First, a video on this saga from yesterday afternoon–
from VFF yesterday evening–
We have a few updates for you about the latest Ministry of Health Whistleblower data, our response to accusations.
Whistleblower data blows up online
The internet has been awash with the story of the Ministry of Health whistleblower exposing data claiming vaccine harm, specifically excess deaths, from a payment system database in NZ.
New Zealand officials confirmed that the man had been an employee at the Ministry of Health and was now “no longer at work”. This afternoon it has been reported that legal action has been taken against the whistleblower who is accused of “misusing data to spread misinformation about vaccines.” Unverified posts claiming his house has been surrounded by police all afternoon are also circulating on social media.
Is Health New Zealand chief executive Margie Apa admitting that excess death rates are elevated here?
What does she attribute the rise in excess deaths to if it is not the experimental product pushed on the majority of Kiwis over the past two years? And what evidence does she rely on to make such definitive claims? We’d really love to know.
VFF shares Dr Guy Hatchard’s perspective, “If health data shows that there is no harm from Covid vaccines, why would the government deny access to relevant data?” Indeed.
Cough it up, we say!
When asked for comment on the whistleblower story, National’s Minister of Health, Dr Shane Reti, remarked, “I am reassured by experts confirming that there is no evidence supporting the allegations that have been made.”
Wouldn’t it be great if these so-called experts were transparent with their identities and analyses? Those of us who have been watching with interest, digging for information, and applying pressure through four years of the Covid response aren’t terribly convinced by appeal-to-authority “trust us” arguments.
It hasn’t been all plain sailing…
Since the whistleblower announcement and the release of the anonymised data online, there has been much discussion about what the data does and doesn’t show.
International analysts have downloaded the data files and raised concerns (here and here) about missing data, bias, and whether a set-up has occurred. Some internationally respected experts who initially swung in behind the story and the data have backpedalled recently as further analysis has arisen. Many have noted that the noise about the validity of the data could have been avoided had the data been appropriately analysed by qualified teams before going public.
The whistleblower, whom VFF trusts to be genuine, shared a data set including vaccination records, individual ID, age, location, vaccine type, dose and batch, date of birth, and date of death (where applicable).We have been in touch with the team initially working with the whistleblower for eight months and understand that despite the data being an incomplete set of NZ’s vaccination records, there are definitely areas worth pursuing and delving deeper into with qualified analysts.
Judging by the damage control articles in the media, we suspect that contrary to official assertions that ‘there’s nothing to see here, move along,’ there is a story to be investigated, particularly in the context of NZ’s unexplained excess death rates and the ever-increasing pool of scientific research outlining serious adverse events, mechanisms for harm, and risks to public health.
from VFF on Saturday–
VFF STATEMENT — FALSE CLAIMS ABOUT A REFUSAL TO DELIVER THE MoH DATA TO THE PUBLIC
We are aware of an accusation circulating that “VFF were given this [MoH] data a while ago and refused to deliver it to the public.” Like other information released by this same individual recently, this information is incorrect. The person making the claims failed to contact us about her statements to hear the other side of the story. Had she done so, she would have learned the following…
The whistleblower contacted us a couple of years ago. We kept in touch, and he wanted to wait until he had a more substantial data set. We checked in periodically and had a legal team and investigative journalist ready to tackle the story in 2021. Despite this, he was not ready to speak up.
It turns out that VFF was one of a number of organisations contacted by the whistleblower over the past two years. In fact, one organisation worked for eight months with the whistleblower in 2022/23, investing time, money, and travel on devising an arrangement for him to send the data set to independent data analysts overseas.
Against that backdrop, out of the blue, the whistleblower told Liz Gunn about the data in the hope that she would be able to help through Parliamentary privilege. Of course that was dependent on Liz being successfully elected to government, which did not eventuate. Instead, Liz put out a teaser video against the whistleblower’s wishes, which undercut entirely the organisation he’d been working with.
The whistleblower told us he was disappointed with this action and asked for our help to make contact with a specific influential team overseas.
Given everything that had happened: the contacting of the various groups, the investment of time already made by the other organisation and the problematic way the story had been broken without any comprehensive analysis to accompany it, we suggested that the whistleblower go back to the organisation he had been working with to honour those efforts.
It would have been wrong for us to swoop in. It would have been professionally disrespectful for us to “take over the story”.
On Friday, Dr Matt Shelton from NZDSOS joined Peter Williams on RCR. He called for people to “take a breath” and wait for the data to be appropriately analysed. We share this sentiment.
Nick Hudson of PANDA has also voiced concerns, noting his team’s questions after looking at the data and the need for a more definitive analysis. Other analysts, including Norman Fenton and Igor Chudov, have also now queried the data set, noting it is an incomplete data set and that the data that is there suggests a biased sample.
Notwithstanding all the above, we hope that additional independent assessment of the data by credible analysts will lead to further scrutiny of the vaccine rollout in NZ (rather than the opposite) and that the whistleblower will not have risked everything for nothing.
IN SUMMARY
In summary, we did not ‘refuse’ to deliver the information to the public. We never saw the data or had it in our possession.
Had we agreed to interact with the data, we would have:
Remained silent until the data had been safely delivered to multiple overseas expert data analysts for assessment, obtained the results of that analysis then made a decision whether or not to proceed.
Arranged for a publicly respected journalist to break the story so that it had the best chance of getting the attention of everyday New Zealanders.
Ensured the whistleblower had access to the best legal advice to reduce the likelihood of his exposure to liability.
Kept the release of such information short, to the point, and free from unnecessary emotional overlay.
Shared any damning results with our international network of influential experts, scientists and analysts for maximum impact.
We intend to continue to cover this story on Reality Check Radio in the coming days and weeks. You can listen to Peter Williams talking to British MP Andrew Bridgen on Friday about the data and his upcoming presentation to the UK Parliament on Monday and tune in on Monday morning when Paul will be catching up with Steve Kirsch.