Search This Blog

Thursday, May 7, 2026

Can ivermectin cure hantavirus?

 A hantavirus outbreak aboard a luxury cruise ship that has left three people dead is veering into the fringe.

Online, a growing number of social media users are floating ivermectin as a possible treatment for the rare infectious disease, which can cause life-threatening heart and lung complications.

Yes, you read that right — the antiparasitic drug used in livestock that became a pandemic-era flashpoint after being touted by media figurespoliticians and even some doctors as a Covid cure is back in the spotlight.

Ivermectin is a prescription medication that treats parasitic infections and skin conditions.Bloomberg via Getty Images

“Hantavirus is a RNA virus, and ivermectin should work against it,” Dr. Mary Talley Bowden, a Houston-based, board-certified ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist, posted on X Wednesday. She also teased that she would soon be selling it directly to Texans, “no prescription needed.”

Her comments were amplified by former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who previously promoted the drug as an alternative Covid treatment.

In a quote of Bowden’s post, the former Georgia Republican wrote: “I actually texted her today and asked what can we treat hantavirus with. I’m so glad she posted it. Ivermectin.”

Greene also suggested that vitamin D and zinc may also be effective against hantavirus, adding: “Those of us who refused to lockdown, mask up, and get vaxxed took the good ole horse paste and also developed natural immunity.”

The one-time congressional firebrand and Bowden aren’t alone. On X, a growing mix of users — from doctors to internet personalities — have been pushing ivermectin as possible hantavirus treatments.

But infectious disease experts say there’s no scientific evidence to support the claims.

“There’s no data to show that ivermectin could help treat the virus,” Dr. Suraj Saggar, chief of infectious disease at Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck, NJ, told The Post.

The ivermectin theory

Hantaviruses are RNA viruses, which follow a specific blueprint for replicating themselves. Bowen argued that ivermectin can stop RNA viruses from getting into cells, slow down how they multiply and damage the virus itself.

But Dr. Steven Quay, a physician-scientist and biotech entrepreneur, poured cold water on the claim.

Three people have died and several other passengers aboard the MV Hondius have fallen ill amid a hantavirus outbreak.AFP via Getty Images

“Ivermectin is primarily an anti-parasitic drug, not a proven broad antiviral,” he said. Though some lab studies have suggested there might be antiviral effects under artificial conditions, that doesn’t “automatically translate into effective human treatment.”

It would be a “leap,” he said — that’s “not scientifically justified”

Experts say the bigger issue is that ivermectin was designed to target parasites — not viruses.

“Ivermectin binds to specific nerve and muscle signal receptors in parasites which paralyze and kill them,” said Dr. Bruce Hirsch, an attending physician in the division of infectious diseases at Northwell Health.

“Ivermectin does not impact receptors in the human body,” he continued. “Hantaviruses have no nerves or muscles of course and ivermectin does not impact viruses at all.”

What are hantaviruses?

They are a family of viruses that humans primarily contract by inhaling particles from infected rodent droppings, urine or nesting materials.

But health officials believe the outbreak aboard the MV Hondius was caused by the much rarer Andes strain, which is unique because it can spread from person to person and carries a mortality rate of roughly 40%, according to the World Health Organization.

As of Wednesday evening, three passengers had died and several others had fallen ill.

Ivermectin was originally developed as a veterinary drug to treat parasites in animals.AP

In the US, hantavirus infections are rare, averaging about 30 cases a year over the last two decades, according to Quay, the CEO of Atossa Therapeutics.

It can trigger two severe diseases.

The first, hantavirus cardiopulmonary syndrome (HCPS), is the more common form seen in the US. It typically begins with flu-like symptoms before rapidly progressing to breathing trouble. In severe cases, fluid builds up in the lungs, leading to potentially fatal heart and lung complications.

The second, hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS), is more common in Europe and Asia and primarily attacks the kidneys.

What actually works to treat hantavirus?

Researchers have previously studied whether the antiviral medication ribavirin could help treat HCPS, but human studies have not shown a significant benefit.

