Liz Gunn
@LizGunnNZ • 16,645 subscribers
Independent Journalist with @_FreeNZ. Endlessly curious in bringing top-quality humans together to amplify The Great Awakening. The Truth wins in the end.
Videos
The most vaccinated place in the world is in Ireland. It's a place called Waterford. They had the highest vaccination rate in the world. Then they suffered the highest Covid rate in Ireland. And then they had the highest excess deaths. The local health authority got an award from the World Health Organisation for the way they handled the pandemic. They had the highest death rate, having had the highest vaccination rate. 85% excess deaths at one stage they were on. – Andrew Bridgen Andrew Bridgen
Liz Gunn659,223 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten
![Barry Young: The Safest Vaccine Site in New Zealand Was Right Next to Parliament Barry Young explains the detailed statistical analysis he performed on the New Zealand vaccination data. Using the same tools an epidemiologist would employ - graphs, confidence intervals, Poisson scores, p-values and Standardised Mortality Rates (SMRs) - he examined both the national picture and individual vaccination sites. While the overall data showed excess mortality, results varied sharply by location: some sites recorded significantly elevated deaths, others performed better than expected. The standout finding was that the single best-performing site in the entire country - the one with the lowest (and even favourable) mortality statistics - was located in Wellington Central, right in the seat of government. Barry notes that this variation suggests the doses were not uniform across New Zealand and raises the unresolved question of why the centre nearest Parliament produced such markedly different results. A clear, data-driven examination of what site-level analysis reveals. Transcript: “I was thinking, well, as an epidemiologist, how would they look at this data? What would they do? What tools would they use? How would they analyse it? So I went through, did all the card and for it, got the nice graphs, charts, analysis, numbers, confidence intervals, Poisson scores, all the p-values, all that stuff to work out the probabilities and all the rest of it. To work out if it was dangerous, SMRs, standardised mortality rates. You know, one is normal. SMR1 should be one to one mortality rate before and after the vaccine. You’ve got the same number of people alive, same number of people alive after the vaccine. That’s an SMR1. If it’s SMR higher than one, you’ve got more people dying after the vaccine than should die after the vaccine. SMR less than one, there’s more people living - Vaccines working, great. So that’s how it works. That’s the SMR. So anyway, I did all of that analysis and provided it for multiple sites across New Zealand. So I was doing it specifically by site. So I’ve done the work for the whole data in general, which shows excess mortality. But I also did it for certain sites in New Zealand, some bad ones, some not so bad, some very, very good. Just to show that my analysis was whole and correct and valid and validated everything, because some sites I looked at, mortality was not elevated. It was actually less than expected, which is like, OK, it proves my method works. It’s accurate. It is picking out the bad ones, the really bad ones. It’s also picking out some good ones as well. But there are far fewer good ones than there are bad ones. And the key thing to see here, I don’t think I’ve discussed this. The key thing to realise is that the good one, the really good one, the star of the show and the whole of New Zealand, the best site was in Wellington Central itself, the seat of the government, the heart of the city. So go figure, why did that have the best mortality statistics in the whole entire database? [Liz Gunn] Barry, that’s extraordinary... What we are saying here is the jab that... I call them the poison shots. The shots were not the same across the country. There were certain areas that seemed to get much stronger, much stronger shots that had a much more significant and immediate effect, maybe over the next six months. We’re talking about deaths here, but if we could analyse the data on turbo cancers, on heart conditions, we could see if we could really do a deep, deep dive, if this government were open and caring about the people, we could see that certain parts of the country have been much harder hit than others. [Barry Young] That’s the job of the government. That’s safety monitoring. That’s what they should be doing. [Liz Gunn] And we are saying that near parliament in Wellington and Central Wellington, that jab Centre was the safest. It’s a bizarre coincidence. It probably had something like a saline solution could have been a possibility. We don’t know until we investigate, but the question mark remains. [Barry Young] Could have been the safest vaccine in the world. That is just so cynical. It is a bizarre, bizarre coincidence.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2084162594684993660/amplify_video_thumb/2084162219793887232/img/Z7z_zztLXRytHQNp.jpg)
