U.S. Should Recognize Chagas Disease as Endemic"

 U.S. Should Recognize Chagas Disease as Endemic"

A Laguna Journal Exclusive by Michael Mick Webster syndicated investigative reporter

Overview:
A groundbreaking collaboration between leading epidemiologists from the University of Florida, Texas A&M, UC Berkeley, and the Texas Department of State Health Services has sounded an alarm: Chagas disease is no longer a foreign threat—it’s already here.

In the September issue of the CDC’s journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, these experts call on the United States to officially recognize Chagas disease as endemic. Their goal: to strengthen surveillance, enhance diagnostic awareness, and drive the development of treatment and prevention programs across both human and animal health sectors.

The Story:
For decades, Chagas disease—caused by the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi and spread by “kissing bugs”—has been labeled a “tropical” illness, dismissed as a danger confined to poor rural regions of Latin America. But new evidence shows that locally acquired cases in the U.S. are being overlooked, hidden behind a lack of diagnostic awareness and outdated assumptions in medical and veterinary training.

Each year, Chagas disease claims more lives in Latin America than malaria, yet in the U.S., it remains underdiagnosed, underreported, and misunderstood.

“Too often, medical and veterinary training programs dismiss Chagas as only a tropical disease and irrelevant to public and animal health in the U.S.,” one researcher noted. “But the vectors, the parasite—and locally acquired cases—are here. We need the next generation of doctors and veterinarians to recognize this threat.”

Why It Matters:

• Public Health Blind Spot: Chagas poses a quiet but growing risk across the southern U.S., particularly in Texas and the Gulf states.
• Animal Health Connection: Domestic animals, including dogs, can also contract Chagas—creating a dual public and veterinary health challenge.
• Stigma and Inequity: The perception of Chagas as a “foreign” or “poverty” disease has slowed progress and silenced awareness campaigns.
• Preventable Tragedies: Early detection and treatment are possible—but only if the disease is recognized as endemic and diagnostic infrastructure expands.

The Call to Action:
It’s time for policymakers, healthcare educators, and the CDC to confront a growing reality: Chagas disease is not imported—it’s homegrown.Recognition as an endemic disease will unlock research funding, strengthen surveillance, and help protect American lives.

Angle for Laguna Journal:
This exclusive brings readers into the heart of a neglected epidemic—combining investigative reporting, scientific credibility, and human impact. It’s a story about changing the narrative: from denial to recognition, from stigma to action.

Tagline:

A silent killer hiding in plain sight: Why America must face its own tropical disease

Are U.S. Troops Fighting Mexican Cartels Inside Mexico?

 NEWS ARTICLE

Are U.S. Troops Fighting Mexican Cartels Inside Mexico? What’s Verified—and What Isn’t

By Michael M. Webster, Syndicated Investigative Reporter

Bottom line: Despite a flood of social posts and YouTube videos claiming that U.S. troops are operating inside Mexico against drug cartels, there is no confirmation from credible outlets or officials that U.S. ground forces are conducting combat operations on Mexican soil. What is verified: Washington has ordered additional U.S. air and naval forces to the southern Caribbean and directed the Pentagon to prepare military options against transnational cartels. Mexico’s president publicly denies any agreement that would allow U.S. forces to operate in Mexico. Reuters+2Reuters+2ABC News+1Al Jazeera

What’s confirmed

• Regional deployments, not an invasion. The U.S. has deployed air and naval assets—including an amphibious squadron and Aegis destroyers—to the southern Caribbean/offshore approaches as part of an anti-cartel mission. This is force-posture near the region, not confirmation of ground operations in Mexico. Reuters+2Reuters+2Al Jazeera
• Pentagon told to prep options. President Donald Trump directed the Pentagon to prepare military options against Latin American cartels designated as terrorist organizations. Officials emphasize that planning options ≠ executing combat. ReutersABC NewsAmericas Quarterly
• Mexico’s public stance: no U.S. troops. President Claudia Sheinbaumsays there is no agreement with the DEA on the much-publicized “Project Portero” and underscores Mexican sovereignty—a direct rebuttal to narratives implying U.S. boots on Mexican soil. ReutersEl País+1

