Six Reasons Why Liz Gunn botched the Release of the NZ Whistleblower Story

What is Steve Kirsch's role in all this? Is this a 5th Gen Psy Op?

Click here for the original full-length MOAR video I refer to repeatedly in this article.

One: She made Barry look mentally unstable

NZ Whistleblower Barry Young (whom I called Barry White in a previous article without checking his singing credentials first - my apologies. I am disappointed in my AI-driven Grammarly spell-check. Still much to learn for AI) and Steve Kirsch appeared at an hour-long interview on the American Alex Jones Show, which has millions of viewers.

Click here for the video with its most interesting, previously not-revealed details from about 33 min onwards.

It makes Barry Young look much more composed, rational, credible and likeable than in the initial MOAR (Mother Of All Revelations) video by Liz Gunn.

Below is a 2-minute snippet showing Young as his most vulnerable in the Alex Jones video. Throughout the rest of the show, he comes across as sincere, focused, rational, well-meaning, and trustworthy.

Compare this with how he was portrayed in the MOAR video by Liz Gunn. The video below is a snippet from the MOAR video put out there to discredit Barry Young as mentally unstable by someone called “New Zealand Conspiracy Loonie”. I had similar thoughts when I watched the video for the first time. That this would be used to discredit Young was my immediate concern.

<iframe width="682" height="383" src="

title="Is Liz Gunn&#39;s Star Witness Mentally Stable?" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

While having a short dive into his motivations and emotions is appropriate, Liz is milking them out of Barry by repeatedly addressing his feelings (rather than the facts) and encouraging him to keep going despite his struggles to keep his emotions under control.

At around 2:15 min, it appears she is touching him in a comforting way and puts her hand either on his hand or his lap. She looks like a counsellor in a therapy session, not an interviewer breaking possibly the most critical vaccine injury story of the COVID pandemic, which will stand or fall on its credibility as seen through the eyes of an unconvinced brainwashed population.

I am a therapist myself, and I was not surprised to see that after she teased out his deeper emotions about this, they can’t just be packed away again without appearing abrupt or violent.

As a result, Barry keeps on talking for 15 minutes in a highly emotional way about everything but the data. There is nothing wrong with addressing the motivations and “showing Barry’s humanity”, as Liz put it. Still, it is a skill to do so without making the whistleblower look too vulnerable and unstable.

Master interviewers like Winfrey Oprah know how to achieve this delicate balance. Liz Gunn doesn’t. We all make mistakes. And she had the chance to correct it. She didn’t cut it out and aired it. I wonder what she saw in this 15-minute-long emotional exposure of Barry that she thought would convince the unconvinced public.

This video is not for resistance fighters on Substack. We already know that the vaccine is harmful. The public must be convinced that this man is credible and trustworthy.

This video does the opposite.

TWO: Not Disclosing That Steve Kirsch Had Vetted And Analyzed The Data Previously

She says, “We have taken it to statisticians in New Zealand and elsewhere in the world.” That’s it. She does not say these anonymous “statisticians” vetted the data. She doesn’t mention Steve Kirsch. This is very strange.

Steve Kirsch is the most prolific and thorough vaccine-injury expert in the world. We learned that he had analyzed the data for several weeks before the interview was released. Why is that not disclosed in the MOAR video? It would have added a lot of credibility and trust.

Three: They don’t explain the nature and limits of the data

After the data was available, several people worldwide downloaded and analyzed it. One of the most prominent ones was

Igor Chudov

and he got suspicious about the data in this Substack:

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

Igor’s main concerns were:

The “whistleblower data” is missing huge chunks of information that should logically be present.

Liz Gunn of NZ is misinterpreting it by trying to pass normal nursing home deaths as evidence of “super deadly batches” and “mass vaccine casualties”

The data has problems that are incompatible with the story of its origin. It cannot be a full snapshot from a working payment database. Therefore, the story of its origin is suspect.

The actual vaccine casualties may reside in the missing pieces of data that the “database” does not provide.

Then Steve Kirsch chipped in and talked with Igor, who carefully updated the original article the next day to this:

Update - NZ Whistleblower

He, like myself, realized that Barry is way more sincere than he appears to be in the MOAR video, which was further confirmed in the Alex Jones video. Sincere isn’t the same as 100% correct, though.

At this point, I believe that Barry Young was more likely to be sincere than insincere in his intentions and actions.

The fact that data was missing was also clarified. This is only one NZ database recording people's vaccinations and not a complete record. Some people could have shot one, three and five with a provider in this database but shot two and four with a provider in a different database. That’s how the missing data is explained.

My previous questions and comments about Liz Gunn’s statements about nursing home deaths and data quality still apply, with one exception: the partial nature of the data is explained by the fact that some shots were not paid through the system that Barry Young was supposedly administering. (I hope more clarity emerges).

But, as seen in the above paragraph, that’s it.

The obvious cherry-picking of specific vaccination sites (like end-of-life care facilities with an average age of 85 years) to sensationalize an also wrongly calculated (see Igor’s initial post for proof) 32% fatality rate, does not look good at all for the credibility of the analysis. Igor’s concerns about data quality, as proven by screen prints in his original post, are also valid.

Steve Kirsch never cleared that up. Instead, he was heavy-handed in his post, lashing out at analysts who “do things the wrong way.” See this article for details on this:

Update on NZ Whistleblower Case

I don’t know if cherry-picking sites was Barry’s or Liz Gunn’s idea. Even if it was Barry’s idea, it is unforgivable that Liz Gunn and Steve Kirsch, for that matter, either didn’t notice it (which is very unlikely) or noticed it but went along with it. What were they thinking?

Of course, this will be detected by the opposition, namely the Ministry of Health, and used to discredit the analysis and Barry White. This is happening in most mainstream papers as we speak.

At least one mainstream report I saw also reported on this dispute within the Substack community about different opinions on how sincere Barry is and how good the data and analysis are. The report uses this as an argument that, therefore, the whole MOAR lacks credibility because the anti-vaxxers themselves question and argue about it.

We must ask ourselves: Why was this dispute created in the first place, could it have been avoided, who caused it, and by what means?

Four: She didn’t disclose that this information was offered to Winston Peters, and emails to all MPs were sent without response.

In the Alex Jones interview, Barry explains in great detail that he repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to make contact with NZ Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters. He also discloses that he sent emails regarding his concerns to all NZ members of parliament but did not get any response.

I wonder why Liz Gunn did not disclose this in the original MOAR video. In my opinion, this would have added credibility in the eyes of the public. It would have shown that Barry was trying to do the right thing by trying official channels first but was ultimately forced to become a “whistleblower” because no one listened.

Five: Didn’t emphasize that the data was depersonalized and safe

Public concern about leaked health data is always an issue, turning people instinctively against a “whistleblower”. According to Steve Kirsch, in the Alex Jones interview, he was responsible for successfully depersonalizing the data, which had never been done before. He used this as a further argument that all health data worldwide can now be released because he managed to find a way to depersonalize it.

That should have been revealed in the MOAR video because it makes our side look caring, responsible and intelligent and would have added much credibility and goodwill.

Six: The lengths of the video

There is a place for long-format videos. But to break a story like this? Who watches an hour-long interview that starts the first fifteen minutes with drawn-out emotional and philosophical considerations and motives before coming to the data?

Then, many more minutes are unnecessarily spent going through years of death data above and below the random 120 death-by-day analysis. (Which has some problems of their own, in my opinion).

It is not an excellent, distinct, to-the-point presentation that grasps our attention.

Initially, I was very interested in the topic but found myself fast-forwarding because I got bored. I wonder now if this was done on purpose.

Why? If we want people to only get the headline without diving deeper into the integrity of the data behind it, what can be done to achieve that? You make it look like you explain everything in detail to add credibility, but it is a smokescreen. And you make it dull and long, so people skip or stop watching. But the headline will still stick.

If you want to break a piece of amazing news to the world that the least amount of people watch, that’s precisely how you do it:

• You use a journalist that hardly anyone in the world knows

• You use a journalist who behaves like a counsellor and uses a melodramatic style

• You make it extremely long and boring

• You ignore obvious data safety concerns and don’t explain the legitimate reason for missing data.

• You ignore cherry-picking

• You leave out a lot of information that would bolster the whistleblower's credibility and the story.

• You don’t look after and protect your “whistleblower”. You leave him by himself and have him forcefully arrested and charged, sending a strong message to other potential whistleblowers.

It is well known that Barry reached out to several alternative media organizations for the better part of two years, who invested considerable time and money in it. Still, it didn’t work out, and I am very curious about that. A database administrator of a COVID-19 vaccine database shopping around for a journalist must have attracted the attention of the intelligence-gathering institutions.

Then, finally, Barry decided to let Liz Gunn break the story. However, it was reported that Barry didn’t agree to a teaser about this story that Liz Gunn put out in October. This could indicate that Liz used, if not manipulated, him to some extent.

I am not a journalist. But I came up with the above points in five minutes using my common sense and general knowledge of how the news works to get as many people as possible to read it.

Liz Gunn is a lawyer and worked many years as a journalist in mainstream media. It is hard to believe she wouldn’t know all this. As the video states, she also has a team that consults her. How can they review this video and agree that this is the best way to do this?

How can they miss all the points made in this article? Sheer incompetence, emotional trance, being manipulated or deliberately?

These are the hard questions we all have to ask.

I also wonder if Steve Kirsch knew about the holes in the story, and that’s why he didn’t break it in the first place. He was in it weeks before Liz Gunn released it. It would have made much more sense if he broke the story with his immense reach and connections. It would have gotten immediate traction worldwide.

Despite verifying the data and being in contact with Barry and Liz, he took a back seat. I wonder why.

Then, when legitimate concerns come up within the Substack community, he squashes it. This looks very political and calculated to me, and maybe that’s how the game has to be played to win. The other side does it all the time. They lie and distort a little to make things look more legitimate and sensational.

Maybe I am too naive to think we can win by applying total honesty and integrity. But I would rather lose than win without honesty and integrity. That’s why I will probably never be a successful politician, influencer, or leader. To give up on honesty and integrity is the same as moving to the dark side.

My subscriber list matches 44% of Steve Kirsch’s list - I expect to lose a lot of subscribers over this post. So be it.

Several people immediately raised the possibility of a 5th-generation warfare operation when the story broke but didn’t back it up with evidence or concrete analysis. If this is the case, we must get to the bottom.

More intelligent people than me with more knowledge, expertise and influence need to analyze this possibility. They must also show great integrity and not hesitate to ask hard questions—people like Igor Chudov, the Vigilant Fox and maybe even Robert Malone. Let’s watch this space.

If all this is ignored, glossed over, and sold as a victory, I might be out of here very soon.