‘The most extraordinarily brutal government New Zealand has had for decades.’

 invite response                
2022 Jul 3, 7:58am   3,230 views  35 comments

by Al_Sharpton_for_President   ➕follow (5)   💰tip   ignore  

In this long-form interview with sociologist Jodie Bruning, she describes the alarming disconnect between the academic literature and the Government’s Covid response, its barrage of untransparent law-making, and the subsequent impact on our rights – and why the Covid-19 primary Acts must be repealed.

This interview, conducted over email, has been edited for clarity.

TLG: You recently filed a very thorough OIA request to three different government departments, and a Minister – the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Hon. Chris Hipkins, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Business, innovation and Employment – asking for information about the science they used to underpin Covid-19 response policies. Why?

JB: Over the last two years myself, as well as New Zealand and international colleagues in public health and medicine have kept up with the published and peer reviewed literature, the sort you find published in PubMed and in Google Scholar.

We’ve focused primarily on four areas that we believe are relevant to decision-making over the Covid-19 event.

First, what the risk profile is of Sars-Cov-2, the respiratory coronavirus that can lead to Covid-19, for severe disease and death
Second, whether the mRNA Pfizer (codename BNT162b2) vaccine, or injectable, which uses a completely new technology, is safe
Third, whether the mRNA injection is effective in preventing hospitalisation and death
Fourth, what other therapies can safely and effectively (meaningfully) prevent hospitalisation and death.
We’ve observed patterns of response in the policy and regulatory arena that don’t appear to have focused on these issues. Risk arises when an outbreak produces a severe burden on the health system that results in hospitalisation and death. A pandemic can be announced, but the health impact across the population may be mild, for example other health conditions may present a greater burden on the health system.

As governments have limited resources, considerable judgement is required. For example, the diseases of obesity, mental illness and cancer are all at epidemic proportions, therefore it’s really important to understand and balance, what presents the greatest threat to health systems in order, in the public interest, to correspondingly weigh how resources should be allocated.

If the disease is mild across the population, but interventions are mandated, there is potential to produce harm, impacting human rights and promoting distrust in government. Such a response would not be proportionate to the risk.

I want to understand specifically what the Minister for Covid Response, Chris Hipkins, with such extensive power during a national emergency, was personally privy to. Not just the cherry-picked stuff. I can’t see anything in the Official Information Act that would prevent this happening.

I believe that civil society has a right to understand to what degree this senior official has been exposed to knowledge evident in the scientific and Pfizer literature. Is this not a fair expectation?

Accountability and Covid response decision making

Theoretically(!), democratically accountable governments that impose rights limiting legislation, should also be looking at the potential indicators of disease severity, including the case fatality rate, unusually severe morbidity, unexpected mortality patterns, and unusual complications. The degree to which a pandemic event represents a severe health risk to the majority of the population can then be assessed. This demonstrates accountability (as opposed to tyranny) and promotes trust in the governing bodies, in the national interest.

This might also include accounting for the use of radically new technology, with unfamiliar ingredients such as lipid nanoparticles, which are known to be toxic.

The injectable had two major bugs that differed from old vaccines: First, the mRNA injection is based on only a segment of the old Wuhan Sars-Cov-2 – so it was unlikely to confer long-lasting immunity because it wasn’t the whole coronavirus, and there was a massive mutation of the spike protein with Omicron.

Secondly, the mRNA injectable product sends instructions into the body to manufacture the antigenic and inflammatory spike protein. Exposing perfectly healthy people to a self-manufacturing inflammatory protein was always going to involve risk. This is gene therapy.

However, without triangulating the data in the literature with local data and absent mandatory reporting of adverse events, the information used by elected representatives and staff is deficient. It’s narrowly configured and warped.

Proportionality and one-size-fits-all policy

The OIA request is important, as these agencies and individuals across New Zealand’s government machinery have mandated injections. People who are not at risk must take the novel gene therapy to protect at-risk people, requiring them to be human shields. Then government has acted to prevent doctors accessing antivirals that have been used for decades. The moral and ethical implications of these actions are substantive.

Another motivation for the OIA request, is that core principles in the 1956 Health Act appear to have been jettisoned. The Health Act has been deployed to control an infectious disease outbreak, yet principles enshrined in the Health Act, such as proportionality, have been totally ignored.