What’s driving the rumors

1. Planning vs. action. Headlines about “orders” and “options” are often misread as immediate deployments into Mexico. In reality, these are standard contingency steps. ReutersABC News
2. Mixed authorities. DEA trainings/workshops and intelligence sharing are notthe same as U.S. military combat operations. Mexico publicly pushed back on claims of a DEA-Mexico “operation” announcement, highlighting the line between coordination and co-deployment. Reuters
3. Algorithmic amplification. Viral short-form videos package speculation as fact, outpacing slower verification by mainstream outlets.

The legal/diplomatic reality

Any U.S. combat presence in Mexico would require explicit Mexican consent or a separate legal basis—moves that would be politically explosive in Mexico and risky for U.S.–Mexico relations. Mexico’s government has reiterated that it will not permit foreign combat forces on its territory. Reuters

What to watch next

• Language in formal U.S.–Mexico security texts now being finalized (scope of cooperation vs. sovereignty guarantees). Reuters
• U.S. naval/air activity in the Caribbean and any shift from interdiction and surveillance to escalatory actions. Reuters+1
• Official clarifications from DEA/DOD about cross-border coordination boundaries as “Project Portero” claims continue to circulate. Reuters

Have Mexican Drug Cartels Attacked U.S. Troops

 Have Mexican Drug Cartels Attacked U.S. Troops on U.S. Soil in Mid–Late August 2025?

Professional verification report — by Michael Mick Webster, Syndicated Investigative Reporter

Executive summary — short answer

After a comprehensive review of reporting, official statements, and public records from major news organizations and U.S. government sources, there is no verified evidence that Mexican drug cartels launched coordinated attacks against U.S. military troops on U.S. soil in mid–late August 2025.
What is verified: (1) the U.S. has increased its regional military and interdiction posture and has directed the Pentagon to prepare options targeting cartels; (2) there have been isolated hostile incidents at border installations and violent acts linked to criminal groups; and (3) a great deal of social-media content (YouTube, X/Twitter, Telegram, etc.) is amplifying unverified or speculative claims. ReutersABC NewsLos Angeles Times

What I searched and how I verified

I searched major wire services and national outlets (Reuters, AP, NYT, ABC, CBS, Al Jazeera, Guardian), U.S. government press releases (CBP, DOD, DHS), and widely circulated social-media posts and video claims from August 2025. I prioritized primary reporting from reputable outlets and official government statements to confirm — or disprove — claims that cartels had attacked U.S. troops on U.S. soil. Key authoritative sources are cited inline below. ReutersABC NewsLos Angeles Times

Findings — detailed

1) No corroborated reports of cartel-organized attacks on U.S. military ground forces on U.S. soil (mid–late Aug. 2025)

I found no article from major, reputable outlets (Reuters, AP, NYT, BBC, CNN, Washington Post, etc.) confirming that Mexican cartels carried out coordinated attacks on U.S. military troops on U.S. territory in the period you cited. Most high-quality reporting indicates the U.S. has prepared contingency options and moved naval/air forces to regional positions — but that is distinct from confirmed ground combat on U.S. soil. Reuters+1

Load-bearing sources: Reuters (deployments and Pentagon planning), ABC/NYT coverage of the Pentagon being asked to prepare options. ReutersABC News

2) Verified violent incidents at or near the border and attacks on federal facilities do exist — but they are not confirmed as cartel attacks on U.S. troops

There have been violent incidents in recent weeks (e.g., armed attacks on Border Patrol facilities and shootings near border areas). These are reported by reputable outlets (e.g., Los Angeles Times, AP). However, reporting typically cites local law enforcement and federal agencies and does not identify organized, cross-border cartel assaults specifically targeting U.S. military units on U.S. soil. Los Angeles TimesAP News

3) The U.S. has increased military posture in the region — a fact that fuels speculation

