The New Zealand Ministry of Health are presenting Covid-19 data in a way that misleadingly suggests the Covid-19 injections are extremely effective, and they are deceivingly doing their upmost to ensure you cannot prove otherwise.
But as is always the case here at The Expose, where there is a will, there is a way, and we have managed to uncover the true nature of the current Covid-19 situation in New Zealand according to the Ministry of Health’s buried statistics, and the data strongly suggests the fully vaccinated are developing Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
The New Zealand Ministry of Health (NZ MoH) have been publishing a daily ‘Covid-19: Case Demographics‘ report since August 2021, and in it they confirm the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status. However, the NZ MoH do not provide an archive of the data. Therefore, once a new update comes out it’s impossible to find what the data was showing the day before, a week before, or even two months before.
But just like Public Health Scotland originally did before we exposed them, and just like the Government of Canada are doing now, the New Zealand Ministry of Health only provide a cumulative total from the 16th August 21.
Which is both irritating, and extremely misleading when you consider New Zealand is currently experiencing it’s largest wave of Covid-19 to date by a country mile.
But that isn’t the only deception. On the 16th August 2021, the date the New Zealand Ministry of Health have chosen to provide a cumulative total from, just 18.4% of the population of New Zealand were considered fully vaccinated.
It isn’t until around early December that vaccination begins to slow and approximately 75% of the population of New Zealand are considered fully vaccinated. Therefore, it would be very helpful to know the Covid-19 situation by vaccination status after this date, but for some strange reason the New Zealand Ministry of Health do not want you to know that.
However, thanks to the gift of the ‘Way Back Machine‘, and the irritating discovery that the New Zealand Ministry of Health recently changed the URL of their ‘Covid-19: Case Demographics‘ report, we have been able to find most of the previous reports, and have then been able to view the true picture of the Covid-19 pandemic in New Zealand by vaccination status, and unfortunately it strongly suggests the fully vaccinated are developing AIDS.
The following table is taken from the ‘Covid-19: Case Demographics‘ report published 25th Feb 2022, and it shows the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status in New Zealand between 16th Aug 21 and 24th Feb 22.
The following table is taken from the ‘Covid-19: Case Demographics‘ report published 12th Feb 2022, and it shows the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status in New Zealand between 16th Aug 21 and 11th Feb 22.
The following table is taken from the ‘Covid-19: Case Demographics‘ report published 6th Jan 2022, and it shows the number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status in New Zealand between 16th Aug 21 and 5th Jan 22.
Now all we have to do is perform simple subtraction to determine the true number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between 6th Jan and 11th Feb 22, and between 12th Feb and 24th Feb 22. But for the purpose of our analysis we’re only going to concentrate on the fully vaccinated population (2 doses), the unvaccinated population (over 12) and the partially vaccinated population.
The following chart shows the true number of Covid-19 cases by vaccination status between 6th Jan and 11th Feb, and between 12th Feb and 24th Feb.
As you can see in both periods the fully vaccinated population have accounted for the majority of Covid-19 cases, but the difference in the number of cases by vaccination status between 12th Feb and 24th Feb is shocking.
Many people might say “this to be expected when the majority of people are fully vaccinated, but vaccination reduces the chances of being infected with Covid-19”.
It’s all fine and dandy to say that, but can they prove it?
Well the best way to prove it is by looking at the number of cases per 100,000 individuals by vaccination status. But again, the New Zealand Ministry of Health doesn’t want you to know that, so we’ll just have to calculate them ourselves.
The total population size of New Zealand is 5.084 million.
And according to the 2013 census, the number of people in New Zealand under the age of 12 is approximately 578,802.
Therefore, because we’re disregarding the under 12’s due to them being ineligible for vaccination, we’re left with a population size of approximately 4,505,198.
But because Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has done such a good job at forcing people to take an experimental injection via Draconian vaccination mandates in New Zealand, there isn’t actually that many people who are unvaccinated, approximately 50,000 or so.
Therefore, for our analysis we are going to group the unvaccinated with the partly vaccinated population and compare them against the double vaccinated population.
So for the total population size by vaccination status between 6th Jan and 11th Feb, we’re going to go in the middle of the park and use the numbers published on 24th Jan 22.
Whilst for the total population size by vaccination status between 12th Feb and 24th Feb, we’re going to go in the middle of the park and use the numbers published on 18th Feb 22.
After some very boring maths we’re left with the following for the 24th Jan –
Not Vaccinated (over 12) + Partly Vaccinated population size = 591,390
Fully Vaccinated population size (two dose only) = 2,821,393
And the following for the 18th Feb –
Not Vaccinated (over 12) + Partly Vaccinated population size = 552,916
Fully Vaccinated population size (two dose only) = 1,798,419
Now to work out the Covid-19 case rate per 100,000 by vaccination status all we have to do is divide each population size by 100k, and then divide the number of cases by the answer to that previous equation.
The following chart shows the Covid-19 case rate per 100k population by vaccination status between 6th Jan and 11th Feb, and between 12th Feb and 24th Feb 22 –
These case-rates certainly pour water on the bonfire of anyone who says “vaccination reduces the chances of being infected with Covid-19”, don’t they?
Now that we know the Covid-19 case-rates by vaccination status we’re able to use Pfizer’s vaccine effectiveness formula to work out the real-world vaccine effectiveness.
Unvaccinated case rate – Vaccinated case rate / Unvaccinated case rate = Vaccine Effectiveness
The following chart shows the real-world two-dose Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness between 6th Jan and 11th Feb, and between 12th Feb and 24th Feb 22 –
Between 6th Jan and 11th Feb the real-world Covid-19 vaccine effectiveness proved to be minus-94.4%, but by the 24th Feb, the real-world vaccine effectiveness fell to minus-281.35%. This means the fully vaccinated are 3.8 times more likely to be infected with Covid-19 than the unvaccinated/one dose vaccinated population. This is what double vaccination has done to the people of New Zealand.
