Last night we watched A House of Dynamite on Netflix. The plot revolved around a nuclear missile strike on Chicago by an unnamed rogue nation putting the lives of 10 million people at immediate risk. The tension, terror and panic grew as the implications of a fumbled response sank in during a twenty minute countdown to impact.

Authoritative source Our World in Data estimates there have been 30 million excess deaths worldwide during the pandemic, three times the population of Chicago. Let the comparative size of the casualties sink in for a moment, one figure imagined in a dark and terrifying future, one real and much larger that has just happened, whose longer term impact and implications have been largely ignored or papered over by those responsible.

A NY Times article entitled “We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives” paraphrases the official line of those anxious for us to stop asking questions about what went so horribly wrong during the last five years:

“Five years after the onset of the Covid pandemic, it’s tempting to think of all that as ancient history. We learned our lesson about lab safety — and about the need to be straight with the public — and now we can move on to new crises, right?” 

No, wrong. According to the article, the safety precautions at the Wuhan lab were terrifyingly lax, and here’s the rub: they still are and it’s not just at Wuhan. 

A paper published on 20th March 2025 in Cell entitled “Bat-infecting merbecovirus HKU5-CoV lineage 2 can use human ACE2 as a cell entry receptor” reports that biotechnologists at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and other institutions are taking samples of viruses from bats and experimenting to see if they can infect humans. They are working under lab safety protocol BSL-2+ that is known to be “insufficient for work with potentially dangerous respiratory viruses.” 

In Singapore a massive new 3,000 square metre biosecure (???) lab is tackling the world’s deadliest diseases funded by pharmaceutical giants Merck and Welcome in order to drive forward immunisations around the world. What could possibly go wrong?  

Whilst the biotech industry drives ahead with novel biotech vaccine development, a midwestern physician Dr. William Makis is asking difficult questions which are still receiving no replies from the powers that be. According to Makis, thousands of doctors are now falling ill with heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, and a terrifying surge in what he calls “turbo cancers.” Nearly every US physician took the experimental shots. Now, he says, many are paying the price in silence. “They’re coming to me quietly,” Makis reveals. “They don’t want anyone to know they’ve been vaccine-injured.”

A 2024 study entitled “The Global Burden of Absenteeism Related to COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects Among Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis found that 1 in 6 healthcare workers suffered illness sufficient to keep them off work following vaccination. Makis is now bringing long term serious side effects among health care workers to our attention. 

A paper entitled “Genomic Integration and Molecular Dysregulation in Aggressive Stage IV Bladder Cancer Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination” was published in September which has now been viewed 34.000 times. The content is disturbing. It reports the first documented finger print of mRNA vaccine-derived genetic material in the DNA of a human subject with cancer, raising concern of transcriptional disruption, fusion transcript formation, and oncogenic potential. A similar fear is expressed in another finding reported in a recent paper “A case of metastatic breast carcinoma to the skin expressing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein possibly derived from mRNA vaccine“.

In other words, if mRNA vaccine-derived genome sequences are inheritable, we may have just created a new form of genetic defect—a self destruction gene sequence that can be passed down generations. As the Alliance of Indigenous Nations (A.I.N.) International Tribunal has just declared: “mRNA nanoparticle injections are in fact biological and technological weapons of mass destruction.”

It is hard to escape the notion that the biotechnology industry is incapable of acknowledging risk. Increasingly there are no limits to experimentation taking place in university labs, the processed food industry and big pharmaceutical facilities. An article in the UK Daily Telegraph entitled “Babies could be born without biological mothers” reports the work of US scientists in Oregon who have made supposedly functional human eggs from the skin cells of a man. The Washington Post published an article entitled “Robots are learning to make human babies. Twenty have already been born.” The echoes of Brave New World are loud and clear, but according to those promoting the deregulation of biotechnology in New Zealand, there is nothing to worry about (???).

Even though time is passing and memories may have faded. The effect of the New Zealand Gene Technology Bill, if passed, will be not peripheral to our personal interests or safety. Some may think we can go along with the proposed Bill without much harm, but 30 million deaths cannot be lightly forgotten. It happened, and it will happen again if those proposing a Brave New World of experimentation on human populations are not reined in. 

Yesterday I spoke to my brother who lives in the UK. Like me, he reads the newspapers, but he doesn’t worry about anything: “it is happening a long way away”, he tells me. I disagreed, there is nothing far away in the modern world. Grand schemes of the US government in alliance with the biotech industry apparently include pressure upon the New Zealand government to liberalise the rules surrounding gene technology. We are not a client state of the USA. Now is not the time to liberalise Gene Technology and New Zealand is not the place to create a GE experimental zone to play around with life. Rather it is time to tighten the existing rules

It is time for Health NZ, the government and the media to begin to have adult conversations about what has really happened to us as a nation during the last five years.

To find out more about the dangers of biotechnology read our substack.com article Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation. I now publish regularly on Substack where our series of articles builds a comprehensive framework of understanding about the consciousness-based biology of life. The most recent articles include Physics, Genetics and Consciousness and The Second Law, Genetics and Human Consciousness which you may have missed. You can subscribe there for regular updates by email.

Recently I had interviews with Paul Brennan on RCR and with Leighton Smith on his October 1st NewsTalk ZB Podcast where we discussed the issues in depth. Check it out

There is a demonstration coming up in front of Parliament opposing the Gene Technology Bill on November 4th.

Five patients have been hospitalised in Queensland after ingesting the rat poison brodifacoum. ABC reports that the authorities do not know the source of the cluster which has affected people from five different families in Logan, a satellite city south of Brisbane. Brodifacoum is a widely used long lasting rat poison produced through a multistage complex chemical synthesis process. Although plants are not used in its synthesis, the foundational chemical structures exploited during its production were originally discovered in spoiled sweet clover.

Brodifacoum is designed to prevent blood coagulation and kills its victims through internal bleeding. It is widely used in New Zealand for possum and rat control. The main problem lies in its secondary effects on other wildlife such as birds of prey, dogs, etc who might eat poisoned prey or the bait itself. As a result of these secondary kill effects, scientists in New Zealand are working to produce a new form of rat and possum control utilising gene technology. 

In 2016 New Zealand scientists began investigating the creation of species-specific gene drives utilising RNA interference, transgenic rodents and virus vectored immunocontraception. Gene drives are genetic modifications which upset the Mendelian 50/50 reproductive balance between genders necessary for the survival of a species.  

One technique being investigated involves the creation of genetically-modified males that do not produce daughters (known as a sex-lethal gene drive) or induce XX offspring (normally female) to develop instead as sterile males (known as a sex-reversal gene drive resulting in daughterless mice). XY offspring of these transgenic species would develop as normal, fertile males capable of spreading their disruptive transgene. The theory suggests a resulting substantial reduction in the number of fertile females, causing pest populations to die out. This daughterless pest approach would require repeated releases of large numbers of transgenic males into the wild.

Another technique that has been under discussion for a while is the use of viruses as vectors. The idea behind virus-vectored immunocontraception is that a species-specific virus is modified to produce a protein that then causes an immune response in the target organism. This immune response makes the target’s immune system attack its own reproductive cells. Sound familiar?

Both of these approaches come with significant risks. Not just viruses but also genetic sequences can be highly mobile. Once released, genetically modified characteristics designed to prevent reproduction cannot necessarily be contained or remediated. Moreover under some conditions such characteristics might be able to evolve or cross species.

Scientists at Victoria, Otago and Auckland universities are currently involved in gene drive research and development along with Genomics Aotearoa, supported by government bodies AgResearch, Plant and Food Research, Landcare Research and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. Private companies ZIP (Zero Invasive Predators) and Predator Free 2050 Ltd along with others including the Royal Society Te Apārangi are helping to support and promote the research and its ultimate application.

A paper published in 2024 in the journal Frontiers is entitled “Views of conservation volunteers and environmental specialists on genetic technologies for pest control in Aotearoa New Zealand“. The paper is the result of a collaboration between Victoria University and the Department of Integrative and Global Studies, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Mass., USA (a private university dedicated to technological innovation). The project appears to be part of an effort to normalise the creation and use of gene drives in New Zealand for pest control. It reports the results of a survey of 8000 people working in the pest control area which shows majority support for gene technology in NZ. Incredibly, the study found that ALL of the conservation volunteers, scientists, academics, and environmental professionals surveyed naively expected that the risks associated with the projected use of gene technology to control pests will be carefully and fully identified and mitigated against. A breath taking statement of misplaced faith running completely counter to scientific discussions of risk reported in the published literature.

New Zealand offers a highly attractive venue for research into gene drives because we are an island nation with a government that has announced its commitment to liberalise genetic experimentation. Elsewhere, gene drive research is exclusively confined to laboratories. If our government passes the Gene Technology Bill in its present form, a regulator would be able to give the go ahead for New Zealand field trials, possibly beginning on off shore New Zealand islands that have pest infestations.

At the start of this article we cited the cases of rat poisoning in Brisbane to illustrate that mistakes are inevitable, containment is never absolute. The escape of poisons into the food chain is regrettable, but always limited to specific times, products and/or places. The escape of genetically viable material that can reproduce itself and spread without limit is another matter entirely. 

It is now widely understood that Covid escaped from a lab, moreover that lab escapes are routine. Our World in Data estimates 30 million excess deaths worldwide during the last 5 years. Whether these resulted from COVID or COVID-19 vaccines is largely immaterial. Both resulted from genetic experimentation. The results of the 2024 survey discussed above point to a pathetic lack of comprehension of the risks of gene experimentation in New Zealand and an unthinking acceptance of its inevitable sanction and use. There is no doubt that Parliament has failed to inform itself or the public of the known risks. Not only should the Gene Technology Bill be withdrawn, but gene drive experiments already initiated in New Zealand labs point to a need for even stricter laws than present HSNO rules.

A major part of the problem is the description of gene editing techniques and the resulting modified material or organisms as ‘natural’ or ‘equivalent’ to natural. The deceptive repetition of this PR sleight of hand is pressuring legislators and regulators around the world to cave in to demands that gene altered products are in no need of safety testing or labelling. As a result the entire processed food chain has become contaminated with unlabelled gene altered ingredients and processing aids whose effect on health is untested yet already suspected to be damaging. Society is faced with rapidly increasing rates of bowel and other cancers affecting young and old alike, but those charged with protecting our health are looking the other way as they wave thousands of novel gene altered food products through regulatory processes without scrutiny. The Gene Technology Bill is designed to normalise this dangerous process, speed it up and promote the myth of safety. It should be immediately halted. I can’t find words strong enough to point out the dangerous stupidity that is at work.

NZ First have admitted they voted to progress an amended version of the Gene Technology Bill out of the select committee stage and return it to the whole house for consideration. An article published by RNZ is entitled “NZ First to withhold support for Gene Tech bill unless major changes are made“. Despite their opposition to the current draft, NZ First also affirmed their support for a compromise version of the Bill saying “New Zealand First is not against a responsible, safe, and pragmatic pathway to genetic modification technology utilisation.”

The Labour Party is also opposed to the Bill in its current form, but like NZ First offers its “broad agreement that New Zealand’s gene technology regulations are outdated and in need of modernisation”.

Te Pati Maori said they “will be pushing for amendments during the Committee of the Whole House stage.”

The Green Party said: “While we regard the Bill as having fundamental structural flaws the Party sought in good faith to find positive changes to improve the Bill through seeking additional advice from officials and directly proposing amendments during the select committee process.”

ACT and National are in full support of the Bill in its present form.

In other words, all our political parties agree with National that the regulations concerning genetic modification should be liberalised to allow more genetic modification projects to take place, albeit with differing amendments, so-called safeguards and/or incentives. 

There is the implicit suggestion here, even accepted by some members of consumer advocacy groups, that a compromise may be necessary and could be characterised as a victory of sorts. In particular, unfettered medical applications of genetic editing and so-called contained experimentation in labs are more or less being judged necessary and safe. Moreover growing widespread use of genetic engineering in food processing is not being mentioned by any party or group. 

We disagree entirely with any suggestion that a compromise will amount to progress in any way. We believe that even more strict controls of all forms of genetic modification than those existing at the moment are absolutely necessary to protect public health and our economy.

None of our political parties seem able to get their heads around some very obvious facts:

Our World in Data records that there have been 30 million excess deaths worldwide since 2020. These are due to a virus that almost everyone who is informed agrees escaped from a supposedly contained lab experimenting to make coronaviruses more deadly with gain of function research and as a result of biotech injections with higher rates of adverse effects than any previous medical interventions. 

Anyone who thinks that biotechnology experimentation should be liberalised does not care about human life.

New Zealand misspent $66 billion on the pandemic. It has left our country and many business enterprises swimming in debt and/or bankrupt. All around the world the pandemic experiment in biotechnology has had similar results: excess deaths, immune deficiency, chronic illness, high rates of absenteeism and disability, increased incidence of mental illness, polarised and divided populations, and economic decline. Hospital systems are overwhelmed.

And NOW all of our political parties are committed to liberalising laws on gene experimentation. They have lost touch with reality and the very, very obvious. They all need some serious counselling and re-education on the role of governance in a democracy. 

Don’t be taken in by the glossy promises of biotech PR. These have no substance. Available evidence points firmly and unequivocally in the opposite direction. We have written over 500 articles during the last four years and sent out more than five million emails. Unlike government propaganda and biotech industry PR, all our articles are referenced to published scientific papers. We now also regularly publish on substack with articles which examine the fundamental scientific issues in even greater depth, building up an integrated picture of approaches that really are proven to improve public health at little cost. 

This is not a Bill to compromise on. We encourage you to write to your MP, and talk to friends and colleagues to ensure the Gene Technology Bill loses support and is abandoned. Then new laws passed to ensure that gene experiments posing a risk to public health are outlawed and all foods and food processing aids currently produced with the aid of genetic modification, including genetically modified microorganisms, are in the interim clearly labelled as such and in the longer term outlawed due to the proven inevitable presence of residual genetically active contamination.

The Health Select Committee has reported back to Parliament with its recommendations on the Gene Technology Bill. Their 25 page report begins with the following sentence: 

“The Health Committee has examined the Gene Technology Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed.”

There are nine members of the Committee. Three National Party MPs and one ACT Party MP, one NZ First MP, two Labour MPs , one Green Party MP and one from Te Pati Maori. To achieve this majority, one other MP in addition to those from ACT and National must have voted in favour. As the Greens, Labour and NZ First have declared themselves opposed to the passage of the Bill in its current form, we can only speculate that either Te Pati Maori must have voted in favour OR at least one committee member from either Greens, Labour or NZ First voted against their Party’s published position (an unlikely scenario). 

This means we can no longer rely on holding up the imminent passage of the Bill 

The Committee received 14,458 submissions from the public, the overwhelming majority of these submissions opposed the passage of the Bill and raised specific concerns covering a broad range of issues including: 

• Proven health risks of gene technology, 
• Impossibility of GE crop containment, leading to decreased viability of organic farming, reputational and economic damage to our agricultural export sector, and high risk of invasive and persistent GM species
• Increased pesticide use linked to GE crop types
• Removal of individual choice due to the lack of a labelling provision, 
• Mandatory approval and use of medical gene technology, 
• Foreign interference in NZ regulatory systems, 
• Impossibility of remediating inevitable mistakes once released
• Concern about exotic gene experiments, for example on disease types that could escape from laboratories
• Designation of specific gene technology methods as inherently safe despite known imprecision and mutagenic potential, 
• Failure to take into account the results of the latest scientific publishing on the pandemic response and origins, pre-empting of the results of the Royal Commission on Covid-19, 
• Lack of clear guidelines for the regulator, leading to the potential for regulatory bias and capture by industry.

None of these submissions were specifically discussed in the report of the Health Select Committee.

The report made recommendations for a number of amendments to the wording of the Bill in the following areas:

• Kaitiaki relationships with indigenous and non-indigenous species of significance
• The role of the Gene Technology Regulator
• Non-regulated organisms and technologies, and exemptions
• Information sharing and access
• Medical authorisations
• Enforcement provisions.

None of these recommendations appear to alter the substance and intent of the original Bill in any significant way

The Details

Kaitiaki. The original Bill contains provisions designed to recognise the special relationship between Maori and indigenous species. The Committee recommends extending this to include any non-indigenous species that are recognised by Maori. But the requirement only remains one of consultation. In other words, no species of plant or animal are specifically excluded from genetic modification whether Maori or otherwise. We note that recent applications of AI in genetic engineering enable species and genetic types to be edited en masse in an automated system.

Regulator. The appointment of a Gene Technology Bill Regulator will now include input from the EPA in consultation with the Minister. The proposed amendments to the Bill clarify that High Court appeals will be allowed by affected Maori and those others who make original submissions on draft applications to the Regulator. The Regulator will now be insured and indemnified against any mistake he might make in the course of his decision making. These amendments do not appear to answer the fundamental questions as to how and on what basis a regulator might make their decisions.

Unregulated Organisms and Technologies. The amendments allow for the removal of both organisms and gene technologies from the scope of the Bill if they are designated as such simply by regulation. In other words, it remains the case that any modified organism or gene technology can escape the regulatory process if the Minister, the regulator and/or the EPA decide to add it to a regulation-free Schedule 3A at any time. This is a blank cheque. 

Information Sharing. It remains the case under proposed amendments that some technical information about gene modifications may be withheld from public scrutiny under certain conditions on the say soi of the regulator.

Medical Authorisations. The Bill currently contains the following provisions:

“Mandatory medical activity authorisations: for a human medicine that is or contains gene technology that has been approved by at least two recognised overseas gene technology regulators.”

and

“Emergency authorisations: when there is an actual or imminent threat to the health and safety of people or to the environment, for example, a threat from a disease outbreak, or an industrial spillage, the Minister responsible for the Gene Technology Act will have the power to grant an emergency authorisation.”

The proposed amendments will change one word of these clauses ‘mandatory’ becomes ‘equivalent’. However, the intent of the legislation will remain unchanged in this regard, it continues to grant automatic approval of gene medicines on the say so of any two foreign agencies designated by the regulator.

Enforcement. The provisions of the Bill will be inspected and enforced by biosecurity officers

These proposed amendments appear to be cosmetic only. They meet none of the concerns of the tens of thousands of opposed submitters. They meet none of the concerns outlined in our video The Gene Technology Bill —What Kiwis Need To Know

Separate Party Responses

The Green Party and the Labour Party announced themselves opposed to the Bill and Schedule 3A exemptions, but nevertheless voted for the proposed amendments. 

The Labour Party suggested that the release of genetically modified organisms used in agriculture and released into the environment should not be covered by the same legislation as industrial scale gene fermentation, laboratory experiments and medical applications which presumably they support.

The Green Party acknowledged that there are serious and credible scientific criticisms of gene technology safety and efficacy. They emphasised the need for scientific assessment and protection of NZ trade.

New Zealand First said they are open to liberalising genetic engineering laws while ensuring strong protections for human health and the environment. They said the Bill as it stands is far too liberal, beyond our key trading partners, and lacks strong safeguards and protections. They committed themselves to continued discussions with their coalition partners, but they also voted to accept the proposed amendments.

The ACT Party strongly supports the Bill in its amended form but opposes any provision for special consultation with Maori.

Te Pāti Maori did not express any view separate to that of the whole committee.

The Health Select Committee members who unanimously approved the amendments contained in the official report were as follows:

Sam Uffindell (Chairperson)  National Party 
Sam.uffindell@parliament.govt.nz

Dr Hamish Campbell National Party
hamish.campbell@parliament.govt.nz

Dr Carlos Cheung National Party
carlos.cheung@parliament.govt.nz

Ingrid Leary Labour Party
ingrid.Leary@parliament.govt.nz

Cameron Luxton ACT Party
cameron.luxton@parliament.govt.nz

Hūhana Lyndon Green Party
huhana.lyndon@parliament.govt.nz

Jenny Marcroft NZ First 
jenny.marcroft@nzfirst.nz

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer Te Pāti Maori
debbie.Ngarewa-Packer@parliament.govt.nz

Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall Labour Party
ayesha.Verrall@parliament.govt.nz

The following MPs also participated in the consideration of this Bill. 

Steve Abel (Green Party),
steve.abel@parliament.govt.nz

Reuben Davidson (Labour Party), 
reuben.davidson@parliament.govt.nz

Hon Mark Patterson (NZ First), 
mark.patterson@nzfirst.nz

Hon Dr Deborah Russell (Labour Party 
deborah.Russell@parliament.govt.nz

This article examines genetically modified yeast in detail and shows how the biotech food industry is deceiving even consumer activists

An article in the UK Telegraph entitled “M&S accused of misleading shoppers with bread ingredients” reports that Marks and Spencer supermarkets have been mislabelling bread. A white loaf with a prominent label claiming “only four ingredients” actually has eleven. A sunflower and spelt loaf labelled six ingredients actually has 13. A flour packet labelled“ancient wheat variety ideal for artisanal style breads” is actually a modern strain.

There is a parallel situation in New Zealand where headline product claims using words like ‘natural’ or ‘contains no artificial additives’ can be completely misleading when you read and closely research the origins and actual content of the small print ingredient list currently required on all foods. In fact, regulations on product labelling are now out of date because of the introduction of genetically modified microorganisms and the resulting residual contamination of foods.

M&S is not the only UK supermarket deceiving its customers. The practice is widespread in the UK and around the globe. Lax labelling laws enable food producers to simply leave out or mislabel a number of ingredients including preservatives and genetically modified microorganisms typically found in ultra processed foods. Some, but crucially not all, deceptive labelling practices have been highlighted by the Real Bread Campaign a project of Sustain: an alliance for better food and farming which is a large membership-based organisation campaigning in the UK for a food system that is healthy for people, animals, and the planet.

So far so good, Sustain with its Real Bread Campaign appears to be leading the charge for healthy food, something we all need. But search their website for articles with the term “genetically modified” and nothing is found. In February we published our article “” Major Health Alert: the Extraordinary Genetically Modified Invasion of Our Supermarkets by Stealth which reported a range of novel food processing aids and ingredients are now produced using genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs). These are used across a very wide range of thousands of supermarket food items including baked goods like bread and many others. Our article reported recently published scientific research which showed the use of GMMs inevitably leads to residual contamination of the end product with bioactive modified synthetics known to be harmful to health. These have been found to include antibiotic genes, antibiotic resistant genes and cell division promoters which can play a role in cancer development.

Genetically Modified Yeast 

Let’s look in depth at one such ingredient. We all know that commercial breads contain yeast. What is yeast? A Google search replies:

“Commercial yeasts are primarily a cultivated strain of the microorganism Saccharomyces cerevisiae, grown on molasses, a sugar source, and supplemented with minerals, nitrogen, and vitamins to promote growth.”

Saccharomyces cerevisiae is an ancient species of single-celled fungus, commonly known as baker’s yeast or brewer’s yeast, used for thousands of years to ferment sugars into alcohol and carbon dioxide, making it vital for baking, brewing, and winemaking. This sounds innocuous enough, but now it has been genetically modified to facilitate its additional use in the biotechnology industry to enable cell division, gene expression, and protein interactions vital for the mass production of genetically modified products and medicines. 

A 2020 article in the journal Bioengineering entitled “Genetic Engineering and Synthetic Genomics in Yeast to Understand Life and Boost Biotechnology” reports that a commercial bakers yeast known as Sc2.0, is actually a genetically modified version of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Sc2.0 has been a work in progress since 2006 following on from Sc1.0 an earlier genetically modified version. An article in Nature Communications entitled “Construction and iterative redesign of synXVI a 903 kb synthetic Saccharomyces cerevisiae chromosome” published in January 2025 announced the final iteration of Sc2.0 and its availability for commercial applications including baking. Sc3.0 is already in the planning stage.

Sc2.0 yeast comprises 16 synthetic chromosomes and a new-to-nature tRNA neochromosome, a synthetic chromosome which has no natural counterpart. Sc2.0 is a streamlined, optimised version of the Sc1.0 genome made using computer-aided (AI) design, enabling it to be synthesised from numerous DNA fragments. In additionLoxP sites have been strategically inserted between genes to allow for future genome engineering and the generation of diverse cell variants through processes like SCRaMbLE.

SCRaMbLE (Synthetic Chromosome Rearrangement and Modification by LoxP-mediated Evolution) is a genetic engineering technique used in synthetic yeast genomes to create massive, diverse genetic variations such as deletions, inversions, and translocations by inducing recombination between LoxPsym sites at specific locations in the DNA when Cre recombinase is introduced. Cre recombinase facilitates genetic manipulation and is widely used in research, particularly in conditional mutagenesis to study gene function by creating conditional gene knockouts in specific tissues or at specific times.

The modified yeast used to make bread can be prepared to look much the same as the natural product used for thousands of years—little beige granules which do their magic when added to water and flour, but they are not the same. The modified genetic sequences of Sc2.0 are designed to facilitate processes like cell division, a necessary driver of cancer development. The effect of Sc2.0 on human health has not been studied. Incredibly, its developers have persuaded regulators that it should be ‘presumed safe’ when used by the food industry. 

To give you an idea of the level of biosynthetic activation present in Sc2.0, in addition to bread making it is being used to make antibiotics, mRNA vaccines, novel proteins, biofuels, and high value chemicals. It is also used to rapidly mutate biomolecules and as a platform for the large-scale integration and optimisation of foreign genes.And it is in our daily bread.

At the risk of over using a cliche, what could possibly go wrong?

It seems the Real Bread Campaign has not yet got their head around the difference between ancient yeast and Sc2.0. Who can blame them? tRNA neochromosome, LoxPsym, Cre recombinase and SCRaMbLE are terms that only recently entered the English language. They carry little meaning or significance for the general population. Yet the word‘yeast’ still appears on bread labels as if time has stood still for bread making through the centuries since Christ fed thousands with wholesome loaves and fishes. It hasn’t. tRNA neochromosome, LoxPsym, Cre recombinase and SCRaMbLE are now on the daily menu for the faithful followers of commercial bread, home bread machines and pizza. The Real Bread Campaign, GE Free NZ, and other consumer groups have not yet sounded the alarm, leaving the public in the dark and at risk.

If we want to avoid genetically modified bread ingredients that our regulators have designated GRAS (presumed safe without adequate testing) try making sourdough at home or buy from a genuine artisan baker. Our food system is being genetically modified by the hour and yeast has been modified to ensure that future exotic genetic modifications are made easy. On Friday the Health Select Committee will announce its recommendation on the Gene Technology Bill. The Bill does not contain the word ‘label’ anywhere and makes no provision to inform consumers about genetic modification of our traditional foods. Unfortunately very few if any consumer organisations have informed themselves or us about what is happening. It is time to wake up.

The Listener has published an article entitled “NZ spends more on health than most countries – so why is our health system still sick?“. The article follows the case of a woman from Thames who was diagnosed with appendicitis upon presentation to her local ED. She was transferred to Waikato hospital for an operation but had to wait 2 days during which time her appendix burst, a potentially life threatening condition. As a result her recovery took longer and involved more complications and pain. The article explains:

“Waikato Hospital has one of the busiest emergency departments in New Zealand – 84,000 presentations in 2024 – roughly 230 per day. Overcrowding is constant, especially during winter. [In NZ as a whole] more than 300,000 patients with “imminently” or “potentially” life-threatening conditions were not seen within recommended times in the first six months of 2024.“

The article continues:

“But there is a mystery here. If we compare New Zealand with other OECD nations, our health spend as a percentage of GDP is higher than average, and public health spending as a proportion of government spending is one of the highest. We have slightly fewer doctors per head of population than peer nations – but more nurses. And the number of doctors and nurses per capita has risen steadily for 25 years.”

So why is our health system failing? The National led government is blaming Labour policies and the Labour Party is blaming National cost cutting. The authors conclude that neither explanation is persuasive, saying “the delays and overcrowding were present at the end of the last National government in 2017, endured through Labour and are worse today.” It is at this point in the article when a rigorous investigation might have helped the Listener get to the bottom of the problem. They could have asked:

‘How much worse is the problem today and why?’

If they had asked that question they just might have realised that since 2021 there has been a sea change in levels of sickness that is not going away and may even be getting worse. As we reported in our article “It is not unusual” the number of St John Ambulance call outs in August 2025 was higher than it has ever been. Moreover the rate of excess deaths is still 5% higher than it was pre-pandemic. 

There is a known ratio between mortality and hospitalisation (see for example Contributions of event rates, pre-hospital deaths, and deaths following hospitalisation to variations in myocardial infarction mortality in 326 districts in England: a spatial analysis of linked hospitalisation and mortality data). It is usual to suppose that high mortality rates are caused by a combination of poor quality of hospital and healthcare services, poverty prevalence and, in the modern era, aging populations, but that is not always the case. The causation can work the other way round. In war time, rates of hospitalisation and death rise because there are more injuries. A similar case applies during disease epidemics, if mortality rises above the long term average it will be accompanied by increased hospitalisation rates and a strain on healthcare services. 

A third possibility exists, this occurs when the overall immunity of a population is affected. For example during famine conditions there is not only starvation but also low immunity. Following on from the pandemic and the mass mRNA COVID-19 vaccination program New Zealand is facing a deficit in immunity. This has resulted from biotechnology experimentation which has adversely affected our immunity, contributing to increased healthcare utilisation rates, ED visits and emergency call outs. The trend of increased sickness involves a wide range of health conditions on top of the known seasonal factors and prior trends.

Strangely the Listener fails to mention this obvious factor except for a passing reference to increasing levels of multi-morbidity (more people than ever before are experiencing multiple disease conditions simultaneously). Instead pretending that rising healthcare costs are primarily an inevitable result of mismanagement and rising costs. Experts interviewed by the Listener disagree on the causes and remedies, one suggestion calls for more efficient healthcare managers possibly with the assistance of advanced AI to replace some frontline medical personnel. Another opinion calls for training more doctors and nurses. But it doesn’t take an economist for us to realise that healthcare is already taking up such a significant percentage of our national budget that options are limited, especially because the previous government borrowed $66 billion to fund their pandemic response, money that has not yet been repaid. 

Whereas, as we have been reporting, multiple studies show unequivocally that simple low-cost preventive educational healthcare measures involving diet, exercise and meditation can reduce the healthcare burden dramatically. More than at any other time, New Zealand needs a genuine national health debate. Yet it seems that almost everyone in authority and mainstream media is keen to avoid this. 

We are being misinformed by those charged with protecting our health

Mostly our newspapers are poking fun at the healthcare debate that is taking place in America and the UK without actually informing us what the issues are, instead labelling public debate as anti-science, whereas the opposite is the case. 

Take for example this highly informative presentation by leading cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra which was dismissed by the Times as “unsupported by mainstream clinicians or experts.” When in fact Dr Malhotra is actually a highly credentialed clinician who was presenting critical research findings. 

For comprehensive review of Trump’s announcement on the dangers of paracetamol use during pregnancy see here. Contrary to uninformed media rejection of concerns, there are landmark published studies indicating significant risks. Andrea Baccarelli, MD, PhD, the Dean of Faculty of the Harvard School of Public Health who conducted a research review published in August entitled “Evaluation of the evidence on acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders using the Navigation Guide methodology” has written for example “Patients who need fever or pain reduction during pregnancy should take the lowest effective dose of acetaminophen [the active ingredient in paracetamol and Tylenol], for the shortest possible duration, after consultation with their physician about their individual risk-benefit calculation.” Despite this solid published evidence urging extreme caution, the New Zealand Herald headlined “Experts reject Trump’s ‘baseless’ paracetamol claims quoting Dr. Bryan Betty, a New Zealand GP and Chair of General Practice NZ. Sadly his blanket rejection is all most of the New Zealand public will likely hear on the issue.

New comprehensive reports you may have missed 

The Hatchard Report is committed to informing you about health in all its aspects. You may have noticed fewer articles than usual from the Hatchard Report in the last few weeks, that is because we are now publishing our GLOBE on Substack.com. These articles explore deeper principles surrounding biotechnology and challenge myths of safety and effectiveness that are being used to influence government policies and encourage unthinking public acceptance. As a result of this change, you might have missed some key articles. If you haven’t already subscribed to our Substack column you might like to check out our recent posts which examine in detail the ideas underpinning misplaced faith in gene editing safety. They question the biotechnology paradigm:

The Goldilocks Factor in Genetics

The modern age cannot be an age of biotechnology—Quantum mechanics, consciousness and biotechnology

The Long Read: Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation Part 1

Part Two The Long Read: Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation : Consciousness-Based Alternatives

I believe these are among our best ever articles which present the key issues very clearly. Substack is a platform that enables subscribers to share posts with other members, friends and social media. The content we are posting there replaces our GLOBE website. The Hatchard Report will continue as usual to bring you our perspective on local health and food issues all backed up by scientific references. Issues that our healthcare, biotech and processed food industries appear anxious to bury and ignore. Currently you can subscribe to our Substack without charge.

We Need Your Help

Just a word about our funding. We rely on your support. A big thank you to all of you who do contribute or have done so in the past. However we have had a continuing shortfall over the last four years, as a result we have had to borrow from the bank to keep going. The amounts involved are considerable and the costs of borrowing are becoming unsustainable. If you enjoy our reports, please consider helping us at this time if you are in a position to do so.. 

Finally a timely reminder, the parliamentary health select committee is due to report its conclusions on the Gene Technology Bill on October 10th. Please register your opposition to biotechnology deregulation by opposing the passage of the Bill. Write to your MP and share our articles with your colleagues and friends.

Associate Minister for Agriculture Mark Patterson, has announced that NZ First will oppose the passage of the Gene Technology Bill in its current form because the party is opposed to the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment, since their subsequent spread cannot be contained. Patterson told Newsroom: 

“The stuff that happens in containment in a lab: we don’t really have a problem with that. That’s fine. [Our concern] is in terms of general release into the environment”. 

Any celebration of this news is premature, because NZ First has announced its intention to negotiate with its coalition partners in order to reach a compromise on the terms of the Bill which apparently will only extend at the most to a continuation of the ban on the release of GM crops in New Zealand for the time being, but not to any control of exotic and highly risky genetic experimentation in labs and the rubber stamping of novel medical gene technology experiments. 

Patterson describes the issue of gene modification as “hellishly complex”. He is right about that, but completely off target when it comes to the safety of gene modification inside a contained lab. There are overwhelming reasons to reject deregulated genetic modification in New Zealand laboratories and the automatic approval of gene tech medicine in New Zealand if it has been used overseas as the Bill envisions. First among these reasons is the occurrence of 30 million global pandemic excess deaths.

Given the extreme risk, which should be obvious to everyone but is somehow being glossed over by those with vested interests, the NZ First party should now brush up on their research into the ‘hellishly complex’ issue of genetic modification as it pertains to what happens in contained laboratories. In fact, secure lab containment is a myth, accidents are not rare, they are common. A 2015 USA Today Investigation uncovered hundreds of errors in supposedly ‘contained’ US laboratories, reporting:  

“Vials of bioterror bacteria have gone missing. Lab mice infected with deadly viruses have escaped, and wild rodents have been found making nests with research waste. Cattle infected in a university’s vaccine experiments were repeatedly sent to slaughter and their meat sold for human consumption.”

A 2022 study of the Prevalence of Accident Occurrence Among Scientific Laboratory Workers found:

“Among 220 participants recruited in our study, 99 participants (45.0%) have had accidents during their lab works. 59.6% have been exposed once, 32.3% between two and four times, only 1.0% between four and six times, and 7.1% more than six times.”

If NZ First still naively thinks that the accident at the Wuhan lab was a one off that can be ignored or that gain of function research is no longer taking place or will not happen here, they need to think again. Biotechnology researchers and regulators have proved themselves consistently incapable of setting limits or acknowledging inherent risks, even recently. For example a 2022 experiment undertaken by Boston University recorded the success (???) of their efforts to combine the mild COVID-19 Omicron variant with more deadly strains circulating earlier in the pandemic. The strain they created killed 80% of mice, whereas omicron killed none.

NZ First might also have to consider the reliability or otherwise of the advice they have been receiving from health officials, lobbyists and so-called experts. Recent research has placed many of these positions in doubt.

For example a paper published in the Journal of Precision Biosciences entitled “Unintended Genetic Consequences of mRNA Vaccines: Evaluating Risks of Transcriptional Disruption, HLA Alteration, and Genomic Integration concludes:

“Contrary to initial claims that mRNA degrades harmlessly, emerging evidence suggests that synthetic sequences may embed within the human exome, disrupting essential genetic processes. The primary concern lies in the potential scrambling of the Human Leukocyte Antigen (HLA) gene complex, which could trigger autoimmune disorders and long-term genetic instability.”

Anyone who pretends such risks are minimal or can be ignored is going against the trend of scientific evaluation and discussions. Unfortunately some in positions of authority are digging in their heels and refusing to acknowledge the known risks or inform the public.

An exclusive investigation undertaken by the Public Health Reform Alliance reveals emails which show that CDC (US Centre for Disease Control) officials have been discussing among themselves how to obfuscate the facts about COVID-19 vaccines’ lack of efficacy. They have sought to keep discussion out of the public domain. Apparently the CDC spent $911 million on a COVID-19 vaccine promotion campaign that misrepresented the effectiveness of masking, vaccines and boosters — and “consistently overstated” the risk of the virus to children. Internal emails show that CDC officials sought to ignore and hide legitimate COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns, instead deciding to reassure the public of safety, without actually evaluating or investigating the concerns.

Despite the obvious risks, Shane Jones MP expects that NZ First will reach a compromise on the Gene Technology Bill to ensure the stability of the coalition, saying “To do a great right, sometimes you have to do a little wrong”. Whatever ‘little wrong’ he was talking about, it certainly cannot be applied to COVID-19.

According to the Harvard School of Public Health, COVID-19 has now become endemic. In other words, it is with us in one form or another for good. This has multiplied the number of illnesses the public can contract, especially during the winter season. An article in Stuff newspaper headlines “Winter illnesses drive ‘mass casualty situation’ feeling at hospital ED, doctors say“. It reports that hospital ED departments are currently overwhelmed as if a mass casualty event has taken place, actually it has and we have to ask why. St John Ambulance service has recorded its busiest month ever with over 50,000 call outs in August. Incidence of breathing difficulties were up 33% on the 12 month average. The surge in illness is being blamed on the combined toxic effects of flu, RSV and COVID-19, but does the cause of this malaise in public health run deeper than merely concurrent illnesses?

Multiple recent studies indicate that Covid escaped from the lab in Wuhan following gain of function research. Therefore it is important to realise that the Wuhan research was designed to genetically engineer a coronavirus strain found in bats into a virulent disease that could infect humans. At the Wuhan lab, biotechnologists were able to incorporate novel genetic sequences that efficiently locked into human receptors. These mechanisms are no doubt at the root of the infectivity and persistence of COVID-19. Long COVID-19 incidence provides an example of how such engineered characteristics can create long lasting reservoirs of disease in the human body.

What has not been made clear to the general public is the mobility of such genetic sequences. The human gut is a system where microorganisms can exchange genetic information, a phenomenon known as Horizontal Gene Transfer. A 2017 paper entitled “Potential Effects of Horizontal Gene Exchange in the Human Gut” reports 

“The human gut conditions, with stable temperature, continuous food supply, constant physicochemical conditions, extremely high concentration of microbial cells and phages, and plenty of opportunities for conjugation on the surfaces of food particles and host tissues, represent one of the most favourable ecological niches for horizontal gene exchange.”

The paper discusses potential effects of these exchanges on human health in general and autoimmune diseases in particular. In the light of these findings it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that a simultaneous infection with either flu or RSV along with COVID-19 may help more virulent and persistent winter disease strains to emerge with novel engineered characteristics. This is possibly what is happening in New Zealand right now. 

The effects are not limited to public health, the vitality of the economy is also under threat which is not a minor concern. The Herald reports that almost a quarter of staff at Northland schools were reporting sick in August forcing schools to roster senior students to teach. 1News reports 2025 research that concludes ill health is costing New Zealand businesses $46 billion annually.

So what should NZ First actually do about the Gene Technology Bill?

The risks posed by biotechnology experimentation are not just large, they are unprecedented and inherently unpredictable. In 2017, Jennifer Doudna, the Nobel prize winning inventor of CRISPR gene editing, writing in her book A Crack in Creation, cautioned:

“The power to control our species’ genetic future is awesome and terrifying. Deciding how to handle it may be the biggest challenge we have ever faced.”

The current formulation of the Gene Technology Bill fails to address Doudna’s warning. It offers a blank cheque to a regulator to approve experimentation in whatever ways they might see fit. Moreover the Bill grants exemption from criminal liability to those involved. Our World in Data estimates there have been 30 million excess deaths worldwide since the beginning of 2020, the largest incidence of mass deaths from disease since the advent of modern medicine and sanitation. The deaths are apparently the direct result of experimental gene manipulation. It seems excessively strange, ill considered and inappropriate to grant exemptions from liability in advance of further gene experiments. 

The issue here is the paramount need to protect public health. The safety of certain forms of biotechnology experimentation and gene editing is not proven as the Gene Technology Bill falsely presupposes, rather the obvious conclusion to be drawn from pandemic outcomes is the opposite. Given that both COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines came out of biotech labs, any balance of culpability between the two is immaterial. The Gene Technology Bill is a step too far and should be rejected. There are many scientifically valid reasons to take this very seriously indeed. See our Substack article The Long Read: Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation for more information.

Any attempt to support the Bill in its present form or a compromise version which effectively deregulates genetic editing in laboratories will be a opening into an entirely uncertain and risky future. When Pandora risked opening her box, all the worlds evils including sickness, sorrow, death and vice escaped into the world. According to the myth, humanity was left with hope. The COVID-19 pandemic experience should be enough to let us know that hope is not enough. Write to your MP and ask that they reject the Gene Technology Bill.