Multiple outlets report President Trump directed the Pentagon to prepare options against cartels and that the U.S. has redeployed naval and air assets to the southern Caribbean and nearby approaches. These deployments and planning steps are well-documented and are often conflated on social media with immediate ground combat. ABC NewsReuters

4) Mexico’s government and major media outlets deny or push back on claims of U.S. combat operations on Mexican soil — and there is no corroboration by Mexican officials that cartels are attacking U.S. troops on U.S. soil

Mexico’s president and foreign ministry have publicly insisted there will be no U.S. invasion and have disputed depictions that the U.S. is deploying combat troops inside Mexico. Likewise, there is no official Mexican confirmation that cartels have attacked U.S. military forces inside the United States. ReutersThe Guardian

5) Social media and video channels are amplifying unverified claims

A wide range of viral posts, videos, and fringe outlets are circulating sensational headlines and clips (e.g., “cartels attacking U.S. troops now”), often without sourcing or with anonymous sources. These items lack independent corroboration and should be treated as unverified until confirmed by primary reporting or official statements. Examples include viral YouTube videos and niche sites republishing anonymous-source reports. YouTubekenklippenstein.com

Why confusion spreads — quick analysis

1. Language ambiguity: “Preparing military options” is routinely misread as ongoing operations. Preparing options ≠ executing ground attacks. ABC News
2. Conflation of actors: DEA, CBP, and DoD roles differ; law-enforcement raids and U.S. military posture are often blended by pundits and social posts. ABC NewsU.S. Customs and Border Protection
3. Viral sensationalism: Short-form videos and thumbnails drive clicks and accelerate unverified narratives before journalists can verify. YouTube

Timeline & context (August 2025) — key verified items

• Early–mid August: Reports that the President directed the Pentagon to prepare military options against cartels. Major outlets covered the story with sourcing from U.S. officials. ABC NewsReuters
• Mid–late August: U.S. redeployments of naval and air assets to the southern Caribbean and nearby waters were reported (aim: interdiction and surveillance). No credible reporting confirmed U.S. ground combat inside Mexico or cartel attacks on U.S. troops on U.S. soil. Reuters+1
• Parallel: Isolated violent incidents (e.g., attacks on Border Patrol facilities) reported in U.S. press — disturbing and relevant — but not the same as organized cartel attacks on U.S. military forces. Los Angeles Times

Conclusion — what you can say, and how to present it

• Accurate, publishable statement: “There are no verified reports from major news outlets or government sources that Mexican cartels have mounted coordinated attacks on U.S. military troops on U.S. soil in mid–late August 2025. The U.S. has increased its regional military posture and prepared contingency options against cartels, and isolated violent incidents at border facilities have been reported; but claims of cartel assaults on U.S. troops on American soil are unverified.” ABC NewsReutersLos Angeles Times
• If you must share on social media: Clearly separate verified facts(Pentagon planning, naval/air deployments, border incidents) from unverified rumors (cartel attacks on U.S. troops on U.S. soil). Flag sources and link to primary reporting (Reuters, AP, ABC, DHS/CBP releases). ReutersABC NewsLos Angeles Times

Selected sources (key, load-bearing)

1. Reuters — reporting on U.S. military deployments and options to counter drug groups. Reuters
2. ABC News / New York Times coverage — President directed Pentagon to prepare military options (planning vs. execution). ABC NewsReuters
3. Los Angeles Times / AP — reporting on violent incidents at border facilities (context but not cartel attacks on U.S. troops). Los Angeles TimesAP News
4. Mexico government statements and major international outlets (Guardian, Al Jazeera) — denying any U.S. invasion and emphasizing sovereignty. The GuardianReuters
5. Viral/social reporting samples (Ken Klippenstein, YouTube clips) — examples of unverified amplification. kenklippenstein.comYouTube

Prince Andrew’s First Year of Marriage

 Prince Andrew’s First Year of Marriage Under New Scrutiny: What Andrew Lownie’s Entitled Alleges—And Why It Matters

By Michael “Mick” Webster

A new royal biography by historian Andrew Lownie, Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York (published August 2025), alleges that Prince Andrew slept with “more than a dozen women” in the first 12 months of his 1986 marriage to Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York. The claim—sourced in part to a former driver—was first highlighted in reporting by The Daily Beast. The Daily Beast

