Home Blog Page 3

What Did an MP Say About the Giant Alarming Cancer Study?

Guy Hatchard
-
0
What Did an MP Say About the Giant Alarming Cancer Study?

Tom Rutherford, National MP for Bay of Plenty, is described by his party as an exciting young political prospect who is bringing experience and fresh insights to parliament. In his spare time Tom is a voluntary fireman, plays cricket and spends time with his partner. He is lauded as follows:

“His political journey stems from a desire to serve his community and tackle pressing issues. He emphasises active listening and humility in public service. Committed to building on past efforts, Rutherford aims to contribute to New Zealand’s progress for future generations. He believes that everyone deserves a fair shot at life.”

Just the sort of good Kiwi bloke we need in parliament, or is he?

Two days ago we reported at lengthย a peer reviewed study published in a scientific journalย covering the health records of all 8.4 million residents of Seoul, South Korea. under the title “A Cancer Study that Changes Everything with Results that Can’t Be Ignored“. The study found an alarming relative increase of 27% in cancer incidence among COVID-19 vaccinated individuals when compared to the unvaccinated over the one year period following their shots.ย 

Following publication of our article, we received a lot of correspondence and comments. Mostly positive, but some dismissive. It is well worth looking at these in depth. Some people were concerned enough to forward our email and the study to their MP. Tom Rutherford wrote back promptly. I reprint his reply in full:

Hi ………,

Thank you for taking the time to write and for sharing your concerns.

I understand that the Gene Technology Bill is an issue many New Zealanders feel strongly about, and that change in areas like this can feel deeply unsettling.

However, I do not agree with the claims made about mRNA vaccines causing a 27% increase in cancer, or that there is a “war on humanity”. These statements are not supported by credible evidence, and it’s important we base decisions on robust science, not misinformation.

The purpose of the Gene Technology Bill is not to remove safety protections, but to modernise rules that are nearly 30 years old, while strengthening safeguards, improving transparency, and ensuring New Zealand isn’t left behind in medical, environmental, and agricultural innovation.

Key protections being added or strengthened include:

  • Mandatory registration and public disclosure of exempt organisms released into the environment
  • Independent regulatory oversight, separate from ministerial direction
  • Annual reporting to Parliament and a full statutory review after four years

The Bill seeks to balance innovation with public safety, public scrutiny, and scientific rigour. It is notย a free-for-all, and it does notย override health safeguards or allow unchecked experimentation. I will continue to take a careful, evidence-based approach as the Bill progresses, weighing up both opportunity and risk. Thank you again for writing, and for engaging on something you care deeply about.

Thanks,

Tom

Tom was right about one thing, if he had read our article carefully or clicked on the link to the study, he would have realised that cancer incidence did not increase by 27%, but rather the incidence among people receiving a COVID-19 vaccine was 27% higher than among those unvaccinated. Instead, Tom labelled the cancer increase as lacking anyย ‘credibility’ย and added that word that ends all dialogueย ‘misinformation’. He went on to assure his constituent that he was able toย “balance innovation with public safety, public scrutiny, and scientific rigour.”ย But he didn’t cite any scientific evidence of his own. He went onย “I will continue to take a careful, evidence-based approach as the Bill progresses, weighing up both opportunity and risk.”ย You can tell me what you think of Tom’s approach.

Houston we have a problem

I don’t really want to single out Tom, he is just one of 123 MPs, most of whom seem to be addicted to an annoying habit of dismissing alarming results of newly published scientific studies. Tom did send a reply to his constituent. Most MPs no longer bother if the inquiry is about COVID-19 vaccine safety or the Gene Technology Bill. At best, MPs send out a form letter with the same trite phrases used by Tom, promising regulatory oversight, stronger safeguards, transparency, not being left behind in the modern world, etc none of which hold up to scientific scrutiny or correctly represent the likely effect of the provisions of the Gene Technology Bill. As the weight of evidence of COVID-19 vaccine harm has mounted, these form letters amount to an outright rejection of public health imperatives and the sanctity of human life. None of this makes any sense anymore and the MPs who are glibly ignoring scientific evidence need to be called out.

Criticism of our report and the actual study was not limited to MPs, some people from the medical profession and some anonymous critics wrote to tell us to stop publishingย ‘misinformation’.ย These people could not deny that cancer incidence increased among the COVID-19 vaccinated relative to the unvaccinated, it definitely did and the size and scale of the increase was certainly scientifically and statistically significant. Instead they wrote to say that something else must be causing the cancer among the vaccinated. The main argument ran as follows:ย people who got COVID-19 vaccines did so because they were already sick and afraid of getting COVID-19, some of them must have already had cancer that had been developing undetected for some time. When their pre-existing sickness necessitated a doctor visit the cancer was fortuitously discovered.

The critics responding to our article presented no evidence that this was the case. I am sure you can work out for yourself that their suggestion is highly unlikely if not preposterous. However the authors of the study were well aware that they would receive such push back. They did in fact carefully match vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals by prior conditions, to specifically minimise this possibility.

A powerful verification of the study is contained in its finding that the relative cancer risk increased further if a booster shot was taken. Moreover, this was not an isolated finding, it syncs with similar results in studies of Japanese pancreatic cancer survival rates and Italian health data that we have reported previously.