But vaccine effectiveness isn’t really a measure of a vaccine, it is a measure of a vaccine recipients immune system performance compared to the immune system performance of an unvaccinated person.
The Covid-19 vaccine is supposed to train your immune system to recognise the spike protein of the original strain of the Covid-19 virus. It does this by instructing your cells to produce the spike protein, then your immune system produces antibodies and remembers to use them later if you encounter the spike part of the Covid-19 virus again.
But the vaccine doesn’t hang around after it’s done the initial training, it leaves your immune system to take care of the rest. So when the authorities state that the effectiveness of the vaccines weaken over time, what they really mean is that the performance of your immune system weakens over time.
Therefore, in regards to the Covid-19 injections –
A vaccine effectiveness of +50% would mean that the fully vaccinated are 50% more protected against Covid-19 than the unvaccinated. In other words the fully vaccinated have an immune system that is 50% better at tackling Covid-19.
A vaccine effectiveness of 0% would mean that the fully vaccinated are no more protected against Covid-19 than the unvaccinated, meaning the vaccines are ineffective. In other words the fully vaccinated have an immune system that is equal to that of the unvaccinated at tackling Covid-19.
But a vaccine effectiveness of -50% would mean that the unvaccinated were 50% more protected against Covid-19 than the fully vaccinated. In other words the immune system performance of the vaccinated is 50% worse than the natural immune system performance of the unvaccinated. Therefore, the Covid-19 vaccines have damaged the immune system.
The problem we’re seeing here is that the immune system isn’t returning to its original and natural state. If it was then the outcomes of infection with Covid-19 would be similar to the outcomes among the not-vaccinated/one dose vaccinated population.
Instead, it continues to decline at a rate that means the not-vaccinated population have a better performing immune system, so this means the Covid-19 injections are decimating the immune systems of the fully vaccinated.
But to work out immune system performance we have to alter the calculation used to work out vaccine effectiveness slightly and divide our answer by either the largest of the vaccinated or unvaccinated case rate.
Unvaccinated case rate – Vaccinated case rate / largest of the unvaccinated / vaccinated case rate = Immune System Performance
The following chart shows the real-world immune system performance of the fully vaccinated population in New Zealand between 6th Jan and 11th Feb, and between 12th Feb and 24th Feb 22 compared to the immune system performance of the unvaccinated population –
Between 6th Jan and 11th Feb, the immune system performance of the fully vaccinated equated to -49%, meaning they were down to the last 51% of their immune system. But fast forward to 24th Feb, and we find that the immune system performance of the fully vaccinated in New Zealand has fallen to -74%, meaning the fully vaccinated populations immune systems have degraded by a further 25% in just 13 days, and they are now down to the last 26% of their immune system.
If the fully vaccinated population continues to degrade at the same rate, then they could have developed full blow AIDS by the middle of March 2022.
AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) is the name used to describe a number of potentially life-threatening infections and illnesses that happen when your immune system has been severely damaged.
People with acquired immune deficiency syndrome are at an increased risk for developing certain cancers and for infections that usually occur only in individuals with a weak immune system.
Unfortunately, the New Zealand Ministry of Health data shows that the fully vaccinated population are now just weeks away from developing Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, (AIDS) or a novel condition with similar attributes that can only be described as Covid-19 Vaccine Induced Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (VAIDS), and the repurcussions of this are already being seen in the official Covid-19 hospitalisation statistics for New Zealand –
Legislation promoting U.S. energy independence from Russia has been blocked by House Democrats.
House Republicans introduced the “American Independence from Russian Energy Act” on Feb. 28, a measure meant to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline, boost domestic oil and gas production, and prevent President Joe Biden’s executive branch agencies from halting energy leasing on federal land and water, among other provisions. Yet on March 1, the legislation was shot down in a 221–202 vote, almost entirely along partisan lines.
“Getting our pipelines expanded is huge,” Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee and a co-sponsor of the measure, told The Epoch Times. “We’re having to import Russian energy to the New England states because we don’t have pipelines that can carry Pennsylvania natural gas up there.”
U.S. crude oil imports from Russia more than doubled in 2021, rising to an average of 209,000 barrels per day from a daily average of roughly 76,000 per day barrels in 2020, according to data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, didn’t respond to a request for comment by press time on his choice to vote down the legislation.
Republicans on the floor voiced near-unanimous support for the measure, with Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) describing U.S. reliance on Russian oil and petroleum products as “unconscionable.”
By contrast, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said Republicans “talk about energy independence, yet … are the ones who have consistently voted against and opposed green and renewable energy here at home, which is the fastest way to achieve real energy independence.”
The 220 Democrats who voted the legislation down were joined by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), who said the measure could open up the northwest Florida coast to drilling, potentially impeding military testing and related missions that take place east of the Military Mission Line.
Westerman told The Epoch Times that Gaetz’s objection was a “totally illegitimate concern.”
“I don’t know where he got the misinformation, but it talks about the Western Gulf [of Mexico],” he said. “It is not going to allow drilling around Florida.”
A spokesperson for Gaetz explained the congressman’s concerns to The Epoch Times.
Although the bill doesn’t specifically authorize drilling near Gaetz’s district, it keeps the president and his cabinet from freezing the new drilling lease sales on federal land or water. Any withdrawal of those federal holdings from drilling would have to be authorized by Congress.
The spokesperson said this language could be used to undermine a September 2020 memorandum from then-President Donald Trump extending the drilling moratorium off Florida’s northwest coast until 2032.
“The Congressionally approved moratorium is set to expire in June of 2022,” the spokesperson said, referring to the original Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act that made the area off-limits for drilling.
