BenderRodriguez said:

---

Gentlemen, we don't have to argue about what biological warfare stuff might have been done in the Cold War.

There are people like Parker Crutchfield actively employed by medical schools today, being paid to publish "scholarly articles' like the two below arguing in favor of spreading disease via ticks if it is "beneficial to the environment".

Beneficial Bloodsucking

Quote:

---

Abstract
The bite of the lone star tick spreads alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a condition whose only effect is the creation of a severe but nonfatal red meat allergy. Public health departments warn against lone star ticks and AGS, and scientists are working to develop an inoculation to AGS. Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible. After explaining the symptoms of AGS and how they are transmitted via ticks, we argue that tickborne AGS is a moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat. We then defend what we call the Convergence Argument: If x-ing prevents the world from becoming a significantly worse place, doesn't violate anyone's rights, and promotes virtuous action or character, then x-ing is strongly pro tanto obligatory; promoting tickborne AGS satisfies each of these conditions. Therefore, promoting tickborne AGS is strongly pro tanto obligatory. It is presently feasible to genetically edit the disease-carrying capacity of ticks. If this practice can be applied to ticks carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tickborne AGS is morally obligatory.

---

Compulsory moral bioenhancement should be covert

Quote:

---

Abstract
Some theorists argue that moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory. I take this argument one step further, arguing that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration ought to be covert rather than overt. This is to say that it is morally preferable for compulsory moral bioenhancement to be administered without the recipients knowing that they are receiving the enhancement. My argument for this is that if moral bioenhancement ought to be compulsory, then its administration is a matter of public health, and for this reason should be governed by public health ethics. I argue that the covert administration of a compulsory moral bioenhancement program better conforms to public health ethics than does an overt compulsory program. In particular, a covert compulsory program promotes values such as liberty, utility, equality, and autonomy better than an overt program does. Thus, a covert compulsory moral bioenhancement program is morally preferable to an overt moral bioenhancement program.

---

Sure is great living in a time where some people are speed running apocalypic science fiction novels as fast as possible.

---

Yeah, that's a pretty ****ed outlook but I'm sure he's getting plenty of funding $$ to further that "research".

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Hoosegow said:

---

Today, I dismiss no conspiracy theories. The tin foil hat folks have been on a hell of a winning streak.

And all you have to do is listen to the rhetoric. None of this, if true, should be a surprise.

---

If you don't believe in conspiracy theories and how our government isn't always our benevolent father after Covid, you're a nincompoop.

Not sure how much truth their is to all of this tick stuff (about them releasing it) but I am certainly not going to immediately dismiss it. I can tell you that I am going to be much more diligent about applying permethrin on my clothes before I head into the woods... I know 2 people with Alpha Gal and it sounds freaking miserable. I LOVE red meat!

---

I think a fairly intelligent person looks at the conspiracy theories and says, so what.

It's either babbling insanity I want no part of.

Or

Its real and it changes nothing. You aren't getting rid of the government or politicians no matter which end of the spectrum you vote. You just get different bad leadership and impacts. So if you can't control it, it makes zero sense yo allow it to impact your life otherwise. If anything you're just allowing to be further manipulated by whichever political party is campaigning for / against it.

Seems to me the most likely culprit of an increase in the tick population is the growing feral hog population, at least in the south.

I have some relatives who have owned land and hiked a lot in the upper Midwest. Two of them contracted Lyme disease over 20 years ago and describe spikes in tick populations in wet years.

All that said, I wouldn't put bioterrorism past some of the far left extremist groups, but can't imagine it could be very widespread.

boulderaggie said:

---

The Why Files had an interesting episode on this...

---

Haven't gotten up to my place in KY yet this spring (went in March and it was still "winter" conditions"). Last year when I was there in April the ticks were crazy bad, then I went again in June and traipsed all around and only pulled a couple crawling on me after a several days in the woods.

Tick lifecycle starts on mice and rats, then they move on to bigger animals. I'm guessing the April window is a combo of spring green up and them moving from small critter to big ones. That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, needs to have more contextual data

Spray your clothes inside and out with permethrin, and get some of the elimitick pant cuffs. And like Brad paisley says,, I'd sure like to check myself for ticks.

I've heard soaking cotton balls in permethrin, and then sticking them in toilet paper cardboard tubes scattered along fencelines and woodlines will get those treated cotton balls into rodent nests, and kill the tick nymphs, which breaks the lifecycle.

It's an election year and one party has evil intentions, and can't stand on its laurels.