Other critics wrote that cancers mostly take more than one year to develop so prima facie COVID-19 vaccination could not be the cause. That is perhaps the most frightening thing about the study, it did find that cancers wereย ย developing rapidly after COVID-19 vaccination implying that the active genetic sequences in the novel COVID-19 vaccines were interfering with immune system responses to cancer.

There isย much other evidenceย that this could be the case. Most recently for example a study of the health records of the entire 51 million population of South Korea published last week in theย Journal of Infectious Diseasesย is entitled “Incidence of Respiratory Infections after the COVID-19 Pandemic (2023โ€“2024) and Its Association of Vaccination Among Entire Populations in Korea“. This study found significant large increases in the patterns of respiratory infection associated with COVID-19 vaccination. It concluded:

“COVID-19 vaccination may be differentially associated with respiratory infections in the post-pandemic era, reflecting shifts in population-level immunity and highlighting the need for adaptive public health strategies.”

In September our article “It’s not unusual” reported high levels of respiratory infection here in New Zealand. We wrote:

“So what is happening? Our Hatchard Report article yesterday entitled “NZ First’s Intention to Reach a Gene Technology Bill Compromise Would Be a Grave Mistake” offered some insight into the possibility of Horizontal Gene Transfer allowing some of the nastier engineered genetic sequences of COVID-19 to migrate to other illnesses. It can also be that the immunity levels of the whole population have fallen due to the combined effect of COVID-19 and the mRNA Vaccines.”

The results of the just-released population-wide Korean study support our contention.

Two powerful studies of huge data sets which should be raising alarm bells in the corridors of power and the wards of our hospitals. Instead, the powers that be are dismissing the implications as ‘misinformation’. They are refusing to face scientific reality, instead talking about our health crisis and overcrowded hospitals as the result of administrative errors or lack of funding rather than increased illness. 

Worse, they are ignoring the red flags and pushing ahead to deregulate biotechnology. The Gene Technology Bill is listed on the Parliamentary Order Paper for a second reading in the near future.

The assumption of power over truth and science goes right back to the previous Parliament when all parties repeated the ‘safe and effective’ mantra so frequently that they now believe they can decide truth or falsehood without even looking at scientific evidence. That narrative has long since fallen apart but most MPs and medical professionals are clinging to it as a drowning man clings to a log. There is human life and public health at stake but that perspective has long been abandoned in favour of parliamentary omnipotence. 

There is an unfortunate history here that needs to be revisited. Many knowledgeable people with scientific backgrounds were dismissed as conspiracy theorists when they raised legitimate concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety. Their early concerns have now been repeatedly validated by careful scientific analysis of data published in reputable journals undertaken by people who are very clearly not in any sense conspiracy theorists. Continuing to trot out labels likeย ‘misinformation’ย is no longer appropriate. Continuing to shield New Zealand public health data from independent scrutiny is no longer acceptable or reasonable. It never was; and now we are more sure than ever that the practice of dismissing legitimate concerns without any investigation or evidence poses a grave danger to public health and life. The Gene Technology Bill is a step in the wrong direction off the edge of a cliff with sharp rocks below. Can we state this any more clearly? The Bill should no longer be appearing on the parliamentary order paper.ย ย All this would be laughable, if the predictable outcomes weren’t so serious and deadly.

A Cancer Study that Changes Everything with Results that Canโ€™t Be Ignored

Guy Hatchard
-
0
A Cancer Study that Changes Everything with Results that Canโ€™t Be Ignored

An Alarming Message for the Royal Commissioners, Media, Medical Authorities, Scientists and MPs

On 26th September 2025 a study entitled โ€œ1-year risks of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination: a large population-based cohort study in South Koreaโ€ was published in the journal Biomarker Research. It examined the health records of the 8.4 million residents of Seoul, South Korea, enrolled in their National Health Insurance Scheme, and compared the rate of cancer incidence for COVID-19 vaccinated individuals to unvaccinated individuals. In this article we analyse the results in detail and draw conclusions that are vital for public policy formation.

The study compared the cancer incidence among people who had received at least two COVID-19 vaccine doses between 2021 and 2023 with the cancer outcomes of unvaccinated individuals. It specifically compared the cancer outcomes of the vaccinated for the 12 months immediately following the completion of their vaccine course with the cancer record of the unvaccinated for the 12 months of 2022. There were a total of 600,000 people who were unvaccinated (8%) of the Seoul population. The two groups were carefully matched by age, gender, insurance status and comorbidities in order to exclude confounding factors. People who had previously had any cancer were excluded from the study, as were people who only received one COVID-19 vaccine dose (300,000 people). The study also excluded people who died during the study period (30,000 people) and people whose vaccine records were incomplete (70,000 people).

About 80% of the vaccinated group received mRNA shots, (90% of these were Pfizer shots). 20% received adenovirus vector (cDNA) vaccines, mostly AstraZeneca or a mixture of vaccine types.

The key findings of this huge study were as follows:

  • As a whole, there was a 27% increased risk of developing cancer within one year of COVID-19 vaccination relative to the unvaccinated. This risk was not evenly spread among cancer types and vaccination types.
  • There was 35% increased relative risk of thyroid cancer, 21% for gastric cancer, 28% for colorectal cancer, 53% for lung cancer, 20% for breast cancer and 69% for prostate cancer. The results for all other cancer types did not fall within the 95% statistical confidence level and therefore did not indicate a clinically meaningful cancer risk.
  • The risk for all cancers was 20% if you received mRNA shots and 50% if you received adenovirus vector shots. Only adenovirus vaccines increased the risk of gastric cancer and prostate cancer. Only mRNA vaccines increased the risk of breast cancer. An increased risk of the other statistically significant cancer types (thyroid, lung, and colorectal) held true for both types of vaccines.
  • People who received a Pfizer mRNA booster had an even greater risk of gastric cancer than those who only had two shots. In addition they had a clinically significant risk of developing pancreatic cancer, a finding similar to results found in Japanese health data.
  • The fact that virtually all Seoul residents (98%) are enrolled in the national health insurance scheme means that the study findings are not vulnerable to selection bias, a criticism that has previously been levelled at population based COVID-19 studies demonstrating risks. Thus removing any argument against immediate precautionary action.

INCREASED RISK OF CANCER FOLLOWING COVID-19 VACCINATION

No study covers all possible scenarios:

  • Some cancers can take years to develop. This study only looked at cancer incidence in the first year after COVID-19 vaccination. This does not rule out the later development of cancers that might be related to COVID-19 vaccination.
  • Some cancers remain undetected. Therefore the actual cancer incidence may be higher than that reported.
  • The study does not include any recurrence of cancers following COVID-19 vaccinations, a phenomenon noted by eminent oncologists in the UK and USA.
  • Although the association between COVID-19 vaccination and increased cancer risk is proven beyond reasonable doubt, the mechanisms of cancer development following COVID-19 vaccination remain largely unclear and/or unknown. Therefore the authors of the study decided to publish a disclaimer that in their opinion the risk of developing cancer following COVID-19 vaccination could not be finally causally established without understanding the specific mechanism(s) involved. The inclusion of this kind of disclaimer has become routine with all COVID-19 research, since the chance of passing the journal peer review process is very low without it. In other words, the scientific community bias in favour of biotechnology experimentation ensures rejection of any suggestion of absolute risk, whatever the data tells us and this data is damning.
  • Although cancer is the second highest cause of mortality, COVID-19 vaccination is also known to be associated with increased incidence of some types of heart disease, neurological illness, kidney disease and mental illness. Therefore the actual risk of some type of serious illness following COVID-19 vaccination is much higher than the cancer risk alone.

This is a very large study with serious implications for public health policy and vaccine regulations. So what has been the reaction of professionals and journalists?

Although the study found a statistically significant association between COVID-19 vaccination and increased cancer risk relative to the unvaccinated, its results have been largely ignored by mainstream media or in some cases dismissed or minimised. The idea that COVID-19 vaccines are a biotechnology miracle has been deeply entrenched in the public psyche through government pronouncements and paid media promotion. Moreover, research scientists are heavily invested in the future of biotechnology research. This bias and the associated preconceptions about safety and effectiveness of biotechnology are proving very hard to shake, even by a study of this magnitude and statistical certainty.

For example, a YouTube video by Canadian microbiologist Dr. Mikolaj Raszek urges caution in interpreting the results and calls for more research. He describes the findings as โ€œsad newsโ€ but takes comfort from his description of the overall cancer risk as โ€œlowโ€ (can a 27% relative increase in risk really be described as low???). He doesnโ€™t call for an end to COVID-19 shots, instead he admits:

โ€œWe can expect to see these increases in cancer to continue moving forwardโ€

And then pledges to keep trying to discover the exact mechanisms involved. In other words, the lack of understanding of the underlying mechanisms of the increased cancer risk is seen as a reason for even more biotechnology research rather than caution.

The horrific weakness of this kind of response should be very obvious to all, the public is being expected to shoulder the burden of an increased cancer risk as scientists continue to research the possible effects of COVID-19 vaccines and presumably other types of mRNA vaccines for humans and animals that are currently being developed. A suggestion worthy of absolute condemnation.

Our government is equally determined to press ahead with mRNA vaccine research and other types of risky biotechnology research. On November 5th the government-supported Marsden Fund awarded a one million dollar grant to a team from Victoria University and the Malaghan Institute to research new mRNA vaccines.

The Korean study has garnered massive publicity on social media from scientists who have repeatedly expressed concerns about COVID-19 vaccine safety, such as renowned cardiologists Dr. Peter A McCullough and Dr. Aseem Malhotra. However, news outlets such as Al Jazeera (which headlined โ€œDid a South Korean study really claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer?โ€) and others have dismissed factual evidence based solely on the false suggestion that the study demonstrates nothing more than a โ€œpatternโ€ which in their uninformed opinion only suggests that more research should be undertaken on people. Despite this kind of blind and misleading criticism, the study findings are scientifically sound and reliable. They cannot be safely ignored. No one in their right mind could do so. They strike at the heart of matter.

It appears very clear that medical applications of biotechnology developed during the Covid era have been and continue to be inherently risky and unsafe.

The implications of this study for the Royal Commission on Covid-19 Phase 2, which has now completed its evidence gathering and is moving to compile its report, should be broadcast loud and clear. The Commissioners decided not to investigate or evaluate scientific evidence for inexplicable reasons. If they had done so, their conclusions would be very different from those they are currently contemplating. There is an elevated risk of cancer and other serious disease types from Covid-19 vaccines which will be with us for generations. The Commission has in effect decided to ignore evidence, leaving the public in the dark and in danger.

It appears that a significant number of people in NZ may have developed cancer during the last five years who would not have done so if they had refused Covid vaccination or not been subject to mandates.

The public may not be aware that the class of risks from biotechnology experimentation, including COVID-19 vaccines, is unique in many important respects. For example COVID-19 vaccine genetic sequences have been found in some cases to integrate into the recipientsโ€™ DNA. In that sense, their effects cannot be contained, recalled or mitigated, there is the possibility they will reverberate down generations. We have written extensively on the risks in our Substack.com articles including Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation.

It is not possible to sit on the fence on this issue

Biotechnology experimentation cannot safely coexist with life as we know it. It is in conflict with the natural order and equilibrium that has been established through evolutionary processes over billions of years. A mutually supportive global ecosystem, including human health, relies on genetic relationships which will inevitably be disrupted by biotechnology experimentation. This will happen through novel disease creation of the type which went on at Wuhan and elsewhere, and is still in progress, or through genetic modification of organisms which is accelerating everywhere.

To quote Abraham Lincoln:

A house divided against itself cannot stand.โ€ฆ It will become all one thing or all the other.โ€

Biotechnology experimentation cannot be contained, it cannot coexist with genetic processes that have developed naturally, it will overwhelm us with disastrous results. The evidence of the Korean cancer study is written large on the screen of the future. Anyone who thinks the findings can be ignored or ridiculed with impunity has lost the sense of lifeโ€™s meaning or need for protection.

The proposal in the New Zealand Gene Technology Bill to deregulate biotechnology experimentation is not just reckless, it is suicidal. No one should feel they can stand by and let this happen, leaving the design of reality to uninformed government, paid media and scientists who glibly accept risk to public health and human life. There can be no greater crime at this moment in history. Our World in Data estimates there have been 30 million excess deaths worldwide during the last five years. There has been nothing comparable since the second world war. A new war on humanity is in progress, a war that is being disguised by biotechnology jargon and misleading promises of health. The truth is being kept well hidden. We are being deceived.

I Am Not Afraid of Those Asking Questions, but of Those Who Believe They Know All the Answers

Guy Hatchard
-
0
I Am Not Afraid of Those Asking Questions, but of Those Who Believe They Know All the Answers

This article examines what we know about heredity, health and genetics. It draws out the implications for intelligence and the applicability (or rather risks) of gene editing. We are surrounded by paid content on all media channels misrepresenting the possible outcomes of biotechnology. For example a sequence, produced and aired by the BBC for international audiences was made for a client called the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO). BIO is the world’s largest trade association for the biotechnology industry, representing companies, academic institutions, and other organisations in the US and over 30 other countries. The BBC promo is entitled The Next Frontier which claims that biotechnology is necessary “to address healthcare challenges, unlock nature’s wisdom and support daily life, in order to meet the world’s urgent challenges and create a sustainable future.” Our article today outlines the scientific fallacies being used to promote biotechnology and mislead the public.

My wife’s relatives and our children are tall. Mostly over 6ft. They grew up in the New Zealand countryside, nurtured on fresh farm produce, fresh air and fun. For hundreds of years scientists have been wondering what makes one person tall and another short. It has been known for a long time that height is largely inherited. With the discovery of DNA in 1953, the hunt was on to find out which genes made you grow tall.

Along with this search came a phalanx of writers and media hacks who were prepared to promise that dollars invested in biotechnology experimentation would make us all taller. At the height of the pandemic, mainstream media began to air outrageous claims announcing a new era of health, happiness, longevity, intelligence, beauty and yes even height, all courtesy of biotechnology. According to this narrative, the cure for all diseases, including the big killers cancer and heart disease, was just around the corner.

In 2023, US Journalist Michael Spector talked to Kathy Ryan of Nine To Noon enthusing “how mRNA vaccines have transformed the scientific landscape and helped spark a biotechnology revolution.” Soon, he said, we  will be entering an era of personalised medicine and nutrition, all courtesy of synthetic biology. This broadcast was just one of many. TVNZ newscasters were happily promising us all a couple of extra inches, not around the middle, but up top and a few more years to enjoy our retirement.

As it has turned out, excess deaths in New Zealand and many other highly vaccinated nations are still running 5% above the pre-pandemic figures which means that we are living shorter not longer lives and although Hamish Kerr won Olympic gold in the high jump, our height measurements are staying stubbornly where they were. So what went wrong with the predictions of a golden age of biotechnology? As always the devil is in detail. When it comes to biotechnology detail really matters, one genetic sequence in the wrong place can mean the difference between delight and disaster.

In 2018, award winning NY Times science columnist and adjunct Yale Professor Carl Zimmer completed his book She has her mother’s laughwhich examined the evidence for heredity. Zimmer followed the scientific research on height over the course of a 35 page chapter covering 350 years. Back in 2018 Zimmer was able to report that there were 800 genes which played a role in determining our height. Just 4 years later in 2022 scientists at MIT, Harvard, and Boston Children’s Hospital completed an analysis of the DNA of 5.4 million people which found that there are in fact over 12,000 genetic variants which influence our height. In other words, height, like almost all human traits, is polygenicโ€”it develops under the influence of multiple genes which each make a tiny contribution to the ultimate outcome.

