Hantavirus Hoax
An Emergency Broadcast.
I sell no bullshit supplements, no crappy merchandise, no whacko gadgets, I have no sponsors, no advertising and everything is possible to read for free. However to help in running the experiments and to cover the huge costs that are mounting from travel and expenses to operate the project, please consider donating to the largest Crowdsourced and Opensourced experiments falsifying Virology. Thank you.
Gonna smash this Emergency article out (apologies for any more than usual frequency of typos and terrible grammar) as I think it works best when challenging the narrative as we saw was put to good effect with the Meningitis Hoax in the UK. I think as a collective we managed to counter extremely quickly and hopefully save some kids from getting the toxic vaccines or even worse submitting themselves to the allopathic death cult of Modern Western Hospitals.
It Ain’t Contagious
With the recent strain outbreak on the cruise ship Hantavirus is not contagious human to human, correct? Short Answer
Understood—and in that context, the key point is:
If this is a non-Andes hantavirus outbreak (as is overwhelmingly the case in Europe and similar cruise-related investigations), then:
No — it is not considered contagious human-to-human, even in close settings like a cruise ship.
Cruise ship cases typically trigger concern because of shared ventilation and close quarters, but hantavirus transmission (for these strains) still requires contact with infected rodent urine, droppings, or saliva, not other passengers.
So the accurate, situation-specific answer is:
No human-to-human transmission is expected for that outbreak strain.
Let’s tackle this first head on when they wheel out the “Expert” who (Ironically) breathlessly tells us we should be extremely worried about Hantavirus because it has “a long incubation period of up to a week”. As we can see above and even our wheezing academic tells us in mealy mouthed terms, that Hantavirus is not Contagious, Human to Human. So off the bat, unless you were paying attention you wouldn’t realize that his opening gambit was a massive fucking lie. He was trying to insinuate that you should be scared because potentially people could be “infected” for long periods of time and you could “catch” this hemorrhagic death “virus” and bleed out. Well it doesn’t spread human to human according to their own science so you have either (according to them) licked some Rat Piss (No Alec) and your kidneys are imminently gonna melt, or you didn’t and you will be just fine.
SCAMDEMICABILITY?
What is the IFR of Hantavirus?
There isn’t a single IFR for “hantavirus” because it depends heavily on the species, but broadly:
Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS) (Americas):
~30–40% fatality rate (often cited as IFR in that range for symptomatic cases)
I am secondly here to alleviate the fear of them trying to run with this as a Scamdemic. We can never be 100% sure given that the entirety of Soyence is invented storytelling that at any given moment they could completely change the story, but for now and as it stands, they wanna try and claim that if you lick a rat with da Virus it is almost a 50/50 as to whether you live or die. So there is no way they can “spread” this hoax very far, as Asymptomatic Hemorrhagic Fever would be a tough sell to Dave down the pub (The yardstick for Scamdemicability).
MAGIC RATS
🐀 How many rats carry hantavirus?
In wild rodent populations, typically 1% to 15% are infected at any given time.
In some “hotspot” areas, it can rise to 30–50% or more.
Different species carry different hantaviruses—for example:
The deer mouse (common in North America) carries Sin Nombre virus.
In Europe (including France), species like the bank vole carry Puumala virus.
So the short answer: a minority of rodents carry it, but it can be quite common locally.
🧬 Do rats (or rodents) die from hantavirus?
Surprisingly, no—most of the time they don’t.
Rodents are the natural hosts of hantaviruses.
The virus has co-evolved with them, so:
They usually don’t get sick
They don’t die from it
They can carry and shed the virus (in urine, droppings, saliva) for long periods
how are they immune to it?
Rodents aren’t “immune” in the sense of killing the virus off completely. What they have is more like a built-in tolerance—their bodies let the virus persist without causing damage.
So lets look at the epidemiology of this thing and you will quickly see how this story is complete fucking garbage even using their own metrics. They claim that in certain areas that 50% of rats harbor this kidney smoothie making “Virus”. So given there are estimates of between 10 and 100 BILLION rats on earth and in most Urban areas you are said to be within a close proximity of a rat at all times, according to the science, humanity must have died out 1000 years ago.. Instead we didn’t and it was just Gene Hackman’s wife (More on that to come).
Why The BOATS?!
Did some scrabbling around on ChatGPT which over the course of the last two months has become increasing more argumentative, deceptive and downright moody with me.. (Like I need more teenage kids in the house).