It was clear from early 2020 that those at risk were the very elderly and those with multiple health conditions. But because this literature was excluded from any policy-relevant debate or reporting, there was this entrenched idea that people who were not at risk must fall in line.

Instead, it appears that the prevention of cases, infection, became the basis for all restrictions – even though Sars-Cov-2 infection for most of the population was experienced as a mild respiratory infection.

You can see the capture of thinking in the Commentary that was released following the brief public consultation to the October-November 2021 Covid-19 Public Health Response Amendment Bill (no 2).

The Commentary doesn’t discuss prevention of hospitalisation and death, and the select committee appears to think the spread of Covid-19, which is different for everyone, is some sort of generic concept:

“Minister or Director-General can make an order to require people to refrain from taking any specified actions that contribute, or are likely to contribute, to the risk of the outbreak or spread of Covid-19. They can also require people to take any specified actions, or comply with any specified measures that contribute, or are likely to contribute, to preventing the outbreak or spread of Covid-19.“

What is crazy, is that this ignorance directly side-lines historic norms around the management of infectious disease – particularly relating to respiratory viruses. It is a well-known fact that as respiratory viruses circulate and natural population immunity builds, they mutate to become more transmissible and less pathogenic.

Do we have data on serologically confirmed infections that are asymptomatic? It’s an important metric to understand disease severity, but it’s an often-neglected variable. Conversely, where are the reviews on post-vaccination efficacy waning and breakthrough infections?

Expanding powers

The Amendment Bill was very clear, it sought to expand powers, to smooth the process of secondary legislation and the Bill increased penalties to prevent non-compliance with Orders. Orders are produced without public or Parliamentary scrutiny. But without transparency and accountability – there’s a risk of tyranny.

All these dynamic uncertainties required that bureaucrats and lawmakers took such risks into account by reviewing the scholarly literature.

I get the impression these actors are happy to blackbox their decision-making. That’s not good enough, because of the precedent which becomes established for the next emergency event. The state has a fiduciary obligation to demonstrate accountability and transparency. And the media, on behalf of the public, have an obligation to demand this.

Following the science

At key meetings before the Government doubled down on vaccine mandates, the Vaccine and Immunisation Programme Steering Group did not consider the limitations of the treatment: waning efficacy, breakthrough infection (vaccine failure) or the ethics of myocarditis as a side effect (which they knew about). None of this content is included in the so-called risk summary, on page 20.

To neglect this, there must have been absolute belief in industry assurances of safety and efficacy and the Pfizer trial data, which we now know never had an endpoint requirement of preventing hospitalisation and death.

Then we saw the manufacture of consent through modelling practices at Te Pūnaha Matatini, which were directly funded by the departments that signed the contract with Pfizer to supply the mRNA (BNT162b2) product to every man, woman and child.

We don’t see funding for independent risk monitoring. Is this good practice?

TLG: You have spoken with concern about the volume of secondary legislation that has been passed in the shadow of the Covid Response Act, and under emergency status. Can you tell me a bit about this. What have been some of the more alarming pieces of legislation and why is it problematic that it’s secondary legislation?

JB: There seems to be this terrible silence where lawyers, and particularly public law experts, seem unwilling to draw attention to what I believe is a very scary problem.

In May 2020, basically overnight, David Parkers’ Covid-19 Public Health Response Act was passed without any public consultation. This is the over-riding Act that gives the Ministry of Health powers to then roll out what is called delegated, or secondary legislation, which are known as Orders. These ‘Orders’ have all the powers of primary legislation, but they don’t have to get approval via Parliament or through consultation with the public. They get rolled out by the Minister.

For two years the New Zealand government has used the excuse of controlling the outbreak and spread of infection to justify law-making. The Covid-19 Public Health Response Act doesn’t refer to prevention of hospitalisation and death, it seeks to ‘avoid, mitigate, or remedy the actual or potential adverse effects of the Covid-19 outbreak’.

However, what this actually means remains undefined. A great many other issues are clearly defined – just nothing requiring that all measures prevent hospitalisation and death in order to meaningfully protect public health.

