Whistleblower Data Debate - Voices in the Wilderness
Steve Kirsch was on The Platform with Sean Plunket to discuss the whistleblower data. No data was discussed. The dirty debate tactic playbook was used in full.
Summary
When Kirsch went on The Platform, Sean Plunket used every trick in the debate pyramid to avoid discussing the actual findings at hand.
Whistleblowers and journalists are not criminals exposing crimes with data that was obtained illegally.
It is a misconception that all conspiracies involve a James Bond villain plot between the perpetrators.
A lack of proof is not proof of lack. Postmortems are not always relevant to vaccine deaths.
Some people are noticing the possible effects of a vaccine in excess mortality trends worldwide.
Plunket believes that the MOH can ignore Steve because the majority don’t believe him (sadly they can, but shouldn’t)
The reputation of science, vaccines and experts has been damaged like never before from the covid response. They need to repent.
Plunket has forgotten that everyone on his radio show and those who listen to it have all been cast out of the cathedral too. So why listen to him on anything?
History is often written by those that defied the majority and won. The majority carries on unaware of vaccine victories on their behalf. Thank people like Erin Brockovich.
The Platform Debate
The Debate Pyramid is an excellent lie detector. Here are some highlights from the radio show to rank:
Plunket: The data is stolen and you are a thief
It bears repeating many comments I have seen, pointing out that it is rich to complain about John Smith’s vaccine information being seen by Kirsch when five minutes ago strangers needed to see our vaccine status in order to buy a cup of coffee.
Steve Kirsch brought up The Pentagon Papers, which Sean Plunk batted off as being another conspiracy, but he completely missed the point. Whistleblower laws exist to protect people who illegally reveal proof of a crime. We have famously failed to protect them.
I hope that Barry Young is granted whistleblower status, but it is more likely that the NZ public, already bought into the narrative that he is bad, will see him crucified. Should whistleblower status still be granted to people like Barry in the event that they are wrong?
Societies like ours depends on whistleblowers. They should be hailed as champions for doing so, and given proper protections. In America whistleblowers can even legally claim a bounty on the proceeds when a company is sued by the victims of the crime exposed.
Rank: Ad Hominem/Naming Calling
Plunket: Do you believe that Jacinda Ardern should be arrested for war crimes?
This loaded question was lobbied several times. Besides having nothing to do with the topic at hand, this is a tactic to smear Kirsch. I doubt many who listen to The Platform like Jacinda Ardern. Yet there is an adverse reaction to the notion that a Prime Minister might end up behind bars.
The psychology is complex. The use of the term war crime is not by accident. Harkening to the days that social media “nutcases” would call for the death penalty, under military treason, for those involved in operation covert-19. No one has been executed for treason since the 1960s. But such statements express gravity. People were executed in the Nuremberg trials for crimes against humanity. This is key to the implication.
The public at large would not want to believe that an elected Prime Minister could commit serious crimes, nor that they were the victims of crimes against humanity. Especially not that they were unaware of and or had (mildly) participated in them. Here are Nazi soldiers learning the truth:
The trick is that Kirsch does believe Jacinda Ardern is criminally guilty. That is a rational position that may or may not have a legal standing. We should examine our laws with respect to the Government deploying propaganda and psychological manipulation techniques against to its own citizens.
If Kirsch agrees to the war crimes question he can safely be written off, but this misses the point.
Rank: Tone Response
Plunket: You have no proof of a conspiracy. I want to see written proof.
Sean Plunket asks Steve Kirsch if there has been a conspiracy to cover up 10,000 deaths. Steve is lured into saying yes. His nuanced view of the scenario, is that officials from the government have demonstrated criminal negligence and failed diligence of duty. The MOH are accused of refusing to properly investigate the possibility of safety signals in the data. They could make anonymously available for independent scrutiny - which is the only way to truly settle this. They have conflicted interest and no one can scientifically reproduce any result they publish without the data. Never trust, verify.
Playing the man not the ball. Did they learn from Sean Plunket?
Fixed.
NZ Officials have been put on notice many times. There is no reasonable plea of ignorance now. Barry Young put them on notice again with the email he sent to the upper management before being fired without question.
Asking for written proof of a conspiracy misses the point. Its a distraction tactic. Plunket knows that there is no proof of his imagined conspiracy - an evil plot murder kiwis that might (not) be uncovered by an email leak. This is a strawman he created. There are many types of conspiracies, the aforementioned being lizard people tier, and a false framing. Kirsch’s criminal negligence and conspiracy to hide injury is down to earth.
Rank: Tone Response
Bonus: Sometimes we do get written evidence of conspiracy.
Plunket: Where are the post-mortems?
To get a vaccine cause of death, such as the “official four”, you need a nigh-undeniable chain of events. Receiving the shot, immediately experiencing an adverse reaction, being taken to hospital, and subsequently dying. Listen below to conjecture on the types of deaths that didn’t make the official four.
Update: Originally I put this radio clip on my YouTube account but it didn’t last 24 hours. Of note I extracted the clip myself from a different video. They must have audio scanners flagged for this one.
Re-uploaded:
What type of an investigation went into those deaths? It’s almost impossible to prove “indirect” causes of death. If someone has a stroke the next day, is it coincidence, and how would one prove that? There was immense societal pressure to look the other way. Trickier still, if one was to experience heart damage immediately afterwards and later die of heart related issues, does that get counted as a vaccine death? I’ll go out on a limb and say that it isn’t.
Postmortems are irrelevant, their time is past, but lest we forget that “voices in the wilderness” were screaming for it at the time. Kirsch is right, the only way to answer this question now is with the data. Postmortems don’t hold water, but at least its an actual counter-argument.
Rank: Counter-Argument
Plunket: If you kill 10,000 people in NZ someone is going to notice
I’m not standing by the 10,000 number. Some of those who are on Steve’s side don’t think the mortality data for NZ could be hiding those bodies. Yet the irony in the statement by Sean Plunket is that someone did notice, his name was Barry Young and he blew the whistle as a result.
Many people on the ground tell me they are seeing an abnormal amount of deaths in New Zealand. It’s just an observation to be taken with a grain of salt. But perhaps people are noticing. Why do the deaths continue into 2023? Is Barry’s magic number 120 responsible for this pattern?
Excess mortality is being questioned worldwide.
Mortality is complicated because we do have raw excess mortality in New Zealand, but when it is normalized against the population increase, and then by the ageing population, it is considered normal. Mortality has its ups and downs due to bad flu years, so its a prediction model. Rancourt believes that “death by government measures” is measurable in mortality data.
Consider that Dr Simon Thornley from Auckland University stated from the start, that locking down New Zealand to save the elderly was just delaying the inevitable. He was vilified but aged well. Conversely, deaths can be shifted forward without affecting the overall mortality total in a given year.
Could the secret to Kirsch’s analysis be that a bunch of people over 85 were due to die in the past 2.5 years, and the vaccines just tipped them over the edge, shifting their deaths forward without actually increasing the death counts? This hypothesis shows how you can have deaths associated with the vaccine that don’t appear obvious in mortality data. They aren’t all additional. Never the less, conjecture on whether or not the deaths could have, would have, should have been noticed, is not a discussion of the data and what it shows.
Rank: Contradiction
Kirsch: The MOH should confirm or deny the data in a official statement
Plunket: They are too busy. They don’t need to because the vast majority of the public doesn’t believe you. Everyone who is credible believes you’re wrong.
Sean Plunket claimed that “credible” people say Kirsch is wrong, but he doesn’t name any of them. Most of the people I have seen claim Kirsch is wrong are Twitter people with mid to low qualification. Plunket is possibly invoking the idea that Kirsch is presumed wrong (he is). Steve is naming some renowned Professors on his side: Normal Fenton; Harvey Risch; William M Briggs.
Ultimately we don’t learn much from lining up experts on either side. This would be to fall for the credentialism fallacy. That’s an appeal to authority, where certain people must be right or wrong simply because of who they are. Did you know that studies show that a patient is more likely to take their medicine if the Doctor has a lot certificates on the wall? This an example of Nudge Psychology, which was used a lot during covid. Two Shots for Summer is another example. Humans may instinctually side with those holding power and respect (like a Chief).
What matters is the argument content which people on either side bring. But I’m sure you can guess by now that no actual content was discussed in this hack interview.
Rank: Ad Hominem
Conclusion
Perhaps the most important and frustrating theme of the entire pandemic is brought to bare when Plunket claimed that since the majority doesn’t believe, MOH don’t need to do anything. Sound familiar?
The story was about an internal memo which was leaked to the media.
The political right are supposed believe in rational debate to settle differences, and the classical left believe that the marginalized should have a protected voice when speaking truth to power. You’ll find neither value in mainstream anywhere, with respect to covid, because the whole world became totalitarian on this issue. I, for one, am sick of being dismissed by liars and fools who happen to be occupying the ivory tower.
Vivek spoke the truth when he said that “if the covid vaccines were discussed openly they never would have been mandated”. There was total censorship on one side and and permitted “official misinformation” on the other.
More damage has been done to science and trust in experts, and vaccines, than ever before by the covid response, because it has been revealed to be fraudulent time and time again. Few people still take the covid vaccine boosters, despite the expert advice, implying that they are the ones who aren’t on planet earth anymore. The MOH have noticed that less people are taking all vaccines as a result of these blunders. Some who have supported vaccines their entire lives cannot understand why they won’t admit the covid vaccines are a failure. It’s because the entire establishment went ride or die with them already.
If the MOH (and experts at large) want people to start vaccinating again and regain trust, it has to be earned, by proving their claims transparently in a way that can be verified in the public forum. Every government on earth is refusing to do this.
Fortunately the vast majority have at most points in history just been along for the ride. It’s people like Erin Brockovich who’s names are remembered for getting things done despite them. Many battles have already been won against unsafe vaccines and the public doesn’t remember any of this happened. What the vast majority believe is irrelevant to the court of law when companies like Pfizer are sued.
It is extremely hypocritical of someone like Sean Plunket who has himself, been cast out of the cathedral into a nether-realm radio show like The Platform, to claim that no one has to acknowledge people who’s beliefs fall outside of the mainstream consensus. If that was true, why should anyone care what he has to say or what his audience thinks? We can just label him a bigot and move on. That’s literally the problem with society now, and with the NZ Media that he hates passionately.
Final Verdict:
Sean's job is reinforcing perceptions. He is fairly good at it. Especially with the narrative of recent years for him to key into. The roots of these perceptiions have been planted deeply starting by using fear. Your friends for discussing this have to be rather intellectual. If you say Sean has cognitive dissonance you likely be labelled as a troll and lose friends. Or maybe he feels people will get sick if they believe the vaccines they have had to be harmful. He did feel the public would not be able to separate this vaccine out from others which may be helpful and so lose the benefit of others. Whether others help is another issue which must be examined publicly. We used to be able to get more data. Christchurch City Library (Canterbury Public Library as it was a few decades ago) had a book of NZ Cancer Registrations by very detailed site in the patient by geographical district. I found a blip in the Palmerston North area around the time agent orange or similar substances wer being manufactured. I couldn't get discussion going about it from someone who should have known the background. Now the data given out would cover a whole DHB, not broken down to cities I think. It's hard to fight these matters.