“It would be foolish to respond to Russia’s aggression by rendering America less capable to defeat Russia or anyone else,” the spokesperson said. “Protecting the Gulf Test Range is in America’s best interest.”
The spokesperson told The Epoch Times that Gaetz is on record as favoring more U.S. energy production to undercut Russia, drawing attention to a passage in Gaetz’s 2020 book, “Firebrand”:
“Asia’s largest consumer of energy, China, is right next to Asia’s largest producer, Russia. They are building bridges to one another that could well imperil the free world.
“We can beat Russia and other fossil fuel foes just by keeping the price of oil perpetually low.”
Westerman, who said he supports an “all of the above” energy strategy that includes oil, gas, nuclear, solar, and wind, pointed out that greenhouse gas emissions fell during the Trump administration.
“I don’t think Putin gives a rip about environmental goals, or anybody’s economy other than his own,” he said.
The legislation instructs the secretary of the interior to immediately restart the oil and gas lease sales required by the Mineral Leasing Act, which Biden first froze through Executive Order 14008 in January 2021.
In addition, it specifically instructs the secretary to hold at least four oil and gas lease sales in Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Nevada, and “any other state in which there is land available for oil and natural gas leasing under the [Mineral Leasing] Act.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to three key bureaus and agencies of the Interior Department involved in mining and drilling authorization—the Bureau of Land Management, the Ocean Energy Management Bureau, and the Office of Surface Reclamation and Enforcement—but didn’t receive a response by press time.
“Democrats blocking the Act yesterday from even being considered demonstrates how unserious they are about truly addressing the crisis in Ukraine,” Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, a nonprofit energy industry association, told The Epoch Times in an email.
“We have the energy resources to starve Putin of revenue and lower prices for Americans if the president would just take action within his power now. For example, the government is holding up hundreds of federal permits in the Permian Basin, America’s most prolific oil region. Most are ready to go but are being held up for more climate change analysis.”
Representatives for the U.S. branch of Fridays for Future, the international climate movement started by Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg, didn’t respond to a request for comment on the legislation by press time.
Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall’s resolution blocking a Biden administration order requiring healthcare workers to get vaccinated against COVID-19 passed the U.S. Senate on Wednesday after Democrats didn’t have enough senators present to vote it down. Called a “resolution of disapproval,” the legislation would block a rule implemented by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that requires every employee, volunteer and contractor working at a healthcare facility that accepts Medicaid and Medicare to get the COVID-19 vaccine unless they have a medical or religious exemption.
“The Biden Administration’s mandate is about fulfilling their desire to control every aspect of our lives, and it’s a slap in the face to the hard-working men and women who never took a day off in the front-line fight of the COVID-19 battle,” Marshall said in a speech on the Senate floor, a stethoscope wrapped around his neck.
Vote was 49-44. This now goes to the House.
Read more at: https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article258970858.html#storylink=cpy
Hunter Biden attends his father Joe Biden’s inauguration as the 46th President of the United States on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 20, 2021. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/Pool
By Zachary Stieber for Epoch Times February 26, 2022Updated: February 27, 2022
The U.S. Secret Service (USSS) says it can’t locate years of records on communications regarding agents guarding Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden.
Hunter Biden was a Secret Service protectee from Jan. 29, 2009, to July 8, 2014, and traveled extensively during that time, including to Russia, China, and India, a congressional investigation found.
As part of the probe, which is ongoing, Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) have sought records from the Secret Service in the lawmakers’ roles as the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, respectively.
The Secret Service provided 261 heavily redacted pages (pdf) concerning Hunter Biden’s travel, but didn’t provide any records from 2010, 2011, or 2013.
“The USSS’s lack of communications during these years raises questions given that USSS travel records show that Hunter Biden made trips to China and other destinations around the world, including, Russia, Italy, Spain, and Mexico,” Grassley and Johnson wrote in a letter to USSS Director James Murray in January.
Murray responded in a letter dated Feb. 14 that was obtained by The Epoch Times.
He said a search for the records “did not yield communications for the years 2010, 2011, or 2013.”
The USSS and an attorney for Hunter Biden didn’t respond to requests for comment.
Murray said the Secret Service and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security, “remain committed to working with Congress to meet its oversight responsibilities and be responsive to requests for information.”
Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research for Judicial Watch, told The Epoch Times that it’s “highly improbable” that the USSS lost the records in question.
“I would not be surprised if there was political pressure on the service to withhold the records because it would be politically damaging to President Biden,” Farrell said.
Judicial Watch, one of the most prolific record-seeking nonprofits, has also sought Hunter Biden’s travel records from the Secret Service and obtained some of them through a Freedom of Information Act request. Those records showed the countries and territories that he visited while under the agency’s protection.
The records the senators and Judicial Watch are now seeking would likely shed more light on the younger Biden’s actions during that period of time, according to Farrell.
Both Judicial Watch and Sens. Grassley and Johnson say that Hunter Biden leveraged his father’s position as vice president to benefit himself personally, even conducting business while on trips with his father.
“Past performance doesn’t always guarantee exact reproduction or the same details, but I think it’s reasonable, given the pattern and practice, that we would see more of the same—lots of instances where Hunter was traveling with his father and essentially leveraging his father’s position as vice president for his own personal business benefit,” Farrell said.
Judicial Watch could file a lawsuit over the records.
Hunter Biden, who’s currently being investigated by a U.S. prosecutor, and Joe Biden have denied any wrongdoing.
White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters in late 2021 that she wouldn’t answer questions about Hunter Biden because he’s “not an employee of the federal government.”
Early voting analysis in two primarily Hispanic counties along the Texas border suggests Republicans are outpacing Democrats in voter enthusiasm and perhaps turnout, and Hispanic politicians in the state tell Fox News that its indicative of a larger trend.
A report from the political consulting company Ryan Data & Research shows that Republicans are 76% of the way to matching 2018 turnout in Cameron County, Texas along the southern border with Mexico with eight days remaining until Election Day. In Hidalgo County, which also sits on the border with Mexico, turnout is 65% of the way to matching 2018.
On the Democrat side, the party is only 59% of the way to matching 2018 turnout in Cameron County and 47% of the way in Hidalgo County.
Hispanic political candidates and operatives in Texas told Fox News that the early data points to a larger trend of Hispanic voters, especially in the Rio Grande Valley, supporting Republican candidates in areas that have been predominantly controlled by Democrats for decades.
This is another sign in a long list of signs that Democrats are losing support.
Pollsters have also warned the Democrats that they are going to lose the working class of races due to their radical policies.
The American people are turning against the Democrat Party.
By Jordan Conradson for GATEWAY PUNDIT February 24, 2022 at 6:15pm
Davis joined Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe on stage earlier at CPAC to make this groundbreaking announcement.
Today Project Veritas announced that retired CNN Field Operations Manager Patrick Davis will join Project Veritas as its full-time executive producer.
In 2019, The Gateway Pundit reported that Davis was recorded by an undercover Project Veritas journalist airing his frustrations with his network and former CNN President Jeff Zucker. This video was published in an “Expose CNN” series by Project Veritas.
After the FBI raided the homes of Project Veritas journalists and O’Keefe, Davis was inspired to help expose the truth.”What I’m doing right now is either brilliant, or it’s crazy, or maybe it’s a little bit of both,” said Davis.
Davis joined O’Keefe on stage for the announcement and discussed his new role at Project Veritas including his motivations for joining the non-profit.
Davis sat down for an interview with O’Keefe before his appearance on stage at CPAC where he spoke candidly about his previous career.
Patrick Davis shared more on why he left CNN and why he’s loving Project Veritas.
The reality is I was there for twenty-five years, therefore, half my life. I gave blood, sweat, and tears to that company. I love the company. I love the people there. I still do. There’s some amazing journalists that still work there, in the office and out in the field, especially. It got to a point where what we were doing, it seemed like, out in the field and gather news- how it was being translated on air, wasn’t what CNN was meant to be.
In the first five days of working at this company, I’ve had more conversations about ethical journalism than I did probably in the last ten years of my career…I mean, this is a young team, but they- but they love journalism. They love getting to the bottom of things.
This is the thing that I’ve learned in the months of being here. Everyone’s very dedicated, one hundred per cent buy-in. But the beauty of it is, we can save a little girl one night, or do a Pentagon Papers one night, and twenty-four hours later we’re doing, you know, dry Ramen noodles going after Rachel Maddow. What I’m doing right now is either brilliant, or it’s crazy, or maybe it’s a little bit of both, right?
Now the shoe is on the other foot. Bob Brown/Richmond Times-Dispatch via AP)
Stop the gerrymandering lies. RCP recently did an article where former governor Christie pointed out what gerrymandering looks like from the left. A few years back I pointed out how gerrymandering was done to create phony minority districts. A few blacks here, a few browns there, and you have a gerrymandering minority district.
New York’s new district lines, signed off by the Democratic legislature and governor, are so comically contorted they’ve generated jokes and criticism from the right to the far left. The shape of Rep. Jerry Nadler’s newly crafted district – New York’s 10th – is downright serpentine, so much so that it was quickly dubbed the “jerrymander,” which brings this issue back to its historic roots
The Atlantic put it this way: “[The redrawn district] slices down the west side of Manhattan, takes a ferry ride across the East River, cuts a horseshoe-shaped path through a half dozen neighborhoods on its way to Prospect Park, then wraps around a cemetery containing the earthly remains of Boss Tweed and Horace Greeley before swallowing a huge section of central and south Brooklyn.”
Nadler’s new district is the most egregious example, but there are plenty of others across the Empire State. And some Democrats argue that some district lines in New York are drawn to protect moderate Democratic incumbents with others gaming the systems against Republicans. That is debatable, but regardless, a “jerrymandered” district like Nadler’s isn’t a good look for a party that has railed against GOP gerrymandering as a crime against the Constitution in places like Ohio.
The Princeton group labeled the New York map as particularly egregious; noted that new lines in Illinois and Maryland have benefited Democrats. The Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman has given a recent edge to Democrats in the great gerrymandering sweepstakes of 2020.
“For the first time, Dems have taken the lead on @CookPolitical’s 2022 redistricting scorecard,” Wasserman tweeted in early Feb. “After favorable developments in NY, AL, PA et. al., they’re on track to net 2-3 seats from new maps vs. old ones.”
Both sides are raising millions of dollars for their redistricting legal battles. A CNBC report last week, citing internal GOP fundraising invitations, said Republican “megadonors” want to raise at least $3 million to fight the New York maps alone. The report didn’t mention that the NDRC has raised $10 million since 2017, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Media Accountability Project LLC d/b/a “TMAP” is a Nevada Limited Liability Company organized to assist Kyle Rittenhouse with legal costs associated with holding the media accountable for publishing inaccurate and defamatory statements. In addition, The Media Accountability Project was established to promote fair and accurate reporting across all journalistic mediums.
We see that another person will be taking on the media. The odds are against him and he most likely will not prevail in many of the lawsuits. But the good news is that he will force many from the left to defend themselves in court. Remember the Kentucky Hero Nicholas Sandmann? CNN, The Washington Post and NBC News all made settlements with Sandmann so far.
Kyle Rittenhouse went on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program to announce that he’s launching a “Media Accountability Project” to make sure no one experiences the grief he endured after shooting three people at a Black Lives Matter protest in 2020.
“It” is the February 18, 2022 publication of a study on ivermectin with a conclusion that inexplicably departs from the study’s own data. Even worse, the Malaysian I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial and JAMA itself dismiss the totality of peer-reviewed, published evidence (and a number of summary meta-analyses) showing repeatedly shorter times to clinical recovery, fewer hospitalizations, and far less death when COVID patients are treated with ivermectin.
“This study was clearly designed to fail. The authors selected out patients with mild or moderate disease who were at low risk of having a major event. Consequently it was grossly underpowered for any meaningful patient-centered outcome,” said Dr. Paul Marik, FLCCC Chairman Chief Scientific Officer.
The authors of the study reported that “ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease. The study findings do not support the use of ivermectin for patients with COVID-19.”
This graph of the I-TECH study results clearly shows that even in this underpowered study, mortality benefits trend in FAVOR of ivermectin. Even though there were SEVEN fewer deaths with the use of ivermectin in this study— the authors STILL erroneously concluded that IVM was ineffective for COVID. The question to be answered here by JAMA is why they ever chose to publish this highly misleading study.
But Dr. Pierre Kory, FLCCC president and Chief Medical Officer, says that is flat out wrong and highly misleading.
“In the study’s control group, two and a half times more patients had to be placed on mechanical ventilation —and there were three times more deaths in the control group. This shows that ivermectin causes a 75% risk reduction in death and further strengthens metadata of Ivermectin’s large mortality benefits in severe COVID.”
Dr. Keith Berkowitz, FLCCC co-founder, noted that the study’s strongest p-value (the measure of statistical significance) was for the 28-day hospital mortality. “Overall, this study was too limited and small to even be randomized. Still, the results trended in favor of ivermectin,” said Berkowitz.
An important note about the study:
It’s important to recognize here that the study participants had been experiencing symptoms for FIVE days by the time they were enrolled in the study. This is an important point to consider, given the primary outcome of the study was “the proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease.” As those of you who have been following the FLCCC know, early treatment (within the first ONE OR TWO DAYS of symptom onset) is critical to slow virus replication and impeded progression to severe disease.
So the authors of the study reported that ivermectin was not helpful in preventing progression to severe disease—among study patients who had been started too late in their disease at the start. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that IVM was not helpful in the treatment of COVID.
But wait a second.
What happened to the patients when they did progress to severe disease? What did the study find out about its secondary outcomes, which included rates of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit admission, 28-day in-hospital mortality, and adverse events? Let’s take a look:
In which arm of the study would you prefer to be? The study showed that fewer people in the ivermectin arm of the trial required mechanical ventilation or ICU admission. Fewer died, of course, while more experienced diarrhea. It is likely that most would say that they would MUCH prefer to be in the ivermectin arm of the study.
“It is clear that a massive study would have been far better to determine greater statistical significance,” continued Dr. Marik. “But to be honest, this study is in line with the major medical journals which will only publish negative studies on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. They simply will not publish any of the dozens of positive studies that have emerged. This constitutes enormous, deliberate publication bias, which is immensely injurious to scientific truth—and to patients throughout the world.”
Monica De La Cruz, Mayra Flores, and Adrienne Peña Garza, all from Hidalgo County, hope to flip congressional seats across the region.
Monica De La Cruz on the campaign trail.
Adrienne Peña Garza remembers the insults at least as vividly as her triumphs. In 2018, Peña succeeded in her campaign to lead the Hidalgo County Republican Party, based in McAllen, becoming the first Hispanic woman to sit as chairwoman. As someone proud to call herself raza (a word Mexicans use to describe themselves as a race), a woman of color, and a Latina, the win meant something special to Peña: it wasn’t just for her, but for South Texans who looked like her. That feeling of warm pride, however, soon clashed with the caustic burn of scorn. When she began leading meetings at the HCRP office, two women swung a sledgehammer outside, smashing open a coconut. The symbolism wasn’t subtle. With the shell cracked, Peña could see the brown on the outside and the white on the inside.
In 2018, that disdain from fellow Mexican Americans was not unusual for Republicans in Hidalgo County, especially with then-president Donald Trump in the Oval Office. In response to the indignities, Peña formed deep connections with the other Latinas who came in the HCRP office doors. In particular, Peña remembers when she met Monica De La Cruz and Mayra Flores. De La Cruz, a local insurance agent, started attending meetings the same year that Peña was elected head of the local party, and eventually volunteered as a precinct chair. In 2019, Flores, a respiratory nurse whose husband is a Border Patrol officer, began coming in for events supporting immigration agents during the government worker furlough. Peña recalls how the two immediately brought fresh energy into the office, as if someone had turned on music in a room that had been quiet. “I just thought, ‘Wow. You’ve got that something,’” Pena says. “‘And we need your help.’”
Through 2019 and 2020, the women worked to increase Republican turnout in South Texas, with Flores running the HCRP’s Spanish-language outreach. For the most part, they toiled outside of the spotlight. Even when De La Cruz announced a bid to try to unseat two-term Democratic congressman Vicente Gonzalez, national Republicans—and even the statewide GOP—paid little attention to her campaign. South Texas was still a blue firewall, a place where it seemed Republicans had no chance of winning. Some counties there had not elected a Republican in more than one hundred years, and in 2016 Trump hadn’t mustered even 30 percent of the vote in Hidalgo County, where Gonzalez’s district was anchored. Most of the time, the local news painted conservatives such as Peña as outspoken but hopelessly outnumbered in deep blue South Texas, like horseflies biting cattle down in the Rio Grande.