Barry Young: The Safest Vaccine Site in New Zealand Was Right Next to Parliament Barry Young explains the detailed statistical analysis he performed on the New Zealand vaccination data. Using the same tools an epidemiologist would employ - graphs, confidence intervals, Poisson scores, p-values and Standardised Mortality Rates (SMRs) - he examined both the national picture and individual vaccination sites. While the overall data showed excess mortality, results varied sharply by location: some sites recorded significantly elevated deaths, others performed better than expected. The standout finding was that the single best-performing site in the entire country - the one with the lowest (and even favourable) mortality statistics - was located in Wellington Central, right in the seat of government. Barry notes that this variation suggests the doses were not uniform across New Zealand and raises the unresolved question of why the centre nearest Parliament produced such markedly different results. A clear, data-driven examination of what site-level analysis reveals. Transcript: “I was thinking, well, as an epidemiologist, how would they look at this data? What would they do? What tools would they use? How would they analyse it? So I went through, did all the card and for it, got the nice graphs, charts, analysis, numbers, confidence intervals, Poisson scores, all the p-values, all that stuff to work out the probabilities and all the rest of it. To work out if it was dangerous, SMRs, standardised mortality rates. You know, one is normal. SMR1 should be one to one mortality rate before and after the vaccine. You’ve got the same number of people alive, same number of people alive after the vaccine. That’s an SMR1. If it’s SMR higher than one, you’ve got more people dying after the vaccine than should die after the vaccine. SMR less than one, there’s more people living - Vaccines working, great. So that’s how it works. That’s the SMR. So anyway, I did all of that analysis and provided it for multiple sites across New Zealand. So I was doing it specifically by site. So I’ve done the work for the whole data in general, which shows excess mortality. But I also did it for certain sites in New Zealand, some bad ones, some not so bad, some very, very good. Just to show that my analysis was whole and correct and valid and validated everything, because some sites I looked at, mortality was not elevated. It was actually less than expected, which is like, OK, it proves my method works. It’s accurate. It is picking out the bad ones, the really bad ones. It’s also picking out some good ones as well. But there are far fewer good ones than there are bad ones. And the key thing to see here, I don’t think I’ve discussed this. The key thing to realise is that the good one, the really good one, the star of the show and the whole of New Zealand, the best site was in Wellington Central itself, the seat of the government, the heart of the city. So go figure, why did that have the best mortality statistics in the whole entire database? [Liz Gunn] Barry, that’s extraordinary... What we are saying here is the jab that... I call them the poison shots. The shots were not the same across the country. There were certain areas that seemed to get much stronger, much stronger shots that had a much more significant and immediate effect, maybe over the next six months. We’re talking about deaths here, but if we could analyse the data on turbo cancers, on heart conditions, we could see if we could really do a deep, deep dive, if this government were open and caring about the people, we could see that certain parts of the country have been much harder hit than others. [Barry Young] That’s the job of the government. That’s safety monitoring. That’s what they should be doing. [Liz Gunn] And we are saying that near parliament in Wellington and Central Wellington, that jab Centre was the safest. It’s a bizarre coincidence. It probably had something like a saline solution could have been a possibility. We don’t know until we investigate, but the question mark remains. [Barry Young] Could have been the safest vaccine in the world. That is just so cynical. It is a bizarre, bizarre coincidence.”
Liz Gunn163,273 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat
![“Like a Crucifix to a Vampire” - Crown Refuses to Show NZ Vaccine Data to the Court New Zealand whistleblower Barry Young Barry Young describes how the Crown continues to refuse to show the Court the vaccine database evidence. The judge ordered the data to be produced, yet while the Crown gave the spreadsheet to their own expert witness (Professor Robert Scragg of Auckland University - the same expert who claimed the vaccine was so safe he didn’t even need to look at it), they refused to provide it to the court. When challenged on proper procedure, they initially agreed, then backtracked weeks later claiming it was “too hard,” and are now actively refusing to show the evidence to the judge. Barry suggests that the only logical reason is that they are terrified of what the data actually shows. Clip Transcript: "It's like a crucifix to a vampire. They cannot look at it because they're just terrified of it. And that's been apparent throughout, even with this latest hearing. The judge said, to the court, to his credit, said, "I want to see the data." They [The Crown] gave the spreadsheet to their professor, their expert witness, they gave the data to him. The one who said, "It's such a safe vaccine... that I don't need to look at it." Yep... Professor [Robert] Scragg, Auckland University. And the judge said, as a matter of procedure, if you show the evidence to the expert, the court expects to see it as well. That's process 101. And the Crown said, "Oh, yes, if it would benefit the court, we will produce the data. We will give it to the court." However, they backtracked a couple of weeks later on that statement, which they made at the voir dire. They backtracked on it and said, "We've had a look and it's too hard. So we're not going to give the court that evidence, that data. So we're not going to show it to them." They just denied it. And so it goes round and round, but they are absolutely refusing to look at it. They are refusing to show it to the judge. And the reason why they're refusing to look at it is clearly because they're terrified of it."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2080468903793434948/amplify_video_thumb/2080468316397961218/img/oe5pgjgyk-mVm19Q.jpg)
“Like a Crucifix to a Vampire” - Crown Refuses to Show NZ Vaccine Data to the Court New Zealand whistleblower Barry Young Barry Young describes how the Crown continues to refuse to show the Court the vaccine database evidence. The judge ordered the data to be produced, yet while the Crown gave the spreadsheet to their own expert witness (Professor Robert Scragg of Auckland University - the same expert who claimed the vaccine was so safe he didn’t even need to look at it), they refused to provide it to the court. When challenged on proper procedure, they initially agreed, then backtracked weeks later claiming it was “too hard,” and are now actively refusing to show the evidence to the judge. Barry suggests that the only logical reason is that they are terrified of what the data actually shows. Clip Transcript: "It's like a crucifix to a vampire. They cannot look at it because they're just terrified of it. And that's been apparent throughout, even with this latest hearing. The judge said, to the court, to his credit, said, "I want to see the data." They [The Crown] gave the spreadsheet to their professor, their expert witness, they gave the data to him. The one who said, "It's such a safe vaccine... that I don't need to look at it." Yep... Professor [Robert] Scragg, Auckland University. And the judge said, as a matter of procedure, if you show the evidence to the expert, the court expects to see it as well. That's process 101. And the Crown said, "Oh, yes, if it would benefit the court, we will produce the data. We will give it to the court." However, they backtracked a couple of weeks later on that statement, which they made at the voir dire. They backtracked on it and said, "We've had a look and it's too hard. So we're not going to give the court that evidence, that data. So we're not going to show it to them." They just denied it. And so it goes round and round, but they are absolutely refusing to look at it. They are refusing to show it to the judge. And the reason why they're refusing to look at it is clearly because they're terrified of it."
Liz Gunn83,221 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten
!["Midazolam is used as a relaxant to intubate people before an operation, but that's really, really low doses. Anybody elderly should never be given more than half a milligram, one milligram max of Midazolam. Under NG163 that [Matt] Hancock bought in as a treatment for Covid, they said start off with two and a half milligrams and build up from there. And normally 14 milligrams will kill somebody and they will die breathless. It's a respiratory suppressant. When they died breathless, you can put COVID on their death certificate because their respiration got slower and slower and slower until it stopped. And... because they've got COVID on their death certificate, there was no autopsy and the bodies were cremated within 24 hours. So the evidence was all removed... It's a crime that was designed to be perfect. But unfortunately, we've got the Derek Dimmock [Medical] Inquest and we're getting to the truth, and the truth is unpalatable for the establishment. So they're going to suppress it. – Andrew Bridgen 🇬🇧 Andrew Bridgen](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2054524996085821757/amplify_video_thumb/2054523403470852097/img/4KJfkeoLTGPCk_-M.jpg)
"Midazolam is used as a relaxant to intubate people before an operation, but that's really, really low doses. Anybody elderly should never be given more than half a milligram, one milligram max of Midazolam. Under NG163 that [Matt] Hancock bought in as a treatment for Covid, they said start off with two and a half milligrams and build up from there. And normally 14 milligrams will kill somebody and they will die breathless. It's a respiratory suppressant. When they died breathless, you can put COVID on their death certificate because their respiration got slower and slower and slower until it stopped. And... because they've got COVID on their death certificate, there was no autopsy and the bodies were cremated within 24 hours. So the evidence was all removed... It's a crime that was designed to be perfect. But unfortunately, we've got the Derek Dimmock [Medical] Inquest and we're getting to the truth, and the truth is unpalatable for the establishment. So they're going to suppress it. – Andrew Bridgen 🇬🇧 Andrew Bridgen
Liz Gunn102,055 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten
"Through freedom of information (FOI), they've actually found out that there was an order, a diktat from Westminster, given out to all the police forces in the UK 🇬🇧 that NO police investigations were to be carried out into any allegations of crimes committed by the state doctors or anybody else during Covid. I mean, murdering someone during the pandemic and saying it was to do with Covid would be a brilliant cover because the police were banned from investigating it! It's against the police oath, the policing code of conduct and oath, when a member of the public comes in and says: "I want to report a crime" - for them NOT to investigate it. That's a deviation from their duties... Now, if there really was, you know, no crimes committed by the state against the people during Covid, why wouldn't you let the police investigate it and find there's nothing to answer rather than banning them from investigating? 🤔 The only reason you needed to ban them from investigating is because there was something to answer, wasn't there?" – Andrew Bridgen Andrew Bridgen
Liz Gunn100,582 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten
Barry Young: “There Was Nothing for Me to Gain… Only to Help Other People” In this short but powerful exchange, Andrew Bridgen asks Barry Young the central question: if he is not a whistleblower, what is he? Barry’s answer is direct, but with a wry smile. Had he been acting out of self-interest he would have remained silent and be “sitting on a yacht somewhere, sipping a piña colada.” Instead he has been unemployed for three years and believes his IT career is permanently finished. He states there was nothing personal for him to gain - the only motive was to help other people and expose the truth. The clip ends with the classic observation: if the authorities refuse to examine or release the data in question, it suggests they have a great deal to hide.
Liz Gunn24,290 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat
"I don't want to open the doors to India.." I've spent most of my life out of the United States and I divide the world into two countries, India and everything else. Keep in mind there are so many cultures in India. China is the same way. In the United States, we have so many cultures in the United States, it's wild... They're getting rid of us, like what's happening in Dominican Republic or Ireland. You've got all these invaders coming in. They get rid of the local population and then the invaders will be cleansed. You go to Ireland and it's many, many different groups of people from all over the Middle East and all over Africa. So they're not going to be able to combine together. It's the same game plan everywhere. So you get invaded. The Indians are not coming to integrate. They're coming to be used as weapons and then they'll be cleansed. They'll be cleansed off. – Michael Yon Michael Yon: Callsign BIG HONEY
Liz Gunn38,365 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten
Andrew Bridgen: Dale Vincent Found NOT Guilty In UK Jury Trial Catching up with Andrew Bridgen Andrew Bridgen following the not guilty verdict for Dale Vincent, a military veteran with PTSD who was prosecuted for allegedly assaulting a police officer during a 2022 attempt to shut down a COVID vaccine clinic. Bridgen details the three-year, eight-month legal battle, the judge’s decisions to exclude key defence witnesses (including himself, Dr. Aseem Malhotra, John O’Looney and others), and how the jury still found Vincent not guilty despite significant obstacles. The discussion covers concerns about judicial bias, the critical role of jury trials, and what this outcome signals about public awareness of COVID vaccine harms in the UK.
Liz Gunn25,692 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten
![If Barry Young Isn’t a Whistleblower, No One in New Zealand Ever Will Be In this critical clip, the discussion centres on the single most important question in Barry Young’s Barry Young case: is he a whistleblower under New Zealand’s Protected Disclosures Act? If the court says yes, the case ends, he is protected, and the people’s own data can finally be examined by independent epidemiologists around the world. If the court says no, the Act itself is effectively gutted - reduced to another hollowed-out piece of legislation, just as the Bill of Rights was overridden by vaccine mandates, financial coercion and the constant use of “emergency” powers. Barry is the archetype whistleblower. The outcome will either empower future truth-tellers or send a chilling message that no one who challenges the government will ever be protected. A clear warning about the erosion of civil liberties and why this ruling matters far beyond one man’s court case. Clip Transcript: [Liz Gunn] "If you don't qualify as a whistleblower Barry Young, no one in New Zealand will ever qualify as a whistleblower. [Barry Young] It'll be a game changer. [Liz] You are the archetype whistleblower. [Barry] It will be a game changer because this has never been tried before under this new Act. It's a unique case. It's a very nuanced case, but essentially it just boils down to: Am I a Whistleblower or not? It's a very simple question. [Liz] If you are a whistleblower, the case is over. You're no longer in court. You are protected. So from that point you can then put out to the People the People's own data. And it can go around the world for epidemiologists of integrity to examine that data and say, hey, what's going on in New Zealand, shows also what's happening in the UK or Canada or Australia. Same thing. So it's crucial that you are designated a whistleblower. What happens if the court says, no, we're going to go with the corruption. We're going to go with the government's instructions. We're not going to designate Barry Young a whistleblower. What happens then? [Barry] Well, if they say no, they essentially hollow out the purpose of the Act. They basically just destroy it. And it becomes another legacy Act that they've just gutted. Along with the Bill of Rights, who I think is that is just, yeah, it's just paper. It's not worth anything now, what they've done to that. Because we had all these these Rights about vaccinations and stuff like that. We were allowed to decide whether or not to put a substance in our body. We've got that freedom. It went to Nuremberg as well - right! That was the whole purpose of the