Growing Dangers From Biotechnology Experimentation
We understand that the security services are charged with protecting a nation from internal conflict and foreign interference. You have to be fully alert to analyse information in order to detect and neutralise threats before they are launched. Any failure on the part of analysts can expose the nation to danger. Potential dangers come from many directions.
In the modern context, biotechnologies pose unique threats. The global Covid pandemic contains lessons which need to be thoroughly understood and assessed. At this time, the extent of what went wrong can be analysed with the benefit of hindsight and published research.
Genetic technologies cannot be contained
Genetic sequences are highly mobile, they contain potent organising power which can initiate and control physiological processes in completely novel ways that can be dangerous for health. Genetic information is widely shared through a number of natural pathways—via air borne pathogens, gut processes, food chains, etc.
Genetic technologies are designed to bypass natural protective barriers
Our DNA operates within a highly regulated complex cellular network. This usually ensures that only processes beneficial to an organism are allowed to proceed. Gene editing and editing of intra cellular processes bypasses these protective mechanisms. There is the potential to initiate rogue self-sustaining chains of events. The merging of nanotechnologies with genetic technologies has enhanced this potential.
Biotechnology has successfully opposed any attempts at regulation
Biotech experimentation is running at fever pitch around the world. Many of these experiments are fraught with risk, such as the gain of function research that was taking place at Wuhan (and still is there and elsewhere). The biotech lobby has sought to manipulate public opinion and government attitudes. It has been successful at this because it has deliberately projected misleading narratives that appeal to a broad range of views. It characterises biotechnology as:
- Morally Right:Â because it is only beneficial to health
- Safe:Â because it is precise and highly testedÂ
- Evolutionary:Â because mutations drive evolutionary processes
- Economically Beneficial:Â because technology drives progress
A close look at pandemic outcomes reveals that none of these claims can be justified. Nor does the history of genetic research during the last 75 years since the discovery of DNA support these claims. Despite this, the deceptive justifications above are sufficiently persuasive to ensure that the biotechnology industry is by and large left to self-regulate its own actions.
The 30 million pandemic excess deaths estimated by Our World in Data should put paid to any suggestion that genetic engineering is either morally right or safe. Nor is it effective. mRNA vaccinations did not prevent transmission as they were hyped to do so.
We deal with the questionable evolutionary claims in our Substack article “Human Evolution, Genetics, Physics and Consciousness—Part One“. The risks are multiplied by the melding of A.I. and biotechnology which allows for thousands of exotic experiments unknown to natural processes to be automated and rapidly implemented. Recently Mrinank Sharma, who led Anthropic‘s research safeguards team developing defences to A.I.-assisted bioterrorism, resigned, citing growing concern for world stability. Sharma said: “We appear to be approaching a threshold where our wisdom must grow in equal measure to our capacity to affect the world, lest we face the consequences.” See our article “The A.I. and Biotech alliance and how it will affect New Zealand” to understand more.
The economic benefit is equally questionable. The economic downside of the pandemic is still with us. In fact, biotechnology implementation is generally not economically productive. The methods themselves are very costly (at two orders of magnitude greater than conventional pharmaceutical and surgical approaches) which puts an unsustainable strain on already stretched health service budgets. Gene therapy trials have typically had high rates of adverse effects, nor have they achieved high success rates. Their high cost ensures they are likely to reach few people. Moreover biotech commercial models require government approval and funding which uses rather than creates resources. Alternative preventive approaches to health are recognised for many disease types with high success rates which should be preferentially promoted.
In fact, there are a great many rogue operators spread throughout the biotechnology community prepared to ignore any rational assessment of risk. Including some defence services who are experimenting with biotechnology, not just in a defensive mode, but also for offensive purposes, flagrantly ignoring the inevitability of pathogen escape without the possibility of protection or containment.
Genetic technologies pose an existential threat to civilization
As we have extensively discussed at the HatchardReport.com and https://guyhatchardphd.substack.com/, cells contain memories which control actions. These memories are associated with genetic sequences. Therefore in addition to underpinning our health, cells contain the established patterns of our modern societies including the preferential styles of relationships, thinking, perception, decision-making, emotions, ethics and governance. Any programme of universal genetic intervention such as happened during the pandemic, both with an apparently engineered virus and an engineered vaccine, can and will have unforeseen consequences. See our article “Can biotechnology control human behaviour?” for more background.
The biotechnology industry has become a powerful entity operating in the geopolitical space
It has become a tenet of regulatory environments that the safety or advisability of biotechnology cannot be questioned. For example the Royal Commission on Covid-19 in NZ wrote on 3rd February 2026 that it is not allowed to make any judgement about any of the following :
- Particular clinical decisions made by clinicians or public health authorities during the pandemic.Â
- How and when COVID-19 response measures were applied in individual cases.Â
- The operation of the general regulatory and approval system for vaccines other than the COVID-19 vaccine.Â
- The epidemiology of the COVID-19 virus.
Similar restrictions on questions of safety have been applied to regulatory and so-called investigative authorities reporting in countries around the world. These do not appear to be in the public interest. They stand in the way of understanding. Such prohibitions give excessive power to organisations and viewpoints which can be misapplied and abused.
Biotechnology theory and practice should have taken account of the wider landscape of scientific processes and standards. In fact, it has largely detached itself from the framework of more fundamental disciplines such as physics. This raises serious questions about the validity of some of its conclusions. See our article “The Long Read—Physics, Genetics and Consciousness” for a deeper understanding. Despite this, in the geopolitical space, some key operators with billion dollar resources, which dwarf the budgets of many states, are pushing research agendas fraught with risk that lie outside of any balanced scientific assessment of safety.
The effects of biotechnology interventions persist for years and cannot be recalled
We have begun a time when the five year risks of mRNA vaccination are becoming apparent. Rates of excess and sudden deaths are still elevated in nations which reached high vaccination coverage. A study published in February entitled “Unprecedented Persistence of Vaccine mRNA, Plasmid DNA, Spike Protein, and Genomic Dysregulation Over 3.5 Years Post-COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination” records the case of a 55 year old male whose physiology is still producing Covid Spike protein three and a half years after his last vaccination which is drastically affecting his health. This is not an isolated case. In another example, a press release provides links to papers reporting the structure of rubbery white clots linked to Covid vaccination which can threaten cardiovascular health over long periods. Evidence is mounting that genetic technologies employed during the pandemic increased susceptibility to cancer among working age people. See our article “Red Flag: 2023 NZ Cancer Data Released by Health NZ—A Record” for an overview.
Biotechnology research is a highly technical area. Very few politicians or even intelligence analysts will have sufficient scientific skills to grasp the take home conclusions of the latest research from an independent standpoint. Our letter today aims to highlight fundamental issues which your analysts may have missed or glossed over. Biotechnology alters the architecture of human life, therefore it will have devastating and unanticipated consequences. Intelligence services can inform governments of the risks. It can identify projects which are increasing that risk still further. It can expose unscientific claims based on PR designed to influence central government funding and legislative decisions.
Our government hopes to pass the Gene Technology Bill which contains provisions designed to reduce safeguards. This may expose us to predatory foreign operators wishing to carry out risky experiments in a closed island environment. The Bill fails to take account of the implications of known outcomes of the Covid pandemic and the risks we have outlined above. Intelligence services have eyes on the future, they can avert the danger that has not yet fully materialised but is already close upon us.
Yours sincerely
Guy Hatchard PhD
Guy Hatchard PhD Biography
Guy Hatchard is the creator and principal contributor to the Hatchard Report. He has been a life-long advocate of food safety. He was formerly Director of Natural Products at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification company now known as FoodChain ID. Genetic ID developed techniques to test for the presence of genetically modified organisms in food and provided services to bulk food trading companies like ADM, Cargill, and many others in order to facilitate access to export markets and increase consumer trust. He has presented his findings to governments and industry leaders around the world. He appeared before the NZ Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and has been a key figure in discussions since 2017 which eventually led to the repeal of the Natural Products Bill. He has written a book Your DNA Diet which is available from Amazon.
He received his BSc Hons. from the University of Sussex, UK, in Logic and Theoretical Physics with a special focus on the scientific method applied across disciplines. His MA thesis at Maharishi International University (MIU), Iowa, analysed outcomes of mastery learning in Mathematics. His PhD thesis in Psychology at MIU investigated the impact of human factors on national competitive advantage using time series analysis. Maharishi International University (MIU) is fully accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) which is recognised by the US Department of Education and the Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA). It incorporates principles of consciousness-based education (CBE). CBE includes traditional subjects while also cultivating the student’s potential from within. He has published papers in peer reviewed journals and was the keynote speaker at the 1996 annual conference of the British Psychological Society on Crime.
