Hantavirus Thread

[User]

1 minute ago, Goddess said:

Do you have a brain injury?

No. Did you already forget what photo you shared?

 

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

especially when I've seen all the videos of the same thing happening during covid - politicians standing around in groups, unmasked, then quickly putting them on for the cameras and photo ops.

I clearly said this.

You're being deliberately stupid.

If you can't be honest, then I'm not interested in discussing with you.

[User]

3 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I clearly said this.

You're being deliberately stupid.

If you can't be honest, then I'm not interested in discussing with you.

Yeah, I know what you said. What did any of that have to do with the photo you shared?

 

[Goddess]

From Dr. Robert Malone's substack.

Some good perspective given here:

The Absurdity of Public Health

The United States medical system, combined with the industrial food complex, kill and maim people on a colossal scale every single year.

Heart disease kills over 683,000 Americans annually. Cancer kills another 620,000. Stroke, diabetes, chronic lung disease, sepsis, obesity-related metabolic disease, opioid overdoses, and preventable medical errors collectively account for millions of deaths, disabilities, and shattered families.

And yet, if you browse the front page of the CDC website on any given week, there is a decent chance you will find public health officials issuing urgent alerts about backyard chickens, raw milk, pet turtles, or someone hugging a duck too enthusiastically.

Seriously.

At the very moment when roughly 1,870 Americans are dying every day from heart disease and another 1,700 from cancer, federal public health agencies are sounding alarms about salmonella from backyard poultry.

The contrast has become almost surreal.

One recent CDC warning involved 34 reported salmonella cases linked to backyard poultry across 13 states. Thirteen hospitalizations were reported. No deaths. Another CDC investigation from 2024 linked backyard poultry exposure to 470 salmonella cases and one death nationwide.

To be clear, salmonella infections are unpleasant. Severe cases can absolutely happen, particularly in small children or immunocompromised individuals. Basic hygiene around animals and food handling matters. But the sheer disproportion between the magnitude of America’s actual health catastrophes and the obsessive messaging priorities of modern public health is impossible to ignore.

Americans are drowning in chronic disease.

Over 40 percent of U.S. adults are now obese. Diabetes continues to explode. Cardiovascular disease remains the nation’s leading killer. Cancer rates in younger adults continue to rise. Meanwhile, researchers from Johns Hopkins estimated that medical errors themselves may contribute to more than 250,000 deaths per year, potentially making preventable medical harm the third leading cause of death in America.

Yet somehow the institutional energy of public health repeatedly gravitates toward regulating raw milk farmers, warning people not to kiss chickens, and issuing carefully branded panic messaging campaigns over statistically tiny risks.

Why?

Because modern public health increasingly behaves less like a system designed to improve population health and more like a managerial communications apparatus. The goal is no longer primarily to build a healthier citizenry. The goal is to demonstrate vigilance, maintain bureaucratic relevance, manage narratives, and continuously remind the public that experts are monitoring every conceivable risk, no matter how trivial.

And triviality matters here.

A civilization that cannot seriously confront ultra-processed food, metabolic collapse, sedentary lifestyles, pharmaceutical overuse, hospital-acquired infections, or iatrogenic injury, but can mobilize nationwide media campaigns over backyard chickens, is not practicing rational public health prioritization.

It is practicing theater.

And now we are watching the same cycle unfold yet again with hantavirus.

Every few years, the media rediscovers hantavirus and suddenly the headlines become cinematic. “Deadly virus.” “Mystery illness.” “Experts warn.” Cable news panels light up. Social media algorithms amplify fear. Reporters begin breathlessly discussing deer mice as if civilization itself is teetering on the edge of collapse.

Never mind that hantavirus remains extraordinarily rare in the United States.