Nuremberg trials. You should not put an unknown substance into your body. You've got that fundamental right as a human being to say NO, however, with... the Bill of Rights didn't apply. Oh, now you've got to have the vaccine or you don't work. We will cut you off from your finances. You will not be allowed to feed your children if you don't have this vaccine. Now, hang on. What happened to the Bill of Rights there? And so if they do that with this, it'll just [be] another erosion of our civil liberties and our rights. [Liz] And the way Ardern got around the Bill of Rights was saying this is emergency. This is an emergency. And they keep on bringing emergency. They're trying to ramp up the bird flu scam here. Under emergency, we will do it. We must never let the government do anything to us under emergency. The government is not our friend. It's not trustworthy."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2081726909755560200/amplify_video_thumb/2081725410459709440/img/c0byiZf3T-SlJmyS.jpg)
If Barry Young Isn’t a Whistleblower, No One in New Zealand Ever Will Be In this critical clip, the discussion centres on the single most important question in Barry Young’s Barry Young case: is he a whistleblower under New Zealand’s Protected Disclosures Act? If the court says yes, the case ends, he is protected, and the people’s own data can finally be examined by independent epidemiologists around the world. If the court says no, the Act itself is effectively gutted - reduced to another hollowed-out piece of legislation, just as the Bill of Rights was overridden by vaccine mandates, financial coercion and the constant use of “emergency” powers. Barry is the archetype whistleblower. The outcome will either empower future truth-tellers or send a chilling message that no one who challenges the government will ever be protected. A clear warning about the erosion of civil liberties and why this ruling matters far beyond one man’s court case. Clip Transcript: [Liz Gunn] "If you don't qualify as a whistleblower Barry Young, no one in New Zealand will ever qualify as a whistleblower. [Barry Young] It'll be a game changer. [Liz] You are the archetype whistleblower. [Barry] It will be a game changer because this has never been tried before under this new Act. It's a unique case. It's a very nuanced case, but essentially it just boils down to: Am I a Whistleblower or not? It's a very simple question. [Liz] If you are a whistleblower, the case is over. You're no longer in court. You are protected. So from that point you can then put out to the People the People's own data. And it can go around the world for epidemiologists of integrity to examine that data and say, hey, what's going on in New Zealand, shows also what's happening in the UK or Canada or Australia. Same thing. So it's crucial that you are designated a whistleblower. What happens if the court says, no, we're going to go with the corruption. We're going to go with the government's instructions. We're not going to designate Barry Young a whistleblower. What happens then? [Barry] Well, if they say no, they essentially hollow out the purpose of the Act. They basically just destroy it. And it becomes another legacy Act that they've just gutted. Along with the Bill of Rights, who I think is that is just, yeah, it's just paper. It's not worth anything now, what they've done to that. Because we had all these these Rights about vaccinations and stuff like that. We were allowed to decide whether or not to put a substance in our body. We've got that freedom. It went to Nuremberg as well - right! That was the whole purpose of the Nuremberg trials. You should not put an unknown substance into your body. You've got that fundamental right as a human being to say NO, however, with... the Bill of Rights didn't apply. Oh, now you've got to have the vaccine or you don't work. We will cut you off from your finances. You will not be allowed to feed your children if you don't have this vaccine. Now, hang on. What happened to the Bill of Rights there? And so if they do that with this, it'll just [be] another erosion of our civil liberties and our rights. [Liz] And the way Ardern got around the Bill of Rights was saying this is emergency. This is an emergency. And they keep on bringing emergency. They're trying to ramp up the bird flu scam here. Under emergency, we will do it. We must never let the government do anything to us under emergency. The government is not our friend. It's not trustworthy."
Liz Gunn15,900 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten
Andrew Bridgen Explains His Defamation Case Against Matt Hancock – and the Anomalies in the Appeal Judgment In this detailed interview, Andrew Bridgen sets out the current state of his long-running defamation case against Matt Hancock. He recounts the 11 January 2023 tweet that triggered the attack in Parliament, Hancock’s subsequent social-media post attacking Bridgen, outside parliamentary privilege, and the three-and-a-half-year Defamation legal battle that followed. After the Court of Appeal recently found in Hancock’s favour on the “honest opinion” defence, Bridgen - acting as a litigant in person - wrote to the lead judge, Lord Justice Warby, highlighting what he believes are serious factual inaccuracies in the judgment concerning third-party evidence, and the conduct of Hancock’s barrister. The conversation also covers the wider political context at the time, including Bridgen’s December 2022 speech that halted the planned vaccination of under-fives, private admissions of harm from colleagues, and the ignored letter from 26 Jewish scientists stating that in their combined viewpoint, his comments were not 'antisemitic'. Bridgen discusses the implications for UK defamation law and the options now open to him, including a possible appeal to the Supreme Court. This discussion offers a clear, factual update on a case with significant Free Speech implications for the UK and beyond. Important addendum, for all viewers and listeners: Andrew Bridgen needs urgent Public Support through your offering of ongoing donations to help him with the hefty legal costs for this case, caused by Matt Hancock's avoidance and obfuscations: Useful Resources: Hearing 20th May 2026: Morning Recording: Hearing 20th May 2026: Afternoon: Andrew Bridgen Excess Deaths & Covid19 "vaccine" - Westminster full speech - 18/4/2024 - Gallery cheers:
Liz Gunn11,075 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat
![How Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora) Buried Whistleblower Barry Young's Protected Disclosure. Barry Young details how he made a protected disclosure to Health New Zealand’s executive leadership team with statistical evidence suggesting serious vaccine safety issues. After extensive review with epidemiologists, doctors, and statisticians, he calculated odds of 100 billion to one against the vaccine not causing the observed signals. The handling of his Protected Disclosure reveals suppression of evidence, which would be potentially serious illegality, at the highest levels of the Ministry of Health. Barry had to raise several OIA (Official Information Act) requests to obtain the evidence that Health New Zealand had indeed received his original Protected Disclosure email, despite the evidence being "buried away in an Accenture Report, which was a Forensics Report." This is essential viewing for anyone who has concerns about government transparency, public health accountability, and Whistleblower Protections in New Zealand and beyond. Transcript: "I gave it to Health New Zealand, that was my protected disclosure... And only after doing a lot of due diligence with a lot of experts and statisticians and doctors who looked at it and I found out in hindsight I'm perfectly allowed to do that under the act to see how and whether that's important, whether to make a protected disclosure. It was all... red flag, red flag, red flag. So yes, I did put all that together, I did some crude analysis back then, getting a lot better at it now. And I just came up with some numbers that was 100 billion to one against the vaccine not causing this. I can't say for sure, I can never say that. And I sent that in an email to the executive leadership team at Health New Zealand. So of course, yeah, yeah, to make them aware of what I was saying and that formed the protected disclosure which was the whole purpose of the act, which is why we're here. Of course, they just ignored that and retaliated. In the police disclosures, I didn't even see a sign of that original email that I sent, they tried to bury it, they tried to withhold it from evidence because it was a protected disclosure. The original ELT email, the only one they did provide as evidence was the email I sent to the MPs, not knowing that that wasn't a protected disclosure. I didn't know the act at the time, but they withheld the one I sent to the executive leadership team. And the only reason that I can think of they did that was to try and avoid saying that it was a protected disclosure. They tried to bury it. I... emailed them, the Crown, the police, where's the email that I sent to the executive team? Oh no, we've sent you everything that we have. So I thought, that's a bit strange. I did send an email. ... I had to resort to writing OIA's to Health New Zealand, which they denied. They said, oh no, we didn't, there's no email sent from you at that time to these people. Your request is denied because it doesn't exist. And I wrote back to them. I said, check again, please. These are the times. These are the dates. And they said, we've gone back and we've done a thorough check and we stand by original decision. The email doesn't exist. So Health New Zealand said twice that email doesn't exist. I found it. The evidence buried away in an Accenture report, which was a forensics report. I said, hang on a minute. There's the email there in that report. Only after that did the police and the Crown reply to me. And lo and behold, there it was. The protected disclosure email... produced nearly a year after I was charged. It should have been the very first thing that they sent and [that] they dealt with. ...Looking at a protected disclosure, the way it's meant to be, they're meant to receive it and acknowledge it and reply to it. They tried to bury it."](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2079740952785424403/amplify_video_thumb/2079731110884646912/img/RJZ1Eky984U5NigT.jpg)
How Health New Zealand (Te Whatu Ora) Buried Whistleblower Barry Young's Protected Disclosure. Barry Young details how he made a protected disclosure to Health New Zealand’s executive leadership team with statistical evidence suggesting serious vaccine safety issues. After extensive review with epidemiologists, doctors, and statisticians, he calculated odds of 100 billion to one against the vaccine not causing the observed signals. The handling of his Protected Disclosure reveals suppression of evidence, which would be potentially serious illegality, at the highest levels of the Ministry of Health. Barry had to raise several OIA (Official Information Act) requests to obtain the evidence that Health New Zealand had indeed received his original Protected Disclosure email, despite the evidence being "buried away in an Accenture Report, which was a Forensics Report." This is essential viewing for anyone who has concerns about government transparency, public health accountability, and Whistleblower Protections in New Zealand and beyond. Transcript: "I gave it to Health New Zealand, that was my protected disclosure... And only after doing a lot of due diligence with a lot of experts and statisticians and doctors who looked at it and I found out in hindsight I'm perfectly allowed to do that under the act to see how and whether that's important, whether to make a protected disclosure. It was all... red flag, red flag, red flag. So yes, I did put all that together, I did some crude analysis back then, getting a lot better at it now. And I just came up with some numbers that was 100 billion to one against the vaccine not causing this. I can't say for sure, I can never say that. And I sent that in an email to the executive leadership team at Health New Zealand. So of course, yeah, yeah, to make them aware of what I was saying and that formed the protected disclosure which was the whole purpose of the act, which is why we're here. Of course, they just ignored that and retaliated. In the police disclosures, I didn't even see a sign of that original email that I sent, they tried to bury it, they tried to withhold it from evidence because it was a protected disclosure. The original ELT email, the only one they did provide as evidence was the email I sent to the MPs, not knowing that that wasn't a protected disclosure. I didn't know the act at the time, but they withheld the one I sent to the executive leadership team. And the only reason that I can think of they did that was to try and avoid saying that it was a protected disclosure. They tried to bury it. I... emailed them, the Crown, the police, where's the email that I sent to the executive team? Oh no, we've sent you everything that we have. So I thought, that's a bit strange. I did send an email. ... I had to resort to writing OIA's to Health New Zealand, which they denied. They said, oh no, we didn't, there's no email sent from you at that time to these people. Your request is denied because it doesn't exist. And I wrote back to them. I said, check again, please. These are the times. These are the dates. And they said, we've gone back and we've done a thorough check and we stand by original decision. The email doesn't exist. So Health New Zealand said twice that email doesn't exist. I found it. The evidence buried away in an Accenture report, which was a forensics report. I said, hang on a minute. There's the email there in that report. Only after that did the police and the Crown reply to me. And lo and behold, there it was. The protected disclosure email... produced nearly a year after I was charged. It should have been the very first thing that they sent and [that] they dealt with. ...Looking at a protected disclosure, the way it's meant to be, they're meant to receive it and acknowledge it and reply to it. They tried to bury it."
Liz Gunn12,711 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten
Nanotechnology Found In ALL Vaccines | Andrew Bridgen, Tanya Lat & Sally Clark Liz Gunn hosts Andrew Bridgen (Andrew Bridgen), Lawyer Tanya Lat, and analyst Sally Clark (Sally C) to discuss explosive new findings from the Philippines 🇵🇭, critical insights on China 🇨🇳, and the urgent stakes for humanity's future 🚨 Links: - Sally Clark, Analyst at Covid-19 Safety Hearing in the Philippines: - COVID SHOTS INSTALLED NANOBOTS: - COVID-19 Vaccines Responsible for More American Casualties than WW1, WW2, and the Vietnam War Combined: Music attribution (Opening): 'Maleficus' by Scott Buckley - released under CC-BY 4.0. -------- FreeNZ :
Liz Gunn37,952 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Dr David Cartland: Bullied, Struck Off & Still Fighting - A Doctor’s Story of Truth & Persecution Dr David Cartland Dr Dave Cartland BMedSc MBChB Ex-MRCGP is a respected and deeply caring, ethical family doctor with impeccable qualifications (BMedSci 1st class, MBChB, MRCGP). David bravely spoke out against lockdowns, masks, PCR 'over-cycling', and mRNA COVID injections. The Hounds of Hell were unleashed upon him for his deep courage and personal integrity. This is a story of institutional bullying, loss of livelihood, and one man's unyielding commitment to his patients, to humanity's better future and above all, to Truth. FreeNZ Masks the ultimate IQ test! Hypoxia, hypercapnia, a Petri dish and a Cochrane review shows Meta-analysis that they don’t work!: Sign the Dr David Cartland Petition: GiveSendGo Campaign: Books: Do No Harm: Diaries of a 'Vaccinated' Antivaxxer (Amazon): A Doctor's Despair: Second Edition (Amazon):
Liz Gunn15,268 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten
"I don't know what people vote for in New Zealand 🇳🇿 but consistently in the UK 🇬🇧, probably for the last four or five general elections, the public have been promised and voted for what they thought was control of immigration and all we've had from successive governments of different colours is an ever liberalisation of our immigration rules and increasing numbers of migrants coming in. So the governments are actually acting exactly in the opposite to the declared wishes of the majority of the people... (Agenda 2030) ... and I imagine that the majority of New Zealanders would object to this effectively no control over migration at all. You're actually giving the powers for who comes into the country to a third party, to the foreign country - India - and they're heavily involved in Digital ID around the world... ... We're seeing governments around the world all in lockstep again bringing in digital ID which they've never sold to the people, they've never had a popular vote that we want digital ID. ...Trust in government in general around the world and governance systems is at an ALL-TIME LOW, why would we want to give this power away?" – Andrew Bridgen Andrew Bridgen commenting on the recent New Zealand-India Free Trade Agreement and how it relates with what has been rolling out in the United Kingdom and the rest of the West with the overt push for Digital ID, a major part of Agenda 2030.
Liz Gunn10,059 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten
Secret Wellington Hearing: NZ Govt Admits Ignoring Vaccine Harm Data - Barry Young & Steve Kirsch Update on Whistleblower Court Case Barry Young & Steve Kirsch provide this post-Voir Dire update after the secretive Wellington District Court hearing where the public was barred, and the window in the door covered over. There will no February court appearance for Barry. The decision will be notified in documentation. In February 2026, when the judge publicises his decision, there are two choices: either Barry is deemed to be a “Whistleblower” (Data scrutiny will then possible, and the trial will end), or he will not be deemed to be a Whistleblower and the matter will proceed to full trial (that will require depositions of Health NZ officials and their paid epidemiologists, and a jury will be reminded that NO full analysis of Barry’s record level Data has been completed by Health NZ, even as it pursued this futile case against this brave Whistleblower). Checkmate either way. Ruling due February - stay tuned. Share widely & Support Barry. FreeNZ
Liz Gunn14,401 Aufrufe • vor 8 Monaten
Steve Kirsch Steve Kirsch on Barry Young’s Barry Young Whistleblower Hearing: NZ Data Cover-Up Exposed - In Court on Dec 11 - Steve Kirsch joins to discuss Barry Young’s crucial Voir Dire hearing which is taking place this Thursday 11 Dec 2025 in the Wellington District Court. - Crown drops 19-page “expert” evidence amendment just 3 days before trial (image-only PDF, non-searchable) - Retired Prof Robert Scragg admits he never analysed the full 2.2 million-row dataset – he stopped at 1 million rows - Scragg claims “MedSafe stopped monitoring the jab outcomes and that that is “proof of safety” - Kirsch: Czech, NZ, Japan, Israel & US data all show the same mortality spikes, post-vaccination - If judge rules that only people with PhD’s or other equivalent level of academic training, qualify as ‘whistleblowers’, then NZ whistleblower protection will be dead - Crown has already signalled they will apply for an ‘instant appeal. if they lose this Voir Dire hearing on December 11. Barry faces jail for releasing FULLY anonymised, pay-per-dose, data showing serious harm signals. The Ministry of Health in New Zealand still refuses to release its OWN analysis after 735 days since Barry brought his sincere concerns to their attention. Please come to Wellington if you can, to support Barry: Thursday 11 December, 9 am, Wellington District Court. Share widely – worldwide ‘eyes on this case’ matter enormously, in order for Barry Young to have any chance of getting any kind of fairness in this Voir Dire, and for him to be officially designated as the brave Whistleblower that he is.
Liz Gunn15,849 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten