Open letter to Sean Plunket on the 9 disturbing flaws in the Platform’s supposed ‘debunking’ of Liz Gunn’s MOAR.

These flaws are:

1.       Its title is “A real expert explains why Liz Gunn’s MOAR is a complete crock”. Are those words indicative of dispassionate work objectively assessing fact? Clearly, they are not. How can one get more real than the expert who developed and administered the site? One doesn’t need to look beyond the emotional, sensationalist title to know that this will be a typical ‘fact checker’ hit piece, clutching at and twisting whatever straws might be available, placing agenda/ damage control via character assassination above any other consideration.

2.       It was full of head shaking, derogatory pejoratives about those disbelieving the government narrative, no doubt pandering to his audience, but without consideration that democracy is supposed to be about the contest of opinions, and not about bullying and suppressing one side into submission.

3.       It made half-hearted attempts to appear to be considering issues that might be raised by the other side, but in many cases completely misunderstood them, misleading his audience into accepting a false veneer of impartiality.

4.       Given the above, the whole piece was a complete failure when measured against any objective standard of decent, ethical, unbiased investigative journalism.

5.       It fluffed past any serious issues, with the ‘expert’ answering most questions with “I don’t know” and the very soft interviewer allowing his bias to completely blind him to their importance and brush past them.

6.       The only matters of supposed fact that this ‘expert’ (who couldn’t possibly have known the system better than its developer/ administrator) dealt with were the numbers of deaths =4 that had been officially accepted. That’s the whole problem – the slow assessment and reluctance to admit any linkages to the vaccine when there are such enormous financial and career consequences awaiting anyone who breaks ranks from the narrative and looks at the data & forms a different view. Sean, this is a cover-up that is being exposed here. Journalists are supposed to be able to recognise such things. No-one who is guilty or complicit, either knowingly or unknowingly (perhaps like you), is going to come out and admit mistake or guilt! It’s up to a free and independent media or a Royal Commission or both to flush that out. And you just completely failed at that task. Governments will always use their power, authority and experts to suppress inconvenient truth.

7.       The expert’s assertions about the excess deaths seemed like gaslighting. Different people must be interpreting different data sets in very different ways – or the same data sets with different exclusions. That means independent, open scrutiny is required – beyond assertion hurling debate. No one with any scientific respectability is going to just accept backside/ reputation/ funding protecting assertions without the opportunity to view and interpret that data for themselves. This needs to be done in a forum that is both transparent and open to informed challenge by others who are truly independent of the government narrative/ official view. Sean, there is an avalanche of data from independent sources that you and your expert are obviously not seeing, most likely because mainstream media is both not reporting it and actively suppressing it. If you are really so concerned about loss of confidence in authority, why not let it be challenged in an open transparent way, preferably under oath? And let it blow itself out, if it is given fair opportunity and falls short on proof. What is there to hide and why would you be advocating hiding it?

8.       The expert didn’t have a clue about numbers of injuries. This is another cover-up that is still being exposed, but most likely not by this particular dataset.

9.       Why is a supposedly independent journalist like you not jumping to the defence of a whistle-blower? As I have already said, Barry Young was the administrator of the database & actually built it! Why would an investigative journalist not look to a whistle-blower as a source of truth, given the high bar that all whistle-blowers have to jump, knowing that telling the truth will have enormous adverse consequences for them personally? Isn’t that what proper investigative journalists are supposed to do? Sean, attacking a whistle-blower makes you look like a puppet/ pharmaceutical industry plant.

I do however agree with your reluctance to use the word misinformation. It is a loaded pejorative term, designed to slander and silence, with the intention of suppressing truth, and so it is best avoided. I also completely agree with your statement (albeit perhaps accidentally made) that “one of the side effects of the vaccine (which you said you have taken) is people losing all ability to think logically”. There has been scientific work done on how the C-19 vaccines induce this and you would be well advised to read The Indoctrinated Brain by neuroscientist Dr Michael Nehls. You could also read or watch the work of psychologist Prof Mathias Desmet on mass formation/ psychosis.

I say to you in your own words, Sean, “In a loving, caring, sharing way” that the Communist inspired and Fascist aligned New World Order (NWO) seems to have sucked you and your expert right into its agenda and therefore into becoming one of what Communism disrespectfully calls ‘useful idiots’ – people so fascinated with their own patch that it doesn’t occur to them to be curious about any broader agenda they may be being used for. You are quite possibly unaware of the connection between the NWO and communism. This link will inform you on that subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxG-kAQnfLM It’s a 1991 video of a lecture by Jeremey Lee, an Aussie whose investigation of the subject commenced in New Plymouth.

If there hasn’t been any cover-up, then that will surely come out when full and proper investigation is allowed. So why go for the suspicion generating tactic of using the force of the law to close down legitimate democratic questioning? What’s your problem with openness and transparency?

Sean, if you or your expert are so concerned about privacy, I guess you’ll be out on the streets protesting against introduction of CBDCs, Digital ID and Social Credit (Carbon) scores, which will mean no-one will have any privacy left at all!

I think the only way Kiwis will get transparency on this matter is to peacefully and democratically fill the streets around the court and parliament and stay there until parliament acts to enable independent evaluation of government and other data. If government representatives aren’t listening, then democratic action is essential. Sean, if you and they have nothing to hide, why would you oppose that? Do you oppose democracy?

In conclusion, for my readers, the supposed debunking can be found at https://theplatform.kiwi/podcasts/episode/a-real-expert-explains-why-liz-gunns-moar-is-complete-crock The freedom community has to waste so much time sourcing information which the mainstream media refuses to either find or talk about, and you will miss nothing worthwhile by not going there. If you do, the gaslighting and raging ignorance will most likely make you angry. It disrespects and tramples all over the democratic rights of people who simply have a different opinion.

Steve McGrath PhD

8 December 2023