“If even ribavirin, a real antiviral with hantavirus-related data, has not proven useful for the pulmonary form, ivermectin is several steps further away from evidence,” Quay said.

Instead, Quay, Hirsch and Saggar said treatment generally centers on supportive care — helping patients survive the virus while the body fights it off.

“Some cases require a massive amount of extra fluids,” Hirsch said. “Patients sometimes need the support of ventilators and even temporary heart-lung machines to get through the worst of it.”

For patients with HFRS, dialysis is sometimes used, and ribavirin may be administered intravenously if the illness is caught early enough to prevent death.

Three people have died and several other passengers aboard the MV Hondius have fallen ill amid a hantavirus outbreak.@DrTedros/X

Asked what he would tell someone considering ivermectin to prevent or treat hantavirus, Quay put it bluntly: “Do not bet your lungs on a theory.”

“Hantavirus can move from flu-like symptoms to respiratory failure with frightening speed,” he warned. “The treatment that saves lives is not a pill from the internet; it is early medical evaluation, hospital monitoring, oxygen, ICU-level support and rapid escalation if breathing or blood pressure deteriorate.

“Ivermectin has no credible evidence for hantavirus prevention or treatment, and using it may delay the care that actually matters.”

As for claims that vitamin D and zinc may also help with hantavirus, Hirsch said they don’t work against the virus itself, though they can be supplemented if levels are low as part of general nutritional support during the acute infection.

Is ivermectin dangerous?

In a statement to The Post, Bowden called ivermectin “incredibly safe.”

“I’ve used it in thousands of patients and believe it should be available over the counter,” she said.

Quay noted that ivermectin is generally well tolerated when prescribed at approved doses for parasitic infections, but problems can arise when people self-medicate, take veterinary formulations or consume high doses.

“Reported toxicities include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, low blood pressure, dizziness, confusion, hallucinations, seizures, coma, and in severe cases serious neurologic injury,” Quay said.

As of Thursday, at least six Americans from the hantavirus-infected cruise ship had returned home to four states and were being monitored for symptoms.

None currently show signs of infection, but their return has still fueled fears that the virus could spread in the US. Public health experts, however, say the overall risk remains low.

“This is not something anyone should worry about,” Quay said.

https://nypost.com/2026/05/07/health/can-ivermectin-cure-hantavirus-the-buzz-around-controversial-covid-treatment-for-rat-disease-outbreak/

Argentina will start testing rats for hantavirus after couple contracted deadly strain

 Argentina’s health ministry announced it will begin testing rodents for hantavirus as concerns grow over the deadly outbreak aboard the MV Hondius cruise ship — as cases of the rare strain increased by a startling 86% in the country last year.

The ministry said the vermin trapping and testing will take place in the southern city of Ushuaia — where health officials believe the outbreak may have originated.

Argentine officials said a now-deceased Dutch couple picked up a rare strain of the virus from rodents while visiting a landfill during a bird-watching tour in the city of Ushuaia — just days before they boarded the cruise on March 20.

This is the first outbreak in the Tierra del Fuego region of Southern ArgentinaARGENTINE HEALTH MINISTRY/AFP via Getty Images

Follow the latest updates on the hantavirus outbreak stemming from the MV Hondius cruise ship


Investigators believe the outbreak started when the ship was in Ushaia, Argentina.APThe strain, called the Andes virus, can spread between humans and carries a 40% mortality rate.

“Prior to boarding the ship, the first two cases had traveled through Argentina, Chile and Uruguay on a birdwatching trip, which included visits to sites where the species of rat that is known to carry Andes virus was present,” the WHO’s Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said during a press conference Thursday.

The cruise ship MV Hondius is expected to dock in Spain’s Canary Islands this weekend.REUTERS

Authorities previously said that the area and the surrounding province of Tierra del Fuego had never recorded a case of the hantavirus.

Argentina’s health ministry said there were 28 deaths in the country from hantavirus last year, up from an average mortality rate of 15 in the five years before that. Nearly a third of its total 86 cases last year were fatal, it said.

https://nypost.com/2026/05/07/world-news/argentina-will-start-testing-rats-for-hantavirus-after-couple-contracted-deadly-strain/

Blue states have bled $2 trillion in wealth to red states in the last decade, NY leads the pack

 It’s being called the biggest wealth transfer in history.