A volatile marriage—amplified by distance and neglect

According to the book, the relationship was beset early by long naval deployments, emotional strain, and mutual recriminations that hardened into public scandal. Lownie portrays a union suffering from royal indifference and periods of separation that created the conditions for infidelity and resentment. Multiple outlets summarizing the book describe a broader pattern of alleged philandering by Andrew and mounting tensions within the family. (See coverage from The Guardian, Yahoo/Parade roundups, and others.) The GuardianParadeYahoo

Publication details

Entitled is an unauthorized biography that Lownie says took four years to research; he filed numerous public-records requests and interviews to assemble the narrative. The UK edition is published by William Collins with release coverage and retail listings surfacing in mid-August 2025. Sky NewsThe ObserverAmazonMarie Claire UK

The Epstein dimension

Lownie threads these marital revelations into a longer arc—Andrew’s association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell—which has defined the duke’s modern public image. The book—and recent reporting—revisit:

• Andrew’s 2019 BBC Newsnight interview, where he denied Giuffre’s allegations and offered explanations (the “Pizza Express” alibi and a claim about not sweating) that drew intense backlash and effectively ended his public royal role. YouTubeThe Guardian
• The 2022 civil settlement with Virginia Giuffre in the U.S., made without admission of liability. The exact amount was confidential, though widely reported figures placed it around £12 million; major outlets at the time noted the sum was not officially disclosed. ABC

Lownie’s wider contention—echoed in multiple previews—is that Epstein leveraged proximity to Andrew to launder status and access, with potential intelligence sensitivities raised by the author (claims that are disputed and not independently verified by authorities). The Guardian

Reactions and denials

Representatives for Prince Andrew and other royals have denied or pushed backon various allegations surfacing around the book. Separate reporting also notes deepening intra-royal tensions, with speculation about future steps a new monarch might take regarding Andrew’s titles—claims that remain speculative and politically complex. The GuardianMarie Claire UKNew York Post

Why these allegations resonate now

1. Narrative convergence. The marital claims arrive as the Epstein chapter continues to shadow Andrew’s legacy, reinforcing a portrait—fair or not—of a prince out of step with contemporary expectations of accountability. YouTubeABC
2. Institutional credibility. With public trust in institutions under pressure, the monarchy’s handling of Andrew—past and future—has implications for its broader license to operate. Marie Claire UK
3. Media dynamics. An unauthorized biography with new sourcing invites intense amplification; yet it also elevates the need for careful attributionand clear labeling as allegations until independently corroborated. Sky News

What’s substantiated vs. alleged

• On the record/public record: the 2019 Newsnight interview and Andrew’s withdrawal from public duties; the existence of a 2022 settlement with Giuffre (terms confidential). YouTubeThe GuardianABC
• Allegations from the new book: “more than a dozen women” in year one of the marriage; broader claims about the scope of Andrew’s sex life; intelligence angles; and characterizations of intra-family behavior. These are Lownie’s assertions and/or those of his sources and should be read as unprovenunless independently verified. The Daily BeasteuronewsThe Guardian

The bottom line

Entitled adds explosive new allegations to the already fraught narrative of Andrew and Fergie’s early marriage and Andrew’s later entanglement with Epstein. The most headline-grabbing claim—that Andrew slept with more than a dozen women in his first married year—will intensify public and institutional pressure, but it remains an allegation in an unauthorized biography. Readers should distinguish between documented facts (interview, settlement, loss of public role) and contested claims that rely on unnamed or single-source accounts pending corroboration. The Daily BeastYouTubeABC

Further reading from reputable outlets covering the new book and its fallout:

Latest reporting on Andrew Lownie’s *Entitled* and Prince Andrew

Marie Claire UK

Prince Andrew's 'Rude and Nasty' Comments About Princess Kate Have Resurfaced

6 days ago

The Guardian

Digested week: Tales of royal tantrums and hostilities in the House of Beckham

4 days agoc