Since humans only have about 20,000 genes and our physiology performs trillions of trillions of essential tasks every day it should be clear to everyone that all genes have multiple roles in the physiology. It is also very clear that genetic engineering of humans to become taller is an impossible dream, or rather, if it is ever attempted, will become a nightmare, as all the myriad indispensable other functions of our thousands of multitasking height genes are disrupted with disastrous effects. 

But that is not the whole story. All around the world people really are becoming taller, much taller. In 1860 Dutch men averaged just 5ft 7in. They are now the tallest in the world averaging just over 6ft. None of this gain is due to biotechnology, it is due primarily to nutritionโ€”the same abundant good food and fresh air that my wife’s relatives enjoyed when they were growing up. Conversely if you crowd people together in polluted, stressed city environments (as our government’s urban planning regulations are mandating) and feed them poor quality food, people get shorter, as happened during the industrial revolution.

Over time, the genetic basis of height has been able to express itself positively and more fully as a result of more availability and variety of food, reduced stress, increased sanitation, fresh air and reduced pollution. There is a huge lesson for us all here and it is not pointing to personalised gene therapy.

The saga of height is not an isolated story. Intelligence is a human trait that is believed to be 50% to 80% influenced by heredity. We know this is the case because the intelligence scores of identical twins, who share an almost identical genetic profile, are usually closer to each other than fraternal twins who have substantially differing genes. This remains the case even if the twins were separated at birth and thus grow up in differing environments. 

As with height, the development of intelligence is believed to be influenced by thousands of genes which each play a tiny role in its development, along with environmental, social, nutritional and educational factors. Curiously, despite years of research, scientists know very little about which genes might  influence intelligence and how they do it. In fact, even after research which has attempted to combine the effects of thousands of genetic variants believed to affect intelligence, scientists have only been able to account for a very small percentage (less than 10%) of any variation in intelligence. Thus the idea that gene therapy could enhance intelligence is just as flawed and frankly daft as the dreams of ten foot giants. Worse still, the idea that intelligence is inherited led the Nazis to institute a eugenics programme involving the sterilisation and extermination of those deemed sub-normal.

The story of intelligence doesn’t end there. Surprisingly, studies show higher intelligence increases longevity. Conversely, on average, people with lower intelligence die earlier. The connection is very broad based. A follow up Scottish study conducted over decades found that people who scored in the top 10% on an intelligence test at school age were two thirds less likely to have died of respiratory disease than those in the bottom 10%. They were half as likely to have died from heart disease, stroke and digestive disease. The author proposed that intelligence tests may measure a broad feature of human biology akin to temperature or blood pressure, which he called “system integrity” which could help determine how long the physiology can run before falling apart.

Fortunately for us, intelligence is not necessarily fixed or restricted by our genes, if we do want to become wiser, studies show that transcendental meditation can improve scores on tests of general, fluid and emotional intelligence as well as enhancing academic achievement. Transcendental meditation is a simple process of allowing intelligence or awareness to curve back on itself. A state described in the Bhagavad Gita for example as the established intellect. Thus the failure to pin down the effect of genes on intelligence is actually pointing in an entirely opposite direction. If we give up the entrenched notion that everything is the result of our genes, research and our personal experience points to a different relationshipโ€”does our level of intelligence or consciousness control the functioning of our genes?

In this paradigm, whilst it is no doubt still true that Einstein’s parents must have been intelligent, Einstein’s intelligence was his own and he expressed it in every area of his life by virtue of the genes he inherited from his parents and their parents. In other words, consciousness or intelligence is primary and matter secondary. To accept this, it might be necessary to adopt a notion of a soul or of rebirth, ideas that are strongly supported by cultural histories and by verified accounts of those who remember their past lives. But whether we believe this or not, it is true that every mother and father knows that the intelligence of their children differs from their own in key ways. Children seem to bring their own character and nature with them.

Once liberated from the absurd idea that our DNA forms a straight jacket holding us back from achievement and health, that is unless we become a subject of gene experimentation or so-called gene therapy, a much happier prospect of life opens up. One in which we have options to progress. Despite this, most of the population remains trapped in the misleading idea being heavily promoted by biotech PR that life’s hazards and opportunities are controlled and severely limited solely by our genes.

You may remember that Angelina Jolie had her breasts removed because of an inherited BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutation predisposing her to develop cancer. You might be tempted to conclude that cancer is all in the genes. You would be wrong by a considerable margin. Only about 5%-10% of breast cancers are affected by inherited genetic characteristics. The same figure applies to all cancers. As we have previously reported, studies show the best way to avoid cancer lies in a diet containing adequate servings of fresh fruit and vegetables, regular exercise, reduced pollution and reduced consumption of red meat.

Comparable estimates for other illnesses known to be complicated by inherited genetic factors include the following:

  • 30% of Heart Disease.
  • 50% of Diabetes
  • 30% of Anxiety and Depression
  • 5%-10% of neurological conditions like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Sclerosis

Despite the fact that genetic factors are partially involved in these conditions for some individuals, these factors are overwhelmingly polygenic and thus not amenable to gene therapy solutions. However, the incidence of the majority of disease is known to be highly positively influenced by lifestyle choices which are cost effective and free of side effects, unlike commonly prescribed pharmaceutical drugs which usually come with significant risks and effect sizes many times lower.

The New Zealand government is planning to deregulate biotechnology apparently because Attorney General Judith Collins and Minister of Science Innovation and Technology Shane Reti, along with most other MPs, believe the fantastic tales of spin doctors angling for grants and investment to fund their addiction to fiddling with genes. We now know from the experience of the last five years and published findings in scientific papers that the probable outcome of such legislation will be another bumper crop of ill health, frustration, economic mayhem and death. It is time to wake up from the dream and face reality.

Rather than promising miracle cures, there are tried and tested ways for individuals to manage their own lives to become more healthy. The government can play a role in encouraging and rewarding positive lifestyle choices. It can ensure better education for doctors and educate the public about these factors. It can take account of the benefits of healthy lifestyles and reduced pollution in their urban planning decisions. It can institute full disclosure labelling of foods including identifying any use of GE food processing aids. We have a right to know what we are eating. It can warn the public about unhealthy foods and design a tax regime that favours healthy choices such as removing GST (a sales tax) from fresh produce. 

It can review the rules surrounding the use of off-gassing building materials and poisonous chemicals and agri-chemicals like glyphosate and many others, which are gradually but surely increasing long term toxic pollution in cities and the countryside. It can control levels of microplastic pollution. There is an advertising campaign saturating media channels at the moment with the theme ‘wet and forget’โ€”a driveway cleaner you can spray on and then walk away. This epitomises a mindset that encourages people to ignore the consequences for public health of chemicals which accumulate in the environment, in cities, in waterways, and in the air. All this needs to change.

It is no good decrying the failures of Health New Zealand to deal with the current tsunami of illness without realising increases in cancer, heart disease, autoimmune conditions, mental illness, diabetes etc. are a direct result of decisions taken by government allowing and even mandating the growing use of synthetic chemicals, biochemicals and now active genetic sequences in every area of life including unfortunately medicine itself and the entire food chain. This has to stop. The implementation of mass COVID-19 mRNA vaccination during the last five years pushed public health stats over the edge. The madness has to stop.

A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats

Guy Hatchard
-
0
A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats

Simone writes in reply to our article It is time to start thinking about the big picture: 

“There seems to be such a plethora of information [about the pandemic, vaccine adverse effects, etc.] coming forward at the moment but the level of cognitive dissonance is so high that it appears that nobody is listening.” 

I do know that some have begun to listen, but few as yet are speaking out. More to the point, the technology juggernaut keeps steam rolling along. If nuclear weapons don’t overwhelm us, then government mandated biotechnology, nanotechnology, A.I., microplastics, or 5G will.

It can be very overwhelming. An article in the UK Telegraph reports “NHS staff take over 626,000 sick days for mental health in one month“. Anxiety, stress, depression and other psychiatric reasons accounted for a third of the record levels of sickness absence across the health service in June, official UK figures show. Here in New Zealand, comparable figures are not being published, so we are consigned to live in ignorance, whilst waiting hours to be seen in ED.

In our more than 600 articles published to date we have probably said close to all that can be said about the dangers of biotechnology experimentation, with scientific references to boot. If you need to see it all in one well-illustrated, simply-put article tryย Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentationย on Substack.ย 

However, if next to no one among those taking decisions for us are listening, what should we do now? Are we powerless to change the course of events or are we far more powerful than we realise?

Last week we were given a sharp lesson on who is really in charge of the nation, catastrophic winds and driving rain enveloped much of the country. Shouldn’t we be starting to understand our relationship with natural law? How is natural law structured? Can we influence or cultivate our relationship with the power of nature?

Darwin’s theory of evolution is the crucible of the modern scientific outlook which has also coloured our social thinking, leaving us feeling trapped by events beyond our control. The whole world has been captured by a Darwinian interpretation of genetics, which has designated the origin of life (and ourselves) as the result of random occurrences along the long corridor of time. Such a misinterpretation has given free reign to gene editing at great risk to life.

The idea that life is in any way designed has become an object of ridicule and derision, the hallmark of the luddite (see our postย The Goldilocks Factor in Genetics). Yet the notion that life isn’t designed is incongruous with our personal experience. We are totally familiar with the design process which proceeds from ourย BEINGย toย THINKINGย toย ACTION. We design our lives and living spaces, yet deny the world is designed. How absurd.ย 

The absurdity goes deeper. The structure of natural law from the perspective of physical theory follows a very similar path from Cosmic Law to Universal Fields to specific interactions. It is just a question of who or what is doing the designing. The difference is almost semantic. Is there a personal God or a Universal Holistic Power of Law? Whatever is believed, the debate between those propounding the notion of a designed creation and those promoting a random world misses the point. The process of evolution is actually the rise of sentience, or to put it in its widest context, the rise of consciousness.

Consciousness is something we can all understand, it is not a mystery but our own self, our everyday companion, our means of thinking, observing, deciding and acting. And, as we have explained in our article “The modern age cannot be an age of biotechnology“, the observer lies at the heart of physical theory. We are inextricably linked with the laws of nature. Therefore we can learn to live in harmony with natural law.

Quite apart from whatever the government might plan for us, we have a unique opportunity here in New Zealand to form a powerful network of influence, not based on government proclamations but based on the cultivation of our common relationship with natural law. This is not a rejection of national law, rather a recognition of the power of nature and the means to connect with that power within ourselves.

I am very aware that my readership and that of other organisations seeking reform like VFF, NZDSOS, The Health Forum NZ, FSU, the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, the New Zealand Daily Telegraph and many others form a very broad church with a wide variety of views, some of which are seemingly incompatible, but we should not be driven by rival slogans and sound bites, rather by deeper understanding of our BEING. No one can succeed in enforcing uniformity, but we all enjoy a common source in our humanity. The essence of this humanity is universal consciousness, the source of natural law, which alone transcends difference.

There are a lot of seemingly ordinary things we can all aspire to in order to foster humanity, health and well being without invoking conflict. These are some we try to practice:

  • A time of deep meditation in early morning and at sunset
  • A walk in the morning sun, perhaps barefoot
  • Learn a set of simple Yoga postures
  • Breathing deeply in the fresh clean air we have an abundance here in New Zealand
  • Sincere prayer and behaviour in accord with culture
  • Kindness to animals, including a lighter diet with less red meat
  • Cultivating a garden, taking time for arts and crafts
  • Eating organic foods, free from harmful pesticides and herbicides, thereby endorsing sustainable agricultural practices
  • Abandoning processed foods, instead preparing meals with fresh ingredients
  • Speaking the truth sweetly, ensuring we do not cause anger or offence
  • Avoiding polyester and plastic clothing, furniture, carpets and containers, to reduce microplastic contamination
  • There is space enough in New Zealand to live away from 5G rather than intensifying housing densities in polluted, stressful urban environments
  • Investing in positive initiatives and programmes.
  • Constructing houses that are free of poisonous building materials, facing east in order to admit the morning sun

But do all of these amount to a formula for an improved society? In my experience, even one of these will do. 

There was a time in the 1990s when meditation became very popular in New Zealand. At a critical threshold, with more than 1% of the population participating (35,000+), a national renewal was initiated. In 2017 the Journal of Health and Environmental Research published my research paper entitled “The Effect of Coherent Collective Consciousness on National Quality of Life and Economic Performance Indicators-An Analysis of the IMD Index of National Competitive Advantage. This found that in both Norway and New Zealand as the 1% meditation threshold was surpassed, a measure of national competitive advantage calculated from more than 224 social and economic indices jumped significantly (p<0.000000000000003) when compared to 44 other developed nations.

Subsidiary analysis and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data confirmed that the changes were unusually broad-based (p <.000000065), sustained, and balanced in nature with five years of high growth, low unemployment, and low inflation. Taken as a whole, the findings suggest a prescription for balanced and sustained growth based on a method to enhance quality of life and innovation among a population.

The results show that a few people practising deep meditation for a few minutes morning and evening in the comfort of their own home can raise the quality of life of everyone in a nation. A study published a few days ago in SSRN entitled “Quantification of the Global Maharishi Effect: A Quasi-Experimental Study of the Three Most Violent Countries in the World” illustrates the enduring power of meditation in a world beset by conflict. An assembly of 10,000 meditators from around the world held in India for two weeks from December 2023 to January 2024 had a measurable significant effect of reducing violence in conflict hotspots.

For those who value periods of deep silence in meditation practices revered by cultural and religious traditions, this will come as no surprise. Such values, mostly lost in the fast paced modern world, can be restored for those who have the time to uphold balance in their own lives and in the collective consciousness of the nation. The collective consciousness of the nation is the unseen governor of the nation. Politicians are in the hands of the influence of collective consciousness. If stress, untruth, violation of natural law and tension are predominant in society, the government will take poor decisions and engage in destructive behaviours. Conversely, if individual and collective consciousness rises, positive evolutionary trends take over the destiny of the nation.

It is in our hands, as we sow so shall we reap. It is no good wringing our hands in despair and shouting in anger. We are not being heard and will not be heard as long as the levels of collective stress remain high. New Zealand is a large enough country with spaces enough to engage in positive behaviours that will reduce collective stress, cool fevered behaviour and assuage pent up frustration. A rising tide of consciousness can lift the world out of problems. A rising tide lifts all boats.

It is Time to Start Thinking About the Big Picture

Guy Hatchard
-
0
It is Time to Start Thinking About the Big Picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confronting News: Gene Drives are Being Produced in New Zealand

Guy Hatchard
-
0
Confronting News: Gene Drives are Being Produced in New Zealand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Laws Are Urgently Needed to Outlaw Biotechnology Experimentation

Guy Hatchard
-
0
New Laws Are Urgently Needed to Outlaw Biotechnology Experimentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Health Select Committee recommends the passage of the Gene Technology Bill

Guy Hatchard
-
0
The Health Select Committee recommends the passage of the Gene Technology Bill

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

โ€œThe Health Committee has examined the Gene Technology Bill and recommends by majority that it be passed.โ€

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Details

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

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

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

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

Medical Authorisations. The Bill currently contains the following provisions:

โ€œMandatory medical activity authorisations: for a human medicine that is or contains gene technology that has been approved by at least two recognised overseas gene technology regulators.โ€

and

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

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

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

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

Separate Party Responses

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

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

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

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

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

Te Pฤti Maori did not express any view separate to that of the whole committee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jenny Marcroft NZ First 
jenny.marcroft@nzfirst.nz

Debbie Ngarewa-Packer Te Pฤti Maori
debbie.Ngarewa-Packer@parliament.govt.nz

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give Us Our Daily Bread

Guy Hatchard
-
0
Give Us Our Daily Bread

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

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

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

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

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

Genetically Modified Yeastย 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Critical Role of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Driving New Zealand’s Health Crisis

Guy Hatchard
-
0
The Critical Role of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Driving New Zealand’s Health Crisis

Our last two articlesย ย ‘It’s not unusual‘ and ‘We need a real open national debate on healthcare and biotechnology‘ discuss the unfolding health crisis in New Zealand which is straining our health service to its limits and beyond. Accompanying this, excess death rates remain 5% above the long term pre-pandemic rate. This article examines results of multiple recently published studies which indicate that COVID-19 vaccination is increasing sickness incidence across multiple disease types and driving the health crisis.

Cerebral Stroke

A Japanese study published in the Journal of Clinical Neuroscience entitled “Expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in cerebral Arteries: Implications for hemorrhagic stroke Post-mRNA vaccination” studied 19 cases of stroke occurring in 2023 and 2024. It detected:

“Spike protein expression in 43.8 % of vaccinated patients, predominantly localised to the intima of cerebral arteries, even up to 17 months post-vaccination….Additionally, some inflammatory cell infiltration was observed in spike-positive vessels.”

It concluded “The findings raise significant concerns regarding the biodistribution of lipid nanoparticle-based vaccines and their long-term safety.”

Acute Pancreatitis

A study published in theย Journal of Investigative Medicineย entitled “A Fatal Case of Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis Following a COVID-19 Vaccine” studied the case of a 70 year old man who presented with abdominal pain following his 5th mRNA COVID-19 shot. A CT scan showed acute necrotising pancreatitis. Detailed evaluation found no traditional cause for this condition. After 6 weeks the man died of multiple organ failure. The study concluded:

“This highlights the importance of thorough evaluation of patients presenting with abdominal pain following the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine.”

Autoimmune Disorders

A Canadian Preprint entitled “COVIDโ€19 Vaccination and Autoimmune Disorders: A Scoping Reviewย reviewed the results of 109 studies which investigated potential links between COVID-19 vaccination and six autoimmune conditions:โ€”Graves’ disease, Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and type 1 diabetes mellitus. It found:

“Relapses or flares in patients with autoimmune disorders were reported in nearly 60% of studies, while about oneโ€quarter described newโ€onset autoimmune disorders in persons without prior autoimmunity.”

The study discussed “Several mechanisms of action linking COVIDโ€19 vaccination and autoimmune disorders were identified such as autoimmune inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants, molecular mimicry, bystander immune activation, and interactions with immunosuppressive and disease modifying therapies.”

It concluded: “A proper evaluation of risks and benefits is needed to support vaccination recommendations given the reported associations between it and autoimmune disorders.”

Adverse Vaccine Reactions

A Swedish study published in the journal Vaccine entitled “Adverse drug reactions following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of 3805 healthcare workers cause substantial sick-leave and are correlated to vaccine regimen, age, sex and serological response” concluded:

“Based on a large cohort of health workers, our study confirms that adverse reactions after COVID-19 vaccination can lead to a substantial amount of missed work shifts, potentially causing organisational-level disturbances in staffing…at overall levels not observed for other commonly used vaccines for adults”

Influenza-like Illness

A study undertaken in Switzerland and published in the prestigious journal Nature entitled “Association of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status with risk of influenza-like illness and loss of workdays in healthcare workers followed 1745 health care workers. It found that more SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations are associated with a higher risk of influenza-like respiratory illness and workdays lost. It concluded:

“Based on our data, we conclude that SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination does not contribute to the protection of the healthcare workforce in a post-pandemic setting. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination may even temporarily increase the likelihood of symptomatic infection and workday loss.”

These studies add to the published evidence we have already discussed in multiple articles covering increases in cardiac illness including myocarditis, chest pain and heart attack, cancer incidence and recurrence, neurological illness, and mental illness following COVID-19 vaccination.

It is obvious that COVID-19 vaccination has added to the health care burden of our nation. It should be noted that the added prevalence of multiple disease types in the general population in addition to stretching our health services adds to the viral and bacterial load circulating in the general population which compounds the rate of disease incidence. Moreover it places a strain on the workplace and impedes economic recovery.

It is remarkable that our health authorities, media and political leaders are still looking the other way in the face of journal publishing detailing the adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination. As a result, the public remains largely uninformed of the risks of mRNA vaccination. Far worse than this, the government is proposing to deregulate biotechnology experimentation by attempting to pass the Gene Technology Bill which contains provisions for emergency approval and use of experimental medical gene technology.

Don’t stick your head in the sand and imagine that the Gene Technology Bill, the push for deregulation and the removal of GM food labelling will go away. The moment we stop using our voice, it will be rushed through. Our voice matters. Contact your supermarket and your MPs. Let your voice be heard.

To hear Dr. Guy Hatchard discuss the issues in depth listen to Leighton Smith’s latest 2ZB podcast. Leighton Smith’s latest iHeart Radio podcast

For more information about the dangers of biotechnology go to our Substack article Twenty Reasons to Completely Reject Biotechnology Experimentation.

1234...47Page 3 of 47