Nearly $2 trillion in economic growth has left blue states and headed for red states in the last decade, according to economic data from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, a conservative economic group.

The group used IRS data from the years 2012 to 2023 to calculate the movement in cumulative income between states, which were classified as red “Trump states” or blue “Harris states” based on which way they voted in the 2024 Presidential Election.

That $2 trillion transfer is larger than the GDP of some countries.

New York had the biggest fall in cumulative adjusted gross income (AGI) — losing $660 billion between 2012 and 2023.

California came next with $503 billion in the same time period.

In contrast, Florida gained $1.3 trillion, and Texas gained $371 billion between 2012 and 2023.

It comes as billionaire bigwigs are beginning their Big Apple exodus as a result of Mayor Mamdani’s wealth-bashing agenda.

Hedge fund titan Ken Griffin and Marc Rowan both announced recently that they will move jobs out of New York in response to Mamdani’s calls to “tax the rich.”

Welcome to Florida sign on the side of a highway.
Florida has seen the biggest net gain in wealth of any state.Fotoluminate LLC – stock.adobe.com

Other traditionally deep-blue states to see a heavy net AGI loss include Illinois ($399 billion), New Jersey ($212 billion), Maryland ($120 billion), and Massachusetts ($118 billion).

Among the other red state winners at the expense of the blue states are South Carolina ($187 billion), Tennessee ($112 billion), and Idaho ($72.2 billion).

The figures point to a broader movement of wealth in the US from the traditional hubs of industry in the Northeast, the Rust Belt, and the Midwest, to sunnier states in the South and the Southwest.

Some rare success stories among the states that voted for Harris in 2024 include Colorado ($127 billion), Washington ($119 billion) and Oregon ($60.8 billion).

In contrast, the two biggest losers among the red states are Pennsylvania ($115 billion) and Ohio ($106 billion).

“Our analysis also shows that nearly every blue state has lost income due to moving vans and nearly every red state has been a winner,” Unleash Prosperity said in a release surrounding the data.

“So, as blue states lose taxpayers, what is their strategy? As many as 10 blue states are contemplating raising their income or wealth taxes,” the statement continued.

“It reminds us of the comedy routine of the Three Stooges on a rickety boat that is taking on water so they drill a hole in the bottom to get the water out.”

https://nypost.com/2026/05/07/us-news/blue-states-like-new-york-bleeding-wealth-to-red-states/

'Iranian state media says situation near Hormuz ‘back to normal’'

 

Iran’s English language state broadcaster Press TV said conditions on Iranian islands and coastal cities along the Strait of Hormuz had “returned to normal” after a sharp escalation between Iranian and US forces in and around the strategic waterway.

Did Admin Churn Criminal Aliens into Naturalized Citizens Just in Time to Vote for President Clinton?

