alicespringstomind

New Zealand Government Data Suggests Alarming Pfizer Death Rate

Jodie Bruning, Brownstone Institute, 1 December 2023

A statistician has come forward with disturbing information that, if correct, will promote doubt on the safety of mRNA vaccination for decades into the future. The whistleblower was involved with building and implementing the New Zealand government database vaccine payment system, a ‘pay per dose system’ that would remit payments to vaccination providers.

In an interview with New Zealand journalist and lawyer Liz Gunn, and using a false name of Winston Smith, the statistician states that

science is all about being sceptical and curious at the same time. We shouldn’t be criticised for being sceptical, we shouldn’t be vilified for having a different opinion. We should be allowed to have that.

Smith explained by way of introduction ‘I’m not anti-vax. I helped build the vaccination system. But I am pro-choice and I do believe in [the] fundamental freedoms of humans, and that we should not have a procedure forced onto us because of a mandate just to keep our jobs. That is against everything I stand for. It is a huge overreach by the government.’

Smith’s work also involved data analysis. Smith had noticed discrepancies almost immediately the system went live with people dying within a week of being injected.

Looking at the government data, he ran a query to identify days when more than one hundred and twenty people died in New Zealand. Historic peaks above this level, as Smith demonstrates, are rare. This normal distribution of deaths at this level is only rarely exceeded on the occasional day, or for disaster events, such as the 2011 Christchurch earthquake, mosque shooting in 2019, or an unusually bad influenza season.  

In the small country of New Zealand, daily mortality levels that exceed one hundred and twenty could plausibly be considered to be a signal of a disaster event that should trigger public discussion and controversy. 

New Zealand had a highly unusual winter flu season in June-July 2019, and no days exceeded the harm-signal level in 2020.

However, in June and July 2021 Smith observed 10 days where mortality exceeded the signal-level. This could be attributed to either COVID-19 or to the injections. Yet not more than a few deaths due to COVID-19 were registered in this time period.

This uptick in deaths coincided with expansion of the vaccine rollout. The mRNA gene therapy was offered to the general public, two million people from July 2021 onwards.

However, by April 2022, as Smith states ‘now the vaccine rollout comes into full effect.’ Booster-injections had peaked in the first quarter of 2022, in the New Zealand summer. 

In June 2022 50% of all days exceeded the signal-level with excessive mortality rates rolling into 2023.

Smith bases his claim that the 2022 data is not muddied by COVID-19 deaths, as SARS-CoV-2 deaths were relatively stable in 2022, rarely exceeding 30 deaths per day and only once exceeding 50 deaths per day, and COVID-19 related deaths dropping steeply off after this date.

Smith claims that there are spikes in unexpected mortality rates in less populated regions outside the capital cities, far in excess of normal background rates.

Of the twenty worst sites, seven of them appear in Christchurch city, a university town with a population of 380,000.

Smith drew attention to one site in Invercargill, a city of 50,000 that he alleges had a vaccine-related death count of 253, following a total vaccine rate on that site, a medical centre, of 837. He claims that ‘one in three people who were vaccinated at this site are now dead.’ 

I note that in April 2022 media were reporting a spike in Covid-19 infections in Invercargill, but no corresponding death rate. People may have been compelled to get vaccinated in this period knowing the virus was circulating; however, it is plausible that they may have also been exposed to a ‘triple whammy’ of the heart-damaging and inflammatory spike protein following injections, then boosters, and the circulating virus.

Smith’s data suggests that some vaccination sites, including medical centres, pharmacies, and rest homes for the elderly, had extremely high death counts above 20% and at times more than 30% for as many as 800 or 900 vaccinations onsite. 

Smith is unclear about the time between injection and death, surmising that it could be up to two months, but adamant that even in the rest homes, the death rate exceeded the normal distribution for the very elderly.

Smith suspects that there could be an issue with batch numbers and irregularities in the vaccine. As a biologic drug, the mRNA gene therapy was always vulnerable to irregularities and contamination.

Smith toggled batch ID numbers with the associated death rate to arrive at a death count and a ratio of deaths by batch. The top ten batches were all Pfizer. (Note: global batch IDs can be sourced from ‘Find My Batch.’)

Registered deaths by vaccinator also suggests that vaccinators (or the batch numbers used by the vaccinators) increased risk, with death by vaccinator up to 25% of people vaccinated.

Deaths would also cluster on particular days, for example in Invercargill, discussed above there were ten clusters of 3-10 deaths per day, and four clusters of 21-30 deaths per day.

Smith maintains ‘this is not natural, this is man-made.’ His IT system has 2.2 million New Zealanders registered, and the natural background mortality rate is 0.75, and all ages are registered. Smith insists that his data suggests not chance, or bad luck, but causality. 

There’s so much pain and tears. 

Smith had not come forward earlier, because as a scientist, he was aware he required a strong consistent signal in order for his findings to be accepted.

Interviewer Gunn stated, ‘I’d like to remind people. We were sold the jab to protect the old people.’

Smith approached former mainstream journalist and lawyer Liz Gunn to help disclose this information, and the two have worked with a global group of academics and experts to ensure the release of this information was suitably handled. 