One thing that was very interesting to me was getting it to fess up on the amount of people that die on board Cruise ships. You see it should be fairly obvious that the average age of Cruise ship goers is vastly skewed toward the Retired population. Many of those are treating this as their “last venture” out. So one would imagine that the natural attrition rate that you get on these cruises “should” be a little high. Apparently not according to Chat GPT, apparently the death rate is 100X LESS than it should be for just the amount of person hours aboard cruise ship (MASSIVE Red Flag):
Right so find me the exact number of people who died on cruises in 2019
There isn’t a single perfectly exact audited number published in a way governments track aviation accidents, but there are peer-reviewed and industry-compiled estimates for 2019, and they converge pretty well.
🚢 Cruise ship deaths in 2019 (best estimate)
From aggregated cruise industry and academic datasets:
👉 ~125 to 175 total deaths worldwide on cruise ships in 2019 (passengers + crew)
One structured dataset gives:
~140–175 deaths in 2019 across ~30 million passengers
Academic review data shows ~27 passenger deaths + 10 crew deaths reported in 2019 in a sampled registry (not full global coverage), consistent with a low hundreds total when scaled across all lines
So the consensus range is:
✔ ~130–170 deaths in 2019 (most commonly cited range)
✔ Occasionally rounded as “~150 deaths”
Expected deaths are 5000 a year but that will be much lower because you haven’t accounted for the age skew on cruises
You’re thinking in the right direction about age skew, but there’s a key correction: we don’t actually expect “~5,000 cruise deaths/year” once the exposure is modeled correctly. That earlier figure came from an over-rough scaling step.
Let’s reset this cleanly.
🚢 1. What we actually know (anchors)
Cruise passengers per year: ~30 million boardings
Average cruise length: ~7–10 days
Total exposure: ~0.7–0.9 million person-years (not 30 million person-years)
That part is fine.
👵 2. The age issue (your point)
Yes:
Cruise passengers skew older (often 50–75+)
That increases baseline mortality compared with a general population
But not as much as it seems, because:
Important correction:
Cruise passengers are not representative of “all elderly people”
They are:
healthier than average for their age
mobile enough to travel internationally
screened informally by self-selection (and sometimes medical advice)
So the relevant comparison is:
“healthy older travellers,” not “general elderly population”
⚖️ 3. A more realistic mortality rate
Instead of using ~0.7% (all-ages average), a better bracket for cruise demographics is:
~60–80 years old, relatively healthy travellers:
roughly 1–3% annual mortality equivalent if they were followed for a year
But they are only exposed for ~10 days.
So we scale it down:
🧮 4. Proper back-of-envelope model
Let’s take a conservative cruise-relevant mortality rate:
Step A: annualised rate for cruise-age population
r≈0.02r \approx 0.02r≈0.02
(2% per year equivalent)
Step B: exposure time fraction
Step A: annualised rate for cruise-age population
r≈0.027
Step C: expected deaths
30,000,000 x 0.027 x 0.02 = 16,200
This looks large — but this is still a naive application assuming independent “population risk”, which is not valid because:
passengers are not continuously “at risk in a closed mortality system”
most deaths in that age band are chronic progression over time, not short-window events
So we must adjust for time-to-event mismatch.
So if we take the amount of person hours on board these cruise ships that they claim are taken by 30,000,000 people a year then just the standard rate of attritional, natural death should be 16,200 people. Obviously there are massively complex calculations and variables that would limit this and it is entirely person to person, but still given that they cited that just 150 people died on Cruise Ships in 2019, we can see that these statistics are most definitely Gulfs apart.
So how and why? Well I would reckon it is just a factor of death certificates and news reporting. You may get lots that have heart attacks, are gravely ill get dropped off at landfall and processed in hospital as a land based death. That is what I would imagine happen in most cases whether they die on the boat or just barely make it. This I would say when it comes to the Rat Suck “Virus” they are going to twist that narrative that a fully jabbed Octegenarian has a turn for the worst, gets carted off at the next port and snuffs it at the hospital is chalked off as a seafaring kidney casualty.
This works as the perfect propaganda pieces. What is more scary than being trapped on a Boat with a 40% death chance when you know there is a rat with radioactive piss on board. It conjures up all sorts of nightmares and will hopefully eventually be written as a sequel to Snakes on a Plane. This combined with the easy ability to present fraudulent statistics - Look we have just seen a 100 fold increase in boat deaths this year ( By changing where the deaths were recorded) and you have an easy win.
LABORATORY CONFIRMED CONTAGION?
So there is no Human to Human transmission of Hantavirus, but surely they have proof that breathing in a rat’s guff or taking a little tipple on a rat’s golden elixir (No Alec) with make people desperately sick? If you don’t already know the answer to this, you must be new to the Virology Control Studies Project:
Have there been any controlled human infection models of Humans with Hantavirus?
Short answer: No—there are essentially no controlled human challenge (intentional infection) studies with hantaviruses. And that’s very deliberate.
🧪 Have humans ever been deliberately infected in experiments?
There are no ethically approved human challenge trials where researchers intentionally infect people with hantavirus.
All human data comes from:
Natural outbreaks
Accidental exposures
Observational clinical studies of infected patients
For example, studies of patients with hantavirus infection track immune responses during real illness, not induced infection.
🚫 Why no human challenge models?
There are a few strong reasons:
1. High severity and mortality
Some hantaviruses cause life-threatening disease:
Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (Europe/Asia)
Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (Americas), which can have ~40% fatality rates
That alone makes intentional infection ethically unacceptable.
2. No reliable treatment or reversal
There is no widely effective antiviral cure
Treatment is mainly supportive care (ICU, oxygen, etc.)
In human challenge studies (like malaria or flu), there’s usually a clear rescue therapy—that’s not the case here.
Of course there are no studies what so ever in humans to back up any of their claims, the entirety of the science is based purely on a “Trust Me Bro” basis. They use the vaguely logical but still no real excuse that they have made such a preposterous claim that the death rate is 50/50 they couldn’t give people a lick on a rat’s tit without them dying. Just to add you will see, there is also no cure or “vaccine” for this non existent “virus” which puts into perspective even more the absurdity of their claims of the amounts of rats harboring this Grim Reaper “Virus”.
So they have animal models where they makes them sick with a shot of the rat’s Yellow Gold? Of course they do! Phew! These guys wouldn’t want to miss out on a bit of animal torture and ritual sacrifice, what are you dumb!? So funnily enough given that Rats are totally fine with Hantavirus (They just have a tolerance according to the priests in white coats, duh), they can’t use the standard lab rats for their torture… strangely enough they they do claim to be able to use a rodent, a Syrian Hamster (No further questions please).
They Don’t Actually Die
With these animal models are the animals euthanized and they are then assessed for infection?
In most hantavirus animal studies, yes—animals are often euthanized at planned time points or at humane endpoints, and then tissues are analyzed for infection and disease effects. But it’s not “just infection then killing”; it’s more structured and regulated than that.
🧪 What typically happens in hantavirus animal models
1. Infection phase
Animals (commonly:
Syrian hamsters
mice (including genetically modified strains)
sometimes non-human primates)
are experimentally infected with hantavirus under controlled conditions.
2. Monitoring phase
Researchers then track:
weight loss
temperature
breathing and behavior
survival (in lethal models)
viral shedding (if applicable)
3. Endpoints: two main types
🟡 Humane endpoint euthanasia
Animals are euthanized early if they become too sick, for example:
severe weight loss
respiratory distress
inability to eat/drink
This is required by animal ethics regulations (EU/US/UK frameworks).
🔴 Scheduled euthanasia (planned sacrifice)
Even if animals are not sick, they are often euthanized at set time points, such as:
day 3, 7, 14 post-infection, etc.
This allows researchers to:
measure virus levels in organs
study immune response over time
examine tissue damage under a microscope
🔬 What is analyzed after euthanasia?
Once the animal is euthanized, researchers typically collect:
lungs (critical for pulmonary syndrome models)
kidneys (important for hemorrhagic fever models)
spleen, liver, brain
blood serum
They then look at:
viral RNA levels (PCR)
infectious virus (culture)
immune responses (cytokines, antibodies)
tissue damage (histology)
⚖️ Ethical framework
All of this is governed by strict rules:
“3Rs” principle:
Replace (use non-animal alternatives when possible)
Reduce (use minimum number of animals)
Refine (minimize suffering)
Mandatory ethical review boards in all major research systems
So euthanasia is not incidental—it’s actually a required part of humane experimental design.
