cause of Disease and Disability

by Alex Pietrowski, Staff Writer, Waking Times

Something is dreadfully wrong in the world when depression has become such a major cause of dis-ease. Even the most successful members of our society are plagued with this illness, and it has become so prevalent that it is now the number one cause of disease and disability in the world.

“According to the World Health Organization (WHO), depression is now the leading cause of ill health and disability worldwide,1,2 affecting an estimated 322 million people worldwide, including more than 16 million Americans. Globally, rates of depression increased by 18 percent between 2005 and 2015.3

According to the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health, 11 percent of Americans over the age of 12 are on antidepressant drugs. Among women in their 40 and 50s, 1 in 4 is on antidepressants.4

In addition to the human suffering, the financial impact of depression is also severe. WHO estimates the global economic loss by households, employers and governments is at least $1 trillion annually.

Depression is also strongly linked to an increased risk for substance abuse, diseases such as diabetes and heart disease, and suicide.” [Source]

These numbers only reflect cases of reported depression, suggesting that in actuality, the crisis may be much worse.

In the U.S., suicide rates are now at a 30 year high, coincidentally about 30 years after Prozac was pushed into the mainstream by Pfizer. This begs the question of whether or not the modern catch-all solution of antidepressants is helping this crisis or actually making it worse. Given that one of the known side-effects of antidepressants is an increase in risk for suicide, it would seem logical that taking psychotropic medications for emotional wellness is not the best solution.

While most doctors will tell you that medication is the best solution, the three primary causes of depression are known: poor diet, lack of sunlight, and spiritual anemia.

People today are suffering from a serious lack of connection to themselves and to the natural world, and as pharmaceutical companies push the boundaries of chemical remedies, a host of natural spiritual medicines that have been clinically proven to swiftly counter depression and anxiety are outlawed by the drug war state. Entheogens like ayahuasca and iboga are not welcome in our society, while psilocybin mushrooms are also illegal, all of which are helping people to overcome mental illness without developing expensive, long-term addictions to pharmaceuticals.

READ: The Difference Between My Psychiatrist and My Shaman

When such an epidemic as this grows to affect so many, it’s time to reevaluate our lifestyle and our treatment for it, yet this is increasingly difficult with the presence of a medical establishment which limits our understanding of depression while so willingly recommending pills as a convenient solution.

About the Author
Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for and Offgrid Outpost, a provider ofstorable food and emergency kits. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.
This article (Depression Now the Number 1 Worldwide Cause of Disease and Disability) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski and It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.