Hantavirus Cruise Outbreak: Map Shows Where Ship Has Been

Hantavirus Cruise Outbreak: Map Shows Where Ship Has Been

Health authorities are investigating a hantavirus outbreak aboard a cruise ship that has left three passengers dead and several others ill. While the outbreak seems confined to the people on the ship, the ship's movements and the virus's incubation period have raised concerns about its potential to spread and have caused confusion about where it started.

The Dutch-flagged cruise ship MV Hondius, operated by Oceanwide Expeditions, was sailing from Ushuaia, Argentina, toward the Canary Islands when several passengers developed severe respiratory symptoms. The World Health Organization (WHO) has said it doesn't believe there's a risk to the public, but ports have denied permission for the ship to dock, leaving 150 passengers stuck on the cruise amid the outbreak.

Investigators are working to determine where and how the virus entered the ship and whether limited human-to-human transmission may have occurred.

The vessel at the center of the outbreak is the MV Hondius, a small expedition cruise ship carrying about 150 passengers and crew from more than 20 countries, according to the WHO and the ship’s operator. The WHO said it had identified seven cases linked to the ship, including two laboratory‑confirmed infections and five suspected cases. Three people have died, including a German passenger who died on the ship, a Dutch man who became ill and died onboard, and his wife, who later died after disembarking and traveling to South Africa. Only she is confirmed to have had hantavirus at this point.

The ship departed Ushuaia on April 1, embarking on a polar expedition that included stops in Antarctica, South Georgia, Saint Helena and Ascension Island, before arriving off the coast of Cape Verde in early May. Foster Mohale, a spokesperson for the National Department of Health in South Africa, said the ship also stopped at Nightingale Island and Tristan da Cunha.

Authorities in Cape Verde refused to allow the ship to dock, citing public‑health concerns, and passengers have largely remained confined to their cabins while medical evacuations were coordinated.

On Monday, Oceanwide said it was considering sailing to Las Palmas or Tenerife in Spain as a place for passengers to disembark and for further medical screening and handling.

Hantavirus is known for causing severe, often life‑threatening illness, most commonly hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) in the Americas. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), early symptoms typically include fatigue, fever, and muscle aches, particularly in large muscle groups such as the thighs, hips, and back.

About half of patients also develop headaches, dizziness, chills, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or abdominal pain, the CDC says. Several days later, the disease can rapidly progress, with patients experiencing shortness of breath and coughing as the lungs fill with fluid, a hallmark of HPS. 

The CDC estimates that about 38 percent of patients who develop respiratory symptoms may die from the disease.

Hantaviruses are primarily carried by rodents and are transmitted to humans through contact with infected urine, droppings or saliva, often when dried particles become airborne and are inhaled, the CDC explains. The Hondius has said there were no rodents aboard, so the WHO is investigating whether a passenger contracted the virus on one of the islands and then transmitted it to another person.

"Our working hypothesis is that there's probably a couple of different types of transmission that might be happening," WHO official Maria Van Kerkhove told the BBC.

The WHO has also noted that while person‑to‑person transmission is rare, one strain—the Andes virus, found in South America—has been documented to spread between close contacts in limited circumstances, raising questions about whether human transmission could have played a role on the ship.

Globally, different hantavirus strains circulate in different regions. In North and South America, hantaviruses most often cause pulmonary disease, while strains in Europe and Asia can cause hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome, which primarily affects the kidneys.

More...

The War on Crypto Was Always About Control

The War on Crypto Was Always About Control

Martin Armstrong

The U.S. Treasury has now frozen $344 million in cryptocurrency tied to Iran, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who announced sanctions targeting multiple digital wallets allegedly connected to Tehran. Most people will view this story narrowly through the lens of sanctions on Iran or Middle East politics. The larger issue is far more important. Governments are proving in real time that cryptocurrency is not outside the system and never truly was once governments decide to intervene aggressively enough.

Crypto enthusiasts promote the fantasy that digital assets exist beyond government reach. Blockchain transactions themselves are permanently recorded publicly. The moment governments force centralized exchanges, stablecoin issuers, banks, custodians, payment processors, and infrastructure providers into compliance, they gain enormous leverage over the ecosystem.

According to Reuters and other reports, the Treasury Department sanctioned multiple wallets allegedly tied to Iran, effectively freezing the assets connected to them. The broader campaign, now branded “Economic Fury,” is specifically targeting Tehran’s ability to move money internationally through both traditional banking systems and digital assets.

The key detail people are missing is that these actions demonstrate governments can increasingly identify, blacklist, freeze, and isolate digital wallets whenever geopolitical conditions justify intervention. Stablecoin issuer Tether reportedly cooperated directly with authorities by freezing addresses linked to the sanctioned funds.

Once governments can freeze wallets at the protocol or issuer level, governments effectively gain a form of programmable financial enforcement. Today the justification is Iran. Tomorrow it could be sanctions violations, tax enforcement, political extremism, climate compliance, misinformation enforcement, or virtually anything governments define as threatening.

I have repeatedly warned that governments will never tolerate parallel monetary systems indefinitely once sovereign debt crises intensify. As confidence collapses in government finances globally, states become increasingly aggressive toward anything perceived as undermining capital controls, taxation systems, or financial surveillance.

This is why Europe is simultaneously discussing CBDCs, wealth taxes, digital IDs, beneficial ownership registries, and expanded financial reporting requirements. Governments want visibility into every transaction. They want to know where money moves, who controls it, and how quickly they can stop it.

The Iran case is particularly important because Tehran increasingly turned toward crypto precisely to bypass sanctions and restrictions imposed on traditional banking access. Reuters reported earlier this year that Iranian crypto activity surged dramatically, with estimates ranging between $8 billion and $10 billion in annual transactions. Blockchain intelligence firms reportedly estimate that roughly half of those flows may be connected directly or indirectly to the IRGC.

Iran is not unique here. Russia, Venezuela, North Korea, and numerous sanctioned entities worldwide have explored crypto networks as alternatives to the Western banking system. Governments understand this perfectly well, which is why they are moving aggressively now to integrate blockchain surveillance into broader financial enforcement systems.

Ironically, blockchain itself may become one of the greatest surveillance tools governments have ever possessed. Cash transactions disappear physically. Gold moves privately. Offshore banking once created opacity. Blockchain creates permanent transaction trails. Once authorities identify wallet ownership, entire financial histories become visible forever. Governments no longer need to guess where money moved because the ledger itself preserves the record permanently.

The freezing of $344 million tied to Iran is not just another sanctions story. It is a glimpse into the future of financial control. Governments are building the ability to monitor, freeze, isolate, and potentially program digital money flows globally. Most people still believe crypto exists outside the reach of the state. That illusion is disappearing very quickly.

America’s Suez Moment: How Losing Hormuz Could End US Global Dominance

America’s Suez Moment: How Losing Hormuz Could End US Global Dominance

Nick Giambruno

The way I see it, the US has two unappealing choices:

1. 1. Launch a full-scale ground invasion and try to topple the Iranian government.
2. 2. Try to create the appearance of a win, and declare victory by claiming the objectives were met even when they clearly were not.

President Trump can choose option #2, but it would be widely perceived as a defeat. International relations scholar John Mearsheimer put it best:

“Most of them say that President Trump should quickly declare victory and withdraw from the war. He can do this, but it will be perceived as a humiliating defeat for the US.

Moreover, the Iranians may not agree to end the war. The Iranians have many cards to play. They can inflict significant losses.

Therefore, even if we retreat, it’s unclear whether this will solve the problem. The US will still look like it has suffered a humiliating defeat. Therefore, I think President Trump has put himself in a situation where he really doesn’t have a good exit strategy.”

If the US declares “mission accomplished” while Hormuz remains closed that would amount to an unambiguous strategic defeat for the US.

I would estimate that each choice has about a 50% probability at this point. But regardless of what Trump ultimately chooses, I think the outcome is unlikely to change—a historic geopolitical downgrade for the US.

If Trump chooses to declare a fake victory, it would amount to surrendering Hormuz to the Iranians.

If Trump chooses to launch a full-scale ground invasion of Iran, I predict it would be ill-fated, with a low chance of success.

Remember, Iran, like Switzerland, has rugged mountainous terrain that has helped shield it from invasion. But Iran is not merely another Switzerland. At roughly 1.65 million square kilometers, it is about 40 times larger than Switzerland.

While the situation is fluid, volatile, and impossible to predict with precision, I think it is still possible to project the general outcome and the broader implications.

Whether the US declares victory and leaves or rolls the dice on a full-scale ground invasion, the outcome is likely to be the same. There is an overwhelming probability in my view that the Iranian government will endure and retain an acknowledged veto power over the world’s most important energy corridor.

It is simply a question of how we get there—either through a quick US capitulation or through US capitulation after a long, bloody, and ultimately fruitless ground invasion.

The implications of that likely outcome are historical.

The US failing to achieve its objectives in Iran would not be just a military setback. It would be something far worse: a public demonstration that the US is no longer the superpower many once believed it to be.

