By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reduced its foodborne illness surveillance program, FoodNet, from monitoring eight pathogens to two, a year before a significant outbreak of cyclosporiasis occurred. This reduction, which made monitoring specific pathogens optional, took place as cyclospora infections surged across the U.S., with states like Michigan reporting hundreds of cases. Concurrently, the CDC dissolved its Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, which had previously handled work on such infections, leading to a reallocation of staff and responsibilities within the agency. Investigators are actively working to identify the source of the current cyclosporiasis outbreak, which has affected at least 18 states, though a definitive link to a specific food product has not yet been established.
Read the original article here
It’s quite concerning to learn that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during the Trump administration, reportedly ceased monitoring a particular parasite responsible for explosive diarrhea, and this happened *before* an outbreak emerged. This seems like a critical failure in public health surveillance, and it raises serious questions about priorities and preparedness. It’s almost as if the strategy was to simply not acknowledge a problem, hoping it would disappear on its own. This “head in the sand” approach, where if something isn’t monitored, it effectively doesn’t exist in the eyes of those in charge, is a dangerous way to govern, especially when dealing with infectious diseases.
The idea that monitoring infectious diseases might be considered “bullshit made up by the left” is frankly baffling. Public health and disease tracking are fundamental responsibilities of any government aiming to protect its citizens. When these systems are neglected or actively dismantled, it leaves the population vulnerable. The core purpose of paying taxes is to fund services that benefit society, and ensuring public health security should be at the very top of that list. The current era, characterized by such decisions, makes it hard to envision a positive societal trajectory.
The notion that science is a fabrication for intellectual validation misses the fundamental, practical importance of scientific understanding, especially in public health. The “Shit happens” motto, unfortunately, feels all too fitting when surveillance systems are allowed to falter. The suggestion that “owning the libs” would involve a widespread outbreak of explosive diarrhea is, of course, meant sarcastically, but it highlights the absurdity of politicizing basic health and safety measures. It’s a stark reminder that some of the most basic aspects of life and well-being can become entangled in political rhetoric.
The implications of stopping disease monitoring are profound. If the government isn’t tracking potential threats, how can it possibly respond effectively when they inevitably materialize? It creates a situation where outbreaks can fester and spread unchecked, leading to far greater costs and suffering down the line. This isn’t just about convenience; it’s about preventing widespread illness and potentially saving lives. The decision to cut back on monitoring, regardless of the stated reasons, appears to have had direct and negative consequences.
It’s disheartening to consider that this might be part of a broader pattern where problems are ignored to avoid dealing with them, rather than proactively addressing them. This approach not only fails to solve issues but often exacerbates them, leading to more complex and expensive problems in the long run. The cyclical nature of cutting programs and then facing more severe consequences is a recurring theme, and it appears to be a costly and ineffective way to manage public resources and safety.
The concept that “everything Trump touches turns to shit,” while a colorful expression, seems to resonate with the idea that his administration’s actions, in this case, have had literally foul consequences. This administrative style, where problems are eliminated by ceasing to report them, is akin to a CCP-style approach to governance – an illusion of efficiency created by suppressing information. This is a dangerous precedent, as it effectively silences the early warnings that are crucial for preventing larger crises.
The stark reality presented is that some believe the government, under this administration, actively wishes harm upon its citizens. The thought that leaders might want people to be sick, or even to suffer, is a chilling one. The idea of a “head in the sand” approach, coupled with a desire to avoid accountability, paints a picture of a leadership that is either profoundly negligent or intentionally detrimental to public well-being. The suggestion that this is about controlling the adult diaper market, while darkly humorous, points to the potential economic beneficiaries of such public health failures.
The notion that stopping the count of cases leads to a decrease in cases is a flawed analogy to a similar tactic seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, and it’s also reminiscent of how issues like livestock diseases, such as the screwworm infestation, are sometimes handled – by simply not acknowledging their presence. This deliberate neglect is a form of “weaponized incompetence” or “practiced malfeasance,” where actions (or inactions) are purposefully designed to produce harmful outcomes. It’s a disturbing reflection on how government priorities can be so misaligned with public welfare.
The thought process behind such decisions seems to be rooted in a desire to avoid responsibility. If the problem isn’t officially acknowledged or tracked, then the government can feign ignorance or claim there’s no crisis to manage. This “I don’t want to know about it” mindset is fundamentally incompatible with the duties of those entrusted with governing. It suggests a preference for denial over proactive problem-solving, and this is especially problematic when dealing with issues that have immediate and tangible impacts on people’s lives.
The current situation, where “pestilence is working overtime,” with multiple diseases emerging, paints a grim picture of public health vulnerability. This isn’t just about one parasite; it seems to be a broader systemic issue of preparedness and response. The continuous cycle of emerging threats, coupled with what appears to be a consistent pattern of inadequate oversight, suggests a deep-seated problem that extends beyond individual incidents.
The core issue here is accountability. When government agencies are defunded, their monitoring capabilities are diminished, and the public becomes more vulnerable. This vulnerability, coupled with a leadership that seems to prioritize political optics or personal convenience over public safety, creates a perfect storm for public health crises. The “FREEDOM SHITS” moniker, though crude, encapsulates the perceived consequence of such a governance style – a chaotic and unpleasant outcome for the populace. The ultimate consequence of such negligence is that people get sick, and often, the most vulnerable suffer the most.