All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
54:51
BOMBSHELL New Zealand Vaccine Data Breach - Steve Kirsch Reveals SHOCKING Findings - Stay Free #262
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
♪♪ Brought to you by Pfizer.
♪♪ In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there you awake and wonders.
Thank you for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand for a very special conversation with Steve Kirsch, the entrepreneur and founder of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund, as well as the inventor of the optical mouse.
We're talking about his vaccine activism, we're talking about his encounters with censorship, and in particular, We are talking about what could prove to be the pandemic's Edward Snowden.
If Barry Young's revelations prove to be true, then this is gonna be a game changer because there's been a significant beta cap He's been in the UK talking to Parliament, among others with Andrew Bridgen, who's become a very significant voice in the pandemic truth movement, shall we call it that?
So yeah, this is a conversation that if you are open-minded and you're interested in hearing some varied perspectives from an entrepreneur and someone who's done incredible research into this subject, then you should join us.
But let me tell you, we're going to some places that are pretty extraordinary, but I know you guys are open-minded.
Steve, thank you so much for joining us today.
Thank you, Russell, for inviting me.
You were here to participate in Andrew Bridgen's parliamentary discussion into the COVID inquiry, the events around the pandemic.
Dave Martin, who's been a guest on the show, participated as well as Robert Malone.
Why did you participate in that event and how successful was it as a conversation?
Well, Andrew invited me to speak.
I have a unique perspective, which we'll talk about shortly.
And so I came to the UK to speak with Parliament.
There were over 20 members of Parliament present for that session, which actually surprised me, because I expected to see only Andrew Bridgen as the only member of Parliament, because normally when Andrew talks, everybody leaves the chamber.
You know, there are 650 members of Parliament, and when he goes in, 649 leave, and they don't want to hear what he had to say.
And so, I was actually surprised.
I was expecting maybe one member of Parliament, but we got 20.
And they thanked us afterwards, and they said they had no idea about what was going on, and they wanted copies of the presentation, and they wanted follow-up, and they wanted to know what questions they needed to ask the regulators.
And so I thought it was just marvelous.
I was shocked, because I expected only to have Andrew as the only MP in the room.
So this was a very pleasant surprise.
It was completely unexpected, and it just shows you how far we've come.
Yeah, I'm pretty surprised to learn that as well, Steve.
That's, I suppose, three or four percent, you know, and it's a global issue and it's a significant issue and I know by your reckoning it's an epochal and defining issue.
The way that the pandemic unfolded, the way it affected democracy, the way it affected the pharmaceutical industry, the way it affected Personal liberty.
And I suppose, yes, particularly while this COVID inquiry is taking place in our country, which many people believe to be, if not a staged event, many people believe it's certainly rather shallow when it comes to the depth of the inquiry, the type of questions that are being asked, and more significantly, the questions that are not being asked.
Before we get into numerous subjects, notably and including Barry Young's data revelations from New Zealand and the terrifying
implications of those.
I just wanted to personally understand, Steve, why you as someone that, as I understand,
made a lot of money from tech, like from technological innovation and your own sites and entrepreneurialism,
why have you got involved in such a potentially contentious issue or undoubtedly a contentious
issue unless you're saying, you know, broadly speaking, supporting the mainstream narrative?
Why have you gotten involved in this subject?
Well, first I want to say that I trusted the government.
I trusted our government.
I trusted the CDC.
I trusted the FDA.
I got two shots.
And I have two shots of Moderna and I had some side effects, but it was when I started hearing from people I knew that really got to me.
So I got a direct message on Twitter from one of my followers, and she said that—she asked me, is the vaccine safe?
And I said, yeah, of course it's safe.
It's the safest thing ever, you know.
And so I'm like singing from the hymn book.
And I said, why do you ask?
You know, don't you know?
Everybody knows it's super safe.
They've said it's been tested and safer than anything they've ever put out.
And she said, well, three of my relatives got the vaccine and they died a week later and they were perfectly healthy.
And I said, well, that's impossible.
And she said, yeah, but they're dead.
And that was kind of like a a moment for me and I thought maybe I was being pranked,
but maybe not, and I just put it away.
And then my, about a week later, our carpets were being cleaned and the carpet cleaner that we used
came to the door and he's wearing a mask. I'm giving him a hard time. I say, hey, you know,
you, why are you wearing a mask?
Don't you know if you get two vaccinations, you don't have to wear a mask anymore?"
And he said, well, I only got one, and I had a heart attack two minutes after I got the shot, and I had to spend the night in the hospital, and I've never felt the same since.
And so when that happened, that was the other shoe to drop, and I started looking at the data, And I started investigating Taveras, and I basically put my job on hold because what I found was very troubling.
So this anecdote that started it was impossible.
If the shots only killed one in a million people, that anecdote is impossible.
And so someone was lying to me.
And the fact that the United States government could be lying to its people about the safety of a vaccine, for me, was unbelievable. And so, everything that I looked at in the
data showed that these vaccines were killing massive numbers of people. So I wrote a 150-page
article for Trial Site News on May 25th.
And after I did that, I had a scientific advisory board that was focused on early treatments and
approving grants, proposals for early treatments.
They all resigned within a week after I published that article.
They said I was a danger to society and that I should never talk to them again, and I asked Okay, so I wrote a 150-page article.
Was there anything wrong in the article?
They said, we don't want to talk to you.
You're wrong.
We never want to talk to you again.
And so there was this inability to come to grips with actually looking at the data.
And so when you try to show people the data, they would run away.
And what happened at the very beginning is the same thing that is happening now with Barry Young.
So it's interesting that we're coming full circle here.
Basically, people hide from the data.
They run away from the data.
Anytime you try to show people, hey, what about this data?
They basically say, I don't want to see it.
And they run away.
And that's what happened then and the same thing is happening now with what Barry Young did.
It did seem in so many ways under scrutiny to be a unique event.
Of course the emergence of a truly global pandemic was in itself significant and we'd not experienced anything like that.
At the beginning of it, I think there was a good deal of trust.
Then there was initially, and I think this is where independent media becomes significant, a round of questions that I became peripherally aware of, just perhaps because of the kind of space I work in, even though the pandemic period has changed my role in public life, to tell you the truth, as it evidently has done yours.
Quite a bit.
Yeah, like I was always regarded as a somewhat kind of anti-establishment voice, but I've been part of the Hollywood establishment.
I've sort of existed in those spheres and within media, but it's only since I've been speaking openly around these subjects that I've felt threatened in ways that, you know, were unconscionable prior to this.
Because I think without independent media, I would not have, say someone like Joe Rogan, I wouldn't have heard the views of Jay Bhattacharya or David Martin or Peter McCulloch.
And initially what they were saying, kind of like what you said about your 150 page account or essay, was It's a relatively circumspect inquiry.
Is a lockdown the most effective way to handle this?
Is it wise to vaccinate a population during a pandemic?
Should a shielding policy be deployed?
Is the best use of mRNA technology application and is it even really a vaccine as we've Typically understood vaccines questions were being asked right at the beginning that were regarded as you describe in your own account as hysteria and I suppose heresy that you were it was regarded as a kind of anti-orthodox position to even inquire and
Certainly there was a lot of misinformation and doubt cast around any data that was detrimental to the advance of the vaccine program and that seems to have been your experience.
Other than these anecdotal encounters from some people online and people that you've encountered, when did you first start to Acquire what you would regard as evidence that we were not being given accurate information when it comes to the adverse injuries and potential negative side effects of the vaccine.
What were the significant data that you encountered?
Well, I think the first significant data that was very clear was the VAERS database.
So VAERS is the Vaccine Adversity Event Reporting System.
It's equivalent to the Yellow Card System.
It's a bit more extensive.
It's more publicly available than the Yellow Card System.
And so you can go and research that database and you can run a bunch of queries.
So one of the things that I did is I ran some queries to just see how frequent we're getting
events like pulmonary embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, things that you wouldn't normally
see.
And so I basically looked at every single adverse event that was reported and tallied
the number of times this was reported for this vaccine and then compared that number
to other vaccines.
And, you know, with the realization that there were more COVID shots given than a typical vaccine shot, and there are some issues with, you know, older people got the COVID vaccine versus other vaccines and so forth.
So you had a You know, take that into account.
But I was seeing like a thousand times higher incidence rate per dose of vaccine given with COVID shots for some things like, you know, pulmonary embolism, for example, was completely off the charts.
And so it was amazing to me that the CDC wasn't seeing these safety signals because they were fairly obvious.
And there is a I looked to see why the CDC wasn't seeing the safety signals.
So I researched and found out what the formula was that they use to generate safety signals and discovered that there's a huge error in the formula that results in masking of these safety signals.
So I said, hmm, this is interesting.
And so I pointed out the error to the CDC, but they never responded.
They basically said, we don't want to hear from you.
You must submit it using the public comments.
And of course, nobody reads the public comments, and so they basically black hole any input.
And any attempts to reach out to members of the CDC outside committee are met with, you cannot talk to us this way, you must do it through submitting comments into the portal, and that we never read.
And so there's this, again, this run from the data.
So there's a mistake in the formula.
It doesn't work if the vaccine is creating huge numbers of adverse events.
It masks the ability to generate a safety signal.
But it turns out that even though they have a bad formula, this vaccine is so bad,
it generated 770 different safety signals.
So it generated a safety signal for pulmonary embolism.
It generates a safety signal for cardiac arrest.
It generates a safety signal for menstrual hemorrhaging.
It generated 770 different safety signals.
