Barry Young (NZ vaccine data whistleblower) sits down with barrister Ken Nicolson, a calm, experienced lawyer who has quietly represented many vaccine-injured Kiwis.
With the crucial voir dire hearing set for 11 December in Wellington District Court (deciding if Barry qualifies for full whistleblower protection under the Protected Disclosures Act), they discuss: – Crown’s last-minute attempt to dump a revised “expert” report just 3 days before trial
Whether “reasonable grounds” means an ordinary worker’s honest belief or a PhD epidemiologist’s hindsight analysis
Good faith, retaliation, and why the Act should protect Barry, not criminalise him
The bigger stakes for free speech, democracy and public health in NZ and beyond
Ken confirms he’ll be in court on the 11th. Barry is still unrepresented and facing a 7-year charge.
Kiwis: come to Wellington District Court, 9 am, Thursday 11 December.
Bring cameras, fill the pavement, show the world NZ still has rule of law.
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. Key points include:
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.
” … vaccinated children showed 4.29 times higher rates of asthma, nearly six times higher rates of autoimmune disease, and 5.5 times higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders. Most remarkably, among nearly 2,000 unvaccinated children, there were zero cases of ADHD compared to 262 cases in the vaccinated group. “
“An Inconvenient Study” delivers a gripping piece of investigative journalism that will leave viewers questioning everything they thought they knew about vaccine safety research. When medical journalist Del Bigtree challenged Dr. Marcus Zervos of the prestigious Henry Ford Health System to conduct the most comprehensive vaccinated versus unvaccinated study ever undertaken, neither anticipated the explosive journey that would follow. The documentary’s hidden camera revelation—capturing Dr. Zervos admitting that publishing his completed study would end his career—provides one of the most stunning moments in recent documentary filmmaking. With over 18,000 subjects studied and shocking disparities found between vaccinated and unvaccinated children’s health outcomes, this film exposes what appears to be a deliberate suppression of critical public health data that every parent deserves to see.
Del Bigtree brings unique credibility to this investigation, having evolved from CBS medical journalist to becoming one of the most persistent voices demanding transparency in vaccine safety science. Through his nonprofit ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network), he’s successfully sued government agencies and uncovered the startling absence of proper placebo-controlled trials for childhood vaccines—victories that provide crucial context for understanding why the Henry Ford study matters so profoundly. The documentary skillfully weaves Bigtree’s personal journey with the larger narrative, showing how his production of the original “Vaxxed” documentary opened his eyes to thousands of parents reporting similar patterns of vaccine injury. His encounter with Colton, a 13-year-old paralyzed by the HPV vaccine who tragically took his own life in 2018, provides emotional weight that grounds the statistical arguments in human reality.
The relationship between Bigtree and Dr. Zervos forms the documentary’s compelling core, with Zervos emerging as a complex figure caught between scientific integrity and institutional pressure. His credentials—having solved the Flint water crisis and conducted controversial hydroxychloroquine research—establish him as someone willing to challenge orthodoxy when lives are at stake. The film’s presentation of the study’s findings is staggering: vaccinated children showed 4.29 times higher rates of asthma, nearly six times higher rates of autoimmune disease, and 5.5 times higher rates of neurodevelopmental disorders. Most remarkably, among nearly 2,000 unvaccinated children, there were zero cases of ADHD compared to 262 cases in the vaccinated group. When Zervos admits on hidden camera that he would publish the study “just how it is” if not for the current climate, calling the findings “important” while simultaneously refusing to publish out of career preservation fears, the documentary captures a scientist’s moral crisis in real-time.
The film’s methodological approach demonstrates sophisticated understanding of epidemiological research while remaining accessible to general audiences. Rather than simply dismissing potential criticisms, the documentary shows how the Henry Ford team conducted multiple sensitivity analyses, adjusting for follow-up time, healthcare-seeking behavior, and various confounders—yet the alarming disparities persisted. The visual presentation of data, particularly the graph showing that by age 10 only 43% of vaccinated children remained free from chronic health conditions compared to 83% of unvaccinated children, makes complex statistics immediately comprehensible. The film strengthens its case by contextualizing the Henry Ford study within other independent research, including Dr. Peter Aaby’s shocking findings from Guinea-Bissau where DTP-vaccinated children had five times higher mortality rates despite being protected from the target diseases.
The documentary’s investigative techniques create undeniable dramatic tension while raising important questions about scientific transparency. The decision to use hidden cameras, while controversial, proves justified when Zervos’s candid admissions reveal the gulf between private acknowledgment and public silence. The film effectively contrasts heart-wrenching parent testimonials—particularly the devastating account of triplets who simultaneously regressed after vaccination—with the cold institutional responses that dismiss their experiences. Attorney Aaron Siri’s deposition of vaccine luminary Dr. Stanley Plotkin provides another documentary highlight, with Plotkin admitting under oath that five-day safety trials cannot detect autoimmune or neurological conditions that develop after that window, essentially acknowledging that vaccine safety science rests on assumptions rather than data.
From a cinematographic perspective, “An Inconvenient Study” excels at building narrative tension through careful pacing and strategic reveals. The filmmakers wisely hold back the actual study results until after establishing the credibility of both Bigtree and Zervos, making the eventual revelations land with maximum impact. The hidden camera footage, while grainy, carries the authentic tension of genuine investigative journalism—this isn’t polished propaganda but raw documentation of a scientist’s confession. The film’s emotional range, from parents’ anguished testimonials to Bigtree’s visible frustration when Zervos refuses to publish, creates a human dimension that prevents the documentary from becoming merely a data presentation. The inclusion of the cease-and-desist letter from Henry Ford Health’s attorneys in the film’s conclusion adds a layer of institutional intimidation that reinforces the documentary’s central thesis about suppression.
“An Inconvenient Study” stands as essential viewing for anyone concerned about children’s health, scientific integrity, or institutional transparency. The documentary’s power lies not in telling viewers what to think but in exposing information that has been deliberately withheld, allowing audiences to draw their own conclusions. When Dr. Zervos states that “nothing is going to come out of it other than me losing my job,” he inadvertently explains why this study remained hidden and why Bigtree felt compelled to expose it through unconventional means. The film’s call for other institutions to replicate this research feels less like activism and more like basic scientific principle—if the Henry Ford study is flawed, prove it through replication, not suppression. For parents making health decisions for their children, medical professionals questioning orthodox positions, and citizens concerned about institutional capture of science, this documentary provides crucial information that has been systematically kept from public view. Its ultimate message—that parents deserve access to all safety data before making medical decisions for their children—should resonate regardless of one’s position on vaccines, making “An Inconvenient Study” one of the most important documentaries of our time.