Then you have Chris Hipkins’ Covid-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Bill – passed in 48 hours. The consequent Covid-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Act 2021 amends the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act 2020 to force ‘affected workers’ to accept the mRNA injection as a precondition for employment, and to limit public access of people who don’t have a Covid-19 vaccine certificate.

Then we see this automatic pivot to mandatory vaccination, without any clause requiring that these vaccinations must be safe and effective, and that they must protect health.

What is alarming is that the ‘public interest’, according to Hipkins’ Vaccination Act concerns the continuity of services for ‘public safety’, the provision of lifeline utilities, maintaining trust in public services and access to overseas markets. There’s no requirement that the measures protect health.

Then we have a cavalcade of secondary legislation, ‘Orders’ that remain based on the premise of chasing infection. Orders for example, ratchet in rules regarding Covid-19 vaccination certificates; formalise face covering rules, including the formalisation of exemption passes tied to identity.

Where are the recent, methodological, reviews by the Ministry of Health of the literature on medical grade face-coverings in community settings to support these ongoing requirements?

New exemption pass rules stem from a new Order, amending a principle Order, where the purpose was based on preventing and limiting the risk of the outbreak or spread of Covid-19 – when Covid-19 is likely at endemic status already.

We see new rules inserted, such as the one that dictates that people can carry out certain work if they haven’t been boosted, but they have to have authorised evidence they’ve had Covid-19. For all those people that had Covid-19 before 15 May, and did a test at home, bad luck. Your personal account is not sufficiently legitimate. It’s chilling, as the rules and regulations keep being churned out, with no tangible accountability.

Schedule 4 was also added to the Covid-19 Public Health Response Act, with a new list of boosters that all apparently last for 6 months, and are based on an out-of-date spike protein. This despite over a thousand studies in the published and peer reviewed literature demonstrating that the spike protein presents physiological risk to the human body.

Everything is alarming. The barriers to understanding the convoluted process of law-making and ongoing jiggling of existing legislation, add to the public risk.

TLG: You have also used the term ‘rights-limiting’ to describe a lot of this secondary legislation. Can you elaborate?

JB: We sort of have a tumbling effect that fuses the right to say no to an effective medical experiment, with a human right to health.

The mRNA injection involves technology that is vastly different to any other vaccine that has been approved for general use in the history of mankind. The fast tracking of the treatment meant that it evaded traditional clinical trials. And based on the absence of data, only provisional approval was granted.

However, the bureaucratic push meant that when harm was demonstrated through adverse events reporting that was far beyond any ratio that normally would have led to a withdrawal, there was no political will to withdraw the treatment.

New Zealand has an alarming record of failing to protect human rights, because our government can’t steward in the national interest, and this is now documented at the global level. We have declining human rights across education (bad), health (fair), housing (incomplete data), food (bad) and work (very bad). This is connected to how bad the information environment is.

When people must bow and succumb to compulsory interventions, such as compulsory masking and medication in order to earn an income, their freedom and rights are compromised. The primary and secondary legislation are rights limiting, but it’s the secondary legislation that has the loophole where norms of transparency and accountability continue to be jettisoned.

Bureaucrats and the judiciary appear unable to ethically parse the implications of increasing household precarity. The majority of Kiwi families finely calibrate expenses to income. For most families, the cost of housing and the cost of living has accelerated beyond increases in incomes over the past two decades, squeezing household discretionary income. In such an environment, notions of ‘full employment’ may simply indicate people are working multiple jobs in order to survive, rather than any economic success.

Therefore, when people are given a so-called ‘choice’ to leave their profession after two or four decades, and when these bureaucrats dismissively infer that they can get a job elsewhere, they ignore the fact that expertise is not readily transferrable into unmandated professions.

Households making this choice will be exposed to excessive downwards pressure on household income, which can make accessing healthy food (remember, health is a human right) and even access to a warm, dry house difficult.

The wellbeing government is the most extraordinarily brutal government New Zealand has had for decades. Debt makes people more pliable. The capacity for a healthy person who is not at risk from Sars-Cov-2, in one of these vulnerable households, to step outside their profession is negligible if they consider they or their children won’t be able to access basics that ensure household wellbeing is sustained.

The public are doing their best. From what I understand, in 2021/2022 there were 633 complaints to the Human Rights Commission mentioning mask or exemption.

