Despite President Trump’s Claims, a U.S. Nuclear Weapons Test Remains Unlikely

Posted on October 30, 2025 by

President Donald Trump made this announcement prior to his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

US President Donald Trump has announced his intention to recommence nuclear weapons testing after a ban lasting decades. However, researchers from New Scientist contend that these tests bear no scientific relevance, are largely symbolic, pose a threat to global tranquility, and are likely to provoke public backlash in America. Ultimately, while the chances of these tests occurring seem slim, the announcement itself carries potential risks.

In a recent statement, President Trump revealed a new policy, stating in a post on Truth Social, “It’s in response to actions by other nations.” [sic] He further directed the War Department to initiate nuclear weapon tests on an equivalent basis, set to commence immediately.

The announcement lacked clarity, leaving experts puzzled as no other nation has conducted nuclear bomb tests recently. While Russia has experimented with nuclear underwater drones and nuclear-capable missiles, none of these actions involved actual nuclear detonations.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, indications have surfaced that several nations are preparing their historic nuclear testing sites, whether genuinely intending to test again or merely using it as a political display. Significant upgrades are underway at a Chinese testing site in Xinjiang, a Russian site in the Arctic, and a US site in Nevada.

However, restarting nuclear tests would contravene decades of effective yet uneasy bans. The Limited Test Ban Treaty, signed in 1963 by the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union, prohibits testing these weapons in the atmosphere, on water, or in space, yet allows for underground tests. Subsequently, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was drafted in 1996, effectively halting underground nuclear tests, albeit without formal ratification.

[Since the first Trinity explosion in 1945 in the United States, over 2000 tests have been conducted until the CTBT’s drafting. India and Pakistan conducted several nuclear tests in 1998, while North Korea remains the sole nation to have tested nuclear weapons in the 21st century, with its last test occurring in 2017. The United States has refrained from nuclear testing since 1992.]

Considering this context, many experts express skepticism towards President Trump’s remarks. There is speculation regarding a desire to win the Nobel Peace Prize, as the United States would be the first global superpower to restart nuclear testing.

John Preston, a researcher at the University of Essex, suggests the president’s declaration may merely be “Trump rhetoric,” lacking any genuine intention of conducting a nuclear test, though warns that even such statements can have perilous implications. Historically, the Soviet Union and Russia have aimed to exert pressure that compels their adversaries to de-escalate activities.

Preston notes that during the Cold War, nuclear powers invested considerable time and resources in bringing in diverse experts to thoroughly comprehend how nuclear testing and proliferation could heighten conflict. Recently, however, this issue has drawn less attention and has become increasingly secretive.

“I’m concerned that the escalation ladder may not be fully understood within the policy and nuclear strategy communities,” Preston commented. “Science has already grasped the effects of nuclear weapons; there’s nothing new to discover. Thus, these tests are strictly symbolic and could lead us into an escalation we no longer effectively understand.”

Indeed, the likelihood of generating significant scientific findings from such tests seems remote. Current nuclear testing relies on highly accurate physical simulations conducted via massive supercomputers. The two most powerful public supercomputers globally are operated by the US government and are utilized to affirm the effectiveness of the US nuclear deterrent without actual testing.

Christoph Laucht, a professor at Swansea University in the UK, asserts that restarting tests would signify a regressive step at a precarious juncture in history. The New START Treaty is set to lapse on February 4, 2026. The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty puts the US and Russia in a situation where a formal nuclear treaty remains months away, with minimal prospects for a new agreement amidst the current tense global climate.

“There are genuine concerns that this could trigger a new form of nuclear arms race,” Laucht remarked. “We already possess a vast inventory of nuclear warheads, but we are reverting to a treaty environment reminiscent of the early Cold War, a time without arms limitation treaties.”

Laucht further warned that if one nation resumes testing, others may feel pressured to follow suit. Such testing could prompt protests from environmental activists, peace advocates, and communities near the Nevada test site, further straining an already divided United States.

Sarah Pozzi, a professor at the University of Michigan, argues that restarting nuclear testing would be illogical for the US. “Such actions would destabilize global affairs, incentivize other nations to resume their nuclear testing programs, and jeopardize decades of progress in nuclear arms control,” she stated. “Instead, the US should aspire to lead by example and bolster international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.”

Of course, there are various perspectives on the matter. In his typical style, President Trump has become fixated on cryptic, ambiguous social media posts that fail to convey the entire narrative.

Nick Ritchie, a researcher at the University of York in the UK, suggests that President Trump might merely be referring to testing nuclear delivery systems, such as missiles, rather than nuclear warheads themselves. Resuming warhead testing would likely necessitate years of planning, engineering, and political maneuvering beyond a single presidential term. However, if that is the case, it raises confusion because these delivery technologies are routinely tested alongside NATO allies.

“This is a quintessentially Trumpian method of discussing a variety of political matters, including potentially destabilizing and perilous issues like US nuclear weapons policy,” Ritchie observes. “While there remains a small chance of resuming actual testing preparations, I certainly have not seen any indications that this is on the horizon.”

Topic:

Source: www.newscientist.com

Should We Be Concerned About AI Developing Lethal Biological Weapons? Not Now, But Eventually.

Posted on October 2, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

AI can be utilized to synthesize the toxin lysine, which is also sourced from castor beans found in many gardens.

American Photo Archives/Alamy

Artificial intelligence holds the potential to revolutionize biology, enhancing the development of advanced drugs, vaccines, and even synthetic organisms that can, for instance, consume waste plastic. Nonetheless, there are concerns about its potential misuse in creating biological weapons that might evade traditional detection methods until it is too late. So, what level of concern is warranted?

“AI advancements are catalyzing breakthroughs in biology and medicine,” states Eric Horvitz, Chief Science Officer at Microsoft. “With these new capabilities comes the responsibility to remain vigilant.”

His research team explored whether AI could be utilized to design proteins that mimic the functions of known hazardous proteins while being distinct enough to avoid detection as dangerous. The specific proteins they attempted to redesign were not disclosed, although some research details were withheld, including toxins such as lysine, infamous for its role in a 1978 assassination, and botulinum, a potent neurotoxin known as Botox.

Creating numerous proteins akin to Botulinum requires a blueprint—the DNA that encodes it. Typically, if biologists need a specific DNA sequence, they order it from specialized companies.

Due to anxieties about bioterrorism, the option to order recipes for biological weapons exists through this method. Some DNA synthesis companies have voluntarily implemented screening processes to detect potentially hazardous orders. Proteins are essentially sequences of amino acids, and the screening examines whether the amino acid sequences correspond to a “sequence of concern,” meaning a biological threat.

However, AI theoretically enables the design of protein versions with altered amino acid sequences that still perform the same functions. Horvitz and his colleagues applied this approach to 72 potentially hazardous proteins and found that existing screening methods frequently overlooked these alternative variations.

This isn’t entirely unexpected. For a variety of reasons, the team did not physically create the redesigned proteins. Additionally, in a previous study conducted earlier this year, they tested a redesigned version of a non-toxic protein and determined that it did not function as intended, as detailed in their findings.

Moreover, while bioterrorist attacks have occurred, the frequency is low, and there’s limited reason to attribute this to a failed voluntary screening system. Numerous methods to circumvent regulations exist without resorting to AI redesign. For example, lysine can be harvested from castor oil plants found in many gardens. This study serves as a cautionary tale that great sophistication is not required to exploit gaps in security—much like in a scene from Mission Impossible, when a vault door remains wide open.

Lastly, apart from government-sponsored actions, historical records show that bioterrorists have rarely leveraged protein-based biological weapons effectively. For instance, the Aum Shinrikyo cult attempted to employ Botulinum for mass harm but ultimately relied on chemical agents. Letters laced with lysin sent to the White House failed to result in any fatalities. Based on casualty statistics, firearms and explosives pose significantly greater risks than biological toxins.

Does this imply we should cease our concerns over AI-generated biological weapons? Not at all. While Horvitz’s research focused strictly on proteins, viruses present a substantial threat. AI is already being leveraged to redesign entire viruses.

Recently, a team from Stanford University unveiled their attempt to redesign a virus that infects bacteria like E. coli. Consistent with findings from the protein redesign efforts, the results were underwhelming with respect to E. coli, but this is merely the beginning.

In discussions regarding AI-created viruses, James Diggans from DNA manufacturer Twist Bioscience, a member of Horvitz’s team, remarked that detecting viruses encoded with DNA is generally easier than finding proteins of concern. “Synthetic screening functions best with abundant data. Therefore, at the genomic level, it proves exceedingly beneficial.”

Nevertheless, not all DNA manufacturers are conducting such screening, and desktop DNA synthesis options are now accessible to the public. There are narratives of developers allegedly refusing to create harmful viruses or attempting to discern malicious intentions, yet individuals have discovered numerous ways to circumvent safeguards against creating bioweapons.

To clarify, history indicates that the threat posed by “wild” viruses is significantly higher than that of bioterrorism. Contrary to assertions from the current U.S. administration, evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 emerged as a result of a bat virus crossing over to other wildlife.

Moreover, the act of becoming a bioterrorist could inflict massive damage by merely releasing known viruses such as naturally occurring pathogens. There are substantial gaps in the Bioweapon Control efforts, thus reducing the need to rely on advanced AI techniques.

For all of these reasons, the risk of AI-engineered viruses being deployed is likely minimal at present. However, this risk increases as various technologies continue to improve. The COVID-19 pandemic has illustrated the chaos a new virus can unleash, even when it is not particularly harmful. Thus, there are justified reasons for concern.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Agency Among 400 Organizations Targeted by Chinese Hackers, Reports Microsoft

Posted on July 23, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

Microsoft has revealed that investigations are underway indicating that Chinese “threat actors,” including state-sponsored hackers, are taking advantage of security flaws in SharePoint’s document sharing servers, impacting numerous government agencies and organizations.

Eye Security, a Dutch cybersecurity firm, reported that hackers have compromised around 400 institutions, businesses, and other entities, stating, “We anticipate an increase as the investigation continues.”

The majority of the affected parties are located in the United States. Bloomberg noted that one of the victims was a US agency responsible for overseeing the National Nuclear Security Agency, which manages nuclear weapons. This agency was among those affected.

According to Microsoft, three groups have been identified utilizing Chinese state-backed techniques, with a focus on exploiting newly disclosed vulnerabilities in internet-facing servers hosting the platform.

This announcement coincides with reports from the financial sector that Amazon has halted artificial intelligence labs in Shanghai. Additionally, consultancy firm McKinsey reported that Chinese companies are withdrawing from AI-related projects as geopolitical tensions between Washington and Beijing escalate.

Recently, Microsoft and IBM have scaled back their research and development initiatives in China, with US officials intensifying scrutiny on American companies involved in AI within the country.

In a blog post, Microsoft stated that the vulnerability is associated with an on-premises SharePoint server commonly utilized by businesses, not a cloud-based service.

Numerous large organizations employ SharePoint as a platform for document storage and collaboration, integrating seamlessly with other Microsoft products like Office and Outlook.

Microsoft indicated that the attacks commenced as early as July 7th, with hackers attempting to leverage the vulnerability for “early access to the target organization.”

This vulnerability permits an attacker to spoof authentication credentials and remotely execute malicious code on the server. Microsoft observed an attack that sent requests to a SharePoint server, potentially “enabling the theft of key material.”

In response, Microsoft has released a security update and recommended that all users of on-premises SharePoint systems apply it. They cautioned that hacking groups are continuing to target these systems, which they rated as having “high confidence” in terms of vulnerability.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Eye Security reported in a press release that “anomalous activity” was detected on a client’s on-premises SharePoint Server on the evening of July 18th. They subsequently scanned over 8,000 publicly accessible SharePoint servers across the globe, discovering numerous compromised systems and confirming that attackers were executing a coordinated mass exploitation campaign.

Microsoft stated that the linen typhoon has been focused on “intellectual property theft” since 2012, with primary targets including government, defense, strategic planning, and human rights-related organizations.

Since 2015, the Violet Typhoon has predominantly targeted former government and military personnel, NGOs, think tanks, academia, digital and print media, and sectors related to finance and health in the US, Europe, and East Asia.

Microsoft mentioned a third group, Storm-2603, which is situated in China, though no direct connection has been established between this group and other Chinese threat actors. They warned that “additional actors” could exploit the vulnerability to target on-premises SharePoint systems unless security updates are installed.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Why Weapons Experts Warn That Trump’s $175 Billion “Golden Dome” Could Lead to Disaster

Posted on May 23, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

On May 20, 2025, Donald Trump unveiled the Golden Dome, marking one of the most ambitious and contentious defense projects in US history.

The $175 billion initiative that Trump aims to implement before his term ends in January 2029 seeks to establish a comprehensive missile defense system designed to guard the United States against nuclear threats, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and advanced weaponry.

Inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome, the proposal envisions a global network of both terrestrial and space-based detectors and interceptors, enabling the destruction of enemy missiles in the atmosphere before they reach US soil.

While the administration has yet to clarify the operational details, critics argue that the concept is not only impractical but could also foster dangerous instability.

A New Era for Space

“The Golden Dome is reminiscent of a rebranded Strategic Defense Initiative,” says Dr. Michael Mulbihill, a researcher at Teesside University specializing in the geopolitical and technical ramifications of space weaponization. BBC Science Focus. “There are numerous political dynamics at play.”

The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), proposed by President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, aimed to create a US missile defense system using lasers, satellites, and other space-based technologies to intercept incoming Soviet missiles. Eventually, the project was abandoned due to concerns over its technical feasibility and astronomical costs.

Critics warn that the Golden Dome could revive similar flawed thinking, leading to severe ramifications for space security.

Although space has historically supported military operations through satellites for tracking, communication, and navigation, it hasn’t typically been viewed as a battlefield. In fact, the Outer Space Treaty explicitly prohibits the use of outer space for hostile purposes.

However, the Golden Dome might change that paradigm.

“This initiative could serve as a catalyst for the weaponization of space, prompting the development of various systems that have emerged in recent years,” warns Mulvihill.

The concern isn’t solely about US weapons in orbit; it extends to potential responses from other nations, such as Russia, raising the specter of an extensive orbital arms race.

Fueling an Arms Race

Critics like Mulvihill underscore that space-based missile shields could ultimately backfire, making the world less safe. The logic is straightforward: if one side creates a defense system capable of intercepting missiles, the opposing side is likely to retaliate by increasing its missile arsenal to overwhelm those defenses.

“This has been a consistent issue with anti-ballistic missile systems,” Mulvihill points out. “They can be overloaded, as seen in the 1960s and ’70s when both the US and USSR significantly increased their warhead counts.”

All defense systems come with inherent limitations. The Cold War taught us that the goal is often to amass enough warheads to ensure that at least some can reach their targets.

According to Mulbihill, the Golden Dome poses a risk of repeating this cycle on an even larger scale.

read more:

Low Earth Orbit: A Crowded Space

Implementing the Golden Dome would require thousands of new satellites. This space component could involve Starlink-like megaconstellations equipped with interceptor missiles to target ICBMs during the initial launch phase.

That isn’t just ambitious—it’s hazardous.

A 2024 study published in Nature’s Sustainability estimated that there could be over 100,000 low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellites by 2034. According to NASA, there are already more than 25,000 objects greater than 10cm in size, along with approximately 500,000 smaller fragments.

Even in the absence of weapons, navigation in space is becoming increasingly challenging. The addition of thousands of military satellites could dramatically heighten the risk of collisions and debris.

“If one of these interceptors malfunctions or detonates, it doesn’t just result in the loss of a single satellite; it can render entire orbits unusable for years,” warns Mulvihill.

He provides a stark analogy: “In naval warfare, when a ship sinks, the battlefield is abandoned. In space, the debris remains, circling the Earth at incredibly high speeds.”

A rocket launched from Gaza is intercepted on October 9, 2023, by the Israeli Iron Dome near Ashkelon, Israel.

Is the Golden Dome Feasible?

In addition to the geopolitical and environmental concerns, the Golden Dome faces fundamental operational challenges that could hinder its effectiveness.

While it may be capable of intercepting slower threats such as drones and short-range missiles, the difficulties presented by ICBMs are significantly greater.

“Interdicting an ICBM during its boost phase is extraordinarily challenging,” says Mulvihill. “Those missiles are launched from locations that could include central China or central Russia.”

To achieve global coverage within such a limited window, a tremendous number of space-based interceptors would be necessary.

According to a February 2025 Report from the American Physical Society (APS), over 1,000 orbital weapons would be essential to intercept even North Korean ICBMs during their boost phase. For 10 missiles launched in quick succession, around 10,000 interceptors would be required.

The costs entailed would be astronomical, and vulnerability to anti-satellite attacks from countries like Russia adds another layer of complexity. Reports suggest that such developments pose severe risks.

The APS report concludes with cautionary insight: “Even relatively modest numbers of nuclear-armed ICBMs present substantial challenges for creating reliable and effective defenses.”

“An extensive review of published literature highlights that many key challenges identified in developing and deploying efficient ballistic missile defenses are likely to remain unresolved beyond the 15-year timeframe we studied.”

Not Just Another Iron Dome

While the Golden Dome draws its name and inspiration from Israel’s Iron Dome, the comparison is misleading.

“People tend to focus on the success of the Israeli Iron Dome, but we must remember that it’s designed to protect against much lower-altitude projectiles and even some handheld rockets,” asserts Mulvihill. “ICBMs operate in an entirely different arena.”

Despite the ambitious plans for the Golden Dome, Mulvihill remains doubtful about its viability as a serious defense mechanism.

“It seems more like a spectacle fueled by political motives and opportunism from the aerospace industry,” he concludes.

About Our Experts

Michael Mulbihill is a researcher at Teesside University focused on sociotechnical and astrophysical phenomena stemming from nuclear deterrence and space technology. He also serves as the deputy convener for the Military War and Security Research Group and is a member of the Space Cooperative Working Group of the British Association for International Studies.

read more:

Source: www.sciencefocus.com

Insulin Killings: How Murder Weapons Conceal Themselves Through Appearance

Posted on April 26, 2025 by Igor Mitreski

When life-saving medications like insulin are misused as instruments of murder, medical professionals might struggle to accept that this subtle form of drug therapy could be weaponized, forensic pathologists suggest. A recent case in West Virginia led to a pharmacist being convicted for fatally administering insulin to her husband.

Dr. Paul Uribe, a former military pathologist who consulted nationwide and assisted in solving a series of insulin-related murders at a veteran hospital in West Virginia, noted to NBC News that there are insufficient protocols to guide pathologists and emergency room doctors in effectively managing such cases.

“You’re not going to accidentally stumble upon an insulin murder,” Uribe remarked. “You must have a suspect and actively search for it; if you’re not investigating, you won’t discover it.”

For more information on the West Virginia case, tune in to “Devil’s in the Detailing” on “Dateline” tonight at 9 ET/8 CT on April 25th.

While these crimes are uncommon, Uribe highlighted an alarming increase in related incidents across the U.S. In Pennsylvania, several nurses confessed to attempting to murder 19 patients using insulin across five facilities between 2020 and 2023, resulting in 17 fatalities. Additionally, at the West Virginia Veterans Hospital, nurses confessed to killing seven patients with insulin in 2021.

Uribe pointed out that no state has officially established protocols for emergency room physicians and medical inspectors regarding insulin-related cases, noting that only West Virginia has attempted to address this significant oversight. Legislation introduced this year aims to obligate emergency rooms to test for insulin in patients exhibiting symptoms of insulin poisoning.

Jonathan Jones, former president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine, expressed concerns regarding insulin overdoses but asserted that health care should not be legislated.

“The best medical care is delivered by well-educated, trained, and board-certified physicians, not legislators,” he stated in an email to NBC News. “We are committed to continuous medical education regarding this issue and support the standards for specialist physicians, but we oppose mandatory treatment directives.”

He declined to comment on whether emergency rooms should adopt stricter guidelines.

When asked if forensic pathologists need improved protocols, Reade Quinton, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, replied, “I’m not sure that’s the right question. What medical examiners require is access to field information, witness statements, and medical records without obstruction.”

Michael and Natalie Cochran.Dateline

The chief sponsor of the West Virginia bill did not respond to requests for comment. Nevertheless, the parents of Michael Cochran, after whom the bill is named, believe this legislation could serve as a model for the nation and help others avoid the painful search for answers they endured for years.

“They shouldn’t have to wait for answers as we did,” remarked Cochran’s mother, Donna Bolt, to Dateline. “Six years.”

Seven deceased patients at VA Hospital

Uribe’s investigation into insulin-related murders began at the Veterans Hospital in Clarksburg, West Virginia, where he was tasked with examining a series of mysterious deaths among elderly patients in late 2018.

These occurrences can result from excessive insulin doses, which regulate blood glucose levels in diabetic patients.

Some veterans were diabetic, Uribe recalled, while others were not. He was requested to uncover a definitive piece of evidence that could confirm insulin as the murder weapon.

For emergency room doctors and pathologists, he noted, identifying such cases is complicated due to insulin’s rapid metabolism. The “C-peptide” test referenced in West Virginia law can detect insulin, but timing is crucial. It must be conducted before any treatment interventions for hypoglycemia are started.

“If glucose is administered, it triggers the body’s natural insulin release, negating the C-peptide measurement,” he explained.

Furthermore, many small hospitals lack access to these specific tests.

Uribe described two primary methods for pathologists to detect insulin. One prevalent method involves injection, which may leave temporary traces in body tissues at the injection site. Insulin can also be found in postmortem vitreous fluid from the eye, he noted.

In West Virginia, testing of tissue samples from seven veterans’ remains revealed trace amounts of insulin in some victims, including those without diabetes or any prior prescriptions for the drug.

“This provided conclusive evidence that they had been injected with insulin,” he stated.

W.VA.West Virginia Regional Prisons and Correctional Facility Authority via AP Files

Nursing assistant Letta Mays was later identified as the prime suspect in this case. She confessed to administering a lethal dose of insulin, pleaded guilty to seven counts of second-degree murder and one count of assault with intent to murder concerning the death of an eighth man. Mays was sentenced to seven life terms.

Deadly dose from a pharmacist

In Uribe’s subsequent case, pharmacist Natalie Cochran was convicted in January for giving her husband a lethal dose of drugs amid a conspiracy to cover up millions in fraudulent activities involving friends and relatives.

Resolving this case took several years.

In February 2019, Michael Cochran was found unresponsive and later transitioned from a ventilator to hospice care at the age of 38. His death certificate classified his cause of death as “natural.”

Michael Cochran’s hospital records indicated that upon admission, his blood sugar levels were dangerously low, despite his lack of any diabetes history, Uribe informed. Unfortunately, insulin testing was not conducted at that time.

Still, West Virginia State Police detective Tim Bledsoe suspected Natalie Cochran’s involvement in her husband’s demise. During a search of her home, a partially used vial of insulin was discovered in the refrigerator.

When Bledsoe questioned Natalie about the vial, she claimed it was meant for her neighbor’s diabetic son. However, the neighbor, Jennifer Davis, contradicted this, stating that Natalie had asked for insulin for herself to aid recovery from a fake cancer diagnosis that prosecutors argued she later fabricated.

Davis recalled that Natalie requested insulin the same morning Michael first became ill.

Two years after Michael Cochran’s death, his wife was charged with murder. An autopsy commenced seven months after his passing, but by then, his body was significantly decomposed, leading medical inspectors to classify the cause of death as undetermined, according to Bledsoe.

The timeline regarding the autopsy’s delay and whether insulin testing was conducted post-mortem remains unclear. The West Virginia Department of Health and the Office of Personnel, which oversees medical examinations, did not respond to inquiries.

Uribe expressed skepticism that any post-mortem evidence of insulin could have been retrieved given the elapsed time between Michael’s drug administration and his death.

The inconclusive findings, combined with the absence of concrete evidence, led the Raleigh County District Attorney to lower the charges, according to Tom Truman, the current prosecutor.

“If you lack a medical examiner advocating murder, that’s a significant concern,” he remarked to Dateline.

Re-examination yields clarity

However, two years later, the fees were re-evaluated after Uribe was invited to investigate further. During the new autopsy and examination, Uribe searched for potential injection marks, but by this time, Michael’s body had severely deteriorated, preventing any tests from being taken.

Nonetheless, Uribe noted that potential explanations for Michael Cochran’s hypoglycemia, such as infections and severe sepsis, were not documented in his medical records. Considering the circumstances surrounding his death, Uribe classified it as an insulin murder.

During the trial, the endocrinologist who testified for the prosecution conceded that there was no clear explanation for Michael Cochran’s low blood sugar levels.

Natalie Cochran’s defense attorneys acknowledged her involvement in fraudulent activities with various associates, whereby she also pleaded guilty to a separate federal fraud and money laundering case; however, they insisted that she was innocent of her husband’s death.

On January 29th, following two hours of deliberation, the jury found Natalie Cochran guilty of first-degree murder. She received a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

For Uribe, this case, alongside others at the Veterans Hospital, underscores an urgent need for improved insulin overdose protocols.

Such protocols could assist physicians in recognizing red flags like unexplained hypokalemia, which arises from critically low blood sugar levels in non-diabetic patients or from fatal excessive insulin use.

Additionally, he emphasized the need for C-peptide testing to be done prior to any treatment.

Pathologists should look for potential injection sites and conduct vitreous humor tests, he advised.

“If insulin can be detected in the vitreous fluid of someone with no history of diabetes or prior prescriptions, it could substantiate a case,” he concluded.

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Unanswered Questions Surrounding Putin’s Plans for Russian Nuclear Weapons in Space, Says Intel

Posted on February 15, 2024 by Igor Mitreski

Despite its recent emergence, these technologies and concepts are not new.

The United States and the Soviet Union developed and tested anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) during the Cold War. Both nations also regularly utilized nuclear power in space.

As early as 1959, the United States initiated the development of anti-satellite missiles due to concerns about Soviet efforts to do the same. This led to a 1985 test launch by an F-15 fighter jet, which successfully destroyed a satellite by ejecting its payload at an altitude of 36,000 feet and hissing into orbit, carrying a deteriorating U.S. aircraft, according to the U.S. Air Force Museum.

A paper published by the Air Force’s Air University Press in 2000 stated that from 1969 to 1975, the U.S. government developed an anti-satellite system using existing nuclear missiles in “direct ascent” mode to destroy space targets.

In addition to nuclear weapons, the U.S. government placed its first nuclear-powered satellite into orbit in 1961. The Soviet Union similarly developed and deployed comparable technology that powered many satellites during that period.

History has demonstrated that these developments are not without risks. In 1978, a Soviet nuclear-powered satellite malfunctioned and fell from the sky, spreading radioactive debris over northern Canada.

However, what has not yet been publicly revealed is the existence of a Russian nuclear-powered satellite carrying weapons.

According to a 2019 technical essay published in The Space Review, nuclear-fueled satellites equipped with powerful jammers that can block communications and other signals over large areas for extended periods may be installed. Experts have responded to this week’s news.

Bowen, of the University of Leicester, stated that such a design would be “very expensive” and “waiting for something to go wrong could create a nuclear environmental disaster in orbit.”

Ultimately, while none of this technology is new, the actual implementation would certainly be considered an escalation, according to Bowen and Bugerin.

Some have questioned whether the disclosure is purely political in nature, rather than a military threat.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskovin suggested that the White House’s actions may be an attempt to manipulate Congress to vote on a funding bill that would provide new aid to Ukraine. He raised the possibility of a diversionary tactic from the other side.

Francesca Giovannini, executive director of the Atomic Stewardship Project at Harvard Kennedy School, noted that “Russia has long been attempting to develop weapons in space,” indicating potential misinformation or diversion tactics being employed.