The New Zealand government plans to deregulate biotechnology. What does that mean for our food supply and our health?

A comprehensive presentation by Kate Mason at the recent 100 year Biodynamic Conference in Australia cast light on the true extent of biotechnology experimentation currently underway and also on the techniques being used to deceive the public about its intent and scope. For one hour at a staccato pace, Mason flashed document after document on the screen detailing the involvement of national and international government and corporate interests determined to alter the nature and content of our food supply. If you can manage it, it is a truly frightening watch. It spoke volumes about the need for the International Genetic Charter.

Wildly imaginative biotech projects are being sold to governments by corporations under the cloak of a glossy facade of virtue signalling using deceptive buzz words like sustainable development, regenerative agriculture, increased resilience, climate smart mitigation, crop surveillance, strategic development, the food and agribusiness green revolution, transforming and future proofing the food system, zero hunger, innovation, the fourth industrial revolution, increasing consistency, nurturing the planet and feeding the world. Whew!!!

Biosynthetic food products are even being falsely promoted as more nutritious than organic food. None of this is backed by sound science. Although most, if not all, of these projects are doomed to fail and will ultimately disappear off the menu, along the way our taxes are being diverted to pay the handsome salaries of biotechnology schemers hungry for profit and fame, and boost corporate profits. More importantly, the experimentation will leave a toxic legacy of persistent genetic pollution which will continue to undermine plant health and human longevity through the generations.

Here are some of the main take home lessons of Mason’s detailed research into the murky world of biotechnology experimentation and promotion.

Food is being designed in labs and manufactured in biosynthetic fermentation vats and vertical farms. This involves unregulated gene editing of crops and animals using CRISPR gene editing proven to have unpredictable effects but without any requirement to label end point foods.

Genetic modification of plant root systems to enhance carbon storage.

Synthetic meat such as lab grown quail whose genes are forced to multiply using unspecified genetic promoters in a medium of barley containing pig genes. The synthetic quail also contains biosynthetic vitamins and added minerals to ‘enhance’ or rather ‘correct’ its deficient nutritional profile. This is about to be released in Australia and described as GMO free.

Food made from insect protein whose production is robotically controlled by AI technology in giant mega factories. Yes, these factories are being built right now and they are winning plaudits and awards from UNESCO.

Milk and cheese that doesn’t come from cows, but from GM yeasts engineered to mimic milk production described as GMO free. All currently funded by Australian government partnerships with industry and venture capitalists. An echo of what we can expect coming soon here in New Zealand.

Tracking and tracing of food using blockchain leger systems from farm (or rather biovat) to fork distributed via the internet. This includes certification of food production methods to ensure it is good for the climate. This will effectively cede control of all food production and marketing to corporate and government interests. This will be deceptively disguised on your mobile phone app as if you now own a share in a farm or an animal and are actively saving the planet by eating ethical, safe, low carbon footprint, (biosynthetic) food (???).

3D printed food which you can make and shape to look like real food on your home kitchen printer using liquid coloured ink goos made from repurposed old food re-enlivened with biosynthetic additives and then delivered to your door by Woolworth’s drones. Don’t laugh, mad biotech scientists admired by government and media wonks are busy making it already and cooking it with lasers. This BBC article “Why 3D printed food is set to go mainstream” describes it as ‘healthier’. Yummy!!!

Agricultural production organised around future foods biohubs able to monitor and control giant farms using AI surveillance. Crops are then synthesised into a variety of end edible (???) products with little resemblance to the original plants using precision (???) fermentation. The proposed food production processes use recombinant genetic techniques to bring together DNA from multiple sources. The first of these is being set up in Mackay, by the Queensland government because it is a centre of sugar production, a raw ingredient essential for the biosynthetic processes involved.

Genetically modified crops used to produce biofuels whose production will compete for land use with food crops.

Implanting tech devices in cows to monitor and control their microbiome in real time with the ultimate aim of producing personalised medicinal (???) milks. Yes, it really is happening.

Globalisation of the food production system including gene modification and patenting, pest management, fertilisation, distribution, and marketing. Capturing the global food market is potentially the most profitable business on the planet. Everyone has to eat every day. Governments are already partnering with the big multinationals in these areas. Fuelled by endless United Nations encouragement and reports.

A Global One Health System for human, animal, plant and environmental health using biotech pharmaceutical products. This is another agenda of the UN in partnership with the World Economic Forum, the WHO and corporate interests (principally including pharmaceutical giants) which is designed to change the way we view food. A.K.A. Resetting the Table for Pharmafood. This is being picked up by governments as they design national nutrition policies based on UN global models that are being talked about as “better and more nutritious for us”. Included in this agenda are plans to mandate the content and menu of school lunches.

Within this wide ranging agenda is the production of vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs in GM plants and in animals whose distribution or effect cannot be contained or recalled. Yes, it really is happening now in hundreds of labs around the world and being talked about and funded in the corridors of power.

There is just one small problem, none of this biosynthetic food and medical technology is actually healthy or proven safe. The growth of biosynthetic food ignores the mass of research findings which verify that diets rich in natural foods improve health and longevity. They reduce your risk of cancer and heart disease, the number one killers, whereas processed foods do the opposite.

For example a study of the eating habits of 126,000 people over 9 years published on June 10 2024 by the Lancet entitled “Implications of food ultra-processing on cardiovascular risk considering plant origin foods: an analysis of the UK Biobank cohort” found that whereas consumption of natural plant-based food lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality by 13%, ultra-processed plant based foods increase the risk of CVD mortality by 12%.

All over the world supermarket shelves are being filled with unhealthy food, but consumers are not being told about it, We are being lulled into complacency by government pronouncements on safety and sustainability, lax regulations and certification which are being driven by cosy partnerships with biotech pharmaceutical giants, food conglomerates and globalist organisations. These novel synthetic foods are being described in glowing and deceptive terms and it is all about to get far worse and more controlled.

None of this makes any sense, nor does the level of control seem possible until we remember what we have just been through during the pandemic. Fantasy can become reality when information is controlled. The exact processes being employed by those developing synthetic foods are hidden behind patents and the lack of any labelling requirements. Thirty years ago people were concerned enough about their traditional foods to demand labelling of genetically modified content. The time has come to renew these demands. They are even more urgent now. Get ready to protect our natural food sources, sign up to The International Genetic Charter here. Its simple straightforward provisions lay out requirements for labelling and protection from biotechnology experimentation. Please share it widely.

Here in New Zealand, our government is pledged to deregulate biotechnology, precisely the opposite of the lessons we should have learned from the pandemic response. Who makes these kinds of decisions? Are they in their right minds? The wild promises of the biotechnology industry lobby are empty, but worse still they cloak severe and unpredictable levels of risk. We should remember the disastrous genetic experiments on cows in New Zealand fifteen years ago sponsored by the government. Our food security and trade are the last things we want to place at risk. The situation requires a long hard look at the reality of consumer preferences and safety. Biotech PR promising sustainable development and improved health which is influencing government policy and ideas does not match the published scientific assessments, quite the reverse.

For the last couple of years, the Hatchard Report has been asking the government and the medical establishment to compare the health outcomes of the vaccinated with the unvaccinated. There has been a wall of silence. Along with many others publishing, we have tried to break through to influence decision-makers with little obvious success up till now.

If you have been reading our reports you will know that the issue is very serious indeed. Excess deaths, hospitalisations, chronic illness, cancers and workplace absenteeism due to sickness and disability have all risen to record levels, but most of those in authority have been stone-walling this data.

Late last week the dam began to break with a little trickle of regret, following the news that a former Japanese Minister for Internal Affairs Kazuhiro Haraguchi had apologised directly to the citizenry for Covid-19 vaccine campaigns at a rally, and openly acknowledged that the tidal wave of sudden deaths presently occurring among the Japanese population is almost entirely of the Covid vaccinated group. Google is already trying to suppress and discredit even this note of apology.

Then, as we reported yesterday, the New York Times admitted that the evidence that Covid came from a Lab in Wuhan is overwhelming. Saying:

“It is undeniable that U.S. federal funding helped to build an unprecedented collection of SARS-like viruses at the Wuhan Institute, as well as contributing to research that enhanced them.”

Now the prestigious British Medical Journal has published an article “Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data’ estimates of January 2020 to December 2022” which reports:

“The highest number of excess deaths was reported: 1 ,256 ,942 excess deaths (P-score 13.8%) in 2021, the year in which both containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines were used to address virus spread and infection…..and continued high (808,392) in 2022, when most containment measures were lifted and COVID-19 vaccines were continued…..This raises serious concerns. Government leaders and policymakers need to thoroughly investigate underlying causes of persistent excess mortality.”

This in itself is not unique a few other scientific papers have made the same suggestion, but what was unique is the response of the UK Daily Telegraph who headlined “Covid vaccination may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths—Experts call for more research into side effects and possible links to mortality rates“. The dam has broken. The link between Covid vaccination and excess mortality is no longer a taboo subject.

We are one step ahead of the media here at the Hatchard Report. If both Covid and Covid vaccines are killing millions of people and still doing so, why aren’t they banned? If both Covid and Covid vaccines are products of biotechnology experimentation why isn’t it banned. Yesterday we published The International Genetic Charter which calls for just that.

Sign up to The International Genetic Charter

New Zealand mainstream media frequently reprint articles from the UK Daily Telegraph. Will they have the courage to reprint the latest bombshell news from mainstream science, or will they continue their weak and implausible excuses for the current wave of heart disease, cancers, strokes and neurological illness swamping our health system, as it is among all highly vaccinated nations?

New Zealand media is not alone in their lack of in-depth analysis. The UK Daily Mail says sleep after a tipple of alcohol while airborne can be fatal and fumes “why eating one chip is like smoking a cigarette”. It also blames low fibre diets for a sudden surge in colon cancers. The NYPost agrees as it reports “Colorectal cancer is rising rapidly among young adults“. It also reports that a staggering 61% of US adults will have cardiovascular disease by 2050 if current accelerating trends continue, and by way of explanation it offers: “becoming a father might be bad for your heart“.

The scientific issue here should be obvious. If something suddenly starts to accelerate you have to look for explanations that don’t simply refer to prior established behaviours. People have been tippling on planes, fathering children, falling asleep and eating to much sugar for centuries, this can’t account for a sudden precipitous rise in excess deaths. This is the essence of scientific thinking, and thank God that some scientists are waking up.

Covid vaccination increases your risk of dying from Covid

A paper published in Frontiers in Immunology originating in Ohio, USA is entitled “Brief research report: impact of vaccination on antibody responses and mortality from severe COVID-19”.

The study looks at the outcomes of 152 adults hospitalised with Acute Renal Failure (ARF) at Ohio State University hospital. ARF is a common problem in intensive care units and typically results in mortality rates between 50% to 80%. Of the patients, 112 had severe Covid and 40 did not have Covid. The study reports significantly higher death rates among the Covid vaccinated (p=0.002). It also found higher levels of IGg4 antibodies among the vaccinated, indicative of increased immune tolerance (impaired immune system efficiency).

The non-vaccinated Covid positive ARF patients had a mortality rate of 37%, but the vaccinated Covid patients had a rate of 70% almost twice that of the unvaccinated. In a masterly use of understatement, the authors concluded:

“These results suggest that among hospitalised patients, prior vaccination may not always be indicative of protection against mortality.”

It is results like these that are starting to raise eyebrows among those working in frontline medical services and research. Dr. Mikolaj Raszek, a genomist working in biosynthesis, is a case in point. Dr. Raszek, who has his own company Merogenomics in Canada, blogs on YouTube. Early on in the pandemic, Raszek sat on the fence and wondered how effective Covid vaccines would be. He has now changed his tone completely to one of deep concern. You can watch him analyse the above paper at this link.

Dr. Raszek reports he is in contact with a number of scientific colleagues who quietly share his concerns. One of them informed Raszek of a paper published way back before the pandemic in 2012 entitled “Immunization with SARS Coronavirus Vaccines Leads to Pulmonary Immunopathology on Challenge with the SARS Virus“.

SARS Cov 1 was a severe virus that emerged in China in 2002 and was eventually contained. To this day no one knows where it came from. Because of a concern about a reemergence or a deliberate release of the SARS coronavirus, vaccine development was initiated around that time. The results of this study are concerning: it found that when a prototype Covid vaccine was administered to rodents they developed severe pulmonary disease. The authors warned in their conclusion:

“Mice administered any of the vaccines led to occurrence of Th2-type immunopathology suggesting that hypersensitivity to SARS-CoV components was induced. Caution in proceeding to application of a SARS-CoV vaccine in humans is indicated.”

You can imagine how I felt yesterday while reviewing this paper. Eight years before the Covid-19 pandemic, scientists knew about the risk of an accidental or deliberate release of a new version of SARS Cov 1 and they also knew that the disease had an unusual feature: vaccines made the symptoms worse.

Yet somehow biotechnologists in both the West and East decided to initiate gain of function research which developed more virulent types of coronavirus. Upon its escape from a lab, they forced the widespread use of a range of novel biotech Covid vaccines on the public following minimal and obviously inadequate safety testing as though we were a bunch of rats to be experimented on while mad people tried to play God. Given what was already known to science, none of this makes any sense unless there were much darker motivations somewhere in play.

Dr. Raczek is not alone in the pursuit of scientific reality. Dr. Willian Makis, a New Zealand surgeon working in a provincial hospital blogged on Substack a couple of days ago under the title “Confessions of a New Zealand Surgeon”. Check it out. He reports the absolute chaos in our health system due to the surge in illness which he and some of his colleagues relate to vaccine induced immune deficiency.

It doesn’t stop there. An in-depth analysis by Dr. Ursula Edgington compared 2020 with 2023 and found that New Zealand Department of Transport staff suffered 188% more sick days, 130% more unpaid leave days and a 85% increase in bereavement leave.

Problems are not confined to the Health Service and our transport system, the NZ Herald reports “Schools hit by wave of winter illnesses, worsening teacher shortage” but fails to connect this with Covid vaccines.

More and more invasive medicines and vaccines are in the pipeline

Unbelievably, the attitude of governments and regulators has stiffened back towards mandatory compliance. And to cap it all, the World Health Organisation wants to directly control the health policy of governments around the world. It appears to be all drifting out of our control into the hands of big pharma and their adherents, as excess deaths continue.

You can see the problem can’t you? So far we seem to have been whistling in the wind, but as the dam is breaking it is more important than ever to speak up and share the information. It can’t be allowed tot happen again. If we give in and forget the struggle, we will not be able to return to any semblance of pre-covid normality.

The goal posts have changed, we need to set them back to original values. During the pandemic people were trained through media appearances and 24/7 coverage not to ask questions. As a result, everyday medical consultations are now planned to involve the use of biotechnology along with the inherent serious risks but without informing the public what they are. The adverse effects and huge costs are on us, and the profits lie with the providers.

You don’t have to look very far away to appreciate what is being designed for us. An article in the UK Daily Telegraph is entitled “How Ozempic became the new wonder drug”. It gets right to the point in the first paragraph with a quote from a nutritionist speaking at a recent conference: “Semaglutide [the active ingredient in Ozempic] should be put in the water supply”.

The comment was supposedly in jest, but a couple of paragraphs later we find that a trial of semaglutide (GLP-1) on people with a Body Mass Index (BMI) higher than 27, who are therefore at risk of cardiovascular disease, led to reductions in weight. As a result Dr Riyaz Somani, a consultant cardiologist at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, said: “The implications are huge and are likely to lead to changes in current practice.” For this, read: soon to be prescribed routinely and widely along with a coercive approach on the part of the health service.

Semaglutide is administered through weekly injections whereby it directly interacts with GLP-1 receptors in the brain reducing appetite. An EU conference entitled Select very recently discussed the use of semaglutide to treat not just obesity but also Alzheimers, Parkinson’s, mental illness, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and you name it.

The problem lies in the range of side effects, they are extensive, long term and serious as we have discussed in previous articles. My point here is not to bang the same old drum of alarm but to point out that few if any decision makers are listening. So what should we do and who will listen?

The effects of gene editing are not containable.

The products of biotechnology experimentation can affect everyone indiscriminately, spread without limit and blight succeeding generations. They cannot be recalled. Yet the urge to play God among the original promoters of biotechnology and the obscene pursuit of profit among the commercial arm of biotech has been so powerful that any sense of caution has been deliberately abandoned.

I am reminded of that iconic scene in Ripley Scott’s 1979 movie Alien when Sigourney Weaver asks Ian Holm, playing the part of the chief scientific officer, why did he break with established protocol and let the infected crew member into the ship, endangering everyone? Holm replies that he took an executive decision even though according to protocol it wasn’t his to take.

Pre-pandemic, even the death of one participant in a vaccine trial would have been enough to raise red flags. Now the post-pandemic authorities are devoid of any wisdom of hindsight, the commercial biotech juggernaut is barreling ahead with little or no regard for public safety.

Our response is The International Genetic Charter which sets a benchmark not just for those of us who are determined to avoid the unfolding biotechnology catastrophe, but for humankind as a whole. For very good and scientific reasons we want to rebuild a life free of biotechnology experimentation. It is a statement of need and intent. It is short and to the point. Please read it and sign up your support. It will just take a couple of minutes of your time. You can circulate it to your friends and colleagues. This should no longer be a taboo subject. Scientific journals and some mainstream papers have began to admit the facts and the implications for public policy and accountability. Write to you MP and demand protection from biotechnology experimentation.

Sign up to The International Genetic Charter

Download, print, or share the PDF version of the Genetic Charter.

The World Health Assembly of WHO has announced that agreement has been reached on an amended version of the proposed International Health regulations to take effect in the event of another pandemic or global health threat. The assembly of 194 nations committed itself to seek ratification of the amended regulations within 12 months.

Sign up to The International Genetic Charter

The amended regulations were drafted under the co-chairmanship of Dr. Ashley Bloomfield of New Zealand and Dr Precious Matsoso of South Africa. Dr Bloomfield was formerly the New Zealand Director General of Health under the government of Jacinda Ardern. Dr. Bloomfield was responsible for enforcing COVID-19 vaccination mandates that were arguably the most restrictive and coercive in the world.

In the same week, the New York Times did an abrupt volte-face. After four years of doggedly insisting COVID-19 crossed into human populations from animals, it published a very detailed guest essay explaining “Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points“. The article reported:

“It has been estimated that at least 25 million people around the world have died because of COVID-19, with over a million of those deaths in the United States. Although how the pandemic started has been hotly debated, a growing volume of evidence — gleaned from public records released under the Freedom of Information Act, digital sleuthing through online databases, scientific papers analysing the virus and its spread, and leaks from within the U.S. government — suggests that the pandemic most likely occurred because a virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China. If so, it would be the most costly accident [???] in the history of science.”

There is nothing in the article which suggests any steps have since been taken to ensure it can’t happen again.

What should our response be? Looking forward towards the long term future, what should we be asking for? GLOBE has formulated “The International Genetic Charter” which can be viewed and downloaded as a PDF. This lays out exactly what rights and safeguards are needed as a minimum to protect populations from genetic exploitation and abuse in the food and medical sectors.

Sign up to The International Genetic Charter

The International Genetic Charter sets out our individual and collective genetic rights, including the cessation of gain of function research, the right to full disclosure of substituted ingredients in food that have been modified or copied by biotechnology processes, the right to refuse any intervention that may alter our genetic functions, the right not to be subjected to misleading propaganda, vaccine mandates and many more.

The International Genetic Charter sets a benchmark for those of us who are determined to avoid the unfolding biotechnology catastrophe. For very good and scientific reasons we want to rebuild a life free of biotechnology. It is a statement of need and intent.

God helps those who help themselves. As Newton found, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Whether you believe in God’s Will or physics, doesn’t really matter here, the sweep of history shows there are always consequences to our actions. The wise know that the cycle of time moves to destroy the destroyer, while those that adhere to truth find it has its own strength. As you sow so shall you reap. This rule of universal karma is too easily forgotten but can never be sidestepped. You can’t escape it.

The effects of gene editing are not containable. They can affect everyone indiscriminately, spread without limit, and blight succeeding generations. They cannot be recalled. Yet the urge to play God among the original promoters of biotechnology and the obscene pursuit of profit among the commercial arm of biotech has been so powerful that any sense of caution has been deliberately abandoned.

First we are inviting you to read The International Genetic Charter. At this critical time, the wide circulation of this document is very important. You can sign up to the International Genetic Charter. You can help in many other ways too which are set out in the charter.

Download, print, and share the PDF version.

This article was originally published on globe.global

A recent article entitled “Using ChatGPT to predict the future of personalized medicine” in the prestigious journal Nature offers the following outlook:

“Personalised medicine is a novel frontier in health care that is based on each person’s unique genetic makeup. It represents an exciting opportunity to improve the future of individualised health care for all individuals.”

At the centre of the personalised medicine hype is a research field known as pharmacogenomics which aims to study the genetic makeup of individuals in order to optimise drug prescriptions. It is envisioned that future treatments will be algorithm-based instead of evidence-based that will consider a patient’s genetic, transcriptomic, proteomic, epigenetic, and lifestyle factors resulting in individualised medication.

That is a big mouthful; what does it mean? Supposedly, artificial intelligence (AI) tools will analyse the results of various genetic tests, microbiology assays and patient questionnaires and then prescribe what drugs will suit an individual best. The falling cost of genetic testing will, according to enthusiastic advocates, enable this process to become the universal healthcare of the near future.

The article finishes with the caveat: personalised medicine still has several limitations that need to be solved. That is an understatement of gigantic proportions. To understand these limitations, we need to examine how or more correctly if people in medicine are currently using genetic tools to personalise drug prescriptions. In other words, what is really going on here?

A Project to Implement Personalised Medicine

The UK MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency) is currently undertaking an investigation into blood thinners known as Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs). According to the MHRA, these drugs, which include rivaroxaban, dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban, have been found to cause serious bleeding in between 2 to 5% of patients. In some cases, this leads to hospitalisation and even death. 1.5 million patients take DOACs in the UK alone.

The MHRA has started genetic testing of patients affected with DOAC bleeding to discover whether they have any special genetic characteristics which predispose them to excessive bleeding. According to Dr. Alison Cave, the MHRA chief safety officer: “The ultimate long-term goal for us is to identify patients most at risk of harm from side-effects with a particular medicine due to their underlying genetic make-up, and avoid them suffering from that harm.”

As she announced MHRA’s move to personalised medicine, Dr. June Raine, the CEO of MHRA predicted: “Almost a third of adverse reactions to medicines could be prevented with the introduction of genetic testing.”

This All Sounds Very Exciting and Hopeful. So What Could Possibly Go Wrong With Personalised Medicine?

Firstly, the scale of the problems associated with modern medical procedures is gargantuan. In 2016, a Johns Hopkins study published in the BMJ found that medical error is actually the third largest cause of death in the USA. Just reflect for a moment. It almost certainly became the leading cause of death during the pandemic.

One problem lies in under reporting of medical error and adverse effects of medicines. Even if medical error occurs, it is seldom listed as a cause of death on death certificates. A 2016 study also estimates that less than 5% of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are reported to the relevant safety authorities.

A 2021 meta analysis entitled “Prevalence of adverse drug reactions in the primary care setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis” investigated the extent of the problem and found that reactions to cardiovascular system drugs were most commonly implicated. These usually involve excessive bleeding following the administration of blood thinners. According to the study, 23% of all adverse drug reactions are preventable. So, is this a powerful argument for personalised medicine? No, because the data, the science, and the known risks do not square with the PR hype.

The 2-5% of people thought to be affected with serious bleeding by DOACs is an under estimate, the likely percentage is much higher due to under reporting of ADRs. Crucially another very important factor to consider is non-adherence to the prescribed drug regime. Only around two thirds of patients persist with DOAC use. Collectively, these factors mean that the real world rate of serious bleeding from DOAC blood thinners possibly exceeds 10% of patients. A very high rate of adverse effects which is no doubt driving MHRA concerns.

The problem doesn’t stop there. Excessive bleeding is not the only adverse effect associated with DOACs. For example, the prestigious Mayo Clinic lists 17 common adverse effects of Rivaroxaban. Other than multiple different types of bleeding, these include paralysis, headache, back pain, bowel or bladder dysfunction, leg weakness and numbness.

Blood thinners aim to reduce blood platelet counts and aggregation because platelets are responsible for clotting and are therefore involved in various types of thrombosis and heart disease, but that is not all platelets do. They also play a vital role in maintaining immunity, preventing tumour growth, maintaining the composition and stability or haemostasis of blood, and preventing leakage from blood vessels which can be associated with the metastasis or spread of cancers. Therefore blood thinners inevitably have a range of serious side effects irrespective of anyone’s genetic composition.

What is the Proposed Net Result of the Current Mhra Personalised Medicine Investigation of Blood Thinners?

In essence, if one type of blood thinner proves unsuitable, doctors will simply recommend another drug.

Patients having an adverse reaction to DOACs are often switched to antiplatelet medications such as Clopidogrol, Ticagrelor, Prasugrel, etc. However, these medications have a broad range of side effects very similar to DOACs. For example, the Mayo Clinic lists 25 common side effects of Ticagrelor antiplatelet medication. Aside from excessive bleeding, these include chest pain, confusion, blurred vision, loss of consciousness, irregular heart beat, paralysis, nervousness, and weakness. Hardly a picture of heart health. These serious side effects are not usually mentioned by doctors. Millions of people are prescribed this class of drug without full disclosure of the serious risks they carry.

Instead, heart patients, those at risk of cardiac events due to age, and even the general population are routinely prescribed various types of blood thinners, anticoagulants, and cholesterol reducing drugs. Their use is always presented as the gold standard with the best possible outcomes. Pressure and fear is exerted, including the threat of early mortality if you don’t comply.

The aim of personalised medicine is not to decrease drug use but rather to personalise drugs, even to increase the use of drugs. Whilst most pharmaceutical drugs entail adverse reactions and unanticipated side effects, drugs that are tailored to genetic characteristics may potentially have even more serious consequences and long term adverse outcomes. This is because genetic systems are involved in all the functions of the physiology, its organs, bio-molecular messaging, and overall immunity.

Are There Alternative Approaches to Cardiac Health That the MHRA Should Be Considering?

A meta-analysis published in the BMJ entitled “Comparative effectiveness of exercise and drug interventions on mortality outcomes: metaepidemiological study” gives an affirmative answer. It concludes:

“Randomised trial evidence on exercise interventions suggests that exercise and many drug interventions are often potentially similar in terms of their mortality benefits in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, rehabilitation after stroke, treatment of heart failure, and prevention of diabetes…exercise interventions should therefore be considered as a viable alternative to, or alongside, drug therapy.”

Regrettably, the study also concluded:

“Our findings reflect the bias against testing exercise interventions and highlight the changing landscape of medical research, which seems to increasingly favour drug interventions over strategies to modify lifestyle. The current body of medical literature largely constricts clinicians to drug options.”

While little research has been undertaken comparing the relative effects of exercise and drugs on cardiac illness, even less research has been conducted assessing and quantifying the effects of herbal remedies. This is a remarkable omission. Inappropriate diet and lifestyle are arguably the most significant factors contributing to the genesis of heart disease. The corollary of this is highly significant: corrections to diet and lifestyle are the most significant measures that can be taken to avoid and mitigate heart disease.

A paper published in 2019 entitled “Review of herbal medications with the potential to cause bleeding: dental implications, and risk prediction and prevention avenues” describes 20 common herbs which are understood to have antiplatelet, anticoagulant or other relevant actions that could be beneficial for heart disease.

These are: Aloe, Cranberry, Feverfew, Garlic, Ginger, Ginkgo, Meadowsweet, Turmeric, White Willow, Chamomile, Fenugreek, Red Clover, Dong Quai, Evening Primrose, Ginseng, Flaxseed, Grapefruit, Green Tea, Oregano, and Saw Palmetto. The paper discusses their effects based on in vitro experiments, animal studies, individual case studies and theoretical grounds. Sadly the main thrust of the paper is not to investigate their worth but to suggest grounds to prevent their use in conjunction with dental treatment.

Some of the above are reviewed here. Other herbs, fruits or natural compounds understood in herbal lore or traditional systems such as Ayurveda to thin the blood or benefit cardiac conditions include Cayenne Pepper, Vitamin E, Cinnamon, Grape Seed extract, Arjuna, Pineapple, Ashwagandha, Guggul, Amla, Tulsi, Triphala, Rose, Rauwolfia and Water Hyssop.

The absence of any serious attempts on the part of the medical research fraternity to assess their worth in clinical practice speaks volumes about the real intent of the personalised medicine endeavour. This is not just a lost opportunity but a giant mistake and a step in entirely the wrong direction. Moreover the pharmaceutical industry has used its influence with regulators to restrict or ban the availability of many traditional herbs, not because they are harmful but because they may compete with proprietary drugs. This includes many on the above list.

Ayurveda and Traditional Personalised Medicine

In fact Ayurveda and other ancient traditions of natural medicine do operate real personalised systems of diagnosis and treatment. Ayurveda literally means the knowledge of long life. There is a system of pulse diagnosis in Ayurveda known as Nadi Vigyan which, used by the skilled practitioner, is able to diagnose the patient’s medical history and future prognosis based on the vibrations of three qualities in the deep pulse known as Doshas. This knowledge has been kept alive in some Indian families where specific knowledge and herbal lore is carefully passed on to successive generations.

The Materia Medica of Ayurveda lists over 5,000 medicinal herbs along with details of their preparation, action and prescription. The skilled Ayurvedic practitioner closely following traditional methods known as a Vaidya is able to draw upon this vast cornucopia of herbs to mitigate current imbalance and prevent future illness. A consultation with a properly trained and experienced Ayurvedic Vaidya, a Chinese medicine practitioner, a naturopath, herbalist or a holistic health professional can make a very valuable contribution to personal health.

Unfortunately, in recent years, Ayurveda has come under attack from giant pharmaceutical companies who are buying up Ayurvedic manufacturers and then cutting corners by shortening or altering the traditional methods of preparing herbal remedies as well as allowing the substitution of synthetic ingredients for traditional plants. Therefore caution is always advised when sourcing Ayurvedic remedies through the internet. Fortunately there are still some who are sticking to traditional methods and testing for contamination, these include Maharishi Ayurveda and Gopala Ayurveda.

The Indian Government Ministry of Health has a Department of Ayurveda which is seeking to preserve and promote authentic traditional practices. There is now a significant body of scientific research documenting and verifying traditional Ayurveda’s unique and highly effective contribution to health. You can find out more about the wide scope of traditional Ayurveda including its consciousness based approaches to health in my book Your DNA Diet.

Conclusion: Personalised genetic medicine is becoming a new form of drug promotion

Personalised genetic medicine as currently envisioned is a step away from finding safe and effective alternatives to risky modern pharmaceuticals, it is a step towards an era where drug use and experimentation on populations becomes the norm.

The MHRA, in common with most medical regulators, is not considering a future where proven safe natural and cost-effective approaches to heart health including diet and exercise are researched and promoted, rather it is forming an alliance with pharmaceutical companies to entangle a misinformed public in a profitable web of drug use and dependence.

What particularly strikes us is the essential madness of the personalised genetic medicine dream that is being pushed on the public using PR hype. So-called personalised medicine ultimately involves the replacement of personal doctors and medical professionals with impersonal AI programmed to push drugs.

The promised benefits are so unrealistic that they qualify as pure fantasy. It appears those paid to promote the concept of personalised medicine are poorly informed about the capabilities, accuracy and interpretation of genetic testing and assessment; and about the well known risks and uncertainties of genetic medicine and many pharmaceutical drugs.