And what's more important is that the CDC said nothing.
They said nothing to the American public.
So this is like a 770 alarm going off.
You know, like, yeah, but one alarm fire, two alarm fire, three alarm fire.
This is a 770 Alarm fire going off at the CDC, and they decided to say nothing to the public.
The only way we actually found out about the 770 different safety signals is because someone sent a Freedom of Information Act request saying, hey, could we see the analysis that you did with your safety signal analysis?
And they sent it, and lo and behold, 770 safety signals.
And even after it was publicly released, the CDC continued to say nothing to the American public.
I mean, the level of corruption here is, you know, I would never have believed it if you had told me this.
It's a watershed event, I think, in the relationship between the public and the institutions of government and their relationships with, in particular, Big Pharma.
So your initial forays into understanding the counter-narrative came from your own analysis and study of adverse reactions or yellow card events.
And on that basis, which already, of course, is impeded by the fact that not every single person who experiences an adverse event is going to report it.
even that is a sort of a subset, you were able to ascertain that the metrics that were being used to
diagnose adverse events were impaired, perhaps deliberately, potentially not in a way that would
mean it was very, very difficult to understand whether or not they were causing negative side
effects. But even with that error, it was unignorably loud.
And I'm having that experience that I have frequently, Steve, when I talk to people that
are better informed than me on this subject, that have sort of a kind of rising tide of disbelief
that this has become so significant that it's difficult to countenance because we have to, as
we've already mentioned, incorporate into what you're telling us our understanding around
censorship that was taking place, the campaigns to promote these vaccines.
The effort that was undertaken to promote the idea that they prohibited transmission when there was never any clinical trials undertaken to undergird that claim.
And I start to sort of feel a little overwhelmed by what has taken place.
This is before we get into excess deaths.
This is before we get into the effectiveness of the vaccine.
And indeed the threat of coronavirus particularly in its later mutations and the average age of people that were you know sadly albeit expiring as a result of coronavirus itself.
So there's no question that from your vantage point the vaccine was more dangerous Not only than coronavirus, but exponentially more dangerous.
And according to even what we've discussed so far, this information cannot have been, the NIH say, or the numerous other agencies involved in the recommendation of these measures cannot have been oblivious to that fact.
So already we're in some extraordinary territory.
Yeah, well, you know, I think that there's this inability to, or there's this desire not to look at the data.
And I talked to Janet Woodcock, who was at the time, she was the acting head of the FDA, And I said, Janet, you know, we have a big problem here in the VAERS database.
And she said, well, that's just because you don't understand how to interpret the VAERS data.
And I said, you know, I think I do.
And she's basically trying to gaslight me into thinking that I don't know what I'm talking about.
And nobody ever gets away with gaslighting me.
That tends not to work very well.
I kept pressing her and I said, well, you know, maybe you can correct me.
Maybe you can connect me with one of your experts and we can have a on the record discussion about what's in the database because there's no way that this vaccine is safe.
And there was never a meeting.
Between me and any of the people that worked for her on telling me, showing me how I got it wrong.
So they're basically not willing to engage, and that's been the whole thing.
You know, with this record-level data that we're going to talk about from Barry Young that was released from the New Zealand Ministry of Health, You know, that signal is crystal clear.
And I contacted the CDC and the FDA, and I offered this data to them, and I also had a journalist in the medical field do the same thing, so that it wouldn't be, you know, me coming.
But this person I disclosed it to, he agreed that there was a huge safety signal that the FDA and the CDC should be looking at this.
It was offered to the CDC, to the FDA, to the California Department of Public Health, to Moderna and to Pfizer.
All of them didn't want to look at the data.
And the reason they don't want to look at the data, Russell, is very, very simple.
If they look at the data, they have to agree that there's a safety signal and they have a responsibility to stop the shots.
The whole deal is run from the data, make sure you don't see the data, because then you have plausible deniability.
And so the CDC's response was, you know, it's safe and effective, and we're not interested in seeing any information that would be counter to what we know, because it must be wrong.
And so they basically put blinders on and they refuse to see it.
Now, the interesting thing is that the CDC never has any vaccination records.
They only have the death records and they only have summary stats on how many people have been vaccinated.
So they can't do the kind of analysis that is required in order to find a safety signal.
So they don't actually know.
Because they don't have the data to actually know.
And so they tell the states, hey, it's safe and effective.
And the states who have the data and could actually do the analysis don't even bother to do the analysis because the CDC tells them it's safe.
So it's the blind leading the blind.
The CDC basically says, hey, no need for you to look at the data.
It's safe.
And so we did a Freedom of Information Act request on California Department of Public Health.
And we said, hey, can you show us your time series cohort analysis of your data?
And or any, in fact, we asked, is there any analysis that you did to determine the safety
of the vaccines?
Because the only people who could do the analysis are the states.
And if any state is going to do it, it has to be California because they're huge.
They have a lot of people.
You know, they have the resources to do this.
It doesn't take very long.
And they responded and we said, we have no analysis whatsoever.
We have no records responsive to your request.
So in other words, California has never done a safety analysis of this vaccine.
And the CDC is incapable of doing a safety analysis because they don't have the record level data.
And so, again, it's the blind leading the blind, and so I contact California Department of Public Health.
I said, hey, you know, we see this huge signal in the New Zealand data.
It has to be in your data, too, because it's not only in the New Zealand data, it is also in the UK data, it's in the Israeli data, it's in the Maldives data, and it's got to be in your data, too.
I'm sure of it.
Could we have a discussion?
The answer is no, we don't want to see the data and we don't want to talk about it.
Extraordinary because it seems to go beyond myopia into willfully turning the other way, although blindness may yet be an adverse side effect.
We don't yet have that data.
It's possible that blindness is one of the things we'll have to look into in more detail.
So from Initial intrepid personal interest, you quickly reach the point where it became plain that there was a lack of data available, that the interpretation of data was willfully inadequate, as you've not implied deliberately so, but rather that there's a kind of institutional recalcitrance when it comes to countenancing difficult facts, particularly if those facts are counterintuitive or counter-profitable or whatever.
I love it.
Whatever the agenda could be.
But I want to talk now more specifically about Barry Young and New Zealand.
Now, my limited understanding of this issue is that Barry Young is under investigation, is in fact currently on trial for stealing or inappropriately misusing that data.
Now, is it true that that data reveals that the vaccine is far more likely to cause fatality than has ever previously been suggested?
And from your previous answer, I can understand that your supported Barry Young in these revelations and perhaps
appointed a journalist.
So can you tell me what it was your involvement in Barry Young and these New Zealand whistleblower
revelations?
Yeah, so let me start with the punchline, which is that when you analyze the data and
you look at over all shots, over all ages, what you see is about a increase of one death
per thousand doses on average.
And that the people that were killed by the vaccine that shouldn't have died.
And so that corresponds to 13 million people killed worldwide.
It corresponds to about 675,000 people in the United States being killed and about 150,000 people in the UK being killed.
And so that's what Barry's data reveals.
Now what's important about Barry's data is that this is the first time in history
that we have ever seen record level data for a vaccine.
It's always kept hidden from public view.
So these are public health records that are always kept hidden from public view.
There's no country in the world that publishes this data that was leaked out.
There is no state in the United States that publishes this data.
Everyone keeps it hidden from public view.
This is public health data.
It belongs to the public.
And this is the first time in history, this has never happened before.
This is a big moment.
This is the first time we get to peek behind the curtain and find out what the man looks like behind the curtain.
So what Barry did is completely game-changing.
And for me, it's like, this is the Holy Grail.
This is what I've been searching for.
This is what we've been denied all this time, is access to the data that would show the truth.
And nobody, nobody, nobody who is supporting the pro-vaccine narrative has ever called for any data transparency of the public health data.
Nobody.
There is not a single person calling for data transparency.
But, you know, there's not a paper that's published in the peer-reviewed literature, and I've checked, They're saying that, hey, if you withhold the data from the public, it leads to better health outcomes.
You know, so if you want better health outcomes, you need to publish the data.
So what Barry did, two things.
He basically, he exposed the data.
Number two is he showed- How did he get that?
Sorry to interrupt you.
Barry, what, worked for who?
And how did he get that data?
That's a New Zealand state agency.
I'll get into that, but here's the important thing.
He proved that you could publish the data And nobody's privacy would be violated, but there's still statistical fidelity in the data.
So we can obfuscate the data, but still have the statistical fidelity so we can do the analysis without violating anyone's privacy.
This was thought to be impossible, and Barry has proved that it is possible to do, and not even the New Zealand Ministry of Health, or Health New Zealand, was able to figure out Whose records were published?
They know it's their records, but we obfuscated it so there's no privacy violation, and this frustrates the hell out of them.
Because the privacy violation would be the defense against revealing the information.
Yes, that's the excuse.
How did Barry get that information?
He worked for New Zealand Health for a government agency.
He's an Oracle 11 DBA.
He's a database administrator.
He's a specialist on Oracle.
He was tasked with creating the database for this pay-per-dose system in New Zealand.
There are two systems.
One of them is pay-per-dose, and it's just a way that they do billing.
He has over four million records of the 12 million records that exist in New Zealand.
So it's a sample of all the vaccination records, and it would be great to get everything, but it's only people who've been vaccinated.
It's not unvaccinated people.
So a lot of people will like to say, oh, well, that's just people who are vaccinated.
You need a control group.
And if you don't have a control group, we can't tell anything.
And these are, you know, they call themselves scientists and they say, well, we have to have a control because, you know, how can you see a signal if you don't have control?
Well, it's very easy.
You know, so if there's a mass shooting, for example, and 25 people are gunned down and they're all dead, police arrive.
Do you think they're going to say, well, let's do a comorbidity analysis and we really need to look at the medical records because they could have died right before the shot?
You know, you know, there are some things that are pretty obvious.
If you give people the shot and six months later, half of them are dead, you don't need a control group on that one.
You know, if it's for all age groups and so forth.
Now, I'm not saying the signal is that large, but the point is that you don't need a control group.
You know, scientists have been trained like, oh, well, you can't tell causality unless you have a double blind randomized control trial.
And that's just bullshit.
You know, People are noticing this themselves.
They've never seen so many unexpected deaths, right?
And they're putting two and two together, and they didn't need a control group for that.
Pausing the conversation with Steve there for a moment to bring you this commercial.
We can't make our content without your support and God knows we love you, but also we require sponsors.
Do you know that Sticker Mule decided to support us even further with yet more of these fantastic stickers?
There are six stunning designs including, wait for it, this little guy, that are only available in this beautiful pack and they're made with Sticker Mule's Magic touch.
Sticker Mule has released another 10,000 of these packs.
Yeah, 10,000 that you can have for how much?
What would you pay for a sticker like that?
$1,000?
$500?
They're gonna deliver it to your address absolutely free.
Just go to StickerMule.com forward slash Russell and fill out the form.
It's literally as simple as that.
Then there'll be a moment where this comes to your home.
You will love it.
That's StickerMule.com forward slash Russell and fill in the form.
It's a group that's as large as you indicate, 4 million, then that's such an extraordinary
size and like also from what little analysis we've done, it's like various batches and
that there's huge variety between the batches which again in itself, as someone pointed
out on our stream, so thank you for that the other day, that at the same time you couldn't
talk about vitamin D or natural immunity, the term bad batch was purged from Google
and much of Barry's revelations include the disparity and variation between different
batches.
I understand what you're saying, so there are people that you absolutely, because the
sample size is so large, there are people dying that you just simply wouldn't anticipate
dying.
I know that there are extraordinary narratives emerging around such subjects like low-risk
Long Covid and even with myocarditis and pericarditis, there was an attempt to sort of imply that these could be conditions emerging from coronavirus itself to mitigate the stories that have subsequently been verified and accepted by Pfizer.
That is concomitant with the vaccination process.
In addition to the AstraZeneca story here in this country, where for a while they tried to mitigate and control that story, but eventually became unavoidable.
But Barry Young's revelation, if what you're saying is true, then Barry Young is a kind of Edward Snowden of the pandemic era, finally giving us data that just cannot be countenanced without new and extraordinary levels of propaganda.
And, you know, just like Snowden, they're criminalizing the guy who's trying to expose the criminal.
Yeah.
Right?
You know, so they're arresting the wrong guy.
Yeah.
Because what Barry did is he looked at the data and he did a lot analysis.
And lot analysis are actually pretty hard.
And I haven't, you know, even had a chance to look at the lot analysis.
What does that mean?
So the lot analysis is for lot number one, who was it given to, how many people died, what percentage of the people died, and it's confounded because of things like what was the average age of the people who got it and when was it given.
So if you have a lot that was given to very old people at the very beginning of the vaccination period versus a lot that was given to very young people very late in the pandemic.
Those are going to have completely different percentages of people who died.
And so you have to take all of that into account and you can be fooled very easily if you don't do a careful analysis of that.
And so I just focused on the big picture.
There's a standardized way to do this.
It's called a time series cohort analysis.
It's very easy to do.
We have a tool that does it as soon as we got the data.
It took us two hours to run through a program.
It took us five minutes of effort to format the data.
And then we waited two hours, and out pops this file, which we bring into an Excel spreadsheet, and then we can do these data visualizations.
There are four different independent variables, and we have graphs of all four.
So there's this little dashboard, so to speak, and then you can move the knobs.
There are four different knobs you can move, and you say, oh, what if I move this knob
and move this knob?
And you see that you have a signal, you have this huge signal that happens
no matter how you turn the knobs.
The only way that can happen is if the vaccines are killing massive numbers of people.
And so this is how we get the estimates that it kills basically one person per thousand doses,
and that's how we get the numbers.
And those numbers, they correspond with other analyses that other people have done.
So Dennis Rancourt did an analysis, he found very similar numbers,
one death per 800 people in large populations, very close to our number of one per thousand.
And so his estimates of 17 million people killed worldwide, very similar to 13 million people worldwide.
But at this point, we're rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic here, because that thing has killed over 10 million people worldwide, and nobody's paying attention.
And nobody wants to have a little debate with me.
Let's have a discussion.
Like, before the show, I sent an email to the UK ONS, the Office of National Statistics, and I sent it to Sarah Call, and I sent it to the data people, you know, just to make sure everybody got it, and there's no response.
I called Sarah on her phone, I sent her direct email to her direct email address, I heard
nothing.
I said, Sarah, hey, would you like to go over the New Zealand data with me?
I'm very skilled at interpreting it and let's chat about it.
And they don't want to talk about it.
They don't want to talk about it.
Nobody wants to talk about it.
And nobody wants to go on camera in a recorded discussion where we can have a discussion like we're having now, and let's talk about what the data shows.
Nobody wants to see that.
That is a sign of a very corrupt Yes, the total lack of transparency and an unwillingness to debate and the censoring of your opponents and the smearing of opponents, as happened to Robert Malone Bachari and all the names that I usually list, is an indication that there is some malfeasance rather than ineptitude potentially at play.
And I imagine that the legacy media, other than regional or Antipodean or New Zealand news, are not covering this in detail, except to say that there's been sort of a criminal act Committed by Barry Young.
And one thing just to clear up on this please, Steve.
Is it then that whilst Barry Young didn't publish the data of the personal identities or ages, that the data set that you have initially included the information on the ages?
Did it include at what point they received the medication as well?
Wow, so it's a pretty complete data set and the New Zealand government must have
had it and like unlike in California where they don't track how many people
are being vaccinated in New Zealand they do so in New Zealand they
would have at some point surely been exposed to the reality wait a second it
looks like a significant unprecedented number of people are dying as a
result of this vaccine. Right but you see they never looked that's the
problem.
They never looked, and they won't look now.
Their focus is on prosecuting Barry.
You know, Barry basically went public with the public health data because he's trying to save lives.
He's basically risking his life in order to save people's lives.
And he knew that he could spend seven years in jail, right?
The charges against him have a seven-year prison time.
if he's found guilty. So he knew he could say he would be sentenced to seven years in jail
for this. And the reason he did it is because this guy has courage and he's a hero. He's the first
person on the planet ever to basically say, hey, I'm going to do this.
Come hell or high water.
And if they put me in jail for seven years, I will not see my family for seven years.
And he was willing to sacrifice himself for to save lives, and I have the utmost respect for him doing that.
And before he went public with this, I advised him, hey, you need to send an email to your supervisors and let them know that you found a safety signal that's the right thing to do before you go and release this data.
And so he did that.
He sent them an email.
I said, you should send them my analysis, and he didn't do that.
Because, you know, he could be mocked as saying, well, he's not a statistical expert.
But if he sends the analysis that we did with the time series cohort analysis, they shouldn't be able to have a response saying, well, he didn't consult with anyone.
So basically, he consulted with me.
I consulted with Professor Norman Fenton in the UK, who's arguably the top risk vaccine expert in the world.
And I also consulted with Yale professor Harvey Risch, who's one of the top epidemiologists in the world as well.
And I told him that we all felt that there was a huge safety signal here
and that he was doing the right thing.
And by going public, he would be saving lives.
And so he knew, it wasn't just his own analysis.
He was relying on expert opinion of the top people in the world
before he went and made this data public.
And he made it public in a responsible way where the identities of the people would not be revealed.
And so there's nothing wrong with it.
But, you know, the New Zealand Health wants to stop the spread of this data that they admit is anonymized.
They basically want to stop the spread of the truth.
And so what they did is, I had my data on a Wasabi server.
They had Wasabi take my data down, all of it.
And Wasabi never talked to me.
They just believed them.
They took my data down and they said, well, we're going to do an investigation.
But they never even called me to hear my side of the story.
It's almost like the news media nowadays, where they only want to hear one side of the story.
What's even worse is that Kevin McKernan, I was asking, hey, I need bulletproof hosting, you know, they nuked my data.
And Kevin McKernan, who is the guy who exposed the DNA contamination, he has tons of data.
He has almost a terabyte of data on Mega, which is a platform hosted in New Zealand.
And what happened is after he mirrored my database on his server, Mega basically nuked his entire Everything that Kevin had put up there, a terabyte of data, and he didn't have it backed up.
They nuked it and they said, we're not going to give you access to the data because you have a gross violation of our terms of service, which is preposterous because this is data that I created.
This is derivative work from the New Zealand data.
And it belongs to me.
I never complained to Mega that my data was being misused.
And they took it down and they deleted all his data.
I mean, Mega is a, I mean, like, like, you want to stay away from that company.
Like, stay far, far away.
Do not post your data on MEGA.
Like, if they can do this to Kevin's data, they can do it to anyone's data.
And, you know, their terms of service, their agreement says, oh, and by the way, our liability is, you know, only to how much you paid and maybe we'll refund your money if you win.
So Kevin lost hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of research work when MEGA Improperly took him down because the New Zealand Ministry of Health said take it down.
I mean, Kevin was certainly outraged and I'm outraged they did that to Kevin's work because Kevin's work is extremely important for the safety of the vaccines and these, you know, the SV40 promoter sequence, that's all Kevin's work.
The DNA adulteration in these vaccines, that's all Kevin's work.
All that data was removed, deleted, At this point, Steve, doesn't it seem difficult to accept that it's a combination of ineptitude and negligence when we pursue, just off the top of my head, the incredible expenditure on propagandizing those measures, the incredible efforts to infiltrate social media, as revealed in the Twitter files, the censoring of legitimate voices, the amplification of pro-vaccination voices, the attempts
To discredit anyone that was inquiring or questioning the effectiveness of vaccines, the ongoing censoring and smearing of anybody that speaks out on these issues.
It seems to me to be a matter of such scale that it's, and indeed just if we were to take in isolation Barry Young's revelations, if we take this data and you say it's somewhat corroborated by independent studies...
No, it's totally consistent.
Everything's consistent.
And then, of course, what you've just said, again, about the deletion of the data.
But what we're dealing with is almost an unconscionable, maybe indefatigable force.
That we'll go to any lengths to ensure that these kind of stories aren't promoted.
I mean, if you think of some of the pivotal moments during the pandemic, whether they're sort of things that are broadly expected, like people learning, or maybe subsequent waves, even if we say that the initial wave was impactful, the subsequent waves of coronavirus were not as impactful as was assumed and as was promoted, that lockdowns didn't work, that the medications are not effective all the
way up to now the medications to a significant degree are lethal, that we're
censoring true information, that we're promoting untrue information, that if that is almost
something that can't be reckoned with, because how would what kind of judicial process would be
required to right these wrongs?
What kind of interests would have to be opposed?
We're talking about something at this point that, you know, take the COVID inquiry.
What's interesting about the COVID inquiry in the UK?
is again it's a lack of latitude and it's lack of depth. It seems in fact organized simply to
conclude that there was some just a couple of individuals that were a bit laissez-faire and a
few poor choices. Matt Hancock, the health minister's a bit of a fool and this but you
know like they don't even look at sort of information that's I would say we're not in the
you know the periphery of the dark net to observe that Jonathan Van Tam who is a notable public
voice in this country now works for Moderna. That Rishi Sunak invested in Moderna before
becoming chancellor and then prime minister. That I myself have been subject to an investigation by
Moderna and subsequently Beans experienced an incredible series of media attacks that have had unbelievable consequences and it seems to me that to address this issue would take like what kind of machine other than mass popular uprising could ever bring about the reckoning that's required if what you are saying is true Steve?
What Would be required.
How are you maintaining your optimism?
What are your next steps and what are your personal fears and what resources do you have to continue to operate at this level when it's likely that the consequences will be quite serious?
Yeah, so I think that what's going on is most people are believing the so-called experts.
And like, you know, our friends, for example, I'd say we lost 98% of our friends because
they think I'm mistaken, I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm not qualified and so
forth.
And so anybody who opposes this narrative is put in the same sort of situation I am.
And, you know, I talked to a Silicon Valley chief executive that I know, and I said, hey,
And I told him what I was doing nowadays.
And I said, do you want to talk about it?
And he said, no, it'd be like if you were to come to me and said the moon is made of Swiss cheese, I wouldn't want to talk to you about it.
And so that's what we're dealing with.
We're dealing with people who believe that anybody who opposes what the Harvard professors say or what the CDC says and what the FDA says, is wrong, and that's just not the case.
People need to hear both sides, and they're not hearing both sides.
The media is only covering one side of the story.
They never allow any kind of dissent to come out, and of course the censorship, you know, is just huge.
But what gives me hope is things like the Andrew Bridgen meeting in Parliament, because Parliament now has a way Now that the—see, the genie is out of the bottle.
Barry basically exposed the—you know, the genie's out of the bottle.
Everybody knows now what the data shows, and there's only one way to interpret that data correctly.
Now, a lot of people don't know how to analyze the data, but if you do it correctly, There's only one result, which is massive deaths.
And so we now have over 20 members of parliament who have now said, hmm, this isn't looking good.
The data is now on the table.
It is unambiguous.
There's only one way to interpret it, and this vaccine is going down.
Now, they have to say, no, so which side of the narrative do I want to be on?
Do I want to be on the right side of history or the wrong side of history?
And so They're starting to come to grips with that, and they're wondering, like, hey, if we announce this to the public and let them know, we're going to have mass panic.
And I said, no, you're going to have mass relief.
You're going to have mass relief that people finally are waking up to what's going on.
Because, look, in America, 42% of the people want to bring a class action against, would join a class action against the drug, the vaccine companies.
42% of Americans They don't want to join a class action.
That would be the largest class action in history.
So the public knows it, but the legislators are pretending like the public doesn't know it because they're like, you know, we can't believe that survey.
But it's from Rasmussen Reports, which is one of the top pollsters in the country.
And they've been very accurate historically on their polls.
Nobody's running a poll that shows anything different.
Russell, they won't even ask the question.
And 25% of Americans know someone who died from the vaccine.
In fact, my chauffeur here who brought me today, I asked him, hey, do you know anyone who died from the vaccine?
He said, yeah, I know four people.
And I said, really?
And he said, yeah, they're drivers.
They're chauffeurs like me.
And I said, how many chauffeurs do you know?
And he said, well, I know a lot.
And I said, what's a lot?
Because I always like to quantify these things.
He says, yeah, I know 50.
Okay, to have four deaths in 50 people?
Four vaccine deaths in 50 people?
Are you kidding me?
Like, these are anecdotes that I don't have to go and dig for them.
They come to me.
I mean, this is like on the trip here.
that we just get into a little conversation like this.
And so these anecdotes tell the story because the data that we're getting
from the public health authorities, we can't find a signal
because they're not giving us the data.
But you can see the signals from the anecdotes and you can't have an anecdote like my driver had
if the vaccines aren't killing massive numbers of people.
I mean, I'm not saying that the vaccines are killing three out of 50 people.
No way.
The vaccines are killing, on average, about one in a thousand.
This guy is a little bit off the statistical norms.
But the point is that if the vaccines were perfectly safe, my driver doesn't exist.
That story couldn't have existed.
Yes.
Yeah.
So what gives me hope is that people are realizing it because they're seeing the death.
25% of Americans know someone who died from the vaccine.
That's never supposed to happen.
That's never happened for any, you know, shots in history.
And this is, I mean, that is a statistic that nobody wants to replicate.
They don't want to do the polls.
No polling organization will try to replicate that poll.
But, it's happening, and it's moving, and, you know, what's going to happen is that the Members of Parliament are going to require that the UK ONS release the record-level data, because they're going to say, hey look, look what happened, Barry released it, nobody died!
Nobody died, you know, because the information was released.
One in a thousand?
No, no, but nobody died because the information was released.
Of course.
And nobody complained about, oh, my privacy was violated.
So they're going to go to the UK ONS and say, why can't you do the same thing that they did in New Zealand?
And what they should have a hearing.
Where they ask the ONS people that question in a hearing in Parliament.
And when that happens, Russell, that will bring the house down because the UK data will show the same thing that the New Zealand data shows.
And it will show that the ONS is incompetent To be able to spot safety signals in the data and they will be embarrassed beyond all recognition.
It will show just how naive, stupid, and inept these public health agencies are that they can't even properly analyze their own data.
I think perhaps Barry Young may be the turning point.
At least that's what I hope.
It'll be very interesting to see how that data is disparaged, discredited, and suppressed, or if there will be... It's going to bite them.
It's going to bite them.
You know, that's the thing.
If they try to discredit this data... So first of all, look, I got the data, and I was able to verify the records.
And I statistically analyzed this data, like, all sorts of different ways.
Nobody could have created this data if it wasn't real, because it met all the tests that I put it through.
I mean, I put it through tests that nobody could have predicted.
And, you know, this thing, like, it was just so consistent with what you expected to see and you saw it.
And so the data is totally legit.
I personally verified it.
And we had the data obfuscated so that nobody's privacy was harmed.
And so we now have a data set where you'll look at it.
There's no way to come to the conclusion if you're competent.
What this will reveal, Russell, is very interesting.
It will reveal how many people are inept in terms of analyzing data because they never had this data before.
Researchers have never seen this data before because it's kept hidden, so they don't even know how to analyze it correctly.
And it's so simple.
You know, there are four independent variables.
You vary all four.
There's the same effect.
I mean, it is brain-dead simple to do it.
And everybody likes to take their own little analysis and say, well, I'm ignoring everything that he did.
Let me do my analysis.
I'm going to go and look at the, you know, and, and it's, it's not the right way to do it.
Steve, thank you so much for joining us.
You can stay up to date with Steve's work on Kirsch at Substack.
That's K-I-R-S-C-H, Substack.
To study these revelations in more detail.
I'm excited to see Dr. John Campbell take a look at and analyze this data.
That'll be exciting.
Steve, thank you so much for joining us today.
Thanks for the incredible work you've done and the personal risks you've taken to bring this data to our audience.
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
I know you've made a lot of personal sacrifices to tell the truth and we really appreciate what you've done.
Click the red Awaken button to join our locals community to get early access to interviews, readings from the holy scriptures and the Bhagavad Gita, and to talk about solutions because we're going to have to change the world together.
I want to welcome some of our new members like JuniorHude3, DollarDiaz, RockyDontTrip, SwearerMicho and SlappyT.
Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
Until then, if you can, stay free.
Switch on, switch off.
Man, he's switching.
▲
Export Selection