Mau

Open Letter – An Invitation to Revisit the Evidence Dear Barry and Liz, @BarryYoungNZ @LizGunnNZ I hope this message finds you both well. Over the past several weeks I have conducted a detailed review of Barry’s New Zealand vaccination data and the conclusions drawn from it. The result is a seven-part analysis that examines the provider data, batches, clusters, vaccinators, mortality calculations and, most importantly, how those conclusions sit alongside New Zealand’s national mortality data and other independent evidence. I want to explain why I invested all that time. Barry and I have exchanged a number of direct messages and public conversations over the last few years. In those discussions we explored a range of statistical questions, including mortality rates, and I believe some of those exchanges contributed to the analyses Barry later produced. I took Barry’s work seriously from the outset and reached out to him because I believe in going to the source. I wanted to know first-hand whether his observations had merit. I have always found Barry personable and sincerely committed to what he believes is the truth. We also share a surprising amount of common ground. We both want a better society. We both believe governments and institutions should be held accountable. We both believe difficult questions should be asked, evidence should be scrutinised, and official narratives should never be accepted without examination. We both have a strong aversion to the futility of war. This has never been an attempt to dismiss the data or to attack either of you personally. When I began examining the material in 2023, I expected that at least some of the conclusions would withstand close scrutiny. I approached the data wanting to understand it as fairly and honestly as I could. In several places I believe Barry’s observations are real. Where the analysis falls short, in my view, is in the interpretation. Repeatedly I found that important context: age, frailty, residential care, follow-up, population structure and independent sources of evidence changes the picture substantially. Once those factors are considered, I no longer believe the data support the conclusions that have been presented publicly. One question in particular has become increasingly difficult to ignore, and I believe it should give you pause as well: If Barry’s latest "SMR" analysis is a fair representation of what occurred in New Zealand, why does New Zealand itself not resemble the country that analysis predicts? Rather than relying solely on one extracted dataset, I examined national age-specific mortality, provider characteristics, aged-care mortality, rollout timing and international comparisons. My conclusion is that the model does not adequately explain what actually occurred at the population level. There is a further point I think matters. Barry’s data has now been examined by many people including experienced statisticians, epidemiologists, analysts and researchers who have spent countless hours exploring it from a wide range of perspectives. Not all of them approached the data as supporters of vaccination; some were openly sceptical and expected to find evidence of widespread vaccine harm. I can point you to some of their findings and related visualisations if you have not seen it yet. Yet despite those differing starting points, I have not seen independent analyses converge on the central interpretation that the data demonstrate widespread vaccine-caused excess mortality. Instead, many analyses have identified recurring methodological concerns: cohort selection, frailty, aged-care populations, expected mortality, provider mix, follow-up methodology and statistical interpretation. 1/2