The following is the text of our oral submission to the New Zealand Health Select Committee on the Gene Technology Bill made on Monday. We were allowed 10 minutes. The NZ First MP asked a sympathetic question at the conclusion, enabling me to finish with some unscripted points about the threat to small farmers.

This article is also available as an audio version.

“Good Morning and thank you committee members. Since the formulation of the Bill some key scientific papers have been published which upend its fundamental assumptions. I’d like to briefly summarise these in three points before taking questions.

1. SAFETY The Bill contains an assumption of safety which is not justified by research results. It fails to take account of the possible causes of the rapidly growing incidence of serious illnesses which are overwhelming health systems around the world including ours.

A study published in the journal Food Chemistry: Molecular Sciences in 2025 is entitled “Metagenomics-based tracing of genetically modified microorganism contaminations in commercial fermentation products. It found that residual genetically modified microorganism (GMM) contamination is present in virtually all food processing products produced via batch fermentation—the biotech industry standard, which then end up in most of our processed supermarket foods. It found the alarming presence of cell division promoters, antibiotic genes and antibiotic resistant genes in all enzymatic products it tested. Inevitable GMM contamination is currently classified as ‘residue’ which does not need any identification on labels because it is not an ‘ingredient’. A double speak continued by the Bill which side steps this recently discovered potentially serious health issue and fails to safeguard or inform the public

Faced with such alarming findings, why would we want to pass a Gene Technology Bill, which allows even more tinkering with traditional foods without any red lines or discussion of labelling, traceability, specific safety testing procedures, or liability for inevitable mistakes?

2. ACCURACY The Bill is predicated on an assumption of CRISPR accuracy which is outdated and contrary to recent research results and fundamental science

Most of us imagine that genes are as solid as the world around us, made up of distinct objects which can be swapped if one becomes defective. Rather like changing a tyre when you have a puncture. This fails to distinguish between genetic structure and function. The very very small time and distance scales of DNA are completely foreign to our waking world of experience. We have just 20,000 genes controlling trillions of functions. A study entitled “Gene editing of NCF1 loci is associated with homologous recombination and chromosomal rearrangements” has revealed that at this scale many genes appear almost indistinguishable from one another or homologous. As a result, research shows CRISPR gene scissors begin to cut up, rearrange or delete genetic chromosomal structures which were not the intended target, causing potential health problems. This is not because CRISPR has been incorrectly programmed, but rather the inevitable result of a fundamental property of micro matter.

3. EFFICACY The Bill and its surrounding PR contains an assumption of efficacy which is not justified by research results

According to the journal Nature, CAR T cell therapy costs about NZ$820,000 per shot. 85% of patients go into initial remission but only just over half of them are still in remission at the end of the first year. A TEAM of attending well qualified and highly paid doctors is needed to work out how far to push treatment without triggering potentially fatal cytokine release syndrome. Putting the cost beyond the reach of our public health service.

New Zealand has the second fastest growth rate of bowel cancer in the world, just behind Iceland.

As that is the case, shouldn’t our government be prioritising an education programme on lifestyle, exercise, healthy diets, fresh foods, etc.? The costs are very low and the research effect sizes of such programs are very large, around 27% risk reduction for colorectal cancer. It doesn’t stop with cancer, benefits affect the entire health spectrum including 30% risk reduction for heart disease for example. Also reduced incidence of inflammatory and autoimmune conditions

In another gene therapy case reported by Nature, Vertex Pharmaceuticals has revealed the full results of a clinical trial of beta thalassemia and sickle cell anaemia patients treated with a CRISPR-Cas9-based therapy which the popular press has wrongly hailed as a successful gene therapy ‘cure’. In all, 22 patients have received the treatment so far at a cost of NZ$5 million per patient all of whom initially experienced increased levels of haemoglobin and reduced pain. But after one year, only five of the patients had any residual beneficial effects. Vertex paid an additional NZ$85 million in patent fees for the licence to use CRISPR gene editing techniques.

In summary: health improvements are patchy at best, the costs are astronomical and unaffordable, the side effects are very serious and any benefits mostly don’t last very long.

Our overall conclusion: Gene technology remains an experimental intervention that is known to have a high risk profile for human health and food. The genes in our first cell contain the seed of everything that we value in life—intelligence, happiness, health. No one has any idea how genes support human consciousness, the defining characteristic of life. Modify genes at your peril. Gene modification cannot be contained, recalled or remediated. The biotechnology industry needs more strict regulation, not less as the Bill proposes. Thank you.”

Our Reflection after the hearing: The Limits to Power and the Law of the Land

It was a curious process, where the committee members sat passively. They were not required to answer questions or explain their reasons for overriding the public interest and precautionary science. It is extraordinary that the government believes it can adulterate our food choices without any requirement to inform the public what is being done and to what.

There is a relationship that we all naturally enjoy with nature, this is not something that should be usurped by ignorant power seekers. Food is a gift of God to man, or if you prefer it, a gift of the laws of nature—the sun, the soil, the rains and all that this entails. Our relationship with the land is a sacred trust of care and mutual enrichment. There are countless trillions of embodied creatures or organisms with whom we share the land, the early morning light, life giving showers, and the spring winds.

As Robert Frost famously wrote in his poem the The Gift Outright:

“Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.”

The government is about to make an extraordinary misstep, casting aside natural justice and assuming control of our relationship with Nature. They are making an enemy of nature, seeking to alter that which keeps us alive and well. If this goes ahead, time will tell us soon enough we have taken a wrong turn from which there is no safe road to return home. The pandemic should have taught us: there is a collective responsibility to oppose the deregulation of biotechnology, otherwise we will collectively suffer the consequences.

This article has two parts: the problem and our response.

Authoritative mathematical biologist Alex Washburne has published an article on Substack entitled “The Strength of Evidence for a Lab Origin—Probable cause, preponderance of evidence, and beyond reasonable doubt“. This is essential reading for anyone still unsure about how COVID-19 originated. Washburne demolishes the so-called evidence for a zoonotic origin with mathematical precision and then builds the case step by step against the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Eco-Health Alliance, including publishing the emails which document their efforts to cover their tracks.

This article is also available as a PDF to download, print, and share

He manages to do so with a dash of ironic humour saying for example: “It just so happens that there is a bat sarbecovirus lab in the same city where this bat sarbecovirus emerged; the specificity of the connection between the virus that emerged and the lab is so high it’s like finding a tiger roaming around the town in walking distance from a big cat sanctuary in Germany, so knowing there is a sanctuary drawing in big cats from around the world provides critical context for the big cat roaming the streets nearby.”

The research being carried out at Wuhan funded by the US NIH was unethical, illegal, and obviously dangerous. Particularly striking was the determination to push way beyond the boundaries of any regulation or common sense in order to create deadly pathogens capable of undermining the genetic foundations of life—science fiction become reality. In this light, any suggestion that the biotech industry can regulate itself or control rogue operators is absurd. Yet this will be the likely outcome of the New Zealand Gene Technology Bill currently being rushed through the Parliamentary Select Committee process.

The Health Select Committee received over 15,000 submissions, but starting this week, wrapping up in just half a dozen days, the Committee will compile its assessment in order to fulfil the government’s timeline for the Bill to become law and operational by September. To speed up the process, the Committee has divided itself into two, meaning that no single Committee member will have heard all the 400 short oral submissions and none would have had any time to take account of the views of the 15,000 submitters.

The Bill will radically alter our food system, agriculture, economy and medicine, injecting genetic modification into every area of daily life, yet the word‘ label’ appears zero times in the Bill. In other words, we will be prevented by the deficiencies of law from knowing what is happening. The obvious context is our overwhelmed and failing health system alongside five years of a pandemic, which, according to the latest data, resulted from unfettered biotechnology experimentation.

We don’t have to look very far beyond our nose to get a sense of unlabelled biotechnology. A New York Times article from this morning is entitled “She’s a Foot Soldier in America’s Losing War With Chronic Disease“. It details the devastating health effects and decreased life expectancy caused by the US processed food industry which is dominated by genetically modified processes and products. Apparently our government is hoping that the Gene Technology Bill will smooth the way for a trade deal with America. If you want to know what that means, read about the effect of the UK-US trade deal in an article in the UK Daily Telegraph “The Americanisation of our diets is destroying our health – and it’s not just about size“.

So how did it come about that our government feels empowered to degrade our food system without adequate consultation or any provision for labelling to support consumer choice? The answer possibly lies in one word—technology. Technology is billed as an escape from the drudgery of tasks, but is it dumbing us all down, draining the joy out of life, limiting our options and exposing us to unannounced health risks?

The technological revolution has heralded a massive decline in literacy, numeracy, and craft skills. Rather than an escape from drudgery, many are too busy to enjoy quality family time, too poor to afford housing and too distracted to appreciate the direction we are heading in. In this situation it is no wonder that the political establishment are taking over the decisions we used to take for ourselves. On the agenda now is what we have for breakfast, dinner and supper.

But it doesn’t stop there, the bio-technocrats are not just suggesting but are busy creating medical interventions which will affect everyone of us whether we like it or not. This has been going on for some time under the radar. A 2020 article in New Scientist was entitled “We now have the technology to develop vaccines that spread themselves“. It advocated radical experimentation under the banner “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”. As it has turned out, despite the focus of the entire biotech industry for five years, they still haven’t discovered any prevention or cure for the COVID-19 pathogen they created. But that hasn’t stopped the continuing development of self-spreading vaccines, aerial spray vaccine delivery systems and food plants that vaccinate consumers.

But it doesn’t stop there, A UK Ministry of Defence paper developed jointly with Germany is entitled “Human Augmentation—The Dawn of a New Paradigm. A Strategic Implications Project“. The paper foresees “an impending biotech revolution that will radically transform every aspect of our lives”. It says “We must begin to understand the implications of these changes and shape them to our advantage now, before they are thrust upon us.” In other words, we are faced with a tsunami of biotechnology including bioweapons, and the military advises we should get involved in developing even more powerful ones ourselves. As if sitting on the beach facing an approaching tsunami, the best strategy is to create an even bigger wave ourselves, rather than simply running to higher ground.

What are we facing?

Here in New Zealand, the government is poised to appoint a regulator within the next six months who will oversee the introduction of biotechnology into every area of our lives:

• The Gene Technology Bill contains no red lines. It doesn’t prohibit gain of function research or germline genetic engineering. It doesn’t say anything about transhumanism, bioweapons or airborne vaccination, but it does REQUIRE the regulator to approve biotechnologies used overseas, (yes it is mandated, New Zealand will have no choice). 
• It contains a presumption of safety for which there is no evidence, or rather for which there is abundant evidence to the contrary showing great danger. 
• It strikes no note of economic caution, despite multiple countries among our trading partners restricting GMOs. Moreover it opens New Zealand up to massive predatory profit taking by overseas corporations who hold the patents on crops and gene editing techniques.
• It contains nothing whatsoever to suggest that consumers have a right to know what they are eating. 
• It glosses over the appalling track record of adverse events associated with gene editing of animals and humans. 
• It completely ignores the well documented and researched inherently mutagenic outcomes of CRISPR gene editing, instead opting to describe the results as equivalent to natural products in no need of regulation. 
• It fails to address the genetically modified microorganism (GMM) contamination of batch fermentation production routinely used by the gene industry to produce everything from foods to medicine. 

In short, Parliament has failed to do its homework, yet in the space of a few short hours spread over next week, with little or no opportunity to cross examine or challenge the motives and intentions of Parliament, with little time to cite or explore published research, it is proposed to pass the Gene Technology Bill into the statute books unquestioned by a sleeping media.

The regulator, whoever they are, (probably singularly unqualified to protect the public), will know what to do to please the government, which is to wield a rubber stamp and wave the traffic through. If successful, no doubt Luxon will hold up his copy of this worthless and destructive piece of legislation and declare “Economic Prosperity in Our Time” or hollow and deceptive words to that effect. History, if there still is one left after he has finished, will judge him and his ilk very harshly.

What are the alternatives?

We have already published a cautionary tale of GM food here in New Zealand and listed what to avoid. We have encouraged changes in lifestyle, exercise and pointed to the need to rediscover and honour traditional spiritual practices. The challenges that we face result from the distorted and incomplete understanding of biotechnology. To combat this we need to understand more fully what is at stake and find the fulcrum points where we can leverage a deeper understanding.

There are now 3,400 writers on the Substack platform who are expressing concerns about COVID-19 and genetic vaccines. GLOBE and the Hatchard Report are among the very few calling for an outright ban on biotechnology experimentation. We are doing so for one very simple and entirely cogent reason: no one in the field of biotechnology understands how genetics supports the expression of consciousness. In other words, the vast and growing biotech industry is prepared to put our capacity for awareness and self-reflection, the defining characteristic of life, at risk for the sake of a failed paradigm.

GLOBE and the Hatchard Report are going a step further than calling for a ban by offering an alternative paradigm. Recently in September 2024, eminent historian William Dalrymple published a book “The Golden Road—How Ancient India Transformed the World”. His fascinating study documents how our number system, architectural ideas, our scientific perspective and our early medical knowledge originated in the Indian subcontinent and slowly made its way to the West via the Greeks, the Egyptians and the Arab world. With the peaceful Christian takeover of Toledo in 1085, the vast libraries of works translated from the original Sanskrit and studied by the Arabs, Egyptians and Greeks became available to the monastic centres of Christian learning. One outcome was the blossoming of the western scientific method over a period of a thousand years.

Our objective rational scientific method has now brushed up against the field of consciousness in physics, biology and medicine. In doing so, it has begun to lose its way, distorting and mutating something we have yet to understand. Something absolutely essential to knowledge is missing—the knower, individual consciousness, our identity.

To make sense of the quantum reality they were discovering at the start of the 20th century, leading physicists referred to the Vedic Literature:

• Niels Bohr found connections between the Vedic concept of interconnectedness and the quantum idea of entanglement. 
• Werner Heisenberg was fascinated by the Upanishadic concept of the observer influencing reality, which aligns with the observer effect in quantum mechanics. 
• Erwin Schrödinger considered the Upanishads to be the most accurate perception of reality and heavily incorporated their ideas into his theories. 
• Robert Oppenheimer was deeply impacted by the Bhagavad Gita, particularly its themes of responsibility and the consequences of action, especially in relation to his work on the atomic bomb. 
• Einstein expressed a fascination for Upanishadic philosophy and was familiar with the Bhagavad Gita—a pocket book of Vedic wisdom.

The influence of the Veda and Vedic literature, which Dalrymple documents, took root not just across the sub continent but soon extended from ancient Persia to Egypt, Greece, Rome and the Caucasus mountains in the West and to the East as far as Thailand, Cambodia, Bali and Japan. Although widely revered, the Veda is not a religion, rather a vast body of scientific knowledge that has at its heart the understanding and investigation of consciousness, but this deeper aspect of Indian culture had limited impact on the West.

The quote that “war begins in the mind of man” used in the United Nations charter is originally attributed to Atharva Veda, a branch of the Vedic Literature. The Vedic endeavour to comprehend and develop the full scope of the human mind is also a quest to avert human conflict before it arises. We discuss the science behind this in our book Your DNA Diet, available from Amazon as a Kindle.

Now might be a time to dig deeper into the roots of ancient traditions around the world for the vital clues that could avert the looming disaster of biotechnology. There are some scientists who are already taking up this challenge with some success. A study published in Brain, Behavior and Immunity in 2023 entitled “Transcendental Meditation practitioners show reduced expression of the Conserved Transcriptional Response to Adversity” has investigated altered expression of 200 genes associated with a healthy response to stress, adversity and disease. This included down-regulated pro-inflammatory transcription and up-regulated Interferon Response Factors.

Many diseases can be aggravated by inflammation, including cardiovascular disease, cancer, arthritis, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease, mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety, and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

Interferon is a protein that helps the body’s immune system fight infection and disease. It’s produced by white blood cells and other cells in the body. Interferons activate immune cells, such as natural killer cells and macrophages. They can limit viral replication in infected cells and viral spreading in non-infected cells. They can help the immune system recognise and attack viruses, bacteria, or cancer, preventing growth and division.

A follow up study published in Biomolecules in 2025 found results consistent with reductions in biomarkers of chronic stress and biological age in long-term meditation practitioners. They are also consistent with results from a previous study suggesting that meditation practice lowers energy consumption or leads to more efficient energy metabolism.

Meditation is not a belief system or a religion, techniques have been known and honoured in every country. They have formed a key part of cultural history around the world. The fact that TM beneficially alters gene expression points to the existence of a non-invasive technology of consciousness accessible for anyone. At this point in time, meditation is an opportunity to move away from the depressing cycle of diet-induced chronic disease and drug-initiated adverse effects which are overwhelming our health system, affecting people of all ages including the young and working adults. Hundreds of scientific studies support meditation’s profound benefits for health and longevity.

These are not experimental results without a basis in scientific theory. A book by Tony Nader MD PhD, compiled with the guidance of renowned exponent of ancient Vedic wisdom Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, is entitled “Human Physiology, Expression of Veda and the Vedic Literature. Modern Science and Ancient Vedic Science Discover the Fabrics of Immortality in the Human Physiology” now published by Motilal Barnarsidass.

It locates a sequential self-unfoldment in the sounds and the gaps between sounds which automatically leads to the diversified structure of the branches of the Vedic Literature. Nader and his scientific collaborators working with Maharishi were able to draw an exact parallel between this structure and the sequential unfoldment of human physiology starting with the first cell. Their 600 page book details the mathematical correspondence between the sequences of sounds and gaps in the forty branches of Vedic Literature and the structure and functions of human physiology. It dazzles and astounds with its breadth of scholarship and deep insight. It can fill huge gaps in our current understanding of genetics.

Our connection with the Cosmos has been there all along since ancient times, remembered by our great cultural, philosophical and religious traditions, but like the foundation of a building it has remained largely out of sight in daily life or even forgotten. Now the connection is in need of repair, it is the time for revival of knowledge, an expansion of our understanding and the unfolding of our latent potential. In this we can glimpse a whole new horizon of knowledge which is capable of enriching every aspect of life.

The government is a reflection of the collective consciousness of the nation, bemoaning the shortcomings of the government is just whistling in the wind unless and until our education system is able to develop the full potential of the individual, mind and body, consciousness and physiology.

After the bombshell information in our last two releases (see here and here) everyone has to consider their position very carefully. We reported the results of a recent study which has revealed that most of the processed foods in our New Zealand supermarkets (and in fact around the world) now inevitably contain residues of Genetically Modified Microorganisms (GMMs) and processing agents, including antibiotics and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

This article is also available as a PDF to download, print, and share 

As a result of agreements between regulators and industry, these are not identified in any way on food labels nor have their likely effects on health been officially tested or assessed. This release discusses how we should respond to this.

The situation we find ourselves in is completely unacceptable

It may not have escaped your notice that the public are being treated like animals who are subjected to feed containing low level antibiotic doses and who are incapable of knowing what is going on or choosing to opt out. Without this realisation, last week we supposed that our opposition to the pending Gene Technology Bill would be enough to protect us from unlabelled Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in our foods. Now we learn that progressive substitution of food processing enzymes, flavours, colours and ingredients produced by genetic modification has been going on behind our back for a number of years rubber stamped by Medsafe. 

If passed, the Gene Technology Bill will accelerate this process. In fact, the Bill appears to be an attempt to legitimise what is already taking place. Our food content is being determined by overseas companies and regulators who have worked together to prevent any identification of genetically modified content or contamination on labels. Clauses in the Gene Technology Bill before parliament make it mandatory to continue in this fashion, essentially giving up control to giant overseas food, pharmaceutical and biotech corporations.

Even if we succeed in stopping the Bill or some provisions are deleted, we will be left subject to the existing wholesale adulteration of the food processing chain. Therefore we need to demand that regulations be stiffened to ensure that ingredients, additives, enzymes, flavours and processing aids produced using GMMs are clearly identified on labels so that the public can avoid them if they wish and we certainly should be demanding this. As Kiwis we should not be treated like animals who have no say in what they are given to eat.

Following the publication of the study in the journal Food Chemistry: Molecular Sciences entitled “Metagenomics-based tracing of genetically modified microorganism contaminations in commercial fermentation products, it is no longer tenable in any way for the government to cling to ‘no label required’ classifications such as Generally Recognised As Safe (GRAS) or ‘Substantially Equivalent to natural products’ as the Bill proposes for most GMOs including those produced using CRISPR gene editing.

Batch fermentation inevitably leads to genetic adulteration

Genetic contamination is not easily controlled at any point in the batch fermentation processes which have come to dominate the food processing sector. The dynamic bacterial-based genetic processes involved are partially controlled through the use of genetically modified microorganisms designed to promote cell proliferation, antibiotics to control pathogens and molecules engineered to be resistant to the antibiotics. Residues are now known to be inevitable and the end products cannot be purified to any satisfactory level.

Food regulators particularly in North America and Europe are unwilling to act responsibly. For example Upside foods in the US received preliminary approval from the FDA in 2022 to grow chicken meat “directly from animal cells, without the need to raise and slaughter animals,” claiming its products “are real meat, made without the animal.” The FDA’s scientific memo accompanying its recent approval, contained a three-page list of “potential identity, quality, and safety issues” involved with Upside Foods’ manufacturing processes, including:

• Cells from different lines or species inadvertently used.
• Carryover of adventitious agents such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, parasites, and prions during the process of isolating the product.
• Introduction of contaminants in laboratory reagents.
• Introduction of contaminants from animal-derived reagents (e.g. bovine serum, trypsin).
• Unintended effects of cell immortalisation.
• Contamination, and facility environment contamination, with adventitious agents through inadequate sterilisation of bioreactors.
• Presence of elemental contaminants (toxic heavy metals) after harvest.
• Presence of residual unintended material from genetic engineering.

However, despite these potential risks, the memo stated that “at this time we have not identified any information indicating that the production process … would be expected to result in food that bears or contains any substance or microorganism that would adulterate the food.” The FDA didn’t identify these contaminants because they didn’t test for them; they acknowledged the problems but ignored them because of the cozy relationship they enjoy with big industry. It has become ‘standard’ regulatory practice to assert that batch fermentation is safe, despite it seems knowing full well that it isn’t.

A return to food honesty is required

Historically, breakdowns in honest practice and public trust happen in the food supply chain, they have done so for hundreds of years. By the Victorian era, the adulteration of bread was common. Cheaper and inferior ingredients didn’t just whiten the bread but added weight and bulk. The additives that bakers used to fluff, whiten, and prolong their bread included plaster of Paris, bean flour, chalk, ground-up bone, and alum. Alum led to malnutrition and a myriad of health issues — like bowel problems, constipation, and chronic diarrhea — which were often fatal for children. By the 1870s the government started policing the food industry which led to the modern practices which required standards, testing, ingredient labelling and traceability. 

Our present day food industry has reached a point where corrective action is necessary to ameliorate the adverse effects of processed foods on health which has led to a rapidly growing epidemic of chronic disease including cancer, bowel disease, inflammatory disease, cardiac illness, ADHD, obesity and diabetes to name but a few. Various studies have calculated that around 50-60% of Americans suffer from chronic diseases. Around 40% have two or more. The genetically altered content in processed foods has been widely identified as a prime causal candidate that needs to be controlled. The solutions are similar to those used in 1870, the enforcement of standards, testing, ingredient labelling, traceability and a return to natural ingredients. 

What can we do to avoid GMMs?

You will appreciate that we have been placed in a David and Goliath situation. On the one hand the world’s giant food corporations, on the other the individual consumer. Yet we are not powerless, our food purchasing choices ultimately affect the shelf stocking practices of retailers. Our article Major Health Alert: the Extraordinary Genetically Modified Invasion of Our Supermarkets by Stealth lists a great many affected foods that you may want to avoid buying but what are we going to buy instead? 

If you want to avoid eating GMMs, antibiotic residues and genetically engineered ingredients and additives you could investigate the following suggestions, you will no doubt know of many more:

Favour

Cold pressed oils

Artisan sourdough breads

non-homogenised milk

Butter that has been traditionally churned 

Freshly prepared/cooked fruit and vegetables

Organic flours

Home made jams

Homemade fresh cheese (just add lemon or yoghurt to boiled whole milk).

Dried fruit—dates, raisins, etc., free of sulphites, oils.

Nuts

Plain Yoghurt, (add the fresh fruit yourself)

Unprocessed organic ingredients rather than so-called organic processed alternatives like cornflakes

Grains—rice, wheat, millet, quinoa, barley

Lentils, chickpeas, beans, (soak ahead for quicker cooking)

Pasta

Rather than instant noodles get asian ramen, somen or soba noodles, they cook quickly

Organic meats and flours

Pure spices not ready mixes and stocks

Plain crisps and crackers rather than flavoured

Choose breast feeding if possible rather than infant formula

Fresh squeezed juice rather than store bought

Home made smoothies using a bullet

Use cookbooks like Jaimie Oliver’s 15 Minute Meals or YouTube hints. 

Air fryers are quick and can cook healthy choices

If you are pressed for time to shop selectively, there are some great fresh food ingredient delivery companies that offer menu choices and cooking instructions.

Avoid

Most supermarket breads and flours (they contain synthetic folic acid, and many other processing aids like synthetic yeasts, flour improvers, vegetable fats, preservatives, etc.)

Vegetarian and vegan meat substitutes

Zero sugar drinks

Foods with high sugar content

Cheese made with GM rennet, often labelled as ‘vegetarian rennet’ rather than traditional animal rennet

Processed convenience foods, including ready meals like frozen pizzas, lasagna, pies, chips, etc

Coloured and flavoured foods including confectionary, chocolate

Yoghurts with multiple ingredients 

Fast food

Ice cream

Sauces with multiple ingredients like most ketchup and mayonnaise 

Food with thickeners

Energy drinks

Nothing beats reading the labels 

But remember headline phrases like ‘natural’ ‘derived from plants’, ‘low fat’, ‘low sugar’, ‘plant-based’, ‘healthy’, ‘no additives’ and ‘extracted’ increasingly have little meaning. They have become misleading marketing tools. The ingredient list is the thing to read. Be inquisitive about how your food choices have actually been prepared and what they contain. 

We realise that our suggestions are not a solution as such, but they can be a step in the right direction. Many people are so busy they have hardly any choice except to rely on pre-prepared food options.  Even so, everyone has a right to know what goes into food, that is absolutely basic and historically has always been the direction of food regulation. The government is proposing to extend an already deteriorating food safety situation by permanently exempting numerous genetically modified ingredients and contaminants from identification. They are essentially delivering our food system into the hands of giant international food corporations who couldn’t care a fig about consumers and are anxious to avoid full disclosure labelling laws.

We have to demand the government extend labelling laws to identify the involvement of GMMs in processing.

Many of you have written and asked about the current prevalence of genetically modified foods and the potential health risks. An up to date answer to this question comes as a huge surprise even to the team at the Hatchard Report. Today’s article lists the affected products, and discusses the history and industry pressure which created a regulatory framework lax enough to allow the genetic engineering of the preparation and content of most supermarket foods.

Food processing aids, enzymes, additives, flavours and colours were originally derived from natural plant and animal sources, With the rise of mass production in the food industry these were required in greater quantities to ensure that industrial-scale fast continuous processes turned out products of uniform appearance, taste and consistency. As a result, food industry chemists invented batch fermentation techniques whereby naturally occurring bacterial strains such as lactic acid bacteria (LAB) facilitated the necessary cell replication and proliferation at a mass scale.

More recently batch fermentation has become dominated by genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs). 

These GMMs are designed to tailor and accelerate the fermentation processes. A 2023 paper entitled “Bioengineered Enzymes and Precision Fermentation in the Food Industry” reports:

“Enzymes have been used in the food processing industry for many years. However, the use of native [naturally occurring] enzymes is not conducive to high activity, efficiency, range of substrates, and adaptability to harsh food processing conditions. The advent of enzyme engineering approaches such as rational design, directed evolution, and semi-rational design provided much-needed impetus for tailor-made enzymes with improved or novel catalytic properties. Production of designer enzymes became further refined with the emergence of synthetic biology and gene editing techniques and a plethora of other tools such as artificial intelligence, and computational and bioinformatics analyses which have paved the way for what is referred to as precision fermentation for the production of these designer enzymes more efficiently.”

Ostensibly, these genetically modified processes are supposed to be more efficient and produce purer products however these routinely differ in critical ways from their natural counterparts. As a result, the food industry pushed very hard for the GMM processes to be unregulated and unidentified on food content labels. For example a 2022 article entitled “Recombinant DNA in fermentation products is of no regulatory relevance” deceptively suggested that fermentation products produced via GMM techniques are “more sustainable”. It stated: “There is no meaningful rationale for using recombinant DNA for regulatory classification of fermentation products.” It argued that too much regulation would de-incentivize innovation in industrial biotechnology, and introduced instead a concept called “proportionate regulation”, which amounts to little if any regulation. In the end, their view has prevailed around the world. The role of GMMs in food production has escaped identification on labels. 

The scope of the revolution in GM food production beggars belief. 

The list of everyday products now produced with the aid of genetically modified microorganisms is seemingly endless and includes the following.

• Amylases: which catalyse the hydrolysis of starch into sugars, aimed at improving the quality and shelf life of bread and other baked goods
• Proteases: which hydrolyze proteins, used in meat tenderisers, infant formula, and to improve the flavour of milk and cheese
• Pectinases: which hydrolyze pectin, used in juice clarification and fruit pulp treatment
• Transglutaminases: Cross-link proteins, which are used in meat and fish
• Galactosidase: Reduces viscosity in grain legumes and lupins, which are used in animal feed
• Glucanase: Reduces viscosity in oats and barley, which are used in animal feed
• Invertase: Hydrolyzes sucrose to produce invert sugar syrup which is used in baked goods, candies (including chocolates, truffles, toffees, marshmallows, taffies, and caramels), sweetened beverages (including soft drinks, iced tea, etc.), frozen treats (including ice cream and sorbets), beer and commercial kombucha
• Lactase: Hydrolyzes lactose and whey to develop products free from lactose for lactose-intolerant people. It is also used to produce frozen yoghurt 
• Lactic Acid: used in the production of cultured butter
• Lipase: Supports lipid digestion in young animals, and is used in cheese flavouring and dough conditioning
• Citric Acid: used in stock cubes, commercial citric juices, jams, preserves, canned tomatoes, wine, ice cream, sorbets
• Xanthan Gum: a stabiliser and thickener which is used in fruit juices, salad dressings, sauces, gravies, gluten-free products, low-fat foods and vegetarian, vegan and gluten-free processed products
• Amino Acids: The human body needs 20 amino acids to function properly. Synthetically produced copies are added as flavour enhancers
• Monosodium Glutamate MSG: A flavour enhancer commonly used in Chinese and Asian foods. Also used in instant noodles, potato chips, hot dogs, lunch meats, pepperoni, bacon, pastrami, sausages, salami, chicken, beef, salmon, mackerel, scallops, crab, shrimp, canned tuna, frozen pizzas, crackers, deli meats, etc.
• Aspartame: Artificial sweetener used in diet drinks and other products labelled as sugar free
• Vegetarian Rennet: produced by Pfizer and others, used to make 75% of cheese world wide
• Vitamins: like riboflavin (B2) added to flour, and a great many other vitamins which are used in a very wide range of foods including milk alternatives like almond milk, etc.
• Beta-Carotene: just one of the many engineered colours now used in a huge range of foods including margarine, cheese, fruit juices, baked goods, and dairy products. Also used to enhance the colour of processed meats like bacon, spam, corned beef, and sausages, vegetarian meat substitutes, pet food, and tomato ketchup.
• Vanillin: a synthetic vanilla flavour used in ice cream, baked goods, chocolate, aromatherapy, coffee, alcoholic beverages, perfumes often falsely identified as ‘natural’ on the labels.

I’m going to stop there and take a deep breath. The full list would run to thousands of products. Virtually all of the above are produced overseas and imported into NZ where they are widely used in food production. What can you say? All of them are processed foods, but many of them are found in the cupboards of even the most ardent natural food advocates. Is this a done deal with no turning back? Even the organic industry has accepted that additives produced using GMMs can be used in organic products as long as no GMMs are present, but the industry doesn’t have the resources to test compliance. 

Universal genetic contamination ignored by lax regulatory authorities

A paper published in 2021 entitled “GEMs: genetically engineered microorganisms and the regulatory oversight of their uses in modern food production” lays out the regulatory framework (or lack of it) very clearly. Foods produced via processes using genetically engineered microorganisms do not need to be labelled as GMO. They fall under Generally Recognised As Safe (GRAS) categories. It has been presumed by regulators that the genetically modified microorganisms used during batch fermentation will not be present in the final products. However, the latest research shows this to be a false assumption.

Recent research has found that residual GMM contamination is present in virtually all products produced via batch fermentation using genetically modified microorganisms. A study published in 2025 in the journal Food Chemistry: Molecular Sciences is entitled “Metagenomics-based tracing of genetically modified microorganism contaminations in commercial fermentation products. It reports on a well-hidden and seldom mentioned dirty secret—namely genetic contamination, saying: 

“Genetically modified microorganisms (GMM) are frequently employed for the production of microbial fermentation products such as food enzymes. Although presence of the GMM or its recombinant DNA in the final product is not authorised, contaminations occur frequently.”  

It found GMM contamination in all 16 biosynthesised food enzymes it examined including the very concerning presence of antibiotic resistant genes, thus highlighting possible public health risks of biosynthesis. The GMMs used in batch fermentation are catalytic bacterial engines specifically designed to accelerate and maximise cell proliferation. Their presence equates to a possible theoretical risk of malignant cellular growth and interference with beneficial microbial processes in the gut. We have used the term ‘theoretical’ only because no one has been required to research their real life health outcomes.

A paper entitled rDNA Traces in Fermentation Products Using Genetically Modified Microorganisms (GMMs) spells out the EU policy on such contamination. Apparently to side step the issue, GMM contamination is classified as a ‘residue’ which does not need identification on labels because it is not an ‘ingredient’. An argument which qualifies for the double speak of the year award. It is presumed to be covered by other food legislation designed to protect purity. In fact there is virtually no regulatory effort to test for GMM contamination. In practice, foods produced using GMMs are presumed safe and remain untested. Regulators have given up and bowed to industry pressure. All of these players are fully aware that if GMM processes were identified on labels many consumers would be rightly very cautious and exercise their preference for traditional ingredient sources. The biosynthetic industry wishes to avoid this at all costs as it pushes ahead with more and more genetically modified food substitution.

Our entire food chain has been polluted with GMMs

As a result, genetically engineered bacteria have been rapidly and secretly introduced into the increasingly globalised food chain on a false presumption of safety unsupported by any testing of health outcomes. GMMs are not genetically similar to naturally occurring foods nor can they be presumed safe, they contain artificial sequences of genetic instructions potentially capable of interfering with immune processes key to the maintenance of good health and they are now present in foods across the entire spectrum of supermarket processed and packaged goods. It is well known that even very minor changes in genetic structures down to the level of single codons can critically affect health, but industry, government and regulators are determined to turn a blind eye to the potentially serious risks to health.

We already know that processed foods are at the heart of a burgeoning public health crisis, causing rising rates of cancers, heart disease, inflammation and auto-immune conditions which have suddenly accelerated in recent years. Conversely, as I explain in my book Your DNA Diet, fresh foods from natural sources promote better health outcomes. The biosynthetic revolution is replacing these natural sources using genetically engineered processes. Since 1990, the use of biosynthesis has gradually accelerated in foods, medicines, and the environment. Over the last five years it has become ubiquitous and all but unavoidable for working people. 

To avoid GMMs make an effort to find fresh food sources, go to your local organic supplier or farmers market. Cook at home using traditional methods, do your research, and cooperate with neighbours. Local networks are becoming increasingly important.

The summary point to make here is the novel genetic nature of the contamination. These are not minute traces of potentially toxic chemicals such as pesticides, they are active sequences of genetic instructions capable of interfering with the fundamental basis of our health. In other words, they are prime suspects in the search for the causes of the current tsunami of ill health. Incredibly, our NZ government, rather than tightening up on consumer safeguards and labelling, proposes to completely ignore the warning signs and go full monty on biotech deregulation.

LAST CHANCE TO HAVE YOUR SAY

We are at a crossroads where decisions made will affect us all for generations. Find out more by viewing our YouTube video The Gene Technology Bill. What Kiwis Need To Know and then make a submission to the Health Select Committee this weekend by Monday February 17th. There are many reasons to reject the Gene Technology Bill. We have published suggestions for a submission template, but you can make your own submission of any length. Even just saying that full disclosure labelling of gene edited origins including food ingredients produced via genetically modified microorganisms needs to be mandated will make a significant point. The more submissions that are received, the more it can become clear to the government that we care about our natural foods.

Be warned, MPs are telling their constituents that clear labelling of GMO content will continue as before. This is not the case, the word ‘label’ appears zero times in the Bill, yet it replaces earlier legislation. The Bill will exempt most CRISPR products and all GMMs from any regulation or control. We should not accept politicians misleading us whether intentionally or not.

We do not live in a country where people are willing to let others take away their food choices, their rights, their beliefs and increase exposure to serious long term environmental and health risks. To protect this, we need to stand up and be heard. Keep using your voice at this critical time.

… and Sold to an Unwitting Public.

Last chance to have your say. Submissions close on Monday 17th February

A year ago Jennifer Doudna, Nobel Laureate co-inventor of CRISPR gene editing technology announced a ground breaking project to edit human and animal microbiomes in the gut, promising to cure diseases like asthma and Alzheimer’s and also ameliorate climate change (???) by altering the metabolic processes of animals and humans. Now today the NZ government is proposing to deregulate such biotechnology experimentation including gene editing of microorganisms.

The government is naively and deceptively telling us not to worry because biotech researchers are increasingly and falsely identifying their work as ‘natural’. The NZ Gene Technology Bill will remove any requirement for identification, labelling or regulation of most CRISPR products. The misguided and false assumption of the Gene Technology Bill is that novel CRISPR gene editing is creating an engineered biosynthetic pathway of microbial hosts capable of achieving so-called green synthesis of complex natural substances.  

In other words, corporate giants will be able to replace foods, additives, flavours, processing aids, supplements and over the counter medical interventions commonly sold to the public with cheap biosynthetic alternatives. Under the terms of the Bill, this replacement of traditionally derived natural substances and foods will effectively be unannounced. Manufacturers and distributors will be able to deceptively label their synthetics as ‘natural’ in bold, displayed on the packaging without any need to inform the public of the substitution. 

What does this mean for us? Is it safe? Is this proven technology?

Doudna struts her message on the TED Talks stage telling us that “the essence of being human is our ability to solve problems”. With overwhelming American bravado and self-belief she assures us that her work “will absolutely create solutions to the big problems of disease and climate change”. The sceptics among us might say that the essence of modern technology has been the ability to create unexpected problems. So who is right here?

Doudna announces that she now has the ability to not just use CRISPR to edit the genetics of individual organisms but “to edit and control entire populations of tiny microbes living inside humans known as microbiomes”. She goes on to explain that the CRISPR techniques she is working on can target and edit one type of bacterial genetic structure in an entire microbiome all at once without affecting all the others. In this process, CRISPR is designed to target a particular gene in one type of cell. Forgive me for thinking that this might be music to the ears of whatever dark powers are currently designing bioweapons.

Up until now, Doudna continues, it hasn’t been possible to know how the hundreds of thousands of unique bacterial genotypes living in the human body function, but the field of metagenomics has provided a tool to allow us to figure out what species are present and what they are doing. Together, metagenomics and CRISPR have created a new field of science called precision microbiome editing. Doudna then goes on to say she will be able to prove the new tools are safe and effective and create a transformative future free of problems like climate change and disease.

What’s not to like?

Firstly as we have been reporting (see here and here), CRISPR is not the ultimate precise technique that Doudna claims nor has it been successfully curing genetic diseases as she also claims, let alone changing the weather. The results are patchy, a very very small number of people have benefitted in the short term so far, at an astronomical cost, and diseases supposedly cured are routinely reoccurring at high rates. Moreover, the rate of serious adverse side effects is very high and can be life threatening. Chromosomal rearrangements found at the edit site following CRISPR gene editing are mutagenic and potentially harmful.

Another inherent feature of CRISPR editing is the routine creation of Double Strand Breaks (DSBs) in DNA which then need self-repairing. In fact, DSBs are very common in human cells due to natural environmental factors like ultraviolet radiation and they are self-repaired tens of thousands of times a day with virtually 100% accuracy. BUT a 2018 paper entitled Kinetics and Fidelity of the Repair of Cas9-Induced Double-Strand DNA Breaks found that “repair rates following CRISPR editing are variable and often slow. Furthermore, repair of the DSBs tends to be error prone” raising further questions about CRISPR gene editing safety and fidelity. In fact there is only a very superficial equivalence between genome editing and what occurs “naturally.” How breaks in DNA are reversed appears to be different and much less efficient and complete if caused by CRISPR gene editing

A paper published in December 2023 is entitled CRISPR-based gene editing technology and its application in microbial engineering. Written at the same time as Doudna’s talk, it does echo a certain amount of optimistic hope, but it certainly doesn’t share Doudna’s level of certainty and self-promotion. It strikes a number of notes of caution. It discusses attempts to develop CRISPR technologies which avoid harmful DSBs but notes their limitations. 

It reports that microorganism and microbiome gene editing will be used to produce gene modified probiotic food additives, synthetic isoflavones and vitamins (formerly extracted from plants), soil additives and industrial microorganisms to aid the batch production of gene altered products in cell fermentation factories including synthetic foods, feeds, environmental biological products and medicines. 

The article reports there are already several outstanding issues that remain unaddressed. For example, CRISPR Cas9 proteins can be cytotoxic to the host—adversely affecting cell functions. Recently, biotech pioneer Feng Zhang’s team reported a programmable protein delivery system that uses a virulent injection system derived from bacteria. This delivery system can overcome many natural cell protective barriers, such as host cell walls, cell membranes, and the cytosol. Gene editing techniques such as this are highly invasive with highly mobile and potentially long lasting effects. 

For example, a team of researchers at Yale have found Covid spike proteins circulating in the blood of people over two years after mRNA vaccination, raising concerns that genetic sequences may have permanently integrated into their DNA. In other words, the effects of gene editing, once initiated, are hard to shut down. These include toxic off-target effects of the CRISPR-Cas system. This is a significant concern because techniques for efficient detection of off-target events are still unavailable. Technologies for precise and timely shutdown of the CRISPR-Cas system activity are also absent, leaving the host vulnerable to the negative impact of external elements.

Metagenomic research demonstrates that synthetic foods are highly contaminated with toxic genetic sequences known to pose a danger to public health 

At the core of the Gene Technology Bill is a schizophrenic dysfunctional attitude to health. A miasma of confusion has been hung over the issues with talk of as yet non-existent far-fetched benefits and cures. On the one hand we constantly read articles pointing out that ultra-processed foods are at the heart of our public health crisis, causing cancers, heart disease, inflammation and auto-immune conditions. The articles urge us to go green, eat more fruit and vegetables, and cut down on the packaged supermarket foods. On the other hand, the government is proposing that gene edited synthetic foods, arguably the ultimate invasion of our traditional food preferences, should be allowed to be sold not just without identification or labelling but with the deceptive moniker NATURAL tacked on. How crazy is that? You tell me.

A study published in 2025 in the journal Food Chemistry: Molecular Sciences is entitled “Metagenomics-based tracing of genetically modified microorganism contaminations in commercial fermentation products. It reports on a well hidden and seldom mentioned, yet huge problem with foods produced through biosynthetic batch cell fermentation—namely genetic contamination, saying: 

“Genetically modified microorganisms (GMM) are frequently employed for the production of microbial fermentation products such as food enzymes. Although presence of the GMM or its recombinant DNA in the final product is not authorized, contaminations occur frequently.”  

It found GMM contamination in all 16 biosynthesised food enzymes it examined including the very concerning presence of antibiotic resistant genes, thus emphasising the public health risks of biosynthesis. The important point to make here is the genetic nature of the contamination. These are not minute traces of potentially toxic chemicals such as pesticides, they are active sequences of genetic instructions capable of interfering with the fundamental basis of our health. In other words, they are prime suspects in the search for the causes of the current tsunami of ill health. Incredibly, our government proposes to completely ignore these warning signs and go full monty on biotech deregulation

LAST CHANCE TO HAVE YOUR SAY

We are at a crossroads where decisions made will affect us all for generations. Find out more by viewing our YouTube video The Gene Technology Bill. What Kiwis Need To Know and then make a submission to the Health Select Committee by Monday February 17th. There are many reasons to reject the Gene Technology Bill. We have published suggestions for a submission template, but you can make your own submission of any length. Even just saying that full disclosure labelling of gene edited origins including food ingredients produced via genetically modified microorganisms needs to be mandated will make a significant point. The more submissions that are received, the more it can become clear to the government that we care about our natural foods.

Be warned ,MPs are telling their constituents that labelling will continue as before. This is not the case, the word ‘label’ appears zero times in the Bill, yet it replaces earlier legislation. The Bill will exempt most CRISPR products from any regulation or control. We should not accept politicians misleading us whether intentionally or not.

We do not live in a country where people are willing to let others take away their food choices, their rights, their beliefs and increase exposure to serious long term environmental and health risks. To protect this, we need to stand up and be heard. Keep using your voice at this critical time.

… but Not the One Our Government is Busy Promoting

The New Zealand pandemic experience potentially offers huge lessons for the world because our population was vaccinated BEFORE COVID-19 infection took hold. This was because our borders were rigidly controlled during 2020/21 and any break out infections were rapidly tracked down and isolated. This means the effect of Pfizer COVID-19 mRNA vaccination can be studied in New Zealand in isolation from any confounding factor of COVID-19 infection. Moreover, as a result of our border policy, New Zealand largely avoided the more severe Alpha and Delta strains.

This article is also available as a PDF to download, print, and share and as an audio version.

However, successive Labour and Coalition governments working with the medical authorities have largely distorted the data and the narrative to paint themselves in a favourable but grossly distorted light. The myth that New Zealand pandemic vaccination policy saved New Zealand from the worst of the pandemic has been widely promoted on the national and world stages. 

The Gene Technology Bill now seeks to promote New Zealand as a country so insulated from the wider world that genetic experimentation on the whole population can ‘safely’ and ‘profitably’ take place. 

The evidence shows the result will be neither safe nor profitable. The government has decided to put the whole nation at risk for the sake of their grandiose but ultimately disturbed and destructive ambitions.

The efforts to hide the devastating effects that the vaccine had on everyday Kiwi lives and health continues. Scientists at Otago University have just published a paper in the journal Brain, Behaviour and Immunity entitled “COVID-19 may Enduringly Impact Cognitive Performance and Brain Haemodynamics in Undergraduate Students“. This paper is receiving significant international attention. Its conclusions are being widely reported. The study of 94 Otago undergraduates found:

• Cognitive engagement induced distinct prefrontal haemodynamic (blood flow) patterns post COVID-19 indicative of that known to be suffered by adults four decades older as a result of ageing.
• 40% of the undergraduate students self-reported persistent brain fog due to COVID-19.
• 37% of the undergraduates exhibited impaired cognition up to 17 months post-infection as measured by psychological tests with the suggestion that this could be impairing their executive brain function.

The authors concluded: “These results provide new insights into the potential neuropathogenic mechanisms influencing cognitive impairment following COVID-19 infection”.

In fact, the authors committed a grave scientific error/omission that had the effect of completely hiding and/or distorting the possible conclusions that could be drawn from the results. Because of Otago University vaccine mandates and New Zealand government policy, all of the subjects in the study were fully COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated BEFORE they participated in the study and BEFORE they became infected with COVID-19 at any time. This crucial fact was not reported by the authors. 

75 (80%) of the subjects had had a prior COVID-19 infection confirmed by a PCR or RAT test. The remaining 19 (20%) were automatically categorised as a COVID-19-free group. The authors suggestion that COVID-19 negatively affected cognitive ability is significantly undermined by their own finding that: 

“On average, the covid-19 group did not perform worse on the cognitive tests than the non-covid group.” 

In other words, the authors accepted that the COVID-19 group were suffering from cognitive decline but ignored the fact that the cognitive status of the COVID-19-free group was apparently similarly impaired. This finding is a classic scientific indicator of a hidden causal factor shared by both groups. COVID-19 vaccination was shared by both groups but ignored by the authors. In doing so, the authors also ignored prior results that COVID-19 vaccination affects psychiatric status such as a 2024 study of 2 million health records entitled “Psychiatric adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination: a population-based cohort study in Seoul, South Korea” and public data on declining behaviour and attainment in educational settings some of which we discuss and/or refer to in our article “Steep Rise in Autism Cases“. 

Moreover, the very high rate of cognitive decline found in students also undermines the promoted public narrative that COVID-19 vaccination is protecting people from the most serious effects of COVID-19. From this perspective the results are damning for the COVID-19 vaccine whichever way you interpret them.

The pattern of omission evident in the Otago article has been repeated again and again in an effort to hide the negative effects of COVID-19 vaccination from the New Zealand public. The practice of averaging the very low mortality rates in 2020, when we had no COVID-19 and virtually no seasonal respiratory infections, with subsequent years in order to minimise the apparent impact of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination on mortality is a case in point. 

We conducted a time series analysis of publicly released weekly data of mortality among the over 60s and COVID-19 vaccination rates during the 2021 COVID-19 vaccine rollout (before COVID-19 reached our shores). We found a positive causal relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and all cause deaths at a one week lag during the COVID-19 vaccine roll out period (t(33) = 1.74, p = 0.045 one-tailed). Statistical tests showed the results cannot be plausibly attributed to spurious regression due to non-stationarity. The analysis found that vaccination was associated with 434 additional all cause deaths during the week immediately following vaccination among individuals aged 60+. Although there is some temporal unreliability in New Zealand data reporting, the finding is significant.

In other words, a careful examination of the effects of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination prior to any exposure to COVID-19 infection whatsoever, indicates that sudden unexplained deaths were already happening and particularly affecting those over 60. This kind of data, free of any confounding effect of COVID-19 infection, is unique to New Zealand and should have resolved any remaining doubt about the serious risks of COVID-19 vaccination. Instead the government conspired with the media and the health service to promote a false narrative that their COVID-19 vaccination strategy was both safe and effective. 

In fact, Medsafe did not follow up the vast majority (almost all) of the thousands of reports of COVID-19 vaccine injury submitted to CARM, our pharmacovigilance system. They are still omitting to do so today. Instead, pretending without evidence that COVID-19 vaccination has only a very limited range of generally mild adverse effects that can only be ascribed to vaccination for a short time following the jab. In other words, the assumption that no adverse effects emerging over a longer term are plausibly related to COVID-19 vaccination. An assumption that is widely recognised in standard scientific literature to be false.

New Zealand is not alone in distorting the evidence and ignoring the obvious. The UK Telegraph headlines today “I’m a doctor – this is how I’d bring the NHS back from the brink“. The article asks what has happened to the NHS which was formerly hailed as heroic during the peak of the pandemic? It now has a waiting list for treatment currently standing at 7.5 million and 54,000 people a month waiting more than 12 hours in emergency departments. A story very similar to that of our health service. Five frontline medics are asked what they would do to fix it. 

A surgeon says “We need surgical hubs to speed through the waiting list” which involves 6.3 million people waiting for 7.5 million procedures.

An ED medic says “We need 10,000 more beds to cut A&E wait times”.

A dementia expert says “We need to diagnose more dementia cases”

A GP says “We need thousands more family doctors.”

A cancer doctor says “The NHS needs a cancer plan backed by millions of pounds”

All of them fail to ask “Why are there so many more health emergencies involving cancer, dementia, heart disease, etc. than before the pandemic?”

Despite the tsunami of illness, the health authorities in New Zealand have continued to refuse repeated requests to dig into their data records and compare the health outcomes of COVID-19 vaccinated populations with non-vaccinated populations. 

The cause of the COVID-19 vaccination health disaster is not difficult to apprehend. mRNA vaccines are designed to efficiently cross the protective cell membrane and repurpose the cellular functions. They do so in billions of our cells and the effects have been found to persist for longer than a year. Life begins with a single cell whose structure and function necessarily has a functional correspondence with the physiological systems that subsequently develop from it. Crucially these include our cardiac, digestive and immune systems which protect us from serious illness. It is not too far of a reach to realise that disruption of the function of billions of cells implies disruption of fundamental physiological and psychological functions on a grand scale. Such concerns have been examined and evaluated at our GLOBE website.

The Gene Technology Bill currently before Parliament, which will essentially deregulate biotechnology experimentation including novel procedures that invade and edit the cell like mRNA vaccination, is a direct offence to the duty of care the government owes to the people. Many of you have been meeting their local MPs and expressing your concerns. Some have relayed to us the outcomes. 

When shown evidence of COVID-19 vaccine adverse effects, as reported in the Pfizer March 2021 Post Marketing Report, one MP expressed horror, saying it could have happened to him. He reported that the only information the government leadership had shared with MPs so far described the Bill as “an unprecedented economic opportunity”. He plans to ask questions, so that was a win.

When asked, another MP, who apparently had a hand in promoting the Bill, admitted he had not told his wife, who is known to advocate a natural diet, about the Bill “in order to avoid her becoming anxious”.

The Hon. Shane Reti who is in charge of the Bill refused to meet “Because he is a Minister”.

ACT representatives have apparently been well schooled to defame me incorrectly as “a nut job with a dodgy PhD”. Thus deftly switching to ad hominem, thereby bypassing any need to address concerns seriously or look at recently published science. This amounts to a childish anti-science outlook.

In another report, we heard about a National representative dismissing concerns “as outdated fear mongering” without being prepared to discuss the issues or look at the evidence.

As many resort to knee-jerk, uninformed mud slinging, clearly all your efforts and submissions have rattled the cage. We need to keep this up. We have to use our voice. Everyone’s well argued efforts at a common sense and science based approach are starting to hit the mark. Particularly, concerns about the potential economic impact of an open gene technology policy on our agricultural export markets and prices are hitting home. Coalition MPs have been schooled to think that Gene Technology is an economic miracle in the making, they had better think again. The evidence points to a catastrophe that we have been carefully reporting and referencing for weeks. Ignoring the evidence amounts to a wilful act of misplaced faith which ignores the public good and will ultimately destabilise our nation.

The Gene Technology Bill will completely exempt most gene altered products from any kind of scrutiny, regulation or labelling. We are at a crossroads where decisions made will affect us all for generations. Find out more by viewing our YouTube video The Gene Technology Bill. What Kiwis Need To Know and then make a submission to the Health Select Committee by February 17th. There are many reasons to reject the Gene Technology Bill. We have published suggestions for a submission template. Write to your MP. They need to be thoroughly quizzed on this egregious Bill.

We would also like to suggest that you can meet with the local franchise owners of Pak’nSave or New World supermarkets and talk about the need for accurate labelling and traceability of gene altered foods which is being abandoned against consumer preferences.

We do not live in a country where people are willing to let others take away their food choices, their rights, their beliefs and increase exposure to serious long term environmental and health risks. To protect this, we need to stand up and be heard.

We have arrived at the crossroads of our lifetime

There is little doubt in anyone’s mind that we are at a crossroads. New Zealand legislation is in progress to deregulate biotechnology experimentation. If passed, the general public will become guinea pigs in a raft of diverse projects. Unlabelled gene edited foods will fill our plates and affect our gut unannounced.

This article is also available as a PDF to download, print, and share and as an audio version.

The mainstay of our economy—high quality agricultural products—will be downgraded to bargain basement GMO-tainted products subject to overseas consumer suspicion and likely trade barriers. The scope of medical interventions and prescriptions will be broadened to include treatments and drugs with unsustainable costs that pose higher risks to patients with uncertain long term outcomes. This post examines the fundamental problems with biotechnology and suggests causes of known adverse effects.

Incredibly, by seeking to pass the Bill, the government is prejudging the outcome of Phase 2 of the Royal Commission on Covid-19 which is scheduled to address safety issues of novel biotech medical interventions introduced for the first time in New Zealand during the pandemic. Nevertheless, we should examine in detail the claim of the government that the removal of our traditional precautionary approach to medicine and agriculture will somehow benefit the nation and move us forward into a so-called bright technological future.

According to the government, biotech experimentation promises that diseases caused by single gene mutations can be positively ameliorated by CRISPR gene editing, while mRNA vaccine types and other methods of cell modification are believed to offer hope to cancer sufferers. Two weeks ago we published an article lifting the lid on the poor results of such procedures to date entitled “The Big Debate: How Many New Doctors Will NZ Need if the Gene Technology Bill is Passed?“. Nevertheless we have to admit it might be possible for the layman to pass a harsh judgement on anyone who attempts to question or hold up medical progress.

So why are we at the Hatchard Report still so firmly concerned about gene technology? Are we denying an opportunity for people to get well? No.

An article in the UK Guardian last week announced Groundbreaking’ sickle cell disease treatment approved for NHS use in England‘. The NHS has approved treatment of sickle cell anaemia patients with CRISPR treatments developed by Vertex technologies called exa-cel at a projected minimum cost of NZ$3.6 million per patient. The article claimed that “Clinical trials had found one-time gene therapy exa-cel offers a ‘functional cure’ in 96.6% of patients”. There are 15,000 people in the UK suffering from the disease which causes debilitating blockages in the venous blood system known as vaso-occlusive events. So with that astounding rate of reported success, even with the huge price tag, who would want to stop its roll out?

It is always best to refer back to the results of the actual clinical trial to verify the details. They were published by the New England Journal of Medicine in April 2024 under the title “Exagamglogene Autotemcel for Severe Sickle Cell Disease“. In all, 44 patients have received the treatment over a four year period, which is designed to reactivate fetal haemoglobin production by inserting short genetic sequences in the erythroid enhancer region of a patient’s own haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) using CRISPR gene editing. In the trial’s terms, ‘success’ was strictly limited to meaning that a patient remained free of vaso-occlusive events for any 12 month period following the procedure. The study did not report any assessment of, or changes in the very extensive range of other symptoms commonly associated with sickle cell disease.

The study only reported follow up of 30 out of the 44 patients (2/3 or 68% of the participants). Of these, 29 experienced a period of 12 months free of hospitalisation for vaso-occlusive events in contrast to their previous history of regularly occurring severe episodes leading to a claim of 97% success. However this figure is deceptive, 6 patients did in fact experience severe vaso-occlusive crises after exa-cel infusion. Inexplicably, 4 of these were excluded from the analysis. Their inclusion would have dropped the narrowly defined success rate from 97%, as naively reported by the Guardian, to 84%. All of which leads to the suspicion of a PR promotional tactic touting deceptive headline efficacy percentages, much as happened during the COVID-19 vaccine roll out.

Crucially 42 (95%) of the participants experienced severe adverse events at grades 3 or 4 following the infusion of exa-cel. A grade 4 adverse medical event is a life-threatening or disabling event that requires immediate medical intervention. The most common of these experienced by exa-cel patients were:

Stomatitis (in 55% of the patients) which is inflammation of the mouth’s mucous membranes causing painful sores that make it difficult to eat, drink, or swallow, 

Febrile Neutropenia (in 48%) which is a medical condition where a patient experiences a fever alongside a significantly low count of neutrophils, a type of white blood cell crucial for fighting infection. This is considered a medical emergency requiring prompt diagnosis and treatment. 

Decreased Platelet Count (in 48%), also known as thrombocytopenia, which can increase the risk of bleeding, especially from the mouth, nose, and gastrointestinal tract. In severe cases, it can be life-threatening. 

The other severe adverse events experienced by patients included anaemia, abdominal pain, lymphocyte count decrease, gallstones, pruritus (skin itch), constipation, headache, nausea, chest pain, pneumonia, arthralgia, deep vein thrombosis, loss of appetite, weight loss, and back pain. In 20 patients these events were judged especially serious, but incredibly the authors concluded that none of these could be positively related to exa-cel infusion. At least one patient died partly as a result of the busulfan chemotherapy which is a required adjunct to exa-cel treatment.

There are an estimated 15,000 individuals in the UK suffering from sickle cell disease. Due to the cost of the procedure, the NHS will only be able to fund 50 patients a year, less than the 300 new babies born with the condition each year. Given the huge cost, the very low bar set for so-called success, the absence of long term evaluation and the high rate of adverse effects, it is virtually impossible to justify the expense or the risks. Especially when the NHS is faced with a funding crisis, hospital overcrowding, long delays in specialist treatment and massive ED wait times. See for example this UK Telegraph article ‘Corridor care used to be seen as unacceptable – now it’s the norm’. Much the same as the situation here in New Zealand where FSA (first specialist appointment) wait times for example are still rising steadily despite government efforts, whilst ED nightmare waits have become ordinary. 

Our conclusion: the money might be more wisely spent elsewhere in the health service to the benefit of a much larger number of people.

You may say this is just the beginning. Every new technology has its teething issues. Shouldn’t we be listening to the Trumpian bombast of the billionaire tech moguls or the futuristic internet prophets calling us to embrace our transhuman AI biotech future. To this we reply ‘look back in anger’ on the five wasted years of the pandemic with its economic mayhem, social isolation, and excess deaths. Just remember that ‘all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put humpty together again’. COVID-19 with its biotech origins could not be contained, prevented, recalled or remediated. It spread without limit and has become an enduring part of the ill health landscape. 

This is still going on around the world and here in New Zealand today. An article in Newsroom entitled “Cardiac and mental illnesses fuel surging benefits bill reports Jobseeker beneficiary numbers continue to rise to record levels in spite of a government overhaul aimed at shifting more people into employment. Numbers claiming benefits due to disability or ill health rose by 16% in 2024, now costing double that in pre-pandemic 2019. The article reported:

“Psychological or psychiatric conditions are the most common issue among those in the ‘health condition or disability’ bracket, with 46,920 claiming benefits last year for issues like depression and anxiety. The biggest five-year uptick is in cardiovascular disorders, which have risen 54.9 percent since December 2019 with 4194 claimants off work due to heart and blood vessel problems last year. The largest representative age group of health-related benefit claimants in 2024 was 25-39-year-olds, but the 18-24 year-old group had the largest five-year proportional increase in numbers, at 58 percent.”

Why? The answer brings us to our main reason for grave concern about biotechnology safety. This relates to fundamental principles, some of which we discussed in our article at GLOBE last week entitled “The Future of New Zealand is Written in the History of Biotech Mutation“. We can state our concerns succinctly: 

Gene editing by definition crosses the cell membrane and redefines genetic processes known to be fundamental to our physical health and mental well being.

A study published in November 2024 entitled “The Role of Cells in Encoding and Storing Information: A Narrative Review of Cellular Memory” concludes 

“Multiple studies have demonstrated that memories can be encoded and stored in cells. Evidence suggests that these memories can then be transferred between individuals through organ transplantation….but there has been a noticeable lack of research focused on cellular memory, and more rigorous investigations are needed to uncover how cells participate in memory and the extent to which these processes influence human behaviour and cognition.”

‘Lack of research’ is a gross understatement, more properly, the role of awareness in biotechnology has been deliberately excluded from study. What does this mean for us? Memory plays a crucial role in forming our thoughts and behaviour. The outcomes of previous actions and experiences imprint themselves in our cells as memories. When faced with similar circumstances they float to the surface of awareness and determine our responses. In this way past experiences control present choices and determine the future.

Memories are considered by everyone to be a private space. It is almost unthinkable that routine medical procedures being urged for all might disrupt them. In reality, our consciousness, our state of mind is intimately entwined at every level with our internal cellular structure and external cellular networks. Genetic interventions, which cross the cell membrane, invade our personal space in ways that are not understood or acknowledged.

At its most fundamental level, awareness has a 3 in 1 structure. Knower, knowing and known are linked together. These emerge from the totality of awareness, our BEING. The holistic quality of being awake necessarily implies an observer, process of observation and object of observation—the 3 in 1 structure of awareness. It is no accident that the cell also has a three in one structure. The WHOLE cell comprises the nucleus, the cytoplasm and the membrane. The DNA in the nucleus is a silent observer of the complex processes in cytoplasm which connect to the protective membrane, the gateway to the extracellular world. Awareness and cellular structure are two aspects of the same fundamental 3 in 1 reality.

The determining factor in this arrangement is the HOLISTIC nature of BEING. Being or awareness sits at the fulcrum point of life. BEING is able to express itself through the precise structure of the cell. The cell has a history just as the whole organism has a history. This history is the personal record of BEING expressing itself in an individual life. It includes the cultural and genetic history of the family, referred to as whakapapa in Maori culture. This is the golden pathway of individual evolution created and guided by the universal BEING. 

The experience of deep meditation or ecstatic spiritual insight reveals that BEING is a field of BLISS. It is truth, intelligence and bliss in a unified field of pure awareness. It is the deep field of universal silence which quietly guides and nurtures individual life. This is the truth of Michelangelo’s depiction on the Sistine Chapel ceiling of God imparting the spark of life to Adam. The Creator, having created, enters into life. The Kingdom of Heaven is always within. All this insight, experience and expression is quietly and precisely supported and enabled by the physiological and genetic structure of individual human life.

Biotechnology experimentation and gene editing is putting someone’s else’s creation into the midst of our path of individual evolution. Not only can it disrupt memory and thereby alter our future thoughts and actions, as is known to happen following organ transplants, but it can disrupt our capacity to connect with the source of life itself. It can disconnect the individual from the flow of the bliss of life.

People these days are often reluctant to open up about their spiritual and cultural experiences and insights. If you feel that is outside your approach to life, just evaluate your personal experiences of the effect of gene technology during pandemic years. If these were limited or unclear, refer to the hard facts of scientific findings. All these factors point in the same concerning direction.

Considering that 90% of our eligible population received an mRNA vaccine which repurposed internal cellular genetic functions, is it any wonder that 46,920 working age people in New Zealand are unable to work because of “psychological or psychiatric conditions”  including depression and anxiety as the latest Ministry of Social Development’s figures show? 

This view is confirmed by a 2024 study of 2 million health records entitled “Psychiatric adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination: a population-based cohort study in Seoul, South Korea“. It found: “The cumulative incidence of depression, anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders, sleep disorders, and sexual disorders at three months following COVID-19 vaccination were higher in the vaccination group than the no vaccination group.” and concluded: “special precautions are necessary for administering additional COVID-19 vaccinations to populations vulnerable to psychiatric AEs.” which should include, according to the authoritative Harvard Medical School, well over half of the world’s population who will suffer mental illness during their lifetime.

Dr Luke Bradford, medical director at the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners blamed the astounding sudden rise in mental illness on ‘societal behaviours’ including unemployment. Since society is composed of individual behaviours, this does sound rather like a puzzling misleading circular argument devoid of any explanatory power.

An even greater puzzle is the response to Newsroom by Louise Upston, Social Development and Employment Minister, who said reforms made to the benefit system in August last year are “delivering results”. I suppose she just forgot to mention these were the wrong kind of results. It does make you wonder whether some government ministers would be better off opting for a disability benefit themselves. 

The lessons of this article are clear. At one end of gene technology disruption lies the introduction of gene altered and synthetic foods which cut off the supply of nature’s intelligence to our digestive system. The Gene Technology Bill is proposing to remove all regulation, precautionary testing and labelling from this sector. We won’t know what we are eating or its potential effects. At the other end even more powerful effects of genetic medical interventions will disrupt our health and well being. Who wants to buy into this nightmare?

In the continuing vein of government disinformation and double speak, there is an all court press in progress to suppress public discussion of the Gene Technology Bill. Facebook and Instagram posts on the subject are being throttled and censored. Political representatives are pouring scorn on concerns, describing them wrongly as “outdated fear mongering”. No corroborating evidence offered.  If you want to be sure to receive up to date information subscribe to the Hatchard Report. Unlike the government, we publish scientific references and engage in open public debate. We are not afraid to ask questions.

The Gene Technology Bill will completely exempt most gene altered products from any kind of scrutiny, regulation or labelling. We are at a crossroads where decisions made will affect us all for generations. Find out more by viewing our YouTube video The Gene Technology Bill. What Kiwis Need To Know and then make a submission to the Health Select Committee by February 17th. There are many reasons to reject the Gene Technology Bill. We have published suggestions for a submission template. Write to your MP. They need to be thoroughly quizzed on this egregious Bill.

We do not live in a country where people are willing to let others take away their food choices, their rights, their beliefs and increase exposure to serious long term environmental and health risks. To protect this, we need to stand up and be heard.

In the 1980s, I bought a Casio handheld programmable calculator and amused myself writing routines that solved algebraic equations, but I soon realised that calculators turn off the thinking process.

This article is also available as a PDF to download, print, and share.

The ubiquitous use of calculators in schools has since created generations of mathematically deficient graduates. Predictive text, AI assisted writing, and the decline of reading is now doing the same for language. To some extent we have adapted to these concerning side effects of technology, but what if some technology could prevent us from thinking straight? What would be the consequences? Or more to the point, is it already happening?

In November last year we published an article “mRNA Vaccines, Cognitive Dissonance and our Future Prospects” in which we reported on rises in cancer incidence and the public warnings being sounded by leading UK oncologists about the role of mRNA vaccines. There has been some push back. Apparently some medical authorities are in denial, they say there is no cancer epidemic taking place. What does the latest data tell us: Yes or No?

Last night I wanted to know how many people were developing cancer in Sweden because there were no lockdowns in the country. It is an interesting question for us because recent media reports of sudden cancer tragedies have been blamed on lockdowns which, according to a widely reported narrative, delayed appointments for check ups and tests at hospitals. Let’s be clear about it, delays could not actually ‘cause’ cancer, only, as the Lancet reports, complicate treatment and affect outcomes.

In our article “The Big Debate: How many new doctors will NZ need if the Gene Technology Bill is passed?”, we reported official UK figures revealing a 50% rise in bowel cancer in 2022 among working age people. Despite this, Professor Pat Price, oncologist and chair of Radiotherapy UK, offered this blanket rebuke to those concerned enough to ask why: “Covid vaccines aren’t causing cancer”. Vaccinologist Helen Petousis-Harris here in New Zealand agrees. She wrote an article in October 2024 for the Global Vaccine Data Network, which she co-directs, entitled “‘Turbo Cancer’ and mRNA: The myth that defies biology and physics” which warns:

““Turbo Cancer” is a term loosely thrown around by conspiracy theorists to describe supposedly aggressive and fast-developing cancers seen post-vaccination, but remember it’s a theory in search of facts, and the facts just aren’t there.”

Petousis-Harris’ offers the same blanket argument as Professor Pat Price, “Vaccines protect against cancer, they do not cause it”. Whilst acknowledging that COVID-19 vaccines employ a novel biotechnology, Harris dismisses any suggestion or theory that they could trigger cancer, instead saying “Vaccines of all kinds have been used for centuries and so far, none have been associated with an increase in cancer risk.”

Harris’ killer argument was supposedly contained in US data from NIH National Cancer Institute, Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program which she presents in a graph. Deceptively, Harris’ graph has the year 2022 tacked onto the x axis, but the SEER data actually ends in 2021. A clever trick straight out of the false advertising playbook. In common with a lot of other countries, including New Zealand which stopped publishing cancer data in 2020, the US has inexplicably delayed the publication of key health data. The Swedish data I found clarifies what is going on.

Cancer typically takes years to develop, so what happened in 2022?

Sweden didn’t have lockdowns and they are continuing to publish annual cancer incidence data. Google AI Overview informed me that 69,621 new cases of cancer were diagnosed in Sweden in 2017 and then somehow got stuck and started imagining that there were also 69,261 cases in 2016 and 2015. It wasn’t too much of a problem because I never rely on AI suggestions. I go back to the source data. Table 1 has the official numbers of new cancer cases in Sweden by year published by Socialstyrelsen, Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare.

Compared to the average of the pre-pandemic years (2015-2019) when figures remained relatively stable, cancer incidence jumped by 10.9% in 2022 and pushed slightly higher in 2023. In all, it appears there were approximately 20,000 additional cases of cancer over the two years 2022 and 2023 more than you would expect from the historical trend. BUT it wasn’t due to lockdowns, they didn’t happen in Sweden. So what was the cause? The timing of the rapid increase is indicative and certainly favours COVID-19 vaccines. 87% of Sweden’s population over the age of 12 received at least one COVID-19 vaccine in 2021. It is possible that COVID-19 infection also played a role but far less likely as COVID-19 had its most severe impact in 2020. In any case, the exact relative importance of these two possible factors doesn’t influence an important implication of the figures, both COVID-19 vaccines and likely COVID-19 itself came out of biotechnology labs and exposed our internal cellular biology and immunity processes to novel bio-engineered genetic structures.

If COVID-19 vaccines are at fault, as some senior UK Oncologists like Dr Angus Dalgleish and Dr James Royle think, (who btw are not conspiracy theorists, a term that is often used to shut down legitimate discussion about valid concerns) the timing also indicates that the speed of post mRNA vaccine cancer development qualifies for the epithet ‘turbo’.

I wonder whether Professor Pat Price, oncologist and chair of Radiotherapy UK, or Helen Petousis-Harris, associate professor in the Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care at the University of Auckland, have given any serious thought to the cause of rapidly rising cancer incidence? Causality is not rocket science. The gold standard involves identifying the timing of new elements or sudden changes in diet, behaviour, environmental exposure or medical interventions.

The Swedish data clears up one point, it wasn’t lockdowns. In fact that explanation was never plausible. Delays in testing do not cause cancer, they merely delay treatments which might affect mortality, but not incidence. The figures for 2022 indicate a sudden very large unprecedented rise in cancer incidence. As a result, the list of usual cancer suspects doesn’t apply. In 2021 over a short period of time whole populations did not suddenly begin to eat vastly more junk foods, avoid exercise altogether, ban breastfeeding, or purposely add pesticides to their meals, but almost everyone did get COVID-19 mRNA vaccinated in a hurry.

The Biotech paradigm is collapsing

Biotechnology knows next to nothing about the interaction between consciousness and genetic structures. Consciousness is a subject virtually excluded from biology. Yet there are sound reasons and a number of experimental results which suggest a deep connection that relies on the uniformity of genetic information and structure among our 37 trillion human cells. How gene therapy might affect that connection is the great unknown of the genetic era. It can only be ignored to our great peril, and make no mistake it is being ignored and denied by those anxious to save their skins

Denial is a rather concerning medical response to a cancer epidemic. Doctors are sworn to do no harm. They should be reaching for the emergency button. The right kind of research at this point would involve comparing the health outcomes of the vaccinated with the unvaccinated over the relevant time periods. Any doctor should know this, it is taught in medical science 101. Hiding the data seems criminal. The entirely false certainty projected by the so-called fact checking of social media, the complicity of mainstream media and the AI driven endorsement of widely held yet false opinions is only adding to the isolation of ideas from facts. As a result some among our tribe of experts have stopped thinking straight, clutching at straws rather than give up outdated paradigms and preconceptions from the pre-biotech era. Ultimately the data does not lie, but apparently some people have decided to sleep easily with deception.

Despite the difficulties, uncertainties and challenges of the last five years of the pandemic, incredibly, our government has decided to deregulate biotechnology experimentation. This course creates serious risks that will negatively affect us all including a risk of developing cancers. Find out more by viewing our YouTube video The Gene Technology Bill. What Kiwis Need To Know and then make a submission to the Health Select Committee by February 17th. There are many reasons to reject the Gene Technology Bill. We have published suggestions for a submission template. Write to your MP. They need to be quizzed on this egregious Bill. They are trying to get this fast tracked during the holidays.

We do not live in a country where people are willing to let others take away their food choices, their rights, their beliefs and increase exposure to serious long term environmental and health risks.