Note: some videos in the article I could not locate so have added links to the original article (reproduced in full due to risk of loss by censorship)… EWNZ
“After being shocked to learn that a lot of people were dying a week after being vaccinated, he decided to download and share that data with the world”.
The Expose reported last week that an administrator who had been overseeing New Zealand’s Covid vaccine database had come forward as a whistleblower. The whistleblower, Barry Young had disclosed that data had shown a concerning proportion of individuals had died shortly after receiving a Covid vaccine. Days following this disclosure, journalist Liz Gunn reported that Young had been raided by the police on Sunday, and now, according to James Freeman on radio station TNT, he could face up to 7 years in prison.
The Disclosure.
Barry Young worked as a data administrator on a project at the Te Whatu Ora, public health agency established by the New Zealand government to implement a vaccine payment system to provider.
Young exposed just how many individuals had been found to have died following covid vaccinations, as we reported on the 2nd December, a breakdown of the data based on vaccine batches was provided by Young.
He claimed that in the first batch, consisting of 711 vaccinated individuals, 152, or 21 percent, died soon after.
Further analysis by Young extended to those administering the shots and the recipients, revealing alarming figures. One vaccinator administered shots to 621 individuals, and of those, 104, or 17 percent, died. Source
Notably, the majority of the vaccine batches were Pfizer doses. .
Expressing deep concern, Barry Young said “This should never happen, the percentage who die from what would be a normal vaccination administration would be 0.75 percent.”
Barry had helped to build the system he had been working on and therefore had access to vaccine-related data. After being shocked to learn that a lot of people were dying a week after being vaccinated, he decided to download and share that data with the world.
“Whistleblower,” Barry Young exposes the data. (click on image for video link)
Swarming With Police
On Sunday the 3rd of December, journalist Liz Gunn who had previously interviewed Barry Young, put out an emergency call to say that Young’s home had been surrounded by police for hours as had an individual who had corroborated his findings. She calls for a global effort to make this story known.
The Te Whatu Ora ministry of health has been granted an injunction that “prevents any publication of the data” by the Employment Relations Authority has alleged Barry Young has had all of his access to the projects system removed.
Barry Young, was charged with accessing a computer system for “dishonest purposes”, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ prison.
The police said they would be opposing his release on bail, because of the risk he could continue to spread “misinformation!”
TNT Radio Chat’s James Freeman, reported that the reason he needs “protecting” is because of the significance of the data set that Young leaked, which, says the reporter contains the health records of the the New Zealand population, jabs and outcomes etc. as James Freeman says “it is not the linked anonymised data published by statistics offices from around the world. Which cannot be trusted.”
An update 6/12/23: links to the truthwatch site are not working … I am told there has been an attack on the Website server, (possibly the current goings on with NZ whistleblower revealing lies). My own access was cut right when editing those links…. as @ late 6 Dec the truthwatch site is back up now.
EWNZComment: I recall folk reporting on these scenarios well over a decade back when the internet was new, the camps appearing in disguise often.
Polite appeals to those in charge who are denying all evidence exposing the jab are of course not cutting it. These folk fail to take into account the sheer evil of the persons driving the genocide... which is what it clearly is.Here is how they deal with those who know too much and who expose their cover ups...
Be sure you know the escape routes from your area and be wary of official advice.For now they are stamping out ‘brush fires’ with censorship, knowing they are well on target and that soon there will be too few people left to effectively oppose them. Those ‘smart’ cities are for the compliant who will go there willingly, believing it’s for the climate and their safety, and those camps, well it’s not difficult to figure who those are for. Remember the scenarios that played out over the past three years? Subtle threats about separating you from your children? (see here also and here, and here in NZ). Children are still missing from the Hawaii fires (here also).
Note, NZ’s equivalent of FEMA is now NEMA, since a week before the White Island eruption that is, when official safety / rescue folk decided not to rescue those victims and locals went instead, only to face prosecution afterwards! This also happened in the Hawke’s Bay flooding this year where folk went in small boats and even a helicopter to rescue folk.
Things have changed folks!And not for the better!Be vigilant!
Below is the article from Agent131711’s Substack. I recommend you read the many links to his other articles on the camps and FEMA topic:
Converting military bases to prisons and mass-arresting over a half of a million residents at a time, for your safety, of course.
Starting in the early 1980s, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began running large-scale readiness drills, such as REX84B. REX84B is short for Readiness Exercise 1984 BRAVO. It was a classified exercise developed by the federal government to detain large numbers of United States residents deemed to be “National Security Threats”, in the event of a National Emergency. The exercise was for rounding up over a half million people at a time.
It has been a very busy week with the pre-sales of my new book ‘Gardening with Wally Richards’ andto date over 200 copies have been spoken for which is wonderful.
The books purchased will start being sent out on the 11th December.
Below is an article I wrote sometime ago and the information is very important for you and your family.
Save the earth and better yourself: 8 reasons why growing your own food is the best decision you will ever make.
I received an email article from Natural News.com which echoes much of what I have been encouraging people to do for many years.
The following is what they have to say:
(Natural News) Have you ever thought of growing your own fruits and vegetables? If not, now is the time to start considering it.
It may seem tedious and overwhelming, but in reality it is actually easy and simple. You can start by growing them in your backyard, or if you do not have any yard, consider container gardening in your balcony, patio, or on a windowsill.
Still not convinced? Here are eight reasons on why you should start growing your own food.
1/ Have a healthier family – Nothing can beat the freshness of fruits and vegetables that are homegrown.
Serving your family fresh fruits and vegetables is one of the most valuable things you and your family can do to be healthy.