Since surveillance began in 1993, the CDC has confirmed roughly 850 total cases of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in the entire country over more than three decades. That averages to fewer than 30 confirmed cases annually in a nation of over 330 million people. Yes, severe cases can be deadly. Yes, rodent infestations should be taken seriously. But the actual statistical risk to the average American remains microscopic. Meanwhile, heart disease kills that many Americans in less than twenty minutes.

Yet the machinery of public health communication treats these events as prime opportunities for fear-based messaging campaigns. The public is encouraged to scan their bodies for symptoms, obsess over remote threats, and remain psychologically tethered to a permanent state of low-grade biological anxiety.

This is not accidental.

Fear is one of the few things modern institutions still know how to manufacture efficiently.

A calm, healthy, self-confident population is difficult to manage. But a population conditioned to perceive invisible threats everywhere becomes highly responsive to authority, guidance, expert interpretation, and centralized control. Every new scare reinforces the same behavioral conditioning. Stay alert. Stay afraid. Wait for instructions.

And importantly, these fear campaigns almost always focus on risks that are visually dramatic but statistically tiny. Rare viruses. Backyard animals. Isolated outbreaks. Consumer products. Individual behaviors.

Why?

Because confronting the real drivers of chronic illness would require confronting the institutions themselves.

It would require asking difficult questions about the American food system, pharmaceutical incentives, environmental toxicity, regulatory capture, hospital-acquired injury, sedentary lifestyles, collapsing metabolic health, and the financial architecture of modern medicine.

That is dangerous territory for bureaucracies.

Waning people not to pet chickens is much safer.

The economist and political philosopher Murray Rothbard had a phrase for the experts, academics, media figures, policy advisors, and institutional scientists who attach themselves to centers of political power and provide intellectual cover for the expansion of bureaucratic authority: “court intellectuals.”

The role of court intellectuals throughout history was not to challenge power, but to rationalize it. Kings had them. Empires had them. Modern bureaucracies have them too. The United States Federal government is full of court intellectuals. Their job is to provide the appearance of expertise, moral legitimacy, and scientific authority for whatever the governing apparatus already wishes to do.

In Rothbard’s formulation, court intellectuals are rewarded not necessarily for being correct, but for being useful to the institutions that sustain them. They translate state priorities into moral imperatives. They reassure the public that the people in charge are wise, necessary, and acting in everyone’s best interest.

Once you see this dynamic, modern public health messaging begins to make much more sense.

The fixation on backyard chickens, raw milk, masking rituals, playground closures, or endlessly sanitized consumer guidance is not primarily about reducing the largest drivers of disease and death. If it were, public health agencies would spend far more time confronting the catastrophic consequences of ultra-processed food, metabolic dysfunction, pharmaceutical overprescribing, hospital-acquired infections, sedentary lifestyles, environmental toxicity, and the economic incentives that quietly fuel chronic disease.

But those are structurally difficult problems. They implicate large institutions, politically connected industries, government policy failures, and decades of bureaucratic complicity.

It is far safer to lecture homesteaders about egg handling.

Far safer to issue ominous press releases about raw milk.

Far safer to warn parents not to let children snuggle baby chicks.

Those campaigns create the appearance of vigilance without threatening the underlying machinery of modern industrial health policy. They allow agencies to perform authority while avoiding confrontation with the systems that are actually making Americans progressively sicker.

This is where the absurdity becomes impossible to ignore.

A nation where hundreds of thousands die annually from preventable chronic illness, medical injury, metabolic disease, and institutional failure is being governed by public health officials who increasingly behave like risk-management public relations consultants. The messaging often feels less like medicine and more like a permanent liability warning label attached to human existence itself.

The result is a public conditioned to fear tiny, highly visible risks while becoming almost numb to the massive, slow-moving epidemics unfolding all around them.

That is not an accident.

It is the natural outcome of a system where court intellectuals serve institutions first, and the public second.

They are serving Power. Not the Public.

 

[User]

1 hour ago, Goddess said:

From Dr. Robert Malone's substack.

Some good perspective given here:

“Some” for sure, but his conclusions are the typical fear mongering… about the mysterious “they” trying to control us with fear.

Well, he is certainly keeping you riled up with fear. 
 

 

[Moonbox]

On 5/12/2026 at 2:14 PM, User said:

You have some caricature you want to beat up, and it isn’t me. No matter how hard you try, you are just making up crap about me, just like you have made up crap to argue against I’ve never said in previous discussions.

Funny how you recognize other people doing it, but you can't recognize how often you do it yourself.  🤔

[User]

5 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Funny how you recognize other people doing it, but you can't recognize how often you do it yourself.  🤔

I can actually make the argument; you just make the accusation and run away. 

 

[Moonbox]

12 hours ago, User said:

I can actually make the argument; you just make the accusation and run away. 

You mean you make a dumb strawman, then complain when your opponent doesn't own it, and then accuse them of running away. 

The crazy thing is how consistently you do it, and the fact that you can't seem to realize how much of a ridiculous broken record you are.  🙃

[User]

11 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You mean you make a dumb strawman, then complain when your opponent doesn't own it, and then accuse them of running away. 

The crazy thing is how consistently you do it, and the fact that you can't seem to realize how much of a ridiculous broken record you are.  🙃

Listen, dude, you already have any number of other threads you have run away from that you turned into this pointless banter you can return to if you just want to jerk yourself off again. 

So, instead of being man enough to return to the last one you cowardly ran away from, you come here to start shit. 

 

 

[Moonbox]

5 minutes ago, User said:

Listen, dude, you already have any number of other threads you have run away from that you turned into this pointless banter you can return to if you just want to jerk yourself off again. 

Listen, dude, constantly claiming people run away from you is just a sad form of self-affirmation for someone whose sense of status comes from exhausting strangers online.

It shouldn't need to be explained, but there's not much to gain from a 40-post slog with a pedantic fool whose content mostly revolves around insisting people hold positions they've never stated and then accusing them of lying when they won't own his strawman.  🙃

[User]

9 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Listen, dude, constantly claiming people run away from you is just a sad form of self-affirmation for someone whose sense of status comes from exhausting strangers online.

It shouldn't need to be explained, but there's not much to gain from a 40-post slog with a pedantic fool whose content mostly revolves around insisting people hold positions they've never stated and then accusing them of lying when they won't own his strawman.  🙃

Same stupid game you played last time. You do run like a coward, as do several others on here. That is simply an accurate claim. You can't debate the facts, though, so this is the stupid game you play. 

Hell, you even already admitted I was right here, you ignorant clown. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

On 5/15/2026 at 2:44 PM, Goddess said:

From Dr. Robert Malone's substack.

Some good perspective given here:

The Absurdity of Public Health

The United States medical system, combined with the industrial food complex, kill and maim people on a colossal scale every single year.

Heart disease kills over 683,000 Americans annually. Cancer kills another 620,000. Stroke, diabetes, chronic lung disease, sepsis, obesity-related metabolic disease, opioid overdoses, and preventable medical errors collectively account for millions of deaths, disabilities, and shattered families.

And yet, if you browse the front page of the CDC website on any given week, there is a decent chance you will find public health officials issuing urgent alerts about backyard chickens, raw milk, pet turtles, or someone hugging a duck too enthusiastically.

Seriously.

At the very moment when roughly 1,870 Americans are dying every day from heart disease and another 1,700 from cancer, federal public health agencies are sounding alarms about salmonella from backyard poultry.

The contrast has become almost surreal.

One recent CDC warning involved 34 reported salmonella cases linked to backyard poultry across 13 states. Thirteen hospitalizations were reported. No deaths. Another CDC investigation from 2024 linked backyard poultry exposure to 470 salmonella cases and one death nationwide.

To be clear, salmonella infections are unpleasant. Severe cases can absolutely happen, particularly in small children or immunocompromised individuals. Basic hygiene around animals and food handling matters. But the sheer disproportion between the magnitude of America’s actual health catastrophes and the obsessive messaging priorities of modern public health is impossible to ignore.

Americans are drowning in chronic disease.

Over 40 percent of U.S. adults are now obese. Diabetes continues to explode. Cardiovascular disease remains the nation’s leading killer. Cancer rates in younger adults continue to rise. Meanwhile, researchers from Johns Hopkins estimated that medical errors themselves may contribute to more than 250,000 deaths per year, potentially making preventable medical harm the third leading cause of death in America.

Yet somehow the institutional energy of public health repeatedly gravitates toward regulating raw milk farmers, warning people not to kiss chickens, and issuing carefully branded panic messaging campaigns over statistically tiny risks.

Why?

Because modern public health increasingly behaves less like a system designed to improve population health and more like a managerial communications apparatus. The goal is no longer primarily to build a healthier citizenry. The goal is to demonstrate vigilance, maintain bureaucratic relevance, manage narratives, and continuously remind the public that experts are monitoring every conceivable risk, no matter how trivial.

And triviality matters here.

A civilization that cannot seriously confront ultra-processed food, metabolic collapse, sedentary lifestyles, pharmaceutical overuse, hospital-acquired infections, or iatrogenic injury, but can mobilize nationwide media campaigns over backyard chickens, is not practicing rational public health prioritization.

It is practicing theater.

And now we are watching the same cycle unfold yet again with hantavirus.

Every few years, the media rediscovers hantavirus and suddenly the headlines become cinematic. “Deadly virus.” “Mystery illness.” “Experts warn.” Cable news panels light up. Social media algorithms amplify fear. Reporters begin breathlessly discussing deer mice as if civilization itself is teetering on the edge of collapse.

Never mind that hantavirus remains extraordinarily rare in the United States.

Since surveillance began in 1993, the CDC has confirmed roughly 850 total cases of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in the entire country over more than three decades. That averages to fewer than 30 confirmed cases annually in a nation of over 330 million people. Yes, severe cases can be deadly. Yes, rodent infestations should be taken seriously. But the actual statistical risk to the average American remains microscopic. Meanwhile, heart disease kills that many Americans in less than twenty minutes.

Yet the machinery of public health communication treats these events as prime opportunities for fear-based messaging campaigns. The public is encouraged to scan their bodies for symptoms, obsess over remote threats, and remain psychologically tethered to a permanent state of low-grade biological anxiety.

This is not accidental.

Fear is one of the few things modern institutions still know how to manufacture efficiently.

A calm, healthy, self-confident population is difficult to manage. But a population conditioned to perceive invisible threats everywhere becomes highly responsive to authority, guidance, expert interpretation, and centralized control. Every new scare reinforces the same behavioral conditioning. Stay alert. Stay afraid. Wait for instructions.

And importantly, these fear campaigns almost always focus on risks that are visually dramatic but statistically tiny. Rare viruses. Backyard animals. Isolated outbreaks. Consumer products. Individual behaviors.

Why?

Because confronting the real drivers of chronic illness would require confronting the institutions themselves.

It would require asking difficult questions about the American food system, pharmaceutical incentives, environmental toxicity, regulatory capture, hospital-acquired injury, sedentary lifestyles, collapsing metabolic health, and the financial architecture of modern medicine.

That is dangerous territory for bureaucracies.

Waning people not to pet chickens is much safer.

The economist and political philosopher Murray Rothbard had a phrase for the experts, academics, media figures, policy advisors, and institutional scientists who attach themselves to centers of political power and provide intellectual cover for the expansion of bureaucratic authority: “court intellectuals.”

The role of court intellectuals throughout history was not to challenge power, but to rationalize it. Kings had them. Empires had them. Modern bureaucracies have them too. The United States Federal government is full of court intellectuals. Their job is to provide the appearance of expertise, moral legitimacy, and scientific authority for whatever the governing apparatus already wishes to do.

In Rothbard’s formulation, court intellectuals are rewarded not necessarily for being correct, but for being useful to the institutions that sustain them. They translate state priorities into moral imperatives. They reassure the public that the people in charge are wise, necessary, and acting in everyone’s best interest.

Once you see this dynamic, modern public health messaging begins to make much more sense.

The fixation on backyard chickens, raw milk, masking rituals, playground closures, or endlessly sanitized consumer guidance is not primarily about reducing the largest drivers of disease and death. If it were, public health agencies would spend far more time confronting the catastrophic consequences of ultra-processed food, metabolic dysfunction, pharmaceutical overprescribing, hospital-acquired infections, sedentary lifestyles, environmental toxicity, and the economic incentives that quietly fuel chronic disease.

But those are structurally difficult problems. They implicate large institutions, politically connected industries, government policy failures, and decades of bureaucratic complicity.

It is far safer to lecture homesteaders about egg handling.

Far safer to issue ominous press releases about raw milk.

Far safer to warn parents not to let children snuggle baby chicks.

Those campaigns create the appearance of vigilance without threatening the underlying machinery of modern industrial health policy. They allow agencies to perform authority while avoiding confrontation with the systems that are actually making Americans progressively sicker.

This is where the absurdity becomes impossible to ignore.

A nation where hundreds of thousands die annually from preventable chronic illness, medical injury, metabolic disease, and institutional failure is being governed by public health officials who increasingly behave like risk-management public relations consultants. The messaging often feels less like medicine and more like a permanent liability warning label attached to human existence itself.

The result is a public conditioned to fear tiny, highly visible risks while becoming almost numb to the massive, slow-moving epidemics unfolding all around them.

That is not an accident.

It is the natural outcome of a system where court intellectuals serve institutions first, and the public second.

They are serving Power. Not the Public.

 

I don’t know any physician who is not concerned about controlling the risk factors for strokes and heart attacks like diabetes, raised cholesterol and hypertension. However, infectious diseases are a legitimate matter for public health to be interested in. If dangerous epidemics are allowed to spread and particularly if they kill young people, we will all be demanding accountability from government and public health departments. 

 

[Goddess]

Might have to change the title of this thread to Ebola Thread, now that the WHO has declared Ebola "a public health emergency of international concern."

Not enough traction from monkeypox or hantavirus, and ebola is waaaay scarier, amiright?

FUN FACT:  Canada sent Ebola to Wuhan in March 2019 from our bio 4 lab in Winnipeg, where PLA bio-weapon specialists were reaching security on multiple occasions.  The Liberals, of course, have been trying to hide the documents about the lab leak.

Winnipeg lab records fight about avoiding ’embarrassment,’ not security: docs | Globalnews.ca

The big problem with the Winnipeg lab affair was obvious from the start: too much secrecy | CBC News

 

Liberal supporters:  "China is our friend!"  and "But Conservatives traded and dealt with China, toooooooooooo!"  🙄

 

[User]

On 5/27/2026 at 8:08 AM, Goddess said:

Might have to change the title of this thread to Ebola Thread, now that the WHO has declared Ebola "a public health emergency of international concern."

Not enough traction from monkeypox or hantavirus, and ebola is waaaay scarier, amiright?

FUN FACT:  Canada sent Ebola to Wuhan in March 2019 from our bio 4 lab in Winnipeg, where PLA bio-weapon specialists were reaching security on multiple occasions.  The Liberals, of course, have been trying to hide the documents about the lab leak.

Winnipeg lab records fight about avoiding ’embarrassment,’ not security: docs | Globalnews.ca

The big problem with the Winnipeg lab affair was obvious from the start: too much secrecy | CBC News

 

Liberal supporters:  "China is our friend!"  and "But Conservatives traded and dealt with China, toooooooooooo!"  🙄

 

Oh man, are you going to fear monger about Ebola response now?!

LOL