🧠 Bottom line
Yes, animals are often euthanized in hantavirus research
This is done either:
because they reach humane endpoints, or
because they are scheduled for tissue analysis
The goal is to understand infection and immune response in a controlled, ethical way—not to let animals suffer disease progression unnecessarily
This is the big con with these animal studies and it is very useful to highlight this fraud in full HD with the Hantavirus as it is applicable to all Animal Models, especially the modern ones in the last hundred years.
These animals are NOT dying from the things being tested on them, they are being intentionally euthanized either at a predetermined time or they have incredibly low threshold of “symptoms” that trigger their euthanizing, like ruffled fur, slight weight loss or lack of appetite. The Virologist want to move it as quickly as possible away from any sort of observable effect and straight back into their PCR, Antibody, inflammation marker inferences.
So we can draw a line under this one, they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for their claims that if you happen across a puddle of Rat Piddle you have a 1 in 4 chance you are going to piss out your kidney.
Gene Hackman’s Wife
How did they know Gene Hackmans wife died of Hantavirus? Was she PCR tested?
Short answer: yes — her diagnosis was based on lab testing, and PCR was part of it, but it wasn’t the only thing used.
Here’s what public medical examiner reports and officials have said about Betsy Arakawa (Gene Hackman’s wife):
How they determined hantavirus
Investigators concluded she died of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome (HPS) using a combination of:
Autopsy findings
Heavy, fluid-filled lungs consistent with HPS
No signs of trauma or other competing causes
Normal carbon monoxide levels
Toxicology / lab testing
Negative tests for influenza and COVID-19
Standard toxicology screening did not suggest poisoning or drugs as a cause
Specific infectious disease testing
Blood/tissue testing was done to detect hantavirus infection
This type of confirmation is typically done using PCR (polymerase chain reaction) and/or serology (antibody testing) to identify viral RNA or immune response
Officials explicitly ruled out other common causes and then confirmed hantavirus based on the lab evidence plus the classic lung pathology patter.
Right so let’s put this altogether. We can assume that Mrs Arakawa was a Jab enthusiast as she was furiously googling Covid, whilst she had a runny nose. This is most certainly going to fall into the category of WebMD fearing herself into a “low blood oxygen” stupor.
She was posthumously declared a victim of that Rat Piss Grim Reaper based on the irrefutable evidence of: She tested Covid Negative and had fluid on her lungs and dead rats in the attic (We will ignore the fact that Rats aren’t affected by Hantavirus of course- The BBC weren’t to know that)
What makes this story even more ridiculous is next to the chalk outline of the Rodent Piddle’s victim is Gene himself, who died a week later from a heart attack. The mind boggles as the set of circumstances that lead up to this happening… but I guess that is a mystery for the three kids that stand to inherit 90 million bucks (silver linings and all that (Hope the dollar bills aren’t soaked in rat whizz)).
Pictures of the Murderer
So I will leave you with a picture of the claimed Sewer Dwelling Wee Wee Monster so that you can be hypervigilant for its next citing. According to it’s description however it is the exact same shape and size as the images in the bottom picture of Cellular Debris found in the Virology Control Studies Project Uninfected Culture images (Labelled “Hantavirus” for posterity (and comedy value)).
What is the size and shape of hantavirus virion?
Size and shape of hantavirus virions
Hantaviruses are enveloped viruses in the family Bunyavirales, and their particles have a fairly characteristic but somewhat variable structure.
Size
Typically about 80–120 nanometers (nm) in diameter
Some variation exists depending on the species and preparation method (electron microscopy can show slightly different sizes)
Shape
Pleomorphic (not perfectly uniform)
Commonly:
Spherical
Sometimes ovoid (egg-shaped)
Occasionally slightly elongated or irregular
They do not have a rigid capsid shape, unlike many non-enveloped viruses
Claimed “Hantavirus”
Cellular Debris in uninfected cultures….. Labelled as “Hantavirus.
If you have enjoyed this article and want to support the project with a one time donation please BuyMeACoffee, thanks!
This article (May be, if I decide to, maybe comment if you want it to be) available as a downloadable EBook along with the rest of my work on ShadowBanned Library
Couldn't care less about the Ain't-a-virus. This is why I never watch the TV news or pay attention to the MSM and haven't since the 9-11 hoax. It just ain't worth my time and attention when 90% of it is lies and propaganda. Blessed be the rats and the mice for without them big pharma would have no one to murder except humans.
Must be a lot of mice on that cruise ship