By George Fishman
  • This years marks the 30th anniversary of the Clinton administration’s Citizenship USA scandal. CUSA is a cautionary tale, a case study in what can happen when an agency goes all in on pushing through the adjudications mill a staggering number of applications by a politically set deadline that cannot possibly be achieved without mass rubber-stamping. It is a case study in what can happen when an agency believes its “customers” to be the aliens seeking valuable immigration benefits such as naturalization for which they must qualify, rather than the American people, and the prospect of an infusion of new and reputedly favorably disposed voters is dangled in front of the party in power. We will never know how many criminal and other ineligible aliens were wrongly naturalized during CUSA and have been voting in our elections to this day.
  • The Immigration and Naturalization Service launched CUSA in the summer of 1995 in response to a rapidly growing backlog in naturalization applications. The Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General concluded that “INS failed to address known system weaknesses before implementing a program that they knew would tax that system as it never had been taxed before” and that given its “lack of commitment to repair the deficiencies, the promise of backlog reduction within one year also meant a certain recklessness about the quality of the resulting adjudications”.
  • The OIG began an investigation after reports surfaced “that some INS offices were naturalizing applicants so quickly that applicant criminal history reports … were arriving in INS offices only after the applicant had been sworn in as a United States citizen … suggest[ing] that INS had sacrificed naturalization processing integrity in the name of processing applicants more quickly”.
  • Advocacy groups had promised the Clinton administration that faster naturalizations would mean more Democratic voters in the upcoming 1996 election, including for the Clinton-Gore ticket. Following complaints that CUSA wasn’t producing more citizens fast enough, Vice President Al Gore told his “reinventing government” office (the National Performance Review) to intervene. The goal of one NPR official leading the effort was to “produce a million new citizens before election day”. The OIG concluded that “the White House and NPR attention to and involvement with CUSA did add pressure on INS officials to increase production and make good on INS’ previously announced ambitious goals”.
  • What were the consequences? In March 1997, DOJ reported that of the 1,049,867 naturalizations between August 31, 1995, and September 30, 1996, the FBI had returned the proffered fingerprint cards in 124,111 cases as not suitable for comparison and the FBI had no record of conducting any fingerprint checks in 61,366 additional cases. The OIG’s conclusion: “[F]or 18 percent of those persons naturalized during CUSA, INS had not conducted a complete criminal history background check.” As a result, more than 6,000 cases were referred to INS for possible denaturalization proceedings. Of course, only a handful of former criminal aliens were ever denaturalized.
  • The OIG concluded that it was “unable to make any conclusive determination whether White House officials sought to use the CUSA program as a means of increasing Democratic turnout in the 1996 general election”. But the OIG did concede that “it is certainly true that the prospect of an impending general election was present in the thinking of a number of White House officials who pressed INS to accelerate its naturalization efforts”. You can draw your own conclusions.
  • I have no illusions that a sorry episode like this cannot happen again.

“Citizenship USA”

As the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) described:

Beginning in 1993, the demand for naturalization began to increase at a staggering rate and application backlogs developed at INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service] offices throughout the country. By June 1995, INS was receiving applications for naturalization at a rate twice as high as it had the previous year. INS projected that without a serious effort to reduce this application backlog, by the summer of 1996 an eligible applicant would have to wait three years from the date of application to be naturalized as a U.S. citizen.

The surge in applications was not a surprise to INS. As then Center for Immigration Studies Senior Fellow, and now Policy Director for the Immigration Accountability Project, Rosemary Jenks testified before the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims on April 30, 1997, “INS expected a surge in new applications because of a combination of factors, including the 2.7 million beneficiaries of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act … amnesty becoming eligible” to naturalize.

This backlog begat “Citizenship USA” (CUSA). The OIG explained that:

On August 31, 1995, INS Commissioner Doris M. Meissner announced … an initiative to reduce the backlog of pending naturalization applications to the point where an eligible applicant would be naturalized within six months of application. The goal of the initiative was to reach this level of processing “currency” within one year. … To reach the CUSA goal, INS dramatically increased its naturalization workforce in the Key Cities [Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and San Francisco], opened new offices dedicated to naturalization adjudication, and engaged new processing strategies in an effort to “streamline” the naturalization process.

And then Vice President Al Gore and the White House got involved. The OIG stated that:

In a written response to an OIG question, the Vice President [Al Gore] specifically states that it was his decision to involve [The National Performance Review of the Office of the Vice President] NPR in the CUSA program. Elaine Kamarck, Policy Advisor to the Vice President, told the OIG that the Vice President personally asked her — as the person on the Vice President’s staff to whom the Director of NPR reported — to have NPR examine the CUSA program.

You can readily surmise what happened next. The OIG wrote that “[i]n the spring of 1996 … media reports began to question the integrity of INS naturalization processing”, elaborating that:

In May 1996, The Washington Times published an article about INS employees who criticized the acceleration of naturalization processing … [and] questioned the motives of CUSA. [NPR] had targeted CUSA for “reinvention”… . This link between the naturalization initiative and the Vice President’s Office during an election year fueled speculation and media stories that the rush to naturalize approximately one million applicants during fiscal year 1996 was an attempt to swell voting rolls with new citizens who were anticipated to vote for Democratic candidates, including President Clinton and Vice President Gore.

The OIG explained that at subsequent congressional hearings, “INS employees … testified to the extraordinary rush imposed on naturalization adjudications during CUSA[ that,] according to these witnesses, meant that INS had naturalized people without ensuring that they were eligible.”

Of particular concern, the OIG noted that:

[R]eports [surfaced] that some INS offices were naturalizing applicants so quickly that applicant criminal history reports — generated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after INS submitted applicant fingerprint cards for analysis — were arriving in INS offices only after the applicant had been sworn in as a United States citizen. These and other allegations of flaws in naturalization processing suggested that INS had sacrificed naturalization processing integrity in the name of processing applicants more quickly. [Emphasis in original.]

On March 5, 1997, the Washington Post published an extraordinary editorial, writing that:

Six months ago, Republicans were accusing [the Clinton administration] of trying to make political use of the [INS]. The charge was that the White House had put the arm on the INS to speed up and cut corners in the naturalization process, the theory being that new citizens would more likely vote Democratic than Republican, and therefore the more of them, the merrier.

The editorial noted the Clinton administration’s defense — “there was no way it would do a thing like that, manipulate the citizenship process for political gain” — and concluded that “folks believed it”. In fact, “We ourselves wrote sympathetically that … [‘]the administration replies that there are good and innocent reasons …’.”

Then came the extraordinary part. The Post concluded that the Clinton administration had been duping all the folks who had foolishly believed it (including, presumably, the Post):

  • So now, guess what? It turns out the White House was in fact leaning on the INS to hasten the process, in part in hopes of creating new Democratic voters. There are documents that amply show as much.

  • The Democratic defense — the current version — is that some of this [the INS naturalizing applicants with criminal records who should have been barred] may indeed have occurred, but not because of political interference. Rather, it was the result of simple bungling. You are told now that you shouldn’t take the political meddling … seriously not because it didn’t happen but because it was ineffectual. Now there’s a comfort.

Small comfort, indeed.

In April 1997, DOJ Inspector General Michael Bromwich announced the initiation of an OIG investigation into CUSA.

Of course, there is nothing new under the sun regarding an administration perverting the naturalization process for political gain. On May 3, 1798, almost two hundred years earlier, U.S. Representative John Allen (Federalist-Conn.) “alluded to the vast number of naturalizations which lately took place in [Washington, D.C.] to support a particular party in a particular election” during the U.S. House of Representatives’ floor debate on the Naturalization Act of June 18, 1798.

[MORE]

https://cis.org/Report/Did-Clinton-Administration-Churn-Criminal-Aliens-Naturalized-Citizens-Just-Time-Vote

The Democratic Party Is Dead, Long Live the Jacobins

 by Victor Davis Hanson

For the past century, the agendas of the Democratic Party were predictable. They professed concern for working Americans and supported blue-collar unions.

Unemployment insurance, a 40-hour work week, disability insurance, and Social Security were their trademarks—often rapidly achieved by growing government bureaucracies and continually raising taxes. Still, many Democrats were socially conservative.

By the 1970s, Democrats still deplored antisemitism. Party officials had rejected their own segregationists to champion civil rights.

Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy all supported strong defense and military deterrence.

All that is now passé.

The only vestigial Democrat left in Congress is Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, himself roundly despised by Democrat leaders.

Today, supporting Israel and calling for campuses to stop their institutionalized antisemitism is Democratic political suicide.

Forty years ago, any Democrat with a Nazi tattoo was political toast; today, he can become the party’s nominee for the Maine Senate race.

So, the current Democrat Party is no longer truly democratic at all. Its new spirit and methods resemble the radical Jacobin Party of the French Revolution. Today, Democrats claim that if any opponent gives a Roman salute, he is a Nazi—while insisting that one of their own with a Nazi tattoo is not.

Jacobinism rejects Martin Luther King Jr.’s emphasis on the “content of . . . character.” It instead prefers fixating on “the color of . . . skin.”

It aims to divide the nation arbitrarily between the noble oppressed and the toxic oppressors.

So these new Jacobins have institutionalized racially separate college dorms and graduation ceremonies, along with hiring and promoting on the basis of race.

The new Jacobins destroyed the southern border and welcomed in 10–12 million illegal aliens, seen as a future proletariat constituency. Today’s Jacobins would now ridicule Bill Clinton’s 1990s calls for secure borders and an end to illegal immigration as “fascist” and “racist.”

The most recent nihilist developments in American society can be attributed to these Jacobin “Democrats”: biological men competing in women’s sports; critical legal theory that normalizes cashless bail; race-based reparations; violent felons arrested and back on the street hours later; radical abortion on demand until birth; attacks on the concept of the cultural “melting pot”; and opposition to organized Christianity.

These agendas lack broad majority support. So street theater and violence focus on Tesla dealerships, ICE officers, conservative campus speakers, and, at times, any journalists covering the unrest.

Jacobins make excuses for pro-Hamas campus violence, which often targets Jewish students. The often violent and corrupt Black Lives Matter movement was a Jacobin ancillary.

Free speech is labeled “disinformation” and “misinformation”—synonyms for not toeing the Jacobin Party line. Until recent pushbacks, near-religious radical green agendas warred against fossil fuels and cost the working classes billions of dollars for sky-high fuel and electricity costs.

Like the Robespierre brothers of old, the most radical Jacobins are so often to be found among the wealthiest and most privileged Americans. Radical New York mayor Zohran Mamdani grew up as a rich Ugandan. Radical, self-described communist Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner attended one of the most elite and expensive prep schools in the United States.

When avowed socialists Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders barnstormed the country, they did so via private jets.

Radical “Squad” member Rep. Ilhan Omar cannot decide whether she is worth $30 million or nothing. Hard-left California billionaire, gubernatorial candidate, and radical environmentalist Tom Steyer is a billionaire who jump-started his fortune by investing in coal plants overseas and offshoring profits to avoid taxes.

At least 10 states are drafting laws to tax the net worth, as well as the income, of “billionaires and millionaires,” apparently for their “social” crimes. Mayor Mamdani taps on the window of philanthropist Ken Griffin as a warning to get out of town. The mayor of Seattle scoffs at the rich leaving her state with their billions due to new punitive taxes, offering a sarcastic “bye.”

In the old days, Democrats were embarrassed by their radicals and distanced themselves from the Weather Underground, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers. Today, left-wing bomb throwers are the Democrat Party.

Hasan Piker, another multimillionaire, $200,000 Porsche-driving communist, has openly supported “social murder.”

So Piker praised Luigi Mangione’s targeted murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Meanwhile, Jacobins on social media expressed disappointment that all three assassination attempts on Donald Trump failed. The arsonist who burned down Pacific Palisades was a Mangione acolyte and saw his destruction as a revolutionary act, perhaps a form of mass “social murder.”

Jacobin politicians call for Trump to be “eliminated,” label him as a “fascist,” and call for “any means necessary” to end his presidency. The aim is to lower the social and psychological barrier to violence.

The Jacobin Democrats of today are systematically destroying the legacy of the Democratic Party. And why not?

Their model is not the American Founding, but the radical mandated equality—and violence—of the French Revolution.

https://amgreatness.com/2026/05/07/the-democratic-party-is-dead-long-live-the-jacobins/

Trump says ceasefire with Iran still 'in effect'

 United States President Donald Trump told ABC News that the ceasefire with Iran remains "in effect," following what the US military described as "self-defense" strikes against the country's military sites.

"It's just a love tap," Trump said of Washington's strikes in the phone interview. When asked by ABC News' Rachel Scott whether that meant the ceasefire is over, Trump said, "No, no, the ceasefire is going. It's in effect."

The two sides gave contradictory accounts of Thursday's flare-up, with the US military saying it fended off "unprovoked" strikes, while Iranian media reported the assault as retaliation for a US attack on an Iranian oil tanker.

https://breakingthenews.net/Article/Trump-says-ceasefire-with-Iran-still-'in-effect'/66248267