Courage under fire

One man with courage makes a majority — Anon

On Monday, 18 December 2023, New Zealand whistleblower Barry Young had a second appearance in Court to answer police and Ministry of Health (MOH) charges of apparently leaking “vaccine data” on work databases. Mainstream media did not mention the relevant Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act of 2022 that is a law designed to apparently protect whistleblowers. It leads one to believe that it provides a whistleblower with immunity from prosecution if, after no results from reporting to their senior within the Department, they alert the public to what they believe to be a very serious situation.

Barry’s original interview with Liz Gunn is not linked here due to the MOH placing a (questionable) injunction on further detailed disclosure of the statistics provided by Barry, despite the fact that — since the release of those revelations — the genie is well and truly out of the bottle and has been widely shared around the world, including in the UK parliament with the UK MP Andrew Bridgen. The MOH also had New Zealanders believe they were undertaking exhaustive work to ensure the privacy of individuals was protected and anonymised. The irony of that doesn’t escape most, who are well aware that New Zealanders had to disclose their vaccine status to anyone who asked, since the experimental gene-based therapy injection arrived on our shores. No trouble with letting the supermarket , the movie theatre, or the local Mall know of such personal details when one is alive — it’s just when one dies that the information needs to be protected at all costs. Why is that? It is also unclear why the MOH are so concerned with “privacy” when the Prime Minister had already publicly confirmed that the information was anonymised.

All hell broke loose after Barry Young made his genuine concerns public, and the information circled the globe. Barry mentioned in more than one interview that, in compliance with the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act of 2022, he had brought the information to the attention of a senior within the MOH, but nothing was done. He also wrote to Members of Parliament in a desperate attempt to get an investigation immediately launched. There were no replies. The data was anonymised and sent to international experts to be assessed before it was made public. Overseas experts concurred that there were serious concerns that warranted further investigation and indicated it backed up what they had known about excess deaths and considered the information serious enough to comment upon.

So what is the problem with what Barry did?

It is understood that the Law should be easy enough for a lay-person to understand, as what good is justice if it is too complicated? So, in applying a basic common-sense rationale, it would seem logical that, if all was well and there was nothing to be concerned about, the MOH would simply apologise to the whistleblower and the New Zealand public for not getting back in touch with Barry Young, as required under the PD(WB) Act 2022 after he brought his concerns to one of his seniors within the MOH, and issue a statement that they had apologised for their lag in responding to this vital information. If they considered Barry was incorrect they could have added that they understood why their inaction caused him to speak out, but in their view his concerns were unfounded. They could have then simply provided the full data to show what he was alleging was incorrect.

Then, due to the seriousness of the whistleblower’s genuine concerns that were made public, the coalition government could have followed up with a press release stating that there was no cause for alarm, but to allay public concerns, the promised COVID Inquiry would be urgently brought forward where the WB would be able to submit his information in full, along with any other members of the public. In the interim, ALL mRNA gene-based therapy injections would be immediately halted until the Inquiry was completed. The promotion of all mRNA gene-based therapy injections advertised as “safe and effective” would also immediately stop. The Inquiry would begin in the New Year.

But that hasn’t happened.

Dates are difficult to find, but apparently the release of the whistleblowers data was on a Thursday. By Friday Barry had lost his job. On the following Sunday Barry returned home from a local mall, where he had purchased dog food and other items, to find a number of cars parked in his drive-way. He thought his son may have had friends over, but a moment later he realised the cars had brought eight armed police to his home, a couple of whom wrenched him from his car, handcuffed and arrested him and put him in one of their vehicles, where he watched as they proceeded to kick the door to his home down, despite the fact that Barry would have willingly unlocked the door if asked.

He didn’t feel there was a need to be arrested by armed police.

He was only carrying a dog-roll.

The police had a search warrant and took some hours to do the search of the family home. Barry later reported his place was ransacked. His computer, phone and passport were taken and, in trying to do the right thing, he found himself in jail pending a court appearance the following day. Bail was granted after another night in prison. Despite all that had happened Barry fought hard to find a positive. He later said that a bright spot was he had lost his passport, but the police had found it on their ‘search’.