Smith was in an unusual position as the database administrator for the payment system. ‘Because New Zealand is a small country, you can get away with one database administrator. I am in a unique position, and because New Zealand is a Tier 1 country with really good IT, I was able to manage and build this system.’

Death is the ultimate adverse event… statistically it’s very difficult to disprove this.

If it was settled science we’d be living on a flat earth and we’d be the centre of the universe.’

Smith and Gunn are encouraging experts in data analysis to come forward and look at his data.

Published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
For reprints, please set the canonical link back to the original Brownstone Institute Article and Author.

 

---

Daily Telegraph New Zealand, 1 December 2023

Te Whatu Ora Boss Releases Statement on ‘Vaccine Misinformation’

Te Whatu Ora Scrambled to Address What It Calls ‘Vaccine Misinformation’ Today.

In the wake of a video released yesterday by Liz Gunn in which she interviewed a whistleblower known as Winston Smith, Te Whatu Ora Chief Executive Margie Apa released a press statement, which DTNZ has published in full below for comment.

Smith released and collated previously unseen data obtained through his work with New Zealand health authorities which he said was irrefutable evidence the country’s current high excess death rates were the result of the COVID jab, and not the virus itself. The excess death rates began in mid 2022 and are continuing to this day, despite the fact Worldometer data had shown ‘COVID deaths’ had dropped dramatically from June-July 2022.

The findings were largely ignored by New Zealand’s state-subsidised legacy media, but attracted a lot of interest from overseas-based medical freedom experts.

Press Release of Margie Apa

We remind people that vaccines remain safe and effective and that they should keep up to date with their shots to protect themselves, whanau and their communities.

We are aware that a health agency staff member, with no clinical background or expert vaccine knowledge, is trying to spread misinformation.

What he is claiming is completely wrong and ill-informed and his comments demonstrate this.

Sadly, we have continued to see conspiracy theorists disseminating false and harmful misinformation.

We assure people there is no evidence whatsoever that vaccination is responsible for excess mortality in New Zealand and that they can continue to have confidence in vaccines.

Publicly available data shows that four deaths in New Zealand are possibly linked to adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination. This is in the context of 3,361 people whose deaths have to date been directly attributed to COVID-19 in New Zealand, with more than 12.6 million vaccines administered to eligible New Zealanders as of 2 October 2023.

By chance and separate to a prior COVID-19 vaccination event, some people will experience new illnesses or die from a pre-existing condition shortly after vaccination, especially if they are elderly.

The Centre for Adverse Reactions Monitoring (CARM) in conjunction with Medsafe and the Independent Safety Monitoring Board (ISMB) reviewed all reports of death to determine if the person experienced any events that may have been linked to vaccination and had the potential to cause death.

In addition to this, the COVID-19 Vaccine Independent Safety Monitoring Board (CV-ISMB) has reviewed data published in safety reports of compare natural death rates to observed death rates following vaccination.

In the monitoring period for the Pfizer/ BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (19 February 2021 to 30 September 2022), the observed number of deaths was less than the expected number of natural deaths.

It is extremely disappointing to see a staff member trying to misuse our data to spread misinformation. He is no longer at work and an employment investigation is underway.

We take the security of the information we hold extremely seriously, and this is a significant breach of trust. We are considering the privacy implications related to the staff members actions.

---

Voices for Freedom, 2 December 2023

Whistle Blower Data Release

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.

---

I analyzed the “Leaked NZ Whistleblower Data” and Suggest to Be Wary of It

The data has huge gaping holes in it and may be doctored

Read data analyst Igor Chudov’s full article on the Whistleblower data, here. His article ends with:

Is this “Leak” a Psyop?

I do a lot of things. One of them is administering the database for Algebra.Com, a website with millions of monthly visitors and over a million of answered math questions.

So, I understand database administration. The story of a bona fide “leak” does not make sense to me. The data does not have the integrity that a full leaked data set would have.

This is supposed to be a payments database containing information for payments to vaccinators.

How can a payment database have such holes and missing data?

Was data selectively removed from the database before the leak?

How can batch IDs refer to multiple vaccines?

Did both the “whistleblower” and Liz Gunn honestly forget to check that these “deadly vaccine mass murder sites” are nursing homes?

Do the missing records of first vaccinations (doses 1-2) hide real vaccine deaths, making Liz Gunn go on about “deadly nursing homes” instead of looking at deaths actually caused by the COVID vaccine?

Was the “leak” a psyop and an intentional attempt to sow confusion, as it occurred with the old, pro-WEF, and vaccine-crazy NZ government still in place during the last days of it?

There are many questions to which I do not have an answer.

I am thankful to arkmedic and Nick Hudson for alerting me to the questionable nature of the “leak”.

I want to invite my readers to discuss this “leak.” I expect vigorous disagreements and hope my mistakes, if any, will be highlighted and corrected.

What do you think?

---

Below is a reminder to those still believing “safe and effective”.

Will those public officials ignoring the documented science, and the resultant harms which have occurred en masse, in order to continue pushing this lie, eventually face justice?