Fruits and vegetables grown in your backyard are the best because you harvest them straight from your garden and eat them fresh.
Another proven health benefit of homegrown produce was shown in a study published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association.
Results of the study showed that preschool children who almost always ate homegrown produce were more than two times likely to eat five servings of fruits and vegetables per day than those kids who rarely or never ate homegrown produce.
2/ Spend less on groceries – Growing your own food will help you save money and ensure you food security as you will not have to buy fruits and vegetables from the supermarket.
Most fruits and vegetables from the supermarket have already lost their nutritional value as they have been stored for a long time.
With less than a dollar, you can buy a packet of seeds and start planting your own produce.
3/ Help the environment – By growing your own produce, you are already helping the environment in different ways.
One way is growing your food without using pesticides and herbicides.
This lessens air and water pollution. You will also help reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Moreover, pollution from the transportation of fresh produce from around the world to the supermarket will also be lessened.
4/ Increase your physical activity – Since you will be doing all the planting, weeding, watering, and harvesting, you are also exercising at the same time.
Remember to warm up and stretch your muscles before and after gardening though!
Exercising also helps you relax, de-stress, refresh your mind, inhale fresh air, and get vitamin D.
5/ Indulge in more tasty food – Nothing beats the freshness of picked out fruits and vegetables straight from the backyard.
A study found that homegrown tomatoes are sweeter and richer in nutrients than those sold in the supermarket.
6/ Have a sense of accomplishment – Witnessing the seed you planted grow and become the food that you and your family can enjoy is satisfying.
Home gardening helps you thrive, nourish your family, and improve health.
There is a sense of accomplishment and self-satisfaction in growing your own food.
7/ No more worries on food safety – Because you know how your plants are grown, you don’t have to worry about food safety.
With backyard gardening, you have control over the chemicals and products used during the growing process.
8/ Reduce food waste – You are less likely to throw away food. You’ll only pick what you need.
And, you wouldn’t want your time, effort, and hard work go to waste, right? End.
During the week a lady gardener rang with a couple of questions and during the conversation she told me that a friend had given her a freshly cut broccoli out of their garden. That night she cooked the broccoli and added it to the evening meal.
Her husband wanted to know what the name of the delicious vegetable that looked like a broccoli was.
He could not remember ever eating any vegetable that tasted so good.
He was told it was their friend’s Home Grown Broccoli. He wished that they were able to buy vegetables that tasted that good.
Goodness equals Taste, you grow a few vegetables without chemicals in your garden using only natural plant foods and minerals and picked fresh the taste is amazing.
Not only is the taste amazing your body is getting the minerals and nutritional goodness that you need to be healthy.
Your savings are immense, no need to purchase sauces and condiments that you need to put into your meals to make the bland food appear tasty (they are just chemical sugars, salts and fats anyway and bad for your health).
You save on health related costs, doctors, pharmacy products, time off work or school and possible hospital costs.
Often children with behavior aspects will improve.
Besides you cannot put a cost on poor health which is the ultimate cost of eating a food chain that lacks in fundamental goodness replaced by a list of chemical poisons likely as long as your arm.
Our conventional food chain is Insidious.
If you are not familiar with the meaning of the word it is: proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with very harmful effects.
Conventionally grown produce not only lacks in taste and goodness it goes off far quicker than natural home grown produce.
The reason is that it is already going off before it was even harvested.
They are weak plants having grown and sustained by chemical poisons.
Example strawberries conventionally grown look great, big berries but bland to the taste so we have to slice them and sprinkle icing sugar over them to make them taste good.
Home grown and they are sweet as; picked ripe off the plant. Plus they are full of minerals and antioxidants to make your immune system strong and you healthy.
Tomatoes conventionally grown lacking in flavour and bland need salt to make them appealing.
Home grown wow taste the difference.. Now thats a real tomato.
Another important aspect is that home grown produce is very filling and you dont need to eat much before you feel satisfied.
The reason is because your body has received its requirements and is happily utilizing the bounty of nutrients to fortify your organs and immune system.
Conventional food chain you eat a big meal and afterwards you still feel hungry.
Its not long before you are munching on some chippies or something to try and satisfy your hunger feelings.
Reason is your body has not received its list of needs for being healthy and is calling out for them so you stuff some more rubbish in and the best you achieve is being over weight and sickly.
You would excise to get rid of the fat but you dont have the energy (except for the sugars you consume) and besides you feel lethargic with the poisons your body is trying to cope with.
Not feeling so good best see the doctor who can prescribe some pharmaceutical chemicals to your Pandora’s box of chemicals.
Once upon a time the medical person would have inquired on your diet and likely suggested more fruit and vegetables but that was 50 odd years ago when the commercially grown produce had a lot more goodness than today.
Wallys formula: The more goodness (nutritional values) equals greater taste.
Home grown using natural elements means very healthy you and family.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Part II of the Act covers a broad range of Civil and Political Rights. As part of the right to life and the security of the person, the Act guarantees everyone:
1The right not to be deprived of life except in accordance with fundamental justice (Section 8)
2The right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment (Section 9)
3The right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without consent (Section 10)
4The right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment (Section 11)
Furthermore, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 guarantees everyone: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion. This includes the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO ADOPT AND HOLD OPINIONS WITHOUT INTERFERENCE (Section 1)
How did they respond? A police raid of course…no surprises there. I’m not holding my breath either … For a full list of links on topic go HEREEWNZ
From nzdsos.com
MASSIVE DATA RELEASE FROM WHISTLEBLOWER SUGGESTS GOVT AWARE OF MANY DEAD AFTER THE JABS. WE KNEW THIS ANYWAY. HOW WILL OUR MEDICAL AND POLITICAL LEADERS RESPOND?
DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH.
New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out with Science has been calling out the increasing numbers of post jab deaths for nearly three years since the roll out began. We have calculated numbers in the thousands, with many more suffering serious injuries. We have shown the criteria for causation are satisfied, and that the covid injections can cause death and injury through multiple mechanisms.
Given the coercion, censorship and manipulation that characterised the coronavirus jab campaign, people have a right to know what were the intended effects, and the actual outcomes.
The barrage of injured left to suffer needlessly, at the mercy of a system which ignores their very existence, is something we continuously speak out about daily. The tragedy of those left behind after their loved one(s) died unexpectedly after a Covid vaccination weighs heavily on our hearts.
US data analyst Steve Kirsch has revealed the staggering toll that has been exposed by a then anonymous New Zealand government whistleblower. In Steve’s livestreamed talk there were technical issues, so his presentation proper starts at 23 minutes.
A day prior, NZ media personality and politician Liz Gunn introduced the Ministry of Health database manager to the world. He calls himself Winston Smith in a nod to the ‘hero’ of Orwell’s 1984. His data demonstrated very high mortality after injection, over 30% of recipients dead within a year of being ‘vaccinated’ by some mobile centres (presumably vaccinating into rest homes, which will have a greater annual mortality than the general population’s 0.75%).
Clearly a headline result meant to shock, we would like to have seen the full range of mortality increases across all vaccine centres, and a breakdown by dose number in the presentations, etc. He and Liz followed up with 2 more interviews, discussing the data from similarly narrow perspectives.
In a departure from their mute silence on all negative research, the Ministry of Health has issued a reassuring message to the troops, denying there is a problem and parroting ‘safe and effective’. It’s chief executive, Margie Apa, clearly has put her Bachelor of Communications to good use, receiving a salary of at least $489K yearly and allegedly a 200K bonus at the start to push the jab hard, as did all the other DHB chief executives.
Unsurprisingly, Apa (and the obedient media) reports that the man has been suspended pending an investigation. Like the KGB chasing down underground subversive open mic nights, government have called in the police and are using US specialists to track and remove the data’s public appearances. Sadly, the new Health Minister has inherited the current habit of spin over openness. So we know that the whistleblower is real, and so is the data he has released, presumably, since Apa is not claiming it is faked.
But yes, there are immediate questions about confounders of the data, it is clearly incomplete, there are some mistakes and its final provenance remains unclear. However, Steve’s graphs of the data – NZ deaths following the jabs – in all age groups, show concordance with other countries’ released data. The shots kill and the governments know it. This was already indisputable.
From the Kirsch presentation, in the charts below, the mortality curves after a safe vaccination should be actually a straight line at worst, or ideally trending down if it is effective and the infection is serious, ie no-one is dying from the jab, and fewer people go on to die from an otherwise dangerous infection. Instead there is immediate jab harm which then rises inexorably, peaking around 10 months. This is exactly what UK Office of National Statistics data has been showing consistently, after independent analysis of the sort the UK government ought to have published but has ignored. Here is US Medicare data showing a rising mortality with time after each dose, in those 80 or younger.
And here is his chart from the NZ release, showing a similar pattern, and triangulating with the lethality assessment of Rancourt et al, and with the apparent peak at 5 months.
Notably, our first international collaboration in 2021, with the Israeli Peoples Commission, demonstrated exactly that finding in the first country to achieve very heavy vaccine coverage.
This confirms what we have been saying all along: this mRNA gene technology is not safe, it is not effective and it causes serious harm and damage to everyday kiwis. And that the government of the day damn well knew it. It lied to the people, and its own MPs. People like Rory Nairn have paid with their lives.
If Ms Apa is so certain we and whistleblower “Winson Smith” are disinfo agents, we call on her to release the actual data of outcomes in the vaccinated.
We have been asking to analyse deaths and vaccine data since September 2021.
There are so many questions that remained unanswered. If the vaccine was so safe, why are there so many excess deaths? If effective, why so much covid? We do not accept that the 2020 lockdown inhibited mortality rates and that what followed was just a normal rebound. That seems like a convenient answer to explain away the sudden rise in deaths which began in early 2021, matching the rollout. Nothing is consistent with the safe hypothesis.
Assuming this data is genuine, the obvious seems now proven: that data was being selectively “released” – propagandised, massaged and hidden more like – by government agencies and its media channels to skew the perception around what is safe and effective. And they are in good company. Pfizer is only now submitting some NZ deaths from 2021 to the VAERS database in the US, over 2 years later.
It’s not as if suspicion hasn’t already been raised about the New Zealand government massaging data. It seems rife, actually. Here is a recent example, of a 76% leap in deaths in 0 to 4 year olds in 2022, from a double-checked OIA result, compared to a completely different number published on an official website. We know which number fits best with the reality of reports on the ground. And reporting from around the world.
If all this information has been sitting in the government databases and those who saw it and were collating it knew the full extent of harm, then criminal charges need to be laid as quickly as possible. Experts will pore over it carefully, and we urge the NZ Police to do the same. Of course there is a chance this is a setup to discredit Liz Gunn and those she shared with. Opinions are a dime a dozen in the twitterverse, but we should get the takes of heavyweight stats professionals like Norman Fenton and Igor Chudov, and a consensus will emerge as the full data is digested. Time will tell.
“My take is that the potential confounders that could be sorted down to the most granular level possible of the individual records, are so completely distributed through the sample, consisting of about 1/3 of the total NZ population, with huge sample sizes for all the various age groups, etc. that have been examined so far, as to be utterly inconsequential with respect to the central question: What was it that started killing so many people after the C-19 vaccines were introduced that was not killing them before the vaccines?
If no one has a plausible answer that excludes the vaccines, all that is left for an answer is that the vaccines caused the rise in all cause mortality (ACM) in all the countries where they were introduced, and soon after they were introduced…. Confounders cannot explain anything new relevant to the issue at stake. The vaccines are killers. Or, what complex of confounding variables can overwhelm the measurable impact of the vaccines in all the countries keeping records… See Beattie’s study* of 145 countries and more to follow soon.”
Whether this data is fake or real – and we want to believe that it is genuine so it can help end this nightmare more quickly – many people want to know the truth about the jabs, and they will find it, one way or another.
December 3, 2023: Breaking News -New Zealand Reporter, Liz Gunn, reports that the whistleblower exposing the catastrophic deaths caused by the COVID-19 injection in New Zealand (120 or more deaths per day since the COVID-19 injection rollouts) has been raided by the police, as has one of his colleagues.
Liz Gunn is calling on global civilians and Winston Peters to put pressure on the new New Zealand government to stand up for truth and whistleblowers by calling off the police and freeing the whistleblower and his associates immediately.
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more New Zealand Whistleblower who Shook the World has Been Raided by Police Karen Kingston Dec 3READ IN APPDecember 3, 2023: Breaking News -New Zealand Reporter, Liz Gunn, reports that the whistleblower exposing the catastrophic deaths caused by the COVID-19 injection in New Zealand (120 or more deaths per day since the COVID-19 injection rollouts) has been raided by the police, as has one of his colleagues. Liz Gunn is calling on global civilians and Winston Peters to put pressure on the new New Zealand government to stand up for truth and whistleblowers by calling off the police and freeing the whistleblower and his associates immediately.More information on the whistleblower and the data he exposed can be viewed on Rumble and on Steve Kirsch’s SubStack. This is a link to groundbreaking New Zealand data that shook the world (120 deaths per day in NZ),Please share this post. It may help prevent further persecution of the whistleblowers.
Note: A must hear video. Andrew Bridgen speaks of his 13 odd years as an MP and what he has experienced in uncovering corruption. Like anybody who does this, he does not fare well. He tells how he was a multi millionaire, businessman of the year in 2000. The government he says has now separated him from all his money and he will not get a pension. ‘You fall out with Bill Gates’ he says, ‘…and you find out you can’t access your money any more’. He is penniless. This is the price he has paid… EWNZ
Liz Gunn speaks with two brave and upstanding men of these times, UK MP Andrew Bridgen and Winston Smith, regarding the M.O.A.R – the Mother Of All Revelations government data drop on excess deaths in New Zealand.
We conclude the interview with a short film by Oracle Films, originally posted on 8th March 2021. We remember the brutality unleashed upon humanity during this time.
Suleika Jaouad, John Batiste’s wife, undergoes chemotherapy (on TV); soap star Christian LaBlanc “shares cancer update”; “Young tennis player collapses during press conference in frightening scene”
NBC News correspondent Antonia Hylton is sharing for the first time that she was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer, a neuroendocrine tumor.
As a journalist on the road, Hylton, 30, was used to waking up feeling out of sorts. But, about two years ago, she started having constant stomach issues.
Hylton tells TODAY.com that she recalls not being able to have a bowel movement for days, and when she finally was able to, “the pendulum swung in the other direction, almost like I couldn’t leave the bathroom.”
Knowing that Black people have the highest rate of colon cancer in the U.S. and that she has a family history of colon cancer, Hylton said, “I went to see a specialist who sent me for a colonoscopy.”
According to a new report from Consumer Reports, electric vehicles (“EVs”) have nearly 80% more problems and are generally less reliable than cars propelled by conventional internal combustion engines.
The findings are based on a survey of Consumer Reports’ members about problems they’ve had with their vehicles in the prior year. The current report included data on more than 330,000 vehicles made between 2000 to 2023, with a few reports on new 2024 models.
“We study 20 trouble areas, from nuisances – such as squeaky brakes and broken interior trim – to major bummers, such as potentially expensive out-of-warranty engine, transmission, EV battery, and EV charging problems. We use that information to give reliability ratings for every major mainstream model,” Consumer Reports wrote.
The consumer group found that EVs had 79% more problems than fuel-powered vehicles. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles were even worse with an average of 146% more problems than internal combustion engines. By contrast, the analysis found that hybrid cars have about 26% fewer problems than fuel-powered cars.
EVs can have up to 12 trouble areas. EV owners most frequently reported troubles with EV drive system motors, EV charging systems and EV batteries. Flaws in how the vehicles’ body panels and interior parts fit together have also been reported.
Plug-in electric vehicles can experience all 20 trouble areas. As well as experiencing all the same problems as internal combustion engines, EVs experience problems with electric motors, EV batteries and EV charging.
No surprises really, in light of their blatant denial of all Prof Seralini’s work! (and many others). You cannot believe a word from lying Monsanto cum Bayer … EWNZ
Prof Seralini’s tumour ridden rats fed daily with minute amounts of glyphosate
Despite a growing block of opposition to it, the European Union has voted to give glyphosate another 10 years of life for use with crops grown with chemicals like Roundup.
Originally a Monsanto product, Bayer now owns Roundup, along with billions of dollars in lawsuits of consumers claiming the herbicide caused their cancers. “Bayer bought Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018 and … announced it would pay up to $10.9 billion to settle about 125,000 filed and unfiled claims,” Yahoo! said.