Of his two nights in prison, Barry said it was the first time for ages that he had slept well. The information that had worried him was now known and had been passed on and it no longer weighed so heavily upon his shoulders, alone.

Whatever happened to the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act, 2022?

As an everyday Kiwi, I had thought that whistleblowers were protected. Otherwise, who would do it? Admittedly, over the past few years, some key, common words have been turned on their head and seem to mean the opposite of what is being alleged (“safe and effective” are two that spring to mind), but the treatment Barry experienced could not – by any stretch of the imagination – be described as “protected”, as explained in the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act, 2022.

In an attempt to understand this heavy-handed approach, I took a closer look at the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. It was revised in 2022 — at about the time when New Zealanders were being told the government (of all things) was our “single-source of truth”, we were not to talk to our neighbours and we should all have experimental gene-based therapy injections whether we wanted them or not. The alternative was that we could lose our jobs if mandated, or we may have to close our businesses. We were also pressured to wear masks, despite the fact that months earlier the director of the MOH and the PM had been on screen clearly showing why masks didn’t work. There would also be “two-classes of people” the jabbed and the unjabbed, leaving most with the understanding that the un-jabbed would be shut out of society. After that propaganda, it is understandable why any review of an Act to protect whistleblowers may be approached with a certain sense of disquiet. One change in the Act was that the Protected Disclosures Act 2000, permitted whistleblowers to approach members of parliament if they had no response from their senior in the first instance. That option was no longer mentioned in 2022, leading one to wonder the cause for its deletion. Was it to remove any potential culpability for members of parliament? Wouldn’t MPs want to know and have an investigation done?

The Act of 2022 lists those the whistleblower could approach, which were his seniors— even though it seemed rather like a chicken approaching the fox in the henhouse. The Ombudsman was another alternative, although these days some may feel that option doesn’t fill one with confidence. It is understood that Barry had no response from a senior so he reached out to MPs anyway — also with no result.

My understanding of the Act, and possibly that of most every-day Kiwis on reading the Act, was that there would not be punishment and one could not lose one’s job for being a whistleblower. (Lawyer Liz Lambert concurred.) Sacked on Friday, armed police on one’s doorstep on Sunday, then having one’s home ransacked hand-cuffed, arrested, and jailed for two nights doesn’t appear to come under the banner of no reprisals or punishment.

Who was it that called for that heavy-handed treatment and why? Did their “orders” come from off-shore? There have been recent disquieting reports that the CEO of the WEF stated that all whistleblowers should be jailed. What is he afraid of? The spreading of truth? Several days ago this unelected oligarch reframed “mis-information” and “dis-information” as a “cyber-security risk”. The goal for cyber-security was skewed towards suggesting, “a shift in focus towards protecting data integrity and source authenticity to combat ‘fabricated’ information.” No word of course on who gets to decide what “fabricated information” is and who is spreading it. Seriously, does the world need these unelected cabals trying to dictate to us what the “truth” is?

Who defines the truth? Doctor John Campbell (UK) has a good take on it here.

At the end of this life, what will matter most? Any money paid for your silence, or for continuing to do what you knew to be wrong? Or a conscience clear, knowing you stood up and spoke out when it counted? — MH

However, the real truth seems to be spilling out all over the world with the State of Texas currently suing Pfizer for misleading claims about their experimental injection — the same claims that New Zealanders were told. Earlier this year in Europe, the German Health minister — a previous advocate of the experimental injection — admitted they were harmful and in 2023, Japan also launched a probe into “vaccine” deaths. Pfizer inadvertently helped, with the publication of a nine-page list of adverse events, after being ordered to do so by an American High Court Judge. As mentioned in a former article, Sasha Latypova, a former pharmaceutical executive, gives her well-researched view that “an intent to harm has been taking place under the guise of a pandemic.” She states here that it was the US military that authorised the jabs and her video explaining that is here. Dr David Martin defines it as a bioweapon. He has the qualifications to do so, and the documents to prove it. Dr Mike Yeadon, who worked for Pfizer for over 20 years, concurs and explains why here.

Barry Young had no police record and a high security clearance to work with sensitive government information. He had information that haunted him so much he felt compelled to speak out, because he couldn’t live with the thought that, by remaining silent, he could inadvertently be contributing to the continued injury or demise of fellow New Zealanders.

By having spoken out, he was also helping to protect and safe-guard the lives and health outcomes of the police that had arrived at his door — and their families — as well as the politicians and their families — and all of us.

He put that before his own well-being, and the risks to his livelihood and his future.

Truth resonates. When people are speaking the truth, their recollection of events and information doesn’t waver. It is liars that have trouble, as they forget what they have said and they trip over the falsehoods, or seek to hide and suppress them. Most of us know that.

Barry’s account of what he read in the statistics hasn’t wavered. He had become increasingly concerned by the escalating death rates in those vaccinated. What possible advantage would there be in speaking out about what alarmed him in the statistics he was evaluating as part of his job when he was aware it could potentially lead to heavy retaliation?

The advantage for Barry was a clear conscience. Doing the right thing. Helping to protect New Zealanders. To Barry, that was more important.

If it is so safe and effective why were over 11,000 New Zealanders exempted? The list included doctors, specialists, other health workers, MOH employees, government employees, and members of parliament (who the former PM early on declared were exempted), as well as the (inaccurately) described “elite”.

There must be others in the MOH that are aware of the same data as Barry. In a helpful video (starting at about ten minutes in) lawyer Liz Lambert explains applicable sections of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 and mentions that employees with knowledge of serious harm should also come forward now to avoid the danger of any future charges of complicity. An addendum to that, discussing sections 21 and 23 in more detail is here.

What is the real issue at stake here? A whistleblower taking evidence that seeks to save the lives of countless New Zealanders? Or suppressing information that government employees seek to keep hidden?

In recent weeks New Zealand has also been blessed with another whistleblower, a former policeman, Dan Picknell, who described — in a series of two interviews with Liz Gunn — his efforts to have his concerns in regard to the experimental injection, and the rollout, investigated. He addressed his concerns in an open letter to the police commissioner. He was also stonewalled. His first interview with Liz Gunn is here. His second interview highlights deep concerns with changes to forms police are required to fill out after a Sudden Death. That interview can be seen here.

Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. — Robert Kennedy

Dan’s concerns dovetailed with those of Barry. Different sectors, different information, but it aligns. Both were worried about what they had seen or witnessed, and their reports corroborate with information collated by NZDSOS (www.nzdsos.com) and Lynda Wharton of The Health Forum, as well as many interviewed by Reality Check Radio. Dr Guy Hatchard’s assessments share similar concerns, and Liz Gunn of FreeNZ Media has done many crucial interviews in regard to this as well, along with Counterspin, and other alternative media. The amazing NZDSOS also has a clinic that addresses concerns of those who have had an injection, along with helpful treatment protocols with the sole focus of improved outcomes that help the patient. That clinic can be found at www.nzdsos.com. There is hope.

Anyone with lingering doubts about why a halt should be put to these experimental jabs need only read the article, Stop, in the Name of Love, at NZDSOS here.

At the very least, there is enough information to justify calling for an immediate halt to all mRNA injections, along with all promotion of them, pending a full and genuine public Inquiry. The broad-ranging Inquiry must be immediately undertaken — with detailed input from NZDSOS and off-shore experts such as Dr Aseem Malhotra, Dr Peter McCullough, and other specialists at the top of their various fields in medicine who have been brave enough to stand up and speak out about their concerns.

Members of Parliament, employees in parliament who know, the Ministry of Health: I urge you all to immediately halt any further administration of these injections. Before Christmas. For if you do not, then surely the cries of the injured, the maimed, and the bereaved, will reach you at Christmas and beyond.

Do the right thing by halting any further experimental injections before Christmas. Then you can go on holiday knowing you are now part of a government that can be confident that no further harm can come to New Zealanders over the Christmas and summer break — at least until a full Inquiry has been completed.

There are so many New Zealanders hoping and praying that you make the right choice.

It is from the numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped.
Each time a man stands up for an ideal or acts to improve the lot of others or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. — Robert Kennedy

All photos © Mary Hobbs.