If the US were unable to reopen the Strait on its own terms—or if it had to accept a world in which Tehran effectively decides who passes, under what rules, and at what cost—the message would be unmistakable. It would signal to allies, rivals, and markets alike that the world’s leading superpower can no longer guarantee the flow of commerce through the most important energy corridor on Earth.

In that sense, losing Hormuz would be America’s Suez: not just a tactical failure, but a visible geopolitical downgrade with profound implications for US credibility and the structure of the world order.

And that is what I believe is likely to happen in the weeks ahead. But most people—and certainly not the financial markets—have not yet wrapped their heads around this geopolitical earthquake.

More....

Iran threatens Hormuz shipping, as Trump said to shelve strikes amid diplomacy

Iran threatens Hormuz shipping, as Trump said to shelve strikes amid diplomacy

Jacob Magid

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps warned on Tuesday it would respond firmly to any ships that diverge from Iran’s approved route through the Strait of Hormuz, as Israeli television reported US President Donald Trump came close to ordering renewed strikes over the weekend before calling them off.

The warning came on the second day of a US effort to facilitate the transit of commercial ships through the blockaded waterway.

“We warn all vessels planning to transit the Strait of Hormuz that the only safe passage is the corridor previously announced by Iran. Any diversion of ships to other routes is dangerous and will result in a firm response from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards navy,” the IRGC said in a statement carried by state television.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s chief negotiator in Pakistani-mediated peace talks, said Tehran has “not even started” its standoff over the Strait of Hormuz.

“We know full well that the continuation of the status quo is intolerable for America; whilst we have not even started yet,” said Ghalibaf, who is also the speaker in Iran’s parliament, in a post on X.

He claimed the actions of the US and its allies had put shipping security at risk, but their “malign presence will diminish.”

On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said some 23,000 civilians from 87 countries are currently on ships trapped in the Persian Gulf.

The US effort, dubbed Operation Project Freedom, has seen tensions spike amid the Iran ceasefire, with American and Iranian forces exchanging fire. The UAE has accused Iran of targeting it with missiles on Monday and Tuesday, though Iran has denied firing at the Gulf state, claiming to have taken “defensive actions” directed at the US.

Earlier Tuesday, US officials signaled that the truce was holding and that the clashes did not mean a return to open conflict. But American and Israeli military officials also said their militaries were ready to resume fighting.

World leaders are pushing for restraint. Speaking to a reporter in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump declined to say what Iran would have to do for him to decide it violated the ceasefire.

“You’ll find out because I’ll let you know when they do,” Trump said. “They know what not to do.”

He added, “They should do the smart thing because we don’t want to go in and kill people.”

External advisers reportedly pressing Trump to resume war

On Tuesday evening, Channel 12 news reported that Trump has repeatedly shifted his stance in recent days on whether to go back to war against Iran, and came close to ordering renewed strikes, but is currently holding off to let negotiations play out.

According to the report, which cited US officials, Trump came close on Friday to ordering a renewed wave of strikes, but reversed course at the last moment after Iran submitted an updated proposal for a deal to end the war — which he later rejected. Instead, he opted to proceed with the operation to free up the Strait of Hormuz.

More...

Stablecoin Proposal Still 'Falls Short' Of Protecting Bank Deposits:

Stablecoin Proposal Still 'Falls Short' Of Protecting Bank Deposits: US Banks Say

 Brayden Lindrea

America’s largest banking groups said they remain dissatisfied with the CLARITY Act’s newly proposed language on stablecoin yield, arguing that it fails to protect bank deposits.

In a statement Monday, the bankers acknowledged that US Senators Thom Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks are “seeking to achieve the correct policy goal” in prohibiting stablecoin yield but noted that the CLARITY Act’s “proposed language” currently “falls short of that goal.”

“It is imperative that Congress get this right,” the American Bankers Association said in a joint statement with the Bank Policy Institute, Consumer Bankers Association, Financial Services Forum and Independent Community Bankers of America.

The dispute between bankers and the crypto industry over stablecoin yield has stalled the bipartisan bill, which passed the House of Representatives in July by a 294-134 vote.

There are concerns that the CLARITY Act may not pass before the US midterm elections in November 2026, which could further hinder its progress.

Banking groups have previously cited studies suggesting that widespread stablecoin adoption could lead to trillions in outflows from the US banking system, particularly from community banks, which may not have enough balance-sheet flexibility to absorb these outflows without resorting to higher-cost wholesale borrowing. 

In the Monday statement, the bankers also cited an article by Stanford-trained economist Andrew Nigrinis to argue that stablecoin yields driving bank deposit outflows “could reduce all consumer, small-business, and farm loans by one-fifth or more, making it essential for the prohibition to be clear and transparent.”

More....