TLG: After filing your OIA request, you then sent it to a long list of academics, public watch dogs, MPs etc. so that they were aware of the requests. Do you want to explain the rationale for doing this?

JB: By emailing this wide group, I wanted to poke a stick at the cognitive dissonance that maybe a large proportion of them are sensing, to prod them to contemplate that there might be a pattern of public-interest failure that urgently needs to be addressed, if not for civil society, for their own grandchildren.

Many of these people perhaps recognise, or suspect, a distortion in our nations’ capacity to recognise and respond to risk. The scientific literature shows us that current managerial cultures, private-public partnership cultures and associated hyper-competitive funding cultures have stifled creativity in science.

They’ve led to scientists chasing the tail of innovation rather than protecting human and environmental health.

Critical thinkers across arts, science and economics have been all but extinguished. Many of us personally know senior academics and staff across public health and university academia who have railed against these shifts for at least three decades.

These individuals have recognised that the structural and cultural shifts that undoubtedly get rid of scientific and academic freedom, are detrimental to not just environmental and human health, but to democracy. These precious few dissenters are becoming less and less, and I know that academics who step outside these boundaries certainly face barriers to achieving professorships and senior positions.

Our public sector has been schooled to not express so-called political opinions, but by not speaking up, they fail to protect the public interest, because everything is political when the outcome is the public interest versus the aggregation of financial or political power; accelerating pollution, and/or declining human and environmental health. Is there a line in the sand where this might change?

Possibly the biggest red flag for the positioning of science in service of the market rather than the public interest, is that oversight of New Zealand’s science enterprise is predominantly held with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and indeed, this institution has had a massive role in the Pfizer injectable rollout.

In universities, as funding shifts to royalties dependency, private public partnerships and valorising STEM disciplines above all else – resources are directed into these areas. So where do the philosophers, the ethicists, the sociologists, the economists go? Critical thinkers that might look at how and why we direct resources, for what purpose? They go into a dingy back corner office, struggle against the sighs of colleagues, and then they quietly fade out of academic life.

For academics and scientists in such environments, everything becomes high risk, because if you step out of line you don’t get funded. You become a nobody. So, for 20 years, there’s been a massive chilling effect on the academic and scientific community because the market driven model is the only way to go.

This is why very few have protested the ongoing ratcheting of rights, and mostly only those at the end of their careers. They don’t have the time or funding or culture to review controversial and contested literature, it’s simply not their business.

I can’t tell you how many scientists I’ve spoken to who recognise that we’re chasing patents, rather than addressing the – usually manmade – drivers of human and environmental health decline.

I wanted to possibly jiggle the cognitive dissonance that many of them might be experiencing, in such a way that they recognise a moral line may have been crossed. By not doing the mahi, we’re maybe creating more harm – more people are being hospitalised and dying than if this work was being done.

How do we start this conversation? By pulling the cobwebs away a little bit, applying a little bit of sunlight, whatever euphemism you want to apply.

What is the outcome you are hoping for?

Nothing is linear, so, I understand that what I am doing is in tandem with The ‘Hood’s children’s court case, the work of NZDSOS, NZTSOS, NZLSOS, The Health Forum, Voices for Freedom, you own work, the Plan B group’s efforts, Guy Hatchard’s work and others.

But the outcome? The overarching Covid-19 primary Acts must be repealed.

We need to find a space for critical research and science, and critical journalism, to understand the barriers to journalists who seek to work across the science, policy and ethics interface. We need to ask what went wrong with public law over this time, and why couldn’t our public law academics question the degree to which current policy and law was counter to the public interest.

We need to appreciate that the gargantuan funding barriers to this sort of multidisciplinary enquiry, in a political climate where $473 million for a fourth booster can be simply ‘set aside’ without any critical questioning by high level actors in science, media and law.

We need to understand that current science policy has failed to take into account the force of vested interests in producing and driving science and regulatory approvals.

The outcome I am hoping for, is that exactly the type of people that I have CC’d in, will start, even hesitantly, asking such questions.

If select committees continue to dismiss overwhelming public critique when given the chance to provide input on health emergencies, or digital identity schemes and digital cash, and instead continue apace with legislation that carries severe rights and wellbeing implications, we must admit that we do not live in a representative democracy.