The EU’s extension of glyphosate’s approval for another 10 years could still be challenged, as Greenpeace vowed to continue pushing to get it banned. While proponents argue that there is nothing to fear with glyphosate, and “no viable alternatives,” Greenpeace insists it is carcinogenic, citing studies supporting their stance. It also is harmful to bees, Greenpeace says.
It’s finally here: record-level data showing vaccine timing and death date. There is no confusion any longer: the vaccines are unsafe and have killed, on average, around 1 person per 1,000 doses.
Executive summary
Today you will get to see the data that nobody wants you to see. FINALLY.
No State or country has ever released record-level public health data on any vaccine.
Privacy is not the reason for this; the data can be easily obfuscated (which we did on this data) so that no record entry would match that of any person, living or dead.
The reason the data is kept secret is simple: it would expose the fact that the COVID vaccines are unsafe, as well as all the vaccines that I have been able to get record-level data on.
Today, thanks to a courageous whistleblower who works at the New Zealand Ministry of Health, we have record-level information from a large population of all ages and are making it public for the first time in history.
There was a YouTube link as well, but YouTube censored it within minutes of posting, just like we knew they would.
Just as you suspected, the COVID vaccines have killed millions of people worldwide, an estimated 1 death per 1,000 doses on average in a standard population.
And now we have the data to prove it.
The MIT slide presentation
You can read my “Is it safe?” MIT presentation slides here. I highly recommend reading the slides and/or watching the livestream. I tried to make the slides self-standing, but the livestream can be helpful in explaining some of the slides.
The presentation has everything you need including the credentials to download all the data (search for “Wasabi” in the PDF version of the slide deck).
Here are the Wasabi credentials to make it easy:
Public API keys: access-key= BDBT2BD1KKIXKPWY3030 secret-key= 5GQVqz9uDsmrYjLuNW24tRPzwPuPe0TTleUdpSF3
You can only access the data-transparency bucket for now. Trust me, there’s more that I’m not disclosing yet (including a new US source other than Medicare).
Wasabi explorer downloads are here for PC and Mac. You can also use CyberDuck or any other S3-compatible browser. Make sure your destination folder is writable when you copy files from the server.
You can also use rclone to make a local copy of the repository on your system:
The data: All the data in the data-transparency bucket is sanitized. Any matches to actual records is completely accidental. The data was sanitized in a way that preserves the statistics. We ran the bucket analysis on the original and obfuscated data and got nearly identical results. There is no reason any health authority couldn’t do the same thing we did.
The tools: We’ll give you our time-series cohort analysis software. This is the software that you’ll never get your State epidemiologist to use. Now, armed with record-level data, you can do your own analysis. We’ve made it super easy to use. When done, paste the output file into our v4 analysis .xlsx spreadsheet and you’ll see instantly whether the vaccine is safe or not.
The analysis documents: You’ll find annotated spreadsheets as well as word documents.
The description of the data: You’ll find documents describing the dataset (size, dates, average ages in each cohort, what the authorities claim, etc.
I encourage you to explore. Everything is “legal” in that jurisdiction. So you’ll see the full times of people who died in the Maldives, for example. In other places, the names are omitted.
Introduction
I was provided the data on November 8, 2023 when it was uploaded to my Wasabi file server.
I was asked by the whistleblower to keep the data confidential until November 30 in order to give the whistleblower time to work out the logistics of how the data would be made public.
I honored my commitment and only shared it with a handful of colleagues including Norman Fenton and his associates in the UK with the whistleblower’s consent.
The data from New Zealand is not perfect; it is not a complete sample. For example, for some people, the first record in the database is Dose #3. Also, only vaccinated people are in the database.
But, by using a cohort time-series analysis, it doesn’t matter. There is no possible way that this data is consistent with a safe vaccine. I estimated that the vaccine killed, on average, about 1 person per 1,000 doses. That means an estimated 675,000 Americans were killed by the COVID vaccines.
We have confirmation of the analysis from the US Medicare data thanks to another whistleblower.
The story of the data can be found in my presentation which has a link to the Wasabi server and access credentials, as well as how to download the free Wasabi File Explorers for PC and Mac. There is a large amount of data and analysis uploaded to the servers.
The cohort time-series analysis takes about 2 hours to run on the data. We’ve included the output files so you can start from that.
Analyzing the data takes about 5 minutes using the v4 spreadsheet in the analysis directory. Anyone can do it. You just plug in numbers to vary the parameters to look at anything you want to investigate. It has 8 visualizations: 4 main graphs (one for each independent variable) and 4 below each graph showing the number of deaths so you can use that to judge the reliability of the data points in the graph above.
Be sure to read the entire presentation to understand how to interpret the data.
Papers about the data
Papers will be coming out from various authors over the coming weeks. See this article which I will update over time.
Summary of what we found
Record level vaccination-date/death data obtained from a whistleblower in the New Zealand Ministry of Health was analyzed using a standard time-series cohort analysis. The results remained consistent even after varying all four of the key independent variables (observation time window, days after shot, age, and dose number). The only way that can happen is if the COVID vaccines significantly increased mortality for those aged 60 and older, the very population that the vaccine was supposed to help. All five Bradford Hill causality criteria are satisfied. From this data, we can accurately estimate that overall, the mRNA vaccines led to the premature death of more than 1 person per 1,000 doses on average over all doses.
This estimate is supported by COVID death data from Medicare obtained from another whistleblower. The data from Medicare was stunning: the number of people who died rose monotonically for those who got shot in 2021 or 2022. My whistleblower inside HHS had never seen anything like that before. It was a perfectly straight line sloping upwards for 365 days since the dose was given. A safe vaccine would see a decline in deaths by 4% to 5% after 1 year from the shot. The COVID vaccines had a 26% mortality increase, a net difference of 30%. This makes the COVID vaccine a competitor to heart disease as the leading cause of death among the elderly (which kills 20% of people per year).
The COVID vaccines are the deadliest vaccine of all time, killing an estimated 13 million people worldwide.
The precautionary principle of medicine requires that a vaccine which results in such a large net increase in all-cause mortality should be immediately revoked worldwide unless there is a more likely explanation for this “gold-standard” data. Nobody has come forward with a better explanation that fits all the data. In fact, nobody on the other side even wants to see this data: the FDA, CDC, Moderna, and Pfizer all refused to look at it. How is that responsible? That is reprehensible.
Researchers could have discovered the harms of these vaccines years earlier if any of the world’s health authorities released comparable record-level data to that released here. It is baffling to us why the medical community who is sworn to do no harm is not insisting on seeing any record-level data before recommending the use of any vaccine to their patients. It is the record-level data that is key to understanding whether a vaccine is safe or not. This is always hidden from public view.
Hidden from view?!?!
Clinical outcomes are never improved by keeping public health data hidden from public view. Yet every health authority in the world has kept this critical record-level safety data hidden from view.
And, to our knowledge, only one authority, the UK Office of National Statistics, had supplied even the most basic time-series analysis for a limited amount of time. The UK time-series analysis confirms the monotonic increase in mortality after each shot is given. But the UK ONS got to pick the bucket sizes whereas when we do the analysis, we have buckets for every week so we can see exactly what is going on. They can’t. And the ONS stopped responding to me when I asked to see the record-level data.
Other health authorities apparently refused to analyze their own data themselves to look for any safety signals which we found in abundance just minutes after receiving the data. After we received this data and analyzed this, we reached out to a number of health authorities in the US in Florida, California, and at the CDC and FDA. They all ignored the request to examine the data I obtained or look at their own data. This is the first time in history that vaccination-death record-level data has been made available to the public. And now we know why.
In addition, FOIA requests to the California Department of Public Health showed that they never analyzed their own data. There were no documents showing that they ever looked for any safety signals. They simply trusted the CDC even though the CDC doesn’t have any vaccine record level data, so it is IMPOSSIBLE for the CDC to do the proper safety analysis.
Finally, the safety signals are limited to those 60 and over simply because there wasn’t enough data to make a firm determination for people under 60; the data was simply too noisy because we were only given 4M of the 12M records in New Zealand.
However, since the vaccine provides no benefits whatsoever for infection, hospitalization, or death, there is no reason for anyone in the world to take these vaccines. See the presentation for details.
In any sane world, the COVID vaccines would be immediately halted and inquiries should begin as to why no health authority in the world did a thorough cohort time-series analysis on the data which would have uncovered the safety signal very early in the deployment. Are they all corrupt? Or are they all incompetent? Or both?
Can Moderna survive this? Why would anyone buy their stock?
These results have implications for Moderna stock as the failure of their underlying technology casts serious doubt on their viability as a going concern. Even if governments continue to buy their products, the breach of the public trust and the unwillingness of the company to look at the record-level data shows that the company is more interested in making a profit than ensuring the safety of their customers. A head in the sand approach to safety is despicable.
Pfizer is no different. Both companies were offered an opportunity to view this safety data and they all refused. So did the FDA and CDC. The offer was made by a respected journalist in the medical new community, not by me.
What did Professor Norman Fenton say about this new data?
Nobody should take my word on this. Those are my opinions based on examination of the data.
Anyone can analyze this data. Come to your own conclusions.
Finally, here is what famed British Mathematician Professor Norman Fenton said, “This confirms what we also saw in the most recent ONS data once.
Whatever uncertainty there may be in the younger age groups there is now no doubt the vaccine is increasing the mortality rate in older people.”
I agree. In spades. I’d bet my life on it.
Yale epidemiologist Professor Harvey Risch had this to say:
“I think that you’ve made a very strong case that the Covid genetic vaccines are associated with appreciably increased mortality rates for 6-12 months after each dose. This is particularly compelling in people over age 65. I am not aware of actual evidence that the increased post-vaccine mortality that you’ve shown has a different cause.”
The English translation of what he wrote is “the vaccines are killing people,” but scientists aren’t allowed to be blunt so they have to qualify everything they say.
This is how today’s “scientists” come to conclusions
If there was a mass shooting and everyone died, a scientist would want to have a control group and complete medical histories of each person (including a list of comorbidities) and then want to do a Cox proportional hazards analysis before concluding that the gunman could be the cause of death of these people. Without a control group, the scientist would be unable to say whether the shooting actually caused the deaths.
Nobody with respectable credentials wants to defend the vaccine as being safe
I offered to engage in a public recorded debate with anyone who thinks we got it wrong. Nobody was willing to do that to date, although Professor Jovo Vogelstein offered to give it a try to play devil’s advocate.
If you think we got it wrong, I have a $500K bet pending with Saar Wilf in Israel. I’d love to increase the stakes on that bet. Any takers?
Some people are just never going to figure this out
UPenn Professor Jeffrey Morris has had the data for a while. He doesn’t agree with our analysis (as expected). But when I asked him to explain the Medicare data where the mortality monotonically increases every day for 365 days straight, he said he refused to speculate. Professor Morris never is able to see a vaccine that is unsafe. I proposed all sorts of unsafe hypotheses to him, and he said none of them were convincing. So in his mind, no matter which way the deaths go, even if they go sky high after the vaccine is given, you cannot tell if a vaccine is safe or not; there will always be a confounder that he will find. And he’ll always insist on getting additional data that is never available, so he’ll argue that all data, no matter how strong, is not good enough.
Nearly half of America has already figured out the COVID vaccines are not safe; they want to sue the drug companies!
Some people will try to convince you that the data isn’t complete and is confounded for that reason. That’s bullshit. If it’s a safe vaccine, you can be missing 99% of the shot data and still get the right answer. Doses don’t matter; a safe vaccine is like a saline shot: they cause no impact.
They won’t get away with stupid arguments like that with me. That’s why they won’t debate me.
Consider supporting my work with a paid subscription
I only have time to do this work because this is my day job.
If you liked this article and want to keep supporting my work, and are not already a paid subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber for just $50/yr or $5/month.
Your subscription fee supports the critical work that Substack has done in providing a free-speech platform, and also provides the funds needed to continue this work to expose the fraud and save lives.
Having trouble? Use the Contact me link
You can get support here using the Contact Me link.
Summary
It’s over. They’ve lost. The vaccines are unsafe. This data is the nail in the coffin. Gold standard, official records. There is no better ground truth than this.There is no comparable ground-truth data showing the vaccines are safe. Zero. There can be only one right answer.
If you think the vaccines are safe, accept my bet, debate me publicly, or release the record level data in your state. Nobody will do any of those things it seems.
Sooner or later top epidemiologists will weigh in on this data.
Now we’ll see just how broken science is if the world’s top epidemiologists cannot agree that the vaccines are unsafe. For example, will John Ioannidis weigh in? Or will he remain silent? Will Martin Kulldorff say anything? Or will he also ignore this data?
In the meantime, the medical community and mainstream media will keep recommending the jabs as if nothing has happened. They should be ashamed of themselves.
For those at high risk, colonoscopies may be useful, but it’s important to weigh the potential benefits against the potential harms
In one study, those who were invited to get colonoscopies had an 18% lower risk of colorectal cancer than the unscreened group, but there was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer
One analysis found a death rate of 3 per 100,000 colonoscopies, along with serious adverse events in 44 per 10,000, “with a number needed to harm of 225”
Other risks include bleeding after removal of a precancerous polyp, perforation and anesthesia complications
To avoid contaminated equipment, contact the clinic or hospital ahead of time to find out about sterilization procedures; you’re looking for a hospital that uses peracetic acid — not glutaraldehyde (Cidex) — to sterilize its flexible endoscopes
I’m 69 and I’ve never had a colonoscopy. I also have no plans to get one. While I believe they can be valuable in some circumstances, I feel confident that with my rigid avoidance of omega-6 linoleic acid (LA) and lifestyle it’s highly unlikely I will develop any cancer, let alone colon cancer.
For those at high risk, colonoscopies may be useful, but it’s important to weigh the potential benefits against the potential harms. Though they’re touted as the gold-standard recommendation for colorectal screening, colonoscopies are not risk-free, nor are they guaranteed to reduce your risk of colorectal cancer death.1
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends adults between the ages of 45 and 75 be screened for colorectal cancer every 10 years.2 As a result, about 15 million colonoscopies are performed every year in the U.S.3 Before scheduling your colonoscopy appointment, here’s what you should know to make an informed decision about whether or not this screening tool is right for you.
What Is a Colonoscopy?
During a colonoscopy, a doctor uses a thin, flexible, lighted tube with a camera on the end to view the inside of the rectum and the entire colon. Visual inspection is a reliable way to check for colon cancer, and if polyps, some of which may turn into cancer over time, are found in their early stages, your doctor can snip them off then and there.
So, a colonoscopy is not only a diagnostic tool; it can also serve as a surgical intervention. During the procedure, the doctor will take a picture of the polyp, clip it, capture it and send it for a biopsy. So, depending on your risk factors, it’s something to consider.
However, colonoscopy is not the only screening option for colorectal cancer. There are also less invasive stool tests, including the guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and fecal immunochemical test (FIT), which check for the presence of blood or antibodies in your stool. There’s also a FIT-DNA test, sometimes called the stool DNA test, which combines FIT with a test to look for altered DNA in your stool.4
Flexible sigmoidoscopy and computed tomography (CT) colonography, also called virtual colonoscopy, are additional options. Flexible sigmoidoscopy is similar to a colonoscopy but uses a shorter and smaller scope, so it cannot see as far up into your colon.
Many doctors fail to review the benefits and risks of each screening option with their patients, however, and instead only recommend colonoscopy.5 But there are significant drawbacks worth noting.
Colonoscopies Reduce Cancer Diagnoses — But Not Cancer Deaths
A 2022 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found the benefits of colonoscopies are not as great as they’re made out to be.6
The Northern-European Initiative on Colon Cancer (NordICC) study — a randomized trial involving 84,585 adults between 55 and 64 years of age — assigned participants in a 1-to-2 ratio to receive an invitation to undergo a colonoscopy or to receive no invitation or screening. None of the participants had gotten a colonoscopy previously.
After 10 years, those who were invited to get colonoscopies had an 18% lower risk of colorectal cancer than the unscreened group.7 However, there was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer in the group invited to screening. The researchers intend to follow the participants for another five years to see if anything changes, but according to the study:8
“The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group … The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 … The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group.”
There were some limitations to the study, including a low uptake rate for those invited to get a colonoscopy. Only 42% of those invited to do the procedure actually did so. When the researchers analyzed the results based only on those who received colonoscopies, the procedure reduced the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and reduced the risk of dying from colorectal cancer by 50%.9
Still, speaking with STAT News, Dr. Samir Gupta, a gastroenterologist who was not involved with the study, noted, “This is a landmark study. It’s the first randomized trial showing outcomes of exposing people to colonoscopy screening versus no colonoscopy. And I think we were all expecting colonoscopy to do better. Maybe colonoscopy isn’t as good as we always thought it is.”10 Even study author Dr. Michael Bretthauer said:
“It’s not the magic bullet we thought it was. I think we may have oversold colonoscopy. If you look at what the gastroenterology societies say, and I’m one myself so these are my people, we talked about 70, 80, or even 90% reduction in colon cancer if everyone went for colonoscopy. That’s not what these data show.”
Bretthauer suggested colonoscopy may, in practice, reduce colorectal cancer risk by 20% or 30%, which is close to reductions offered by other less expensive, and less invasive, screenings, including fecal testing.
Colonoscopy is a medical procedure with significant risks, including a risk of death. The risk of death from a colonoscopy from one source was 1 in 16,318 procedures evaluated.11 In the same analysis, the researchers also found 82 suffered serious complications. Another analysis found a death rate of 3 per 100,000 colonoscopies, along with serious adverse events in 44 per 10,000, “with a number needed to harm of 225.”12
Other risks include bleeding after removal of a precancerous polyp and perforation. A systematic review and meta-analysis found the risk of perforation after colonoscopy was about 6 per 10,000 while the risk of bleeding was about 24 per 10,000 procedures.13 However, the risks can vary significantly depending on where the procedure is performed and depend on the skill level of the physician doing the procedure.
The risk of perforation at Baylor University Medical Center, according to one study, was 0.57 per 1,000 procedures or 1 in 1,750 colonoscopies.14 Other complications related to anesthesia can also occur, including aspiration pneumonia, along with intraperitoneal hemorrhage.15
Across the U.S. 34.4% of those undergoing a colonoscopy used anesthesia,16 which increases the overall risk of complications. In the Northeast, use of anesthesia was associated with a 12% increased risk of complications, but this rose to 60% among colonoscopies performed in the West.17
Generally speaking, you should opt for the lightest level of sedation possible, or none at all, to reduce anesthesia-related risks. Those who have sleep apnea, obesity, high blood pressure or diabetes are at increased risk of anesthesia complications.18
Dysbiosis and other gut imbalances, caused by the process of flushing out your intestinal tract with harsh laxatives before the procedure, are another concern.19 Meanwhile, research suggests up to 25.7% of all colonoscopies are unnecessary,20 so you must carefully consider whether the risks outweigh the benefits for your individual scenario.
How well the colonoscopy equipment is sterilized between patients also affects the riskiness of the procedure, as David Lewis, Ph.D., and I discuss in the short video above. One common issue is that endoscopes have expensive, sensitive equipment attached that cannot be heat sterilized. And, unfortunately, manufacturers have not been made to produce a scope that can be sterilized in this way.
As Lewis points out, “We can put a Rover on Mars, surely we can build a flexible endoscope that we can put in an autoclave.” So, during the examination, the physician may be unable to see through the scope because it’s clogged with human tissue from a past exam. In this case, the scope must be retracted and another one used in its place.
Lewis reports that up to 80% of hospitals sterilize flexible endoscopes with glutaraldehyde (Cidex), which does not dissolve tissue in the endoscope but, rather, preserves it. Then, when sharp biopsy tools are run through the tube, patient material from past testing is scraped off and potentially carried into your body.
This is why it’s important to find a clinic or hospital that uses peracetic acid, which is similar to vinegar, to thoroughly sterilize the equipment by dissolving proteins found in the flexible endoscopes. Before scheduling any endoscopic examination call to ask how the equipment is sterilized between patients. Specifically, you can ask:
How is the endoscope cleaned between patients?
Which cleaning agent is used?
How many of your colonoscopy patients have had to be hospitalized due to infections?
Diet Is a Leading Cause of Colorectal Cancer
While screening for early cancer detection can be valuable in some cases, it’s wise to take steps to proactively reduce your risk of cancer development. For colorectal cancer, this means targeting your diet.
Aside from skin cancer, colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in the U.S., as well as the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths.21 Lifestyle factors, including dietary choices, play a significant role in the occurrence and progression of colorectal cancer,22 with only an estimated 20% of cases caused by genetic factors and the remainder due to environmental reasons.
Up to 70% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are believed to be related to diet, according to researchers with the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.23 So, one powerful strategy is to focus your diet on whole foods, avoiding ultraprocessed foods as much as possible.
Processed convenience foods are linked to an increased risk of developing and dying from cancer,24 and they’re high in the omega-6 fat linoleic acid, which is found in many seed oils like soybean, cottonseed, sunflower, rapeseed (canola), corn and safflower.25 Higher intake of ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) is also linked to an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) precursors, leading researchers to suggest, “UPFs might be a modifiable target for early prevention of CRC.”26
Colonoscopies Are Not One-Size-Fits-All
While colonoscopies are often described as a universal solution for colon cancer screening, several factors — including your age and risk of colorectal cancer — influence whether or not you should get one. Be sure you understand the risks and potential benefits before making a decision.
And, remember to contact the clinic or hospital ahead of time to find out about sterilization procedures. You’re looking for a hospital that uses peracetic acid — not glutaraldehyde (Cidex) — to sterilize its flexible endoscopes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.