logo
Behind History's Icons III: Van Gogh's Bloody Ear Mystery

Behind History's Icons III: Van Gogh's Bloody Ear Mystery

Medscapea day ago

Ancient Egyptians believed that mummifying a king's body ensured his ascent among the gods. The preserved corpse — called the Ach (Egyptian for 'shining' or 'spirit') — entered a sarcophagus symbolizing the womb of Nut, the sky goddess.
The belief in the enduring power of human remains has recurred throughout history. In early Christianity, Western Europe venerated the relics of saints, including Christ's foreskin and John the Baptist's skull. By the 19th century, European physicians had begun to preserve and study organs from notable individuals.
From strands of Muhammad's beard to Adolf Hitler's jaw and Buddha's teeth, this series offers an overview of the most famous human body parts in human history. Part III focuses on Vincent van Gogh's ear.
Unexpected Gift
In 1889, 22-year-old French intern Félix Rey (1867-1932) received an unusual gift from one of his former patients, a mentally ill painter named Vincent Willem van Gogh (1853-1890), had sent him a painting depicting Rey himself. Rey appreciated his patient's efforts but could not relate to his painting style.
He considered the portrait unrealistic. It did not do justice to his natural appearance. So, he gave the painting to his mother. She called it hideous and ridiculous and used it from then on to cover a hole in the family's chicken coop. An art connoisseur soon bought the disgrace at a ridiculous price.
By 2016, the painting — now in Moscow's Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts — was valued at US $50 million (then €45 million), roughly US $66.7 million (€58.6 million) in 2025. Had Rey retained it, his descendants would have been financially secure for generations.
However, such mental exercise misunderstands the context in which Rey accepted the gift. He had a good reason to be skeptical of van Gogh's gesture of gratitude, given that it was the news of an even more unusual gift that had brought them together a year earlier.
Self-Inflicted Injury
On Christmas Eve, 1888, in Arles. As a 21-year-old medical intern most closely equivalent to today's junior doctor, Rey was on duty at Hôtel-Dieu, Paris, despite the holiday when the police brought in a man who had cut off his ear the previous night to present it to an 18-year-old prostitute.
The story fascinated and horrified Rey at the same time. However, there was no time to take a medical history — a potentially life-threatening injury had to be treated. He quickly sketched the relevant anatomy, both to guide the procedure and prepare for police questions. With tunnel vision, the wound was cleaned and bandaged.
Over the following week, Rey closely observed his patient and was concerned about the risk of major hemorrhage or infection. During this time, he witnessed several of what were described as van Gogh's 'crises.' These episodes reminded him of a condition in which one of his former classmates had studied for his doctoral thesis, masked epilepsy.
The symptoms of this condition had been described as early as 1860 by French psychiatrist Bénédict Augustin Morel (1809-1873), whose work formed the basis of Rey's colleague's dissertation: 'Under the term 'masked epilepsy,' I described a form of epilepsy not marked by typical seizures — neither minor nor major — but instead by the accompanying or preceding symptoms of epileptic attacks: Alternating periods of excitement and depression; manifestations of sudden anger without sufficient cause and for the most trivial reasons; a usually highly irritable disposition; amnesia typical of epilepsy; and dangerous acts committed during momentary or transient fits of anger. Some people with epilepsy of this type have even experienced genuine auditory and visual hallucinations.'
Rey believed he observed all these symptoms during van Gogh's case. For the first time, he diagnosed the artist with epilepsy, finally giving a name to his suffering.
Van Gogh would later express deep gratitude for Rey's diagnosis and care in letters to his brother and patron, Theo van Gogh (1857-1891): '[Rey] is brave, hardworking, and always helping people,' he wrote.
Before presenting one of his paintings to Rey, van Gogh asked Theo to send the doctor a copy of 'The Anatomy Lesson of Dr Tulp' by Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669).
Clinical Viewpoint
However, for Rey, van Gogh remained only one among many patients. He interpreted van Gogh's intense emotions less as expressions of personal feelings and more as clinical symptoms. The mystery surrounding the events of Christmas Eve in 1888 reinforced this perspective.
On December 30, 1888, Rey wrote: 'When I tried to get [van Gogh] to talk about the motive that drove him to cut off his ear, he replied that it was a purely personal matter.'
Centuries later, researchers found evidence that van Gogh's silence might not have served only to protect himself.
Lifelong Guilt
Historians now generally agree that the incident on Christmas Eve, 1888, followed a heated argument between van Gogh and his roommate Eugène-Henri-Paul Gauguin (1848-1903). That September, van Gogh had moved into a house in Arles with the goal of establishing a shared workspace for modern artists — a dream he called 'Atelier des Suds.'
Although he invited several artists, only Gauguin accepted, on the condition that Theo fund his travel and a monthly stipend.
Vincent agreed to share both Theo's allowance of 150 francs and his home with Gauguin. However, their differences quickly became evident.
Gauguin, pragmatic and strategic, saw the partnership as a potential source of income. For van Gogh, this was a way to pursue an artistic ideal and prove himself in a competitive art world.
Shortly before Gauguin's arrival, van Gogh painted nonstop for days, mostly sunflowers. He wanted to express his joy at the approaching meeting and impress his rival as he entered.
Conversations about money were a greater burden on van Gogh than average, as he always felt indebted to his brother Theo, who was 4 years younger than him and supported him despite his lack of success.
In a letter to Vincent soon after Gauguin arrived, Theo addressed his brother's worries: 'I am very pleased that Gauguin is with you...[...] Now, in your letter, I see that you are ill and worried a lot. I must tell you something, once and for all. [...] You speak of the money you owe and want to return to me. I do not know that. What I want you to achieve is that you should never have to worry. I am forced to work for money.'
Artistic Differences
The argument between Gauguin and van Gogh on the evening of December 23, 1888, was shaped by the strained dynamics among the three men. Gauguin was increasingly frustrated by the lack of success at the Southern studio, while Theo van Gogh had recently fallen in love with Johanna Gezina Bonger (1862-1925), sister of family friend and art dealer Andries Bonger (1861-1936). Vincent van Gogh feared that both Gauguin and Theo might soon abandon him.
According to newspaper reports, van Gogh lost an ear around 11:30 PM that night.
About 15 years later, Gauguin claimed that van Gogh had assaulted him several times during their collaboration. On the night before the infamous incident, Gauguin said that he stepped out of the studio for some air and was chased by van Gogh, who allegedly attacked him with a razor. For unknown reasons, van Gogh changed his mind and cut off his ears.
Historical Debate and Brothel Mystery
What is historically verified is that Gauguin left Arles abruptly on the night of December 23, 1888, and never returned to van Gogh. Records also show that during his first day in the hospital, van Gogh repeatedly asked about Gauguin's whereabouts. Gauguin had earlier instructed the police to politely turn van Gogh away if he came looking for him.
Art historian Martin Bailey suggested a different version of events: That Gauguin was provoked by van Gogh and cut off his ear with a sword. To avoid prosecution, Gauguin allegedly spread false claims and fled the city.
Another mystery remains — why van Gogh took his severed ear to a brothel. He reportedly gave it to his favorite prostitute, Rachel, telling her to take good care of it. She fainted on the spot.
It is now known that Rachel's real name was Gabrielle Berlatier. She was 18 years old at the time, heavily in debt due to medical expenses, and worked for years as a cleaner at the Café de la Gare, a place often visited by van Gogh.
Some biographers believe that after mutilating himself, van Gogh returned to his studio, where he began to hear voices. Possibly following their commands, he took his ear to the brothel and gave it to Gabrielle.
The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam supports Gauguin's version of the events of December 23, 1888. Bailey's theory that van Gogh lost his ear due to Gauguin's sword is considered highly controversial.
Another debated theory appears in a book by art historian Bernadette Murphy. Based on conversations with Berlatier's descendants, she concluded that Gabrielle worked only as a janitor at the brothel.
It was confirmed that Berlatier had suffered from rabies, which left her with severe scarring. Murphy speculates that van Gogh, moved by compassion, gave her his own ear as an offering or gesture of empathy.
Whether the gift consisted of just the earlobe or the entire ear remained uncertain until 2016. Resurfaced drawings by Rey documenting the mutilation show that the entire ear was missing. Art critic Sidney Geist speculates that Jo Bonger may have spread conflicting narratives after her marriage to Theo van Gogh in order to improve the family image.
Dual Realities
The life of one of history's most celebrated artists was so complex and layered that it blurs the line between illness and health, madness and genius — simply different perspectives on the same truth.
Read the previous parts of the series.
• Part II: Behind History's Icons II: Hitler's Jaw and Cold War Secrets.
• Part I: Behind History's Icons: Napoleon and His Notorious Anatomy.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Cat Returned to Shelter for Being Too Needy—Then Everything Changed
Cat Returned to Shelter for Being Too Needy—Then Everything Changed

Newsweek

time15 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Cat Returned to Shelter for Being Too Needy—Then Everything Changed

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A 7-year-old cat named Art has finally found his forever home after being returned to shelter for being "too needy." Art first arrived at the shelter in California after being found alone in Altadena following the Eaton Fire in January, a spokesperson for the Pasadena Humane, Kevin McManus, told Newsweek. "We suspected that he was an outdoor community cat, but no one came forward to reclaim him. While he was here, he interacted with our volunteers positively, but would occasionally give indications that he was a little nervous with people," McManus said. Art was eventually adopted by an experienced cat owner seeking a chilled-out lap companion, and although the cat did show his sweet side to her, she couldn't deal with his behavior when overstimulated, and decided to take him back to shelter. "He would sometimes play bite or swat at the adopter. She was concerned that she was not the right person for him, and, quite frankly, this was a wise decision as he ultimately (accidentally) bit her to the point of drawing blood," McManus said. So Pasadena Humane took to Facebook to help Art find a better match for his affectionate and playful energy. "If you're looking for a Velcro kitty who always wants to be the center of attention (and will show off his perfectly fluffy belly to make sure that happens), seven-year-old Art is probably the cat for you!" Pasadena Humane said in a post shared on Friday. After the message went viral, Art the cat was quickly adopted by another very experienced family looking to add a new feline to their home. "[They] had a feisty cat previously, so his behavior did not faze them," McManus said. While Art was lucky enough to find a family willing to give him a chance, for many other felines in shelter things don't always go this way. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says that, of the 2.9 million cats that entered U.S. shelters in 2024, about 2.2 million were adopted, 362,000 were returned to their owner or the field, 369,000 were transferred to other organizations, and 273,000 were euthanized. The majority of animals in shelter, about 60 percent, enter as stray; however, almost 30 percent are surrendered by owners who can no longer care for them. An image shared by Pasadena Humane shows Art lying on a bed of towels. An image shared by Pasadena Humane shows Art lying on a bed of towels. @pasadenahumane The video quickly went viral on social media and has so far received over 21,000 likes and 1,900 comments on the platform. One user, Myra Austin Cochran, commented: "Who turns in a cat for 'being too needy?" Lakin Danielle Sizemore posted: "How could a person return him for being too needy? THEY ARE NOT A TRUE CAT PERSON! Because … I beg for my cats to come snuggle with me and they ignore me." Tina Banks added: "A pet that loves you, and loves to be near you and show affection? how hard that must have been for them. Maybe they should just get a pet rock instead." Do you have funny and adorable videos or pictures of your pet you want to share? Send them to life@ with some details about your best friend, and they could appear in our Pet of the Week lineup.

What's is happening to oceans
What's is happening to oceans

Forbes

time19 hours ago

  • Forbes

What's is happening to oceans

World leaders have gathered this week for the United Nations Ocean Conference in Nice, France. The UN Ocean Conference takes place every three years. It plays a vital role in bringing together governments, civil society, businesses, and scientists to build momentum for the flow of finances, partnerships, and global commitments. The conference will support the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development. If you've seen the movie Oceans by David Attenborough, you might have some idea of the issues facing our oceans. But for those who haven't, this article offers a helpful introduction. Oceans are our planet's 'blue heart'— to borrow the words from UN Secretary-General's opening speech at this week's conference, so their health is vital. One reason for the poor state of the oceans is that they have not received enough attention. For instance, they are radically underfunded, receiving only 1% of climate finance. With so many topics about oceans being discussed in the media, those new to the topic might wonder where to start to stay informed. After all, ocean issues can involve sophisticated terminology that may make newcomers hesitant to follow along. Here are three words you should know this week to simplify your understanding of the issues. Over 90% of global fish stocks are affected by overfishing. While the word overfishing may sound self-explanatory, the nuance is essential: overfishing relative to what? Overfishing refers to a state where more fish are caught than can be sustainably replaced through natural reproduction in marine ecosystems. Such unsustainable fishing impacts biodiversity and ecosystem health and has serious social and economic consequences, especially for local communities. In many developing countries, fish are integral to livelihoods and food security. A study published in Nature last year found that many fishermen in Bangladesh are considering changing professions as their incomes continue to fall. The researchers surveyed and interviewed 100 fishermen. Although Bangladesh has over 1.7 million fishermen across 64 districts, the findings still capture an underrepresented group rarely reflected in scientific literature. Government subsidies are a major driver of overfishing. In 2018, about $35 billion was provided in global fisheries subsidies—surprisingly, nearly 80% of that went to large-scale industrial fishing operations rather than small-scale fishers. While these subsidies are often justified by the employment generated in the large-scale fishing economy, the broader environmental and social costs are turning out to be much higher. A significant step came in 2022 when countries adopted the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies. However, it has yet to come into force, as two-thirds of WTO members must ratify it. Experts at the FAIRR Initiative—an investor network raising awareness about the material risks and opportunities in the global food sector—argue that the treaty falls short, as it doesn't sufficiently limit subsidies that reduce operating costs like fuel used, which disproportionately benefit large vessels and incentivize overfishing. Bottom trawling is an industrial fishing method that involves dragging large nets along the sea floor. These nets, often weighing several tonnes, are attached to heavy metal gear and indiscriminately scoop up all marine life in their path. Even Marine Protected Areas are not spared. Based on satellite data analysis, over 20,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling occurred in United Kingdon's MPAs last year. Of the 377 the country controls, only 37 are fully protected from bottom trawling — mainly because they include ecologically sensitive features such as coral reefs, qualifying them for exclusion. It's important not to assume that all vessels involved in bottom trawling are from the UK; they also come from countries like France, and a small share of vessels from other countries. Earlier this week, the UK proposed banning bottom trawling in vulnerable marine habitats. However, even when marine areas are designated as protected, weak enforcement often allows these destructive practices to continue. Much of the fish caught through bottom trawling is discarded. These unintended catches — called bycatch — are not the target species and are thrown overboard. Reports from communities near bottom-trawling zones estimate that millions of pounds of fish are wasted as bycatch each year. While these fish may not matter to industrial fishing vessels, they represent lost food and income for local communities. About one in five fish is caught illegally or goes unreported. Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing causes losses of $10–23.5 billion annually. IUU exists due to weak monitoring systems, which experts call a lack of seafood traceability. The seafood supply chain involves multiple actors, fish species, vessel types, and fragmented management, making it hard to verify where fish are sourced. Last year, groups, including the FAIRR Initiative, WWF, and UNEP FI, began engaging with investors to encourage major seafood companies to adopt full-chain digital traceability systems. The first phase of this engagement that ended this month with a progress report found that only two out of seven assessed companies had robust traceability commitments—and even these often applied to only one type of fish or did not cover the whole supply chain. Much more needs to be done in this space, but at least these issues are no longer happening in the shadows—that is something to rejoice about. One big thing to expect from the Oceans Conference is a political declaration that will kickstart a new wave of action and solutions for our marine ecosystems. The momentum the world is building gives reason to believe that the future of our oceans will not be colorless, as depicted in David Attenborough's Oceans film after trawlers destroy the seabed but bright, full of life and bursting with colors.

Behind History's Icons III: Van Gogh's Bloody Ear Mystery
Behind History's Icons III: Van Gogh's Bloody Ear Mystery

Medscape

timea day ago

  • Medscape

Behind History's Icons III: Van Gogh's Bloody Ear Mystery

Ancient Egyptians believed that mummifying a king's body ensured his ascent among the gods. The preserved corpse — called the Ach (Egyptian for 'shining' or 'spirit') — entered a sarcophagus symbolizing the womb of Nut, the sky goddess. The belief in the enduring power of human remains has recurred throughout history. In early Christianity, Western Europe venerated the relics of saints, including Christ's foreskin and John the Baptist's skull. By the 19th century, European physicians had begun to preserve and study organs from notable individuals. From strands of Muhammad's beard to Adolf Hitler's jaw and Buddha's teeth, this series offers an overview of the most famous human body parts in human history. Part III focuses on Vincent van Gogh's ear. Unexpected Gift In 1889, 22-year-old French intern Félix Rey (1867-1932) received an unusual gift from one of his former patients, a mentally ill painter named Vincent Willem van Gogh (1853-1890), had sent him a painting depicting Rey himself. Rey appreciated his patient's efforts but could not relate to his painting style. He considered the portrait unrealistic. It did not do justice to his natural appearance. So, he gave the painting to his mother. She called it hideous and ridiculous and used it from then on to cover a hole in the family's chicken coop. An art connoisseur soon bought the disgrace at a ridiculous price. By 2016, the painting — now in Moscow's Pushkin State Museum of Fine Arts — was valued at US $50 million (then €45 million), roughly US $66.7 million (€58.6 million) in 2025. Had Rey retained it, his descendants would have been financially secure for generations. However, such mental exercise misunderstands the context in which Rey accepted the gift. He had a good reason to be skeptical of van Gogh's gesture of gratitude, given that it was the news of an even more unusual gift that had brought them together a year earlier. Self-Inflicted Injury On Christmas Eve, 1888, in Arles. As a 21-year-old medical intern most closely equivalent to today's junior doctor, Rey was on duty at Hôtel-Dieu, Paris, despite the holiday when the police brought in a man who had cut off his ear the previous night to present it to an 18-year-old prostitute. The story fascinated and horrified Rey at the same time. However, there was no time to take a medical history — a potentially life-threatening injury had to be treated. He quickly sketched the relevant anatomy, both to guide the procedure and prepare for police questions. With tunnel vision, the wound was cleaned and bandaged. Over the following week, Rey closely observed his patient and was concerned about the risk of major hemorrhage or infection. During this time, he witnessed several of what were described as van Gogh's 'crises.' These episodes reminded him of a condition in which one of his former classmates had studied for his doctoral thesis, masked epilepsy. The symptoms of this condition had been described as early as 1860 by French psychiatrist Bénédict Augustin Morel (1809-1873), whose work formed the basis of Rey's colleague's dissertation: 'Under the term 'masked epilepsy,' I described a form of epilepsy not marked by typical seizures — neither minor nor major — but instead by the accompanying or preceding symptoms of epileptic attacks: Alternating periods of excitement and depression; manifestations of sudden anger without sufficient cause and for the most trivial reasons; a usually highly irritable disposition; amnesia typical of epilepsy; and dangerous acts committed during momentary or transient fits of anger. Some people with epilepsy of this type have even experienced genuine auditory and visual hallucinations.' Rey believed he observed all these symptoms during van Gogh's case. For the first time, he diagnosed the artist with epilepsy, finally giving a name to his suffering. Van Gogh would later express deep gratitude for Rey's diagnosis and care in letters to his brother and patron, Theo van Gogh (1857-1891): '[Rey] is brave, hardworking, and always helping people,' he wrote. Before presenting one of his paintings to Rey, van Gogh asked Theo to send the doctor a copy of 'The Anatomy Lesson of Dr Tulp' by Rembrandt van Rijn (1606-1669). Clinical Viewpoint However, for Rey, van Gogh remained only one among many patients. He interpreted van Gogh's intense emotions less as expressions of personal feelings and more as clinical symptoms. The mystery surrounding the events of Christmas Eve in 1888 reinforced this perspective. On December 30, 1888, Rey wrote: 'When I tried to get [van Gogh] to talk about the motive that drove him to cut off his ear, he replied that it was a purely personal matter.' Centuries later, researchers found evidence that van Gogh's silence might not have served only to protect himself. Lifelong Guilt Historians now generally agree that the incident on Christmas Eve, 1888, followed a heated argument between van Gogh and his roommate Eugène-Henri-Paul Gauguin (1848-1903). That September, van Gogh had moved into a house in Arles with the goal of establishing a shared workspace for modern artists — a dream he called 'Atelier des Suds.' Although he invited several artists, only Gauguin accepted, on the condition that Theo fund his travel and a monthly stipend. Vincent agreed to share both Theo's allowance of 150 francs and his home with Gauguin. However, their differences quickly became evident. Gauguin, pragmatic and strategic, saw the partnership as a potential source of income. For van Gogh, this was a way to pursue an artistic ideal and prove himself in a competitive art world. Shortly before Gauguin's arrival, van Gogh painted nonstop for days, mostly sunflowers. He wanted to express his joy at the approaching meeting and impress his rival as he entered. Conversations about money were a greater burden on van Gogh than average, as he always felt indebted to his brother Theo, who was 4 years younger than him and supported him despite his lack of success. In a letter to Vincent soon after Gauguin arrived, Theo addressed his brother's worries: 'I am very pleased that Gauguin is with you...[...] Now, in your letter, I see that you are ill and worried a lot. I must tell you something, once and for all. [...] You speak of the money you owe and want to return to me. I do not know that. What I want you to achieve is that you should never have to worry. I am forced to work for money.' Artistic Differences The argument between Gauguin and van Gogh on the evening of December 23, 1888, was shaped by the strained dynamics among the three men. Gauguin was increasingly frustrated by the lack of success at the Southern studio, while Theo van Gogh had recently fallen in love with Johanna Gezina Bonger (1862-1925), sister of family friend and art dealer Andries Bonger (1861-1936). Vincent van Gogh feared that both Gauguin and Theo might soon abandon him. According to newspaper reports, van Gogh lost an ear around 11:30 PM that night. About 15 years later, Gauguin claimed that van Gogh had assaulted him several times during their collaboration. On the night before the infamous incident, Gauguin said that he stepped out of the studio for some air and was chased by van Gogh, who allegedly attacked him with a razor. For unknown reasons, van Gogh changed his mind and cut off his ears. Historical Debate and Brothel Mystery What is historically verified is that Gauguin left Arles abruptly on the night of December 23, 1888, and never returned to van Gogh. Records also show that during his first day in the hospital, van Gogh repeatedly asked about Gauguin's whereabouts. Gauguin had earlier instructed the police to politely turn van Gogh away if he came looking for him. Art historian Martin Bailey suggested a different version of events: That Gauguin was provoked by van Gogh and cut off his ear with a sword. To avoid prosecution, Gauguin allegedly spread false claims and fled the city. Another mystery remains — why van Gogh took his severed ear to a brothel. He reportedly gave it to his favorite prostitute, Rachel, telling her to take good care of it. She fainted on the spot. It is now known that Rachel's real name was Gabrielle Berlatier. She was 18 years old at the time, heavily in debt due to medical expenses, and worked for years as a cleaner at the Café de la Gare, a place often visited by van Gogh. Some biographers believe that after mutilating himself, van Gogh returned to his studio, where he began to hear voices. Possibly following their commands, he took his ear to the brothel and gave it to Gabrielle. The Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam supports Gauguin's version of the events of December 23, 1888. Bailey's theory that van Gogh lost his ear due to Gauguin's sword is considered highly controversial. Another debated theory appears in a book by art historian Bernadette Murphy. Based on conversations with Berlatier's descendants, she concluded that Gabrielle worked only as a janitor at the brothel. It was confirmed that Berlatier had suffered from rabies, which left her with severe scarring. Murphy speculates that van Gogh, moved by compassion, gave her his own ear as an offering or gesture of empathy. Whether the gift consisted of just the earlobe or the entire ear remained uncertain until 2016. Resurfaced drawings by Rey documenting the mutilation show that the entire ear was missing. Art critic Sidney Geist speculates that Jo Bonger may have spread conflicting narratives after her marriage to Theo van Gogh in order to improve the family image. Dual Realities The life of one of history's most celebrated artists was so complex and layered that it blurs the line between illness and health, madness and genius — simply different perspectives on the same truth. Read the previous parts of the series. • Part II: Behind History's Icons II: Hitler's Jaw and Cold War Secrets. • Part I: Behind History's Icons: Napoleon and His Notorious Anatomy.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store