In this environment, utilitarian authoritarianism directed by powerful interests with vast financial resources and far greater capacity for networking and lobbying than the average member of the public, will undoubtedly prosper.

An initial response from Hipkins

I’ve just heard back from Chris Hipkins’ office. He’s been Minister for Covid-19 response for two years. But he’s handballed the Official Information Act request to the Ministry of Health, who have the same request. Now I have to go to the Ombudsman.

I’m not the first one. Hipkins appears happy to avoid scrutiny. We’ve seen complaints following Official Information Act requests to Hipkins when he was acting as the Minister for Covid-19 Response, dropped by the Ombudsman because Hipkins’ portfolio was switched from Covid-19 to the Minister for Police (remembering he is also the Minister of Education). The Ombudsman has since apologised. However, my request was deliberately made after this portfolio shift.

The implications are tremendous. Will the government simply shift portfolios – game accountability – in order to avoid potential disclosure that might draw attention to the failure of process?

Jodie Bruning is a consultant sociologist based in New Zealand. Her work explores governance cultures, policy and the production of scientific and technical knowledge. Her Master’s thesis explored the ways science policy creates barriers to funding, stymying scientists’ efforts to explore upstream drivers of harm. Bruning is a trustee of Physicians & Scientists for Global Responsibility. Papers and writing can be found at talkingrisk.nz and at jrbruning.substack.com and at Talking Risk on Rumble.


Comments 1 - 35 of 35        Search these comments

1   Blue   2022 Jul 3, 8:31am  

Remember their neighbor AU has been suffering equally after run by right wing.
2   Patrick   2022 Jul 24, 8:06am  


“let’s face it, they are just horsing around here.”

-american equine digest

⭐ “it’s like anne frank’s diary but retold by SS-sturmscharführer klink.”

-the mew haven register

⭐⭐⭐ “i never thought i would read a character more genuinely terrifying than a stephen king clown, but this one really broke new ground. sincere, believable horror marred by a plotline that seemed a bit over the top.”

-scarybooks weekly

⭐“too unsettling to finish. if jacinda ardern and justin trudeau had a love child, the depth of the uncanny valley it would generate would tear a hole in the space-time continuum.”

-psychology yesterday

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ “brave and compelling. the most honest portrayal of courage since OJ’s “if i did it.”

-new york times review of books
3   Patrick   2022 Aug 25, 8:05am  


Aug 23
Wellington, New Zealand… citizens are done with Jacinda Ardern and her globalist rule.

4   Ceffer   2022 Aug 25, 8:13am  

Tranny Political Globalist Fecal Impaction Porn. It's another Baphomet Dude running New Zealand.
5   Patrick   2022 Dec 6, 9:57pm  


New Zealand to Remove Baby from Family after Parents Request ‘Pure Blood’ for Heart Surgery
6   AmericanKulak   2022 Dec 7, 12:11am  

I'll never forget how NZ suspended it's own laws and due process to allow a raid on Kim Dotcom.

Blew up the whole CATO "NZ is big tech libertarian paradise, so free and great rule of law for businesses." narrative.
7   richwicks   2022 Dec 7, 12:19am  

Blue says

Remember their neighbor AU has been suffering equally after run by right wing.

Stop thinking in terms of left / right.

It's UP versus DOWN.

Politicians have absolutely no political ideology. That's just their rhetoric. What made George W. Bush a "conservative" anyhow? The Patriot Act? Lying us into a war? Bailing out the banking system in 2007? He was just a common criminal, he had no ideals. He started a war to make money for a bunch of his buddies and himself, the Patriot Act was passed to prevent dissent and monitor those that did dissent. Bailing out the banking system helped his own investments.

AIG was fucking bankrupt as fuck, but congress was HEAVILY invested in them. That's why they were bailed out. With your tax payer money.

These are authoritarian thugs versus everybody else. The right (meaning the common people, the lower people that DO have ideals) have a better handle on their shithead criminal politicians than the left does. That's the difference in the United States. If OZ goes left, maybe their common class "leftists" have similar control over their respective fuckers.

A left or right system CAN work, PROVIDED that it's not run by criminals. NEITHER work when PURE criminals are in charge. With left leaning centralized governments there's just more chances for things to go wrong because those governments almost always have more power than right wing governments do.
8   Tenpoundbass   2022 Dec 7, 7:20am  

AmericanKulak says

Blew up the whole CATO "NZ is big tech libertarian paradise, so free and great rule of law for businesses." narrative.