Then everything changed. The political world of deep South Texas was rocked in November of 2020 when Trump smashed expectations in all the counties along the Rio Grande, transforming once-clear political boundaries in Texas into disputed territory—and leading Democrats around the country to question whether they were losing Hispanic voters. Republican politicians from Governor Greg Abbott to U.S. House minority leader Kevin McCarthy made pilgrimages to South Texas in the months after the election. Money and resources have followed: hundreds of thousands of dollars have poured into midterm races for House seats, and the Republican National Committee opened new Hispanic community centers in Laredo, McAllen, and San Antonio. On the local level, Republican organizations like “Project Red Texas” have paid the filing fees for a bevy of local candidates across South Texas.
Overnight, local underdog political leaders, such as De La Cruz, Peña, and Flores, became conservative celebrities. The attention has both stunned and emboldened the Hidalgo County women. After the election, Peña had her name in publications as high-profile as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. (When a photo of her ran on the cover of this magazine, she and her family bought over a hundred copies.) This year, after Peña launched her reelection campaign for HCRP chair, she received a video endorsement from Donald Trump Jr.
Flores, meanwhile, saw her star rise most vividly on social media. On both Instagram and Facebook (where she was already popular before the election), she gained tens of thousands of followers from all over the country. She declared a bid for Congress shortly after the 2020 election. “#SomosConservadores,” she captioned a post last February announcing a bid for Congress to represent the Thirty-fourth Congressional District, which spans the western RGV and parts of the Gulf Coast, and extends as far north as San Antonio. After her announcement, Thomas Homan—the ICE director turned Fox News talking head—gave his endorsement, as did Texas congressional representatives Beth Van Duyne and Pat Fallon.
De La Cruz also saw her celebrity skyrocket. In 2020, when she ran against Gonzalez in Texas’s Fifteenth Congressional District, which stretches like an exclamation mark from the Rio Grande Valley up north to Seguin, the incumbent had expected to coast to victory, as he had in 2018 when he won almost 60 percent of the vote. De La Cruz nearly took him down, coming within three points. Then, following Trump’s lead, she refused to accept the loss, baselessly alleging fraud. When she made it clear she would run again in 2022, McCarthy, the minority leader, declared her a GOP “Young Gun,” one of the upstart congressional candidates whom the party will throw money behind in this election cycle; endorsements from Senator Ted Cruz and Houston congressman Dan Crenshaw soon followed. The Fifteenth, fresh off a round of redistricting to make it more favorable for the GOP, is considered the only truly competitive congressional seat in Texas, and De La Cruz has enjoyed immense support from all levels of her party.
Republican victory this November is far from a given; South Texas has yet to elect a single Republican member of Congress. If De La Cruz and Flores both win their races, however, they wouldn’t just be the first in their party to be elected in the Fifteenth and Thirty-fourth districts, respectively—they would also be the first women elected to Congress from anywhere in deep South Texas, the borderlands from Laredo down into the Rio Grande Valley. Meanwhile, if Peña wins reelection to chair the Hidalgo County GOP in March, she’ll be one of four Latina GOP chairwomen in the RGV’s five counties.
This marks a remarkable shift: for generations, South Texas border politics have been dominated by men—and often their male heirs. Politically powerful families, some with towns named after their ancestors, have frequently passed down political offices like heirlooms. Other onetime political newcomers, such as Representative Henry Cuellar (the child of migrant workers, and the incumbent in Texas’s Twenty-eighth, anchored in Laredo), have held office for decades, forming powerful grips on local politics.
That female candidates—Latinas—are now the most poised to change South Texas politics is not a complete coincidence. Trump improved his approval rating among Hispanic women in 2020 significantly more than in many other demographic groups. And besides their conservative ideologies and expansive political platforms, candidates like De La Cruz and Flores offer a vivid sense of something new. Many voters, even those who will vote blue this year, are tired of the unwieldy Democratic Party program in South Texas, which, as with any party machine that spends decades in power, has become convoluted, rigid, and prone to insider politics.
But perhaps the clearest answer to why women like De La Cruz, Flores, and Peña find themselves at the forefront of conservative politics in South Texas is simple: they’re the ones who were there, doing the work, organizing and striving before anyone was paying attention.
At her office in Alamo, Monica De La Cruz greets me with the industrial-strength warmth of a consummate politician. During our late January interview, an ear-to-ear grin that spreads up to her eyes never fades. It’s a face set with the sort of confidence I’ve known dancers to practice in the mirror, but De La Cruz might not need to feign happiness. Things seem to be going her way. She’s got hundreds of thousands of dollars in the war chest, and none of her eight primary opponents in the Fifteenth can boast her eighteen endorsements from current members of Congress. If she makes it to the general election, she’ll no longer need to face an incumbent: after Republican gerrymandering redrew boundaries, the incumbent, Vicente Gonzalez, chose to run to the east in the Thirty-fourth, a district the Republican-led Legislature packed with Democratic voters, where Flores is running. Meanwhile, the Fifteenth—already mockingly known as “the fajita strip” for its farcically long shape—got sharpened down like a pencil, as Republicans shaved out counties that favored Democrats, turning a district that favored Biden by 2 points into one that would have favored Trump by 3. Local Democrats, forced to scramble at the last minute to find a replacement for Gonzalez, have not coalesced behind any one candidate.
Despite De La Cruz’s newfound political stardom, her campaign still has some of the trappings of her underdog 2020 run—what she calls her “true grassroots” first effort. De La Cruz’s office is a nondescript building off U.S. 83, where she works as an insurance agent. (Incidentally, Apple Maps will navigate a person to a nearby used car dealership if one searches for her office on the app.) But today De La Cruz speaks like someone who already has an office on Capitol Hill. Her answers acrobatically return, without fail, to bullet points from her stump speech. When I ask why she first decided to run, she brings the question back to border control: she says the thousands of migrants crossing the border in 2019 convinced her of a need for change. When I ask her how, if she wins, she intends to represent disparate constituencies in her large district, she brings the question back to border control: “The number one issue from the south to north is border security.” When I ask what she plans on doing when she first gets to Washington, she once again brings the question back to border control: “The first thing I’ll do if elected to Congress is to meet with our Border Patrol leaders and be their voice.”
Unsurprisingly, De La Cruz’s first campaign commercial, released in January, also focuses on the border: it was filmed largely in front of the wall in Hidalgo County. In the spot, De La Cruz emphasizes her identity as an American: “I’m Monica De La Cruz and I love America,” she says. She then holds up a photo of her grandmother. “As a mom, I teach my kids to follow the rules, just like my grandma did, when she legally immigrated from Mexico. But Joe Biden abandoned us, and our border, transforming our country with drugs, gangs, and violence.” As she speaks, images of asylum seekers crossing the border flash on screen with what look like stock images of cocaine bundles and tattooed gang members.
Focusing on immigration is an interesting pitch to make in TX-15, where more than a quarter of residents are immigrants, and many voters have families with mixed status—a parent, a tío, a cousin who is undocumented. I ask De La Cruz if she worries about alienating would-be voters who think her rhetoric—like Trump’s messaging—portrays border crossers as dangerous criminals or, at its worst, denigrates Mexican Americans as an entire ethnic group. De La Cruz’s answers are not conciliatory. “If the people in South Texas were frustrated by President Trump’s narrative of the wall and of people coming illegally, then this district would not have swung eighteen points in his favor,” she said.
The data undercuts that argument a bit. Besides the fact that Trump and De La Cruz both lost in 2020, De La Cruz’s support largely came from far from the border. While she handily won more northern—and much more Anglo—counties like Guadalupe (roughly halfway between San Antonio and Austin), her vote total plummeted closer to the border, and especially in majority Hispanic districts. In Hidalgo County, De La Cruz flopped: she didn’t manage even 40 percent of the vote.
Another fact that makes De La Cruz’s emphasis on the border peculiar is that the border is not the primary issue for most voters in South Texas. Polling from Cambio Texas, a progressive advocacy organization that has headquarters based not far from De La Cruz’s office, in Pharr, found that among South Texas voters who supported Trump, the most important issues, by far, were the economy and health care. Of the 512 voters surveyed, only 14 percent said border security or immigration was their primary concern. (The border wall itself can also be a wedge issue among conservatives. Even among voters who want to see enhanced border security and who support the Border Patrol, the idea of a physical barrier—an ugly scar along the river with a dolorous environmental impact—can give some pause. In recent years, I’ve spoken with Republicans in Zapata and Starr counties who want to see a wall on much of the border—just not in their backyard. They’re worried it could cause flooding.)
De La Cruz’s emphasis on the wall, however, might not be entirely about courting voters in TX-15: instead, it’s about securing national endorsements, as well as fund-raising from Republicans around the country. According to FEC filings, more than 40 percent of De La Cruz’s campaign contributions have come from outside of Texas, with maximum contributions reached by donors including a hedge fund CEO in New York City and a ski resort owner in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. De La Cruz offers a vision made to play nationally among Trump voters: a Latina who is an American first; a Mexican American whose family came legally; and a border resident who wants to see Trump’s wall completed.
Indeed, although she says it’s exciting to see Latinas carrying the GOP banner in South Texas, De La Cruz stresses that her candidacy isn’t about ethnicity; it’s only about America. “The fact that women leaders like Adrienne, like Mayra, are willing to sacrifice their careers, the time with their family, in order to be leaders in this movement and awakening is just a testament of this country,” De La Cruz says. “And the fact that truly, anyone, everybody has an opportunity—whether you’re male or female, whether you’re Hispanic or non-Hispanic—if you’re willing to sacrifice and work hard for the opportunity, the road to the American dream is there.” (For De La Cruz, part of that sacrifice has been her privacy. In the midst of a bitter divorce, publications as varied as the Washington Post and People have broadcast the sordid details of her clashes with her estranged husband.)
Where once De La Cruz bonded with Peña and Flores over feeling ignored by the broader party and disrespected by local Democrats, today there’s a sense of excitement. De La Cruz speaks as if she’s already won her race, and, in a way, she has won something: she’s being taken seriously, dead seriously, by both national Republicans and national Democrats.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CZelyc9syK0/
Like tens of thousands of others, I first encountered Mayra Flores through her social media. On Instagram and Facebook, she’s cracked the code of the conservative mass media: a mix of political memes, earnest prayers, and constant, seething resentment. On Facebook, she’s called for a militarized response against immigration across the border (“Send Troops To Our Southern Border Not Europe,” read a recent post). On Instagram, she talks about Democrats “destroying America.” She’s also made at least a subtle appeal to followers of QAnon-style conspiracy theories, captioning some photos with “#Q” and “#QAnon,” as well as with the conspiracy movement’s slogan (“Where we go one, we go all”).
I was surprised, then, by the Mayra Flores whom I met for coffee at He Brews Life Cafe, an evangelical coffee shop in McAllen. Flores spoke with clear compassion for undocumented immigrants and families arriving at the border, she seemed eager to represent both Republicans and Democrats in her district and work across the aisle in Congress, and she explicitly condemned the QAnon web of conspiracy theories and its supporters. She spoke with an optimism that belies the odds stacked against her: even if she clears the primary, the Fifteenth, as currently constructed, went for Biden, and Gonzalez has over $2 million to spend compared with the $180,000 Flores has raised.
Flores does not read like your average Republican candidate for Congress. She was born in Burgos, Tamaulipas, Mexico’s easternmost border state with Texas, where she still has relatives who have been waiting for years for visas as the region becomes more dangerous. At six years old, she immigrated with her family to the Rio Grande Valley, where her parents had come to work the fields. In her adolescence, Flores worked alongside them, picking cotton in Memphis, Texas, to raise money for clothes and school supplies. Growing up, Flores saw firsthand the discrimination that the undocumented face in this country. When she traveled with her family to pick onions in Georgia one year, she saw managers denigrate and underpay some of the workers. When she asked her father why they were being treated that way, he answered, “Porque no tiene papeles”(“Because they don’t have papers”).
Flores’s intense pride in her mexicanidad (her Mexican-ness) can seem at odds with her willingness to parrot Trumpian messaging that portrays Mexico as a country overwhelmed with violence, sending criminals and drugs across the border. She admits that the issue of immigration is difficult for her. She struggles to find the rhetorical nuance that captures the unique perspective she has, as someone who is both Mexican and American and as an immigrant married to a Border Patrol agent. Her idiosyncratic position means that she has felt out of place politically in the Republican Party at times. She remembers a GOP operative once telling her he couldn’t trust her or other Hispanic candidates in Congress because “Y’all always vote Democrat.” She also says she’s had Democrats tell her to go back to her own country and call her a slur for border-crosser.
But she says she’s been a conservative all her life, and describes volunteering and meeting other Hispanic Republicans as the culmination of a long awakening. Despite her father’s Democratic politics, Flores says she was raised with “strong conservative values,” among them a fierce work ethic and undying bootstrap-ism. The most animating political issue for her is abortion. “How can you say you have South Texas values if you’re not pro-life? South Texas is pro-life,” she says. (Much as De La Cruz pivots reflexively back to the border, Flores repeats that second sentence many times over the almost two hours we speak.) Flores says that once, while she was marching in an anti-abortion rally in a MAGA hat, a man accosted her in Spanish, calling her “vendida,” the word for sellout, traitor. “Eres hipócrito,” she shot back at him. She continued, in Spanish: “You’re here marching for the lives of the innocent, but in November you’re going to vote pro-abortion? Shame on you. You shouldn’t be here.”
Flores can comprehend why tensions run high, especially in an immigrant community. When I ask if she worries that her fearmongering on the border might demonize others like her, she’s quick to agree that one must be careful with one’s language. “Absolutely I understand—and that’s when I say that there are good people coming. They want to come here for the American dream and work hard,” she said.
When pushed, it becomes clear how Flores supports aggressive border enforcement while still caring about those crossing the border: Though her campaign’s immigration messaging focuses on protecting Americans, she believes a tightly controlled border is also in the best interests of would-be immigrants. “There are good people wanting to come here,” she says. “But I don’t want the good people to go through that journey; I don’t want them to sacrifice that much. So how do we help them and guide them to do it the right way?” She also believes a stricter enforcement of immigration laws domestically is necessary to prevent undocumented immigrants from being exploited for their labor. It’s a restrictionist talking point already popular among politicians (including those in the Biden administration): that deterrence—making the border impossible to cross—is actually compassionate, because it discourages people from making the dangerous journey northward.
The theory does not often dwell on how many migrants coming north are also leaving a place where it’s impossible to stay. When I ask Flores what should be done about the those already here who are hoping for legal status, or those arriving on the border desperate, she again invokes her family waiting for visas in Mexico. “The people already in line, we should focus on them first,” she says. When I ask again what is to be done with the others not in that line, she says, “We absolutely need bipartisan immigration reform.”
Flores’s contradictions and complexities are a form of indigestion, as she tries to metabolize her own lived experience with the orthodoxies of conservatives in the Trump era. Nowhere is the strain more apparent than in her social media presence: her organic political beliefs and bold perspective on what Hispanic conservatism can look like has earned her a dedicated following. But she’s also consumed and regurgitated all the key takes that have gone viral in conservative media spaces; she believes the election was stolen from Trump. (In our interviews she said she condemned the January 6 insurrectionists. But on the day of the violent attempted takeover of the Capitol, she posted a photo on Instagram of what appeared to be crowd on the DC streets, with the words “PROUD AMERICAN” in bold over it.) She’s strongly in favor of beefing up voter ID laws. And while the memes slamming Democrats are often hilarious, they add up to a clear point: “owning the libs” is, for Flores, a legitimate political priority.
What’s behind the rise of Latinas in GOP politics in the valley? There’s a unique politics brewing among South Texas conservatives. Candidates speak in the same way as progressives on issues of identity, using the language of “representation,” but repurposed for a conservative audience. In interviews, Peña often brings up the fact that she’s the first Hispanic woman to chair the Hidalgo Republicans. And Flores gets solemn when she talks about how she feels about running for Congress as a Mexican-born Latina. “When elected in November, I will be the first Mexican American [born in Mexico] in the Republican party,” she says. (That’s not entirely true: New Mexico Republican politician Octaviano Larrazolo, the first-ever Hispanic member of the Senate, was born in Chihuahua in 1859; but Flores would be the first since Larrazolo left office in 1929.) When it comes to why Latinas are leading a political charge from the right, Flores attributes it in part to the fact that our communities often look to our matriarchs for moral guidance.
For the national Republican party, the value of identity is simpler and more strategic: putting a Latina like De La Cruz in Congress could send a clear message that the party is serious about shaking its long-term image as a white men’s club; that the tent is getting bigger. And in Texas, where Hispanics are on the precipice of becoming the largest ethnic group, Republicans’ ability to attract Hispanic voters is a matter of political survival. Candidates like De La Cruz and Flores know that and are capitalizing on that newfound power. After being ignored for decades, they have a voice in Texas conservatism. “Everywhere I go, I tell the party, you need to start investing in Hispanic community now,” Flores says. “I tell people it’s beyond Mayra Flores, it’s beyond Monica De La Cruz—if we don’t start investing in the Hispanic community to vote Republican now, we will lose the state in ten years.”