Video yükleniyor...
Video Yüklenemedi
Following significant mainstream media attention, it's noteworthy that not a single mainstream outlet was present at Barry Young's court appearance yesterday. This edited piece includes John Ansell's interview with the whistleblower outside the courthouse. I've also incorporated footage of UK MP Andrew Bridgen discussing Barry Young's leaked data in... show more
12,286 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)
11 Yorum
Barry Young , what an absolute legend, so many to weak to tell the truth, if it doesn’t effect me just move on , You stand strong a real man of courage and integrity God bless you and keep you safe
Like the plot to a dystopian movie, New York will now monitor social media writings, collect data, and use law enforcement to crack down on any expression it deems to be hate speech.
Barry Young was my New Zealander of the year as he told me what I believed was a killing field of New Zealanders that took the jabs and he has not only put his life on hold and faces possible prison time he has no income and has been so brave. He is innocent of all charges.
The police prosecutors are just incriminating themselves because the data does not lie.
None of the Mainstream Media is ‘allowed’ to cover this incredibly important matter. Politicians are to scared to be tarred with the brush of ‘Cooker, conspiracy theorist, nutter etc’ so best not to even discuss the subject. Unbelievable that not one mainstream sponsored mouthpiece even acknowledges ‘what the data is, let alone what it’s blatantly showing’. This detailed yet anonymonised data has been reviewed independently by many including @stkirsch and shows devastating consequences for certain batches; that’s why many had no initial symptoms of which many in this group rubbish any harm caused by this experimental drug. It’s the biggest elephant in the room, excess death graphs after jabs spiked in deaths and not before. Excess death overall is alarming up and happening to incredibly young fit teenagers and young adults.
And yet you get all the vaxxers saying he leaked private information, while they gaveuo their secret vaccination status to get into McDonalds
We are watching the system try and protect itself. It’s built from a house of cards. Once one goes it all goes. They are desperate to keep the facade intact.
Well done Aly Cook. And may the NZ captured BS media be shamed into oblivion. They are ALL WEF poppets - as was Ardern.
Incredible let’s hope this judge isn’t corrupted too
Media reps like @MaikiSherman are too busy chasing stupid stories about National Ministers using pvt email accounts! USELESS bottom feeders.
An heroic man. Selfless.
![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)
![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)
![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)
![“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)
![🚨#BreakingNews: Wilson’s Web of “Unawareness”: Mayor Contradicts Herself on Why Public Was Left in the Dark After Shooting “Miscommunication” and “I am not aware” says Seattle mayor when pressed again of public information delays of shooting. Wilson provides contradicting remarks to what she knew Sunday night. During Friday’s (July 31st) presser Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson when asked if she is telling the truth on whether her office told SPD to delay Sunday evening’s presser to wait for “dignitaries,” Wilson shared that she “learned at 9.40 p.m., five minutes before 9.45 p.m. [presser], that a press conference was being planned at Seattle Center” and that if she “had known that next to no information” other than her “own office's blog post” earlier that evening “had been shared with the public since the time of the incident at 6 p.m., I would have immediately said, yes, tell the press everything you know.” Then minutes later when responding to a reporter’s question on how can she not know that information about the shooting was not being communicated to the public on Sunday night, Mayor Wilson responded, “The reason why we put out a statement on our website around 8.45 p.m. is because at that point we did realize that nothing was getting out there.” Mayor Wilson appears to have contradicted herself on what she knew when on Sunday night about the lack of public information being shared on the Bite of Seattle shooting. Earlier she said to one reporter that she found out at 9:40 p.m. that “next to no information” was shared to the public about the shooting yet minutes later she admitted that her office posted at 8:45 p.m. about the shooting because “at that point we did realize that nothing was getting out there” and that the “the public was desperate for information.” Therefore, by no later than 8:45 p.m., Mayor Wilson was aware that little to no information was being shared to the public and that she was the arbiter of that information. Mayor Wilson also mentioned that at 9:40 p.m., five minutes before the scheduled 9:45 p.m. presser that “I personally at 9:40 p.m. was not aware that basic information such as the status of Seattle Center campus and information about potential suspects at large had not gotten out in any form.” This coupled with the fact that she said that also at 9:40 p.m., she was unaware of the 9:45 p.m. scheduled presser, may reasonably indicate that she needed more time to be brought up to speed on the situation. Yet, Mayor Wilson continues to deny she delayed the dissemination of information to the public regarding the shooting on Sunday night. The delay in the Sunday presser for “dignitaries” was said by a SPD spokesperson and also captured on video. Later in Friday’s presser Mayor Wilson was asked that during Monday’s presser how could she not know that the 19-year-old who died at Seattle Center was actually part of the shooting when the King County Prosecutor's Office court documents stated the 19-y/o’s involvement which were released shortly after the presser, inferring that the prosecutor’s office knew hours earlier before Monday’s presser. Mayor Wilson again responded, “I was not aware of that information at that time.” Also, during the presser Mayor Wilson said that the public information “should have been shared earlier. It could have been shared in a number of forms. Social media, the SPD blotter, our emergency alert system, potentially an off-site press conference.” During Monday’s presser mayor was again “unaware” of the City’s emergency alert system. 🟥Below is Q&A from Friday’s presser surrounding the Sunday Presser delay and delay of public information: 👉Reporter: You have command staff who was there. Many of them are here tonight. Again, we're hearing that your office told them to hold off immediate briefings. Are you telling the truth? when it comes to that night about your office telling them to hold off? Wilson: I learned at 9.40 p.m., five minutes before 9.45, that a press conference was being planned at Seattle Center. At that time, if I had known that next to no information, apart from my own office's blog post, had been shared with the public since the time of the incident at 6 p.m., I would have immediately said, yes, tell the press everything you know. Yeah, in that, absolutely no direction for my office not to share information. Nope. 👉Reporter: How did you not know? Did you not turn on the TV? Did you not look at half of your phone? Wilson: I was not watching the TV that evening. 👉Reporter: Did no one in your administration know that no information was going out to the public about a mass shooting? Wilson: “The reason why we put out a statement on our website around 8.45 p.m. is because at that point we did realize that nothing was getting out there, and we knew that the public was desperate for information. So we put out a statement with the best information we had at that time from SPD, which, as everyone knows, included some misinformation about the number of suspects who had been taken into custody. “Communications were flying around and I personally at 940 was not aware that basic information such as the status of Seattle Center campus and information about potential suspects at large had not gotten out in any form. “And that information should have been shared earlier. It could have been shared in a number of forms. Social media, the SPD blotter, our emergency alert system, potentially an off-site press conference.”](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2083301572898169223/amplify_video_thumb/2083301425631899648/img/IR_PNOuwlW6awRPg.jpg)