I understand the Flight of the Concords better after Covid. NZ is a bunch of souless simpletons that will allow anyone to shit on them how ever they please.

Notice America never got as crazy as NZ and Australia, we had our local tyrants, but that level of oppression was never our official policy for treating "Non Believers".

It would have started Civil War 2.0 and the second Revolution at the same time.
9   GNL   2022 Dec 7, 9:47am  

Isn’t NZ run by women?
11   Blue   2022 Dec 14, 7:27pm  

GNL says

Isn’t NZ run by women?

Looks like a crazy dude.
12   Patrick   2022 Dec 15, 1:00am  

Perhaps fascism is now happening only in places run by women.
13   HeadSet   2022 Dec 15, 9:16am  

Patrick says

Perhaps fascism is now happening only in places run by women.

Glad Meg Thatcher did not go that route.
14   Patrick   2023 Jan 22, 6:14pm  


Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis
New Zealand's incoming prime minister, Chris Hipkins wants to hunt people down to get them vaccinated.

New Zealanders need to hunt down Chris Hipkins and vaxx him over and over and over until the problem is solved.
15   NuttBoxer   2023 Jan 23, 8:55am  

A thread this old and no mention of her stepping down because she had zero chance of ever getting re-elected!?
16   FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden   2023 Jan 24, 7:50am  

NuttBoxer says

A thread this old and no mention of her stepping down because she had zero chance of ever getting re-elected!?

reelected easy when you control media, ballot counting, and perception. feudalism at its finest
17   NuttBoxer   2023 Jan 24, 9:54am  

Apparently not in New Zealand.
20   NuttBoxer   2023 Mar 7, 4:53pm  

I don't think it was so unexpected in New Zealand. She would have gotten TROUNCED.
22   mell   2023 Mar 7, 5:36pm  

Less than 1% die roughly per year, NZ has a population of 5MM, so that makes roughly 50k per year, an increase of 3642 is close to 10%. That's very significant. Not a mass die off, but definitely a big increase, clearly the clot shots. Politicians were hanged for less throughout history.
23   Patrick   2023 Mar 7, 9:15pm  


New Zealand has recorded the largest increase in the number of registered deaths since the 1918 influenza pandemic, new data from Stats NZ shows.

The births and deaths figures, for the year ending December 2022, show there were 38,574 deaths in 2022, 10.4 per cent (3642) more than in 2021.

This increase - attributed to Covid-19 and an ageing population - is the biggest year-on-year jump since the 55.4 per cent (5835) spike in deaths following the 1918 flu pandemic.

Most of the increase in deaths occurred in older age groups where Covid-19 poses an increased mortality risk.

The point is that their draconian policies not only failed, they made things much worse while violating basic human rights on a massive scale.
24   PeopleUnited   2023 Mar 7, 9:28pm  

mell says

Less than 1% die roughly per year, NZ has a population of 5MM, so that makes roughly 50k per year, an increase of 3642 is close to 10%. That's very significant. Not a mass die off, but definitely a big increase, clearly the clot shots. Politicians were hanged for less throughout history.

Surely the politicians are partly responsible. But it is the scientific and medical community who failed to sound the alarm, failed to properly vet the vax and ultimately failed to acknowledge their mistakes and report the consequences.
25   EBGuy   2023 Mar 7, 11:18pm  

From the article:
Four out of every five deaths in 2022 were of people aged 65 and older and 53 per cent were of those aged 80 years and older.
27   HeadSet   2023 Apr 6, 8:07pm  

Unlikely the NZ Prime Minister and Health Minister received real shots.
28   NuttBoxer   2023 Apr 6, 9:14pm  

I think I saw something about Jacenda Ardern getting some cushy position with the Royal Family?
29   Patrick   2023 Apr 6, 10:15pm  

HeadSet says

Unlikely the NZ Prime Minister and Health Minister received real shots.

If one or both drops dead, then we'll know they did.
30   Patrick   2023 Oct 24, 12:09pm  


I'm guessing that's just Maori tribal government, but still, a good step in the right direction.
31   Patrick   2023 Dec 3, 11:32am  


💉 New Zealand’s 1-News ran a tantalizing story late yesterday headlined, “Health worker arrested after Covid vax data allegedly 'misused’.” The 1-News article didn’t identify the arrested “health worker,” but it seems pretty clear that it was this guy, Barry Young:

‘Te Whatu Ora’ is New Zealand’s socialized public health agency, a post-pandemic creature recently set up in July 2022. The agency plans and funds “free government healthcare” in the tiny island nation. Its weird name is woke, of course, a slogan in the ‘indigenous’ Māori language meaning, “the weaving of health.” Whatever.

As the primary source of medicine in New Zealand, Te Whatu Ora literally wields the power of life and death over Kiwis. It’s not something to lightly mess around with. And arrested leaker Barry Young obviously FAFO’d. The pressing question has become: is Mr. Young is a hero, or a goat?

The story broke wide open three days ago when several things happened all on the same day. First, the New Zealand Herald ran an intriguing story headlined, “Te Whatu Ora launches probe, minister briefed after health worker spreads Covid misinformation.” The mental imagery evoked by the headline’s phrase “launches probe” was unfortunate. Where did the probe go, and how fast? It sounded particularly uncomfortable.

Anyway. Misinformation! The twenty-first century crime! The Herald’s article, and virtually every other article about the leak, stressed that the unnamed employee “had no clinical background or expert vaccine knowledge.” He’s no expert!

Well, as far as I know, Young has never claimed to be a clinician or have expert vaccine knowledge. But don’t let that fact stand in the way of the official narrative.

Around the same time the “probe” story broke, Steve Kirsch published a Substack and a fusillade of tweets, in which he claimed to have insider whistleblower data from New Zealand that conclusively established causation for the mRNA shots:

Steve’s Substack referenced a low-volume Rumble video titled “M.O.A.R (Mother Of All Revelations)”, uploaded that same day by what appears to be a small group of anti-vaccine Kiwis, called “Free NZ Media.” The video’s description simply says, “The crucial data on New Zealand's excess deaths from the Covid jabs.” In the video, whistleblower Barry Young tell his story, interviewed by someone named Liz Dunn, who is now on the run.


Over the last two days, Steve’s tweets and the M.O.A.R video started getting a lot of attention on Twitter. The video features a tearful, then-anonymous whistleblower (Barry Young) who explained he was the original Oracle database administrator who setup the government’s vaccine health system during the pandemic. As part of his job, he routinely saw the ‘line level’ patient jab data.

Young explained in the video that he became horrified watching the jab deaths mounting in the database — and being concealed by authorities — and so he finally decided to release the data to the public.

The critical fact about the Young Data, the information that nobody has yet been able access (apart from shady bureaucrats in ultra-classified SCIFs at the CDC), is that it included both specific vaccination records and patients’ dates of death. Having those two data points finally allows for statistical comparisons between shot status and subsequent death (regardless of cause).

Believe it or not, no health agency anywhere in the world has ever released that kind of data, even by anonymizing patient information.

The data, which I have not yet analyzed myself, has generated some pretty dramatic and possibly overheated claims, like an allegation that up to 22% of jab recipients — one-fifth — died after getting a shot from the ‘worst’ batch in New Zealand:

Kirsch, who explained he got the data back on November 8th and then spent the rest of the month analyzing it, has concluded there is a clear “mortality hump” around six months after inoculation. Steve also alleged the overall data proves the safe and effective jabs have a 1% mortality rate, which if correct is four times covid’s official mortality rate. Steve persuasively argued that, regardless of any objections, for sure the data failed to show any reduction in deaths after the shots — an you would expect a reduction in deaths, since that’s what the shots are supposed to do. Allegedly.

During the blackout period, Steve wisely forwarded the Young Data to several other data and scientific experts, including friendly skeptics. He also published links for downloading the data in various file formats, and yesterday presented the data at MIT to a student ‘free speech’ group.

One of the skeptical-but-friendly experts who reviewed Steve’s data was Professor Norm Fenton, a highly-regarded British mathematician, computer scientist, and Emeritus Professor of Risk at Queen Mary University in London. Professor Fenton has analyzed the data and published several Substacks about it, the most recent one titled, “The New Zealand vaccine data: what I actually saw and analysed and what the limitations are.” After carefully outlining a variety of potential problems and possible objections about the data, Professor Fenton ultimately concluded something pretty remarkable:

If the dataset is a real, unbiased and representative subset of those vaccinated, then it is potentially one of the most important publicly available datasets for examining covid vaccine safety, despite the fundamental limitation imposed by absence of data on the unvaccinated. It provides evidence of lack of safety of the vaccine.

In fairness, Professor Fenton was doubtful about some of the wilder claims, cautiously suggesting a variety of commonsense alternative possibilities that could explain things like the high-mortality “hot lot” data shown in the table above. For example, the 22%-deadly batch might have been given to a bunch of frail nursing home residents in a single facility, especially considering the low total batch numbers. A fair point. ...

We can learn several things from the official reporting:

They don’t deny the ‘leaker’ is (was) a health system employee, confirming Young’s claims.

They insist — often and loudly — that he’s not a ‘vaccine expert,’ again consistent with Young’s claim to be an Oracle database administrator.

They do NOT claim that Young’s data is fake, altered, compromised, or misrepresented in any way. So we can assume the Young Data is legit.

Most tellingly, they allege Young was “spreading misinformation” but never described the alleged misinformation, not even a little. The closest they get is implying that Young generally accused the jabs of being unsafe, which is not a crime, even in New Zealand.

Finally, it’s unsurprising Young was arrested, since after all he did leak confidential information. But it is shocking how fast they arrested him. By comparison, it took about 18 months to arrest Rebekah Jones, and then only after Florida police actually conducted an investigation. Young’s turbo-arrest looks like a cover up.

Te Whatu Ora, or whatever its name is, also instantaneously obtained a court injunction clamping down on any further spread of the Young Data, and social media companies like YouTube instantly complied, of course.
32   GNL   2023 Dec 3, 1:08pm  

You'd think there would be some kind of compounding effect though if they cause damage.
33   Shaman   2023 Dec 3, 1:48pm  

If they cause damage?
This data shows they definitely increase mortality an average of 1%. That’s four times more deadly than Covid.
34   GNL   2023 Dec 3, 3:07pm  

Shaman says

If they cause damage?
This data shows they definitely increase mortality an average of 1%. That’s four times more deadly than Covid.

What if you take 6 shots?
35   Patrick   2023 Dec 6, 11:33am  


💉 If there aren’t any honest politicians left in New Zealand, it surprisingly turns out there are a lot more than we thought of unvaccinated politicians in New Zealand. An explosive claim from October made the social media rounds this week, alleging that “11,500 politicians and health authorities in New Zealand got approval for vaccine exemptions.”

It was especially inflammatory because those same politicians in New Zealand acquiesced to one of the most draconian jab mandates in the world. If true, it would give us a glimpse into one of the ways pandemic executives convinced legislators and medical scientists not to fight about the emergency executive orders: They were apparently handing out exemptions like candy.

I researched the story, and discovered it has been fact-checked back in October. And, the verdict was: mostly true. New Zealand’s Stuff News ran a story at the time headlined, Fact check: Did 11,000 people really get a vaccine exemption? Stuff’s reporter emailed Te Whatu Ora, which confirmed that the story was true — except for a minor transpositional mistake. The correct number was 11,005 politicians and healthcare workers got exemptions, instead of the widely-cited figure of 11,500.

It would be easier to be sympathetic with their understandable desire to avoid the jabs, except that I’d bet one of Bill Gates’ cricket-flour manufacturing plants that many of these politicians and med/sci people who got exemptions were at the same time all over the news and social media pushing vaccines on everybody else. Unfortunately, we’ll never see the list of the names of the 11,005, because privacy.

The good news is that the 11,005 were disclosed by a rising New Zealand politician named Winston Peters, who’s part of the “New Zealand First” party (think America First). And then Stuff’s fact-checker was forced to admit, “While the 11,000-plus figure is astonishing, Peters’ claim is not without evidence.”

So, there’s actually some solid progress in New Zealand. Every one of these grotesque facts that slowly emerges from the bowels of our public health agencies will help fuel a rising politician somewhere like Winston Peters. And those rising politicians won’t be dropping like flies from dizzy spells in anywhere near the same numbers that the pro-pharma ones will be.

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions