Biotechnology is it providing giant medical breakthroughs or giving us inevitable disasters? And are there alternatives?
I try to answer these questions in my latest YouTube Video:
UPDATE: 13 March 2022
Initially this video ‘The Pandemic of Biotechnology’ was on my Youtube channel. However, they removed it for “inappropriate content”.
According to YouTube, my video had violated the instructions of the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organisation. It had been judged “misleading”.
YouTube offered me an opportunity to appeal, but that only lasted for a few hours and disappeared.
The video contains a discussion of safety research findings around gene therapy.
It references published papers from journals including:
Frontiers in Oncology
Gene Therapy
Cold Spring Harbour bioRxiv
Frontiers in Medicine
Nature Medicine
Gastroenterology
British Medical Journal—Nutrition, Prevention, and Health
Environmental Health
Phytomedicine
The video is highly critical of biotechnology safety, but in addition to the balanced criticism in the above mainstream journals, it also refers the listener to an alternative view presented by Tal Zak, chief medical officer of Moderna.
Clearly our Ministry of Health and the World Health Organisation has a very different idea of science from mine, one that YouTube appears very anxious to protect and promote. YouTube does not offer explanations in scientific terms.
My view of science involves the collection and analysis of evidence, rational discussion among peers, and a precautionary approach when it comes to experimenting on human subjects.
I don’t think any of these are controversial.
Science as I know it eventually comes to settled conclusions when the evidence stacks up.
The new science of the Ministry of Health, World Health Organisation, and YouTube involves stifling debate, hiding data, protecting commercial interests, and promoting political power. Novel technology is the poster boy of this science.
In my opinion, collateral damage is its natural bedfellow. Unfortunately in the globalised world we now live in, damage from this approach can occur on a catastrophic scale.
The pandemic has proved to be a gold mine for some global pharmaceutical companies. Massive profits from future biotech innovation now beckon.
A new sort of politician has emerged able to manipulate public opinion and remain largely insulated from the interests of the people they serve.
Mainstream media seems content to go along with all of this, but as a result the worldview of their readers has been diminished.
Today Jacinda Ardern had her booster shot and warned us all to do the same.
If I was charitable I might say that she must be unaware of figures from overseas including Denmark, the UK, Israel, and USA which call the effectiveness of the booster into question.
Even the CEO of Pfizer admitted to the media this week that his shot was all but ineffective.
More than this, is she also unaware that boosters carry a greatly elevated risk of adverse effects?
And further, has she informed herself of the UKHSA figures which show that within a few weeks of receiving the booster, the unlucky recipient is more vulnerable to Covid than before the shot?
Certainly, I know she must be aware that the long-term effects of vaccination are unknown.
The fight to contain the pandemic has often been characterised as a war.
Who the two combatants are is maybe not so clear—the people against the virus, or perhaps big pharma against…..
A Bit of Military History Might Help Enlighten Us
When the US invaded Saipan and the crucial battle of the Philippines Sea took place, they found out some terrifying facts about a determined enemy.
The Japanese people had little true information about the course of the war and the US successes.
They were religiously devoted to their emperor and they had been fed a diet of propaganda that the US military were bestial and cruel to the losers.
So the Japanese, to a man, decided to fight to the end and go down with the ship so to speak.
As a result, the casualties in the Pacific war were horrendous on both sides.
The impetus for this disaster was lack of information.
This morning an active figure in the National Party phoned me concerned that his party had not taken the trouble to inform themselves about the evolving science behind mRNA vaccination.
It brought to mind the numerous meetings I have had over the years with politicians to inform, ask questions, and lobby for change.
As a scientist, if I was meeting with a politician, it was generally about a complex science matter related to government policy.
If I was to pick the ideal meeting it would be the sort I was able to have with my erstwhile local MP Winston Peters.
He took notes, asked pertinent and probing questions, emailed me afterward to summarise the issue, check facts, and encourage me to contact him with further information.
The sad truth is that our modern political representatives on both sides of the political spectrum, now see themselves as messiahs of media, to be listened to from a distance, while the disenfranchised recipients (all of us) are managed by the push of a button.
Old fashioned dialogue is a thing of the past. Knowledge is believed to be assured by downloading a file, whether it will be read or not.
Political leaders convey the sort of worthless assurance that comes with bravado, imagination, and misplaced self-belief.
There must be a lot of unread emails lying around in the Beehive, just as there are a great many NZers lying around in bed sick after mRNA vaccination.
A recent genomics paper has found that there are more than 30,000 Covid variants out there in the world.
Crucially the main evolutionary pressure on the virus has been to avoid the vaccination.
In this, it has succeeded, but like the misinformed Japanese public in 1944, our island nation has decided to go down fighting a losing battle to the last man, and if the published data is anything to go by, we intend to die by our own vaccination.
Finally, a cheer for the TV One expose last week of one vaccine injured lady unable to gain an exemption from further shots, yet it did not even warrant a response from the Ministry of Health.
That reeks of sadistic disregard—there are great many being refused and callously put in harm’s way. Let’s not pull our punches here, there are a lot of unanswered questions and unsupported vaccine injured.
A Lot of Untold Horror Stories
Apparently, the unprecedented reports of casualty wards clogged with heart patients and sports figures having cardiac events around the world have failed to open minds or elicit any human response from governments.
Instead, we face further combative coercion and financial hardship.
Fortunately, there have been a great many scientific papers published during the last three months, it is now a race to see which of our political parties and media outlets will pluck up the courage to read them and adjust their suicidal stance accordingly.
Keeping your head in the sand is no longer an option!
Stuck in a parallel universe:—at our local school a doctor arrived to address the student body and the staff about Covid-19 inoculation.
Reassuringly the doctor explained that mRNA vaccination technology has a 30 year history of testing and safety. ‘The best vaccine ever’.
Absolutely true that gene technology has been under development and testing for thirty years, but why is it only just now being used?
A quick glance through the published papers should be enough to convince you:
A paper published in 2003 in the journal Gene Therapy was entitled
Adverse effects of gene therapy: Gene therapy can cause leukaemia: no shock, mild horror but a probe
A paper in Frontiers in Oncology published in 2019 just before the pandemic was prophetic:
“…gene therapy has been caught in a vicious cycle for nearly two decades owing to immune response, insertional mutagenesis, viral tropism, off-target activity, unwanted clinical outcomes (ranging from illness to death of participants in clinical trials), and inadequate regulation….the resurgent interest in offering gene therapy-based treatments is one of the most defining developments in the pharmaceutical industry and is expected to have far-reaching implications With an estimated US $11 billion market in the next 10 years, both clinical trials and pharmaceutical industry are anticipated to benefit immensely from gene therapy.”
They were way below (by a factor of 200) in their estimation of profit per year that the pharmaceutical industry would be able to squeeze out of it but reassuring spot on in their estimation of adverse effects.
A paper published in Nature Medicine with the experience of the pandemic to add to hindsight in April 2021 says
“Gene-therapy trials are on the rise, but more needs to be done to understand the long-term risks associated with this type of treatment.
An August 2021 study in Toxicology Reports reviewing the mRNA vaccination trials says:
“Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.”
So if you read in the mainstream media about the problem free trials and the long history of gene technology safety you might look for scientific papers and always add the term ‘scholarly articles’ to your Google or DuckDuckGo search which will enable you to avoid the drivel of paid public relations being printed by the press.
This letter calls upon the leaders of Civil Society in NZ to speak out now and loudly point out that NZ no longer wishes to be controlled by media who report manipulated data.
Yesterday Radio NZ printed an outrageous lie designed to persuade parents to present their 5 – 11 year old children for inoculation on Monday. Their article entitled “Covid-19 vaccination for children: What you need to know” was also reprinted in the NZ Herald. It said: “one in 11,000 children who get Covid are likely to die”
Lies Designed to Manipulate the Treatment of Children are the Most Despicable
The CDC in the USA reports that only 2 in a million children in the 5-11 age bracket die of Covid, UKHSA reports an identical figure. The CDC also reports that 86% of the miniscule number of children dying suffer from comorbidities unrelated to Covid that seriously impair their health and immunity. There are 570,000 children aged 5-11 in NZ, the above figures translate to just 0.16 of a healthy 5-11 year old dying in NZ. In other words, most probably zero. Certainly not the 52 children dying as a result of Covid that the RNZ/Herald article predicts.
We have become very familiar with the mainstream media reporting outrageous lies just before each new phase of the pandemic policy and vaccine roll outs. For example we remember Professor Shaun Hendry suggesting in March 2020 that up to 80,000 kiwis will die of Covid. A rate so exaggerated that it is 6 times greater than those nations most affected to date by Covid in the world.
Yes, leaders of NZ civil society, you can and must speak up in the face of obvious lies. You can do this, just like Professor Ehud Qimron, head of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Tel Aviv University who has decided to speak out by writing an open letter the Israeli Ministry of Health saying:
If we don’t speak up now, half truths and exaggerations will become the common coin of NZ media and government leaving us little better off than North Korea.
My analysis of the scientific findings concerning Covid vaccination of 5-11-year-olds: “Investigating the Science Behind vaccination of 5-11-year-olds: An Indictment—Does the vaccination programme for teens and younger surpass the threshold for criminal prosecution?”
An Indictment: Does the vaccination programme for teens and youngersurpass the threshold for criminal prosecution?
D-Day for vaccinating 5-11-year-olds is upon us. If as a parent (or a politician) you do a google search “Is Covid vaccination of 5-11-year-olds safe?” you turn up a host of articles not only assuring you that it is safe and effective but also urging you that it is necessary.
First among these are the official NZ government information web pages. If you have doubts and persist by broadening your search criteria, the same kind of reassuring articles from a great variety of sources appear.
This has prompted my son to say to me for example ‘why am I telling people the vaccine is not safe when I am not a medical doctor but a mere researcher?’ I am sure a good many other concerned parents and grandparents are being faced with similar questions.
Google Searches Exaggerate the Influence of Single Studies
If you add the term ‘scholarly articles’ to your search you might be surprised to find that there are just two root studies on which this whole host of reassuring public relations is based.
Both of these are conducted by Pfizer itself which certainly has a vested interest in telling you that vaccination is safe. One of the studies cited is not actually conducted on 5-11-year-olds.
This means that the apparent confirmation and reassurance that your google search afforded, is actually only the result of google multiplying a single source of information into many, bolstered by a preference to exclude dissenting voices.
In this article, firstly I am going to be reviewing the scientific evidence. Secondly, we will be examining how its amplification has distorted government policy, media coverage, and public opinion in New Zealand and led to the hazard of unacceptable risks.
Criticism of the First Pfizer Trial on Teens Has Been Severe
The first study cited involved the vaccination of the 12-15-year-olds published on 15 July 2021 in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)
This study had 1131 participants receiving the vaccination and a similar number receiving a placebo. The total duration of the trial was extended just two months after completion of vaccination.
The study reported high efficacy in reducing transmission and also reported there were no serious side effects. The reliability of this study has been harshly criticised. A 2021 study in Toxicology Reports says:
“Clinical trials for these inoculations were very short-term (a few months), had samples not representative of the total population, and for adolescents/children, had poor predictive power because of their small size. Further, the clinical trials did not address changes in biomarkers that could serve as early warning indicators of elevated predisposition to serious diseases. Most importantly, the clinical trials did not address long-term effects that, if serious, would be borne by children/adolescents for potentially decades.”
Moreover, it has since been revealed by an investigative journalist that some of the teenage trial subjects receiving Covid vaccines and experiencing serious adverse effects, as a result, were excluded from the final reports of trials.
A fact that first came to light when the parents of an affected recipient realised that their child’s case of permanent disability was not reported in the Pfizer study.
The Effects of Covid Vaccination on 5-11 Year Olds Are Not Fully Assessed
The second study was published on 6 January 2022 in the New England Journal of Medicine “Evaluation of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Children 5 to 11 Years of Age”
This study involved the vaccination of around 1500 children while about half that number received a placebo. It also reports that the Pfizer vaccination is safe and effective. Subjects were followed up for just one month after completion of vaccination.
This would be insufficient to detect some serious side effects, for example, a November 11 article in the journal Vaccines reports a case of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in a teenager developing 10 weeks after vaccination.
On 11th November, the Science Media Centre published some expert reactions to the Pfizer 5-11-year-old vaccine trial report, scientists generally welcomed the pre-publication of the abstract of the study and supported the intention to vaccinate children but typically comments from scientists struck a note of caution for example:
“This trial had only 2268 participants. A trial of this size is unlikely to detect rare vaccine associated adverse reactions (side effects)”
“Questions about the risks and benefits of vaccinating children against COVID-19 are currently weighing heavily on the minds of most parents. Unfortunately, this trial does not provide the answers we seek. The reason for this is that severe outcomes of COVID-19 among children and severe complications from vaccination are too rare to be measured even in this study of over 2000 children.”
Myocarditis Risks are Known to be Serious
Incidence of clinical myopericarditis (heart inflammation) for example in the 12-19 age group receiving the vaccine is estimated at around 1 in 1800 so the Pfizer 5-11 trial could hardly be expected to generate any confidence about vaccine safety for 5-11-year-olds as the number receiving the vaccine was less than 1800. Moreover, a study published by MedRxiv on December 27, 2021
found that myopericarditis has been typically underreported in a large integrated health system. Medsafe also admits this is the case in NZ. Other studies show that as age decreases from 30 down there is an increasing myopericarditis adverse effect risk—the younger you are the greater the risk. This points to the need for greater caution with 5-11-year-olds.
One of the most concerning processes in NZ has been the rejection of individuals reporting vaccine side effects by GPs, hospital staff, and attending vaccination staff. These cases are numerous and have been very widely commented upon.
One recent example among a great many: a lady who suffered a stroke during the 15 minutes rest period after vaccination. She was subsequently told she was too fat and the attending physicians refused to make a report to CARM.
The risk that serious symptoms may be ignored and the condition aggravated due to delay in treatment is especially high for young children aged 5-11 who cannot adequately articulate their symptoms.
In the current scientific publishing climate, from experience, I and colleagues know that it is hard to get an article published in a timely manner as a preprint unless it endorses vaccination, but some authors are mixing and matching their concerns with a positive tone to bypass these reservations.
For example, a generally pro-vaccine article published on 6 January 2022 MedRxiv preprint says “vaccinating children to benefit adults should be considered from an ethical as well as a public health perspective.” In other words any potential benefits resulting from vaccinating children are at best related to preventing children from bringing covid home from school, although even this has been disputed.
The Risks to Young Children From Covid Itself are Miniscule.
Data from the US Center for Disease Control (CDC) shows the risk of death from Covid in the 5-11 age cohort is just 2 per million (lower than the mortality risk in this age bracket from influenza and pneumonia), but also reports that 86% of the 2 covid deaths per million in this age bracket had comorbidities. In other words, they were already seriously ill children at severe risk due to other significant causes and events unrelated to Covid.
The Risks of Vaccination for 5-11 Ages are Higher Than All-cause Risks
When you compare the risks from child Covid vaccination to the risks of death from all other causes in this age bracket you brush against some very worrying figures.
The CDC reports the risk of death from all other causes in the 5-11 age group in any given year is 86 per million. It is too early in the 5-11 vaccine rollout process for meaningful data to be available, but in the 5 months prior to 22 October 2021 there were 128 reports to VAERS of fatalities proximate to vaccination among the approximately 750,000 vaccinated in the 12-16 age range.
It is immediately apparent from these figures that if the known mortality incidence for 12-16-year-olds is repeated among 5-11-year-olds, the rate of deaths proximate to vaccination will be much higher than the mortality risk from Covid, and possibly even higher than the all-cause mortality in this age group.
The population in NZ of 5-11-year-olds is 570,000, there is no doubt that if this scale of adverse effects were to occur here in NZ, it would be regarded as a catastrophe.
These considerations should be raising serious doubts, if they don’t I suggest you reread the above or get someone with a scientific background to consider it with you.
The conclusion is that any benefit of vaccination in this age group is wildly outweighed by the risks, and significantly the long-term risk to health is unknown.
For comparison, the historical 3 to 5-year mortality rate following serious cases of myocarditis (the most common serious side effect of the Pfizer vaccine) is variously estimated somewhere between 50-80%.
I certainly wouldn’t advise any parents or grandparents to trust the reassurances of a google search or a government public relations bulletin, but rather rely upon the source science and reasonable commentary upon it.
Does the Lack of Adequate Information About the Risk of Adverse Effects Following Vaccination Constitute a Crime?
The NZ Bill of Rights provides that “Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo any medical treatment.”
However the High Court has upheld a preliminary judgement that vaccination mandates are not unlawful, curiously Justice Palmer ruled they do not fall within the scope of the NZ Bill of Rights.
Nor since Parliament is supreme and has passed new laws, does it carry weight with NZ Courts that Covid vaccination does not reduce transmission (the stated basis of mandates).
Children and teens are not being mandated per se to undergo vaccination, they are being offered a form of Hobson’s choice—damned if you don’t and damned if you do.
Teens are being pressured to vaccinate through the removal of their opportunity to participate in certain school-based activities. For a child, this amounts to very strong coercion.
The consequent peer pressure has been very effective in ensuring that teens wish to vaccinate in order to continue to participate in very popular and socially beneficial extracurricular activities.
The prospect of social isolation that an unvaxxed status imposes on teens can bring about mental instability and suicidal thoughts. There is no doubt the government is aware of how this works.
Many parents have been unsuccessfully trying to cope with the dilemma posed by insistent children who are distraught in the face of their parent’s informed hesitation and reluctance.
They just want to join in, or have a haircut, go to camp, or learn a musical instrument. The government has settled this matter unequivocally, by allowing 12-year-olds and above to vaccinate without their parent’s permission. No stretch of the imagination can hold that this process is informed consent on a teen’s part.
The position of 5-11-year-olds is somewhat different, their parents or caregivers must accompany them and give consent, but this is insufficient to ensure informed consent.
Information provided to parents is critical to establish this. In the present case, there can be little doubt that the repeated assurances of absolute safety in government advertising during 2021 undermines any contention of parental informed consent and teen informed consent, even if the wording of printed pamphlets and official websites offer hints of minor and transitory side effects.
But this doesn’t amount to a crime until you add in the import of recent research findings reviewed briefly above and argued at length by others, which very strongly support the notion that the risk of death following vaccination for the under twenties is greater than any risk posed by Covid infection.
Under sections 160 and 171 of the Crimes Act 1961 and clarification offered by Common Law, the Crown can prove Manslaughter if the unlawful alleged act meets specific conditions and can be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
1. The unlawful alleged act must be dangerous. The test of dangerousness is objective and does not even require that the defendant was aware of the risk of harm.
2. The alleged “substantial and operative cause” does not have to be the main or the only cause of death. But, it must have played a part which was not insubstantial or insignificant.
It appears that these criteria could be met in the case of Covid vaccinations for the under twenties.
Who Would Be Liable For Prosecution?
Blame must fall severally on the medical profession, workers in government departments administering and evaluating the vaccination programme including for example Medsafe, mainstream media, school authorities designing punitive sanctions, and on politicians from all parties naively supporting vaccination mandates and guidelines.
There has been a continuous spate of scientific publications, especially during the last quarter of 2021 which should have led to revised government policy. It appears that politicians, medical professionals, and the media may have ignored these.
The whole machinery of government, mainstream media, and the medical establishment has remained bent upon universal vaccination of children based upon a single inadequate study, repeatedly called into question, that tells us nothing about the serious long term risks revealed by other studies.
Whilst the Pfizer CEO Albert Boula in an interview with CNBC this week struck a very cautious note about very low vaccine and booster effectiveness, and hoped to develop new more effective products in the future, our government and officials are ploughing on regardless. Does their ignorance of scientific caution amount to criminal negligence?
It is up to the Crown prosecution service to take this matter very seriously. This is assuming critical importance as the all cause excess death rates not associated with Covid infection in many countries including NZ are rising above historical rates.
For example, the alarming 40% increase in claims for deaths at the OneAmerica insurance company in Indiana during the third quarter of 2021. Many will feel such figures cannot continue to be ignored without shouldering criminal responsibility.
At this point in time, given the volume of correspondence on the matter, the ignorance of new scientific findings on the part of decision-makers can only be either pretended or the result of deliberately looking the other way.
The public would be appalled if they knew that the whole edifice of child vaccination is built on a single flawed study contradicted by other studies.
Guy Hatchard PhD was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company. He is an advocate of natural preventive approaches to health.
Sometimes in history we reach turning points—unsustainable evolutionary moments requiring change.
Here we are again.
The last decade has seen the first drops in life expectancy in western countries.
One third of all deaths are caused by medical misadventure.
Fifty percent of the population suffer from one or more chronic illnesses which according to pharmaceutical advisory sheets require multiple medications which themselves cause more illness.
Schooled to believe that health can be controlled with pills, epidemics of addiction are sweeping the world.
On the other side of the coin, 50% of consumers now use natural health products in an effort to maintain health.
Increasingly these offer highly verified alternative paths to health.
A diet with high content of organic fresh fruit and vegetables, fibre, etc. offers a significant degree of protection against cancer.
Use of herbals like turmeric and ginger reduces the incidence and symptoms of out of control inflammatory illness.
Drinking water rather than fizzy drinks, taking regular exercise, avoiding smoking and excess drinking are all essential components of health.
Like all technology companies, pharmaceutical companies regularly require new products as their old ones are revealed as obsolete, ineffective, or worse—dangerous.
Come the Biotechnology Age
Promises of health by playing God were welcome music to CEOs, shareholders, and medical professionals at risk of losing their cool.
But there was a fly in the ointment.
Heretofore pharmaceutical interventions were based on chemical and biological molecules that contained no genetic instructions.
The tone deaf administrators of big pharma were unprepared to listen to the warnings of geneticists that gene therapy had already presented a minefield of catastrophic side effects.
Buoyed by both their wealth and pre-eminence, they were simply not prepared to defer to science.Now we have come to the end game.
Last week the CEO of OneAmerica insurer, a 100 billion dollar company, broke ranks to say that in the third quarter of 2021 death claims rose by 40% compared to historical figures and NOT as a result of the pandemic.
Anyone who is not prepared to recognise the probable cause of this, is by any standards an ostrich with their head in the sand.
Accumulating data and theoretical advances show that the genetic technology being rolled out across the world, is causing excess deaths, immune dysfunction and suppression, and cardiac events.
The refusal on the part of governments to countenance this, is surely the defining moment heralding the coming change.
A few weeks ago I saw a farmer standing in the middle of a bonfire that he had just lit, trying to get it to burn more fiercely.
Government leaders are pretty much in the same position now.
Alarming reports are being published in a number of countries of increased ill health and deaths among categories of people normally enjoying robust health. For example:
Unprecedented rise in Indiana death rates
The CEO of OneAmerica life insurance Scott Davison, a $100 billion dollar company, reports that in the third quarter of 2021 deaths were up by 40% over pre pandemic trends.
Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,”and that it’s not elderly people who are dying, but“primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica. Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said.
The insurance industry relies on careful analysis of data. Death rates are historically very stable. The OneAmerica figures represent an unprecedented statistical trend. A 10% increase would have been a 1 in 300 year anomaly. A 40% increase is statistically off any conceivable scale and points to a rise that would never happen during the whole billions year history of earth except during wartime.
Brian Tabor, the president of the Indiana Hospital Association, said that hospitals across the state are being flooded with patients “with many different conditions,” adding “unfortunately, the average Hoosiers’ health has declined during the pandemic.”
Other anecdotal reports of statistics and events include increased incidence of miscarriage and still births, increased incidence of cardiac events including increased incidence among athletes, increased excess death rates as compared to previous years, high incidence of myocarditis among young vaccinated people, and reduced immune efficiency among the vaccinated.
Data Integrity Issues
From a statistical point of view these reports are alarming. They certainly point to a novel cause. The obvious candidate is vaccination but analysing the connection precisely and mathematically is obstructed because of data integrity issues designed to hide the truth:
Inadequate adverse event reporting: Early on governments decided not to require mandatory reporting of adverse events following vaccination. The procedures are too time consuming for busy doctors. Only 5% are reported.
Expectation of vaccine safety: Previously vaccines underwent lengthy testing over many years and were largely safe. Because of this, GPs and hospital staff expect safety and tend to dismiss adverse events as unrelated.
Early mRNA vaccine data was misleading: Reports of 95% efficacy in preventing infection and reports of a near perfect safety record have since been discredited by whistleblowers.
Misleading modelling reports: Based on the Pfizer data and some highly speculative papers on transmission, early modelling greatly overestimated infection and death rates from Covid. This fuelled ideas that there would be a net benefit from vaccination even when the adverse event rate was clearly reaching unprecedented highs. Moreover huge discrepancies between real world data and modelling predictions were ignored. For example modelling reports of 100,000 Covid deaths in NZ and a twenty fold greater rate of Covid transmission among the unvaccinated are patently false and bear no relation to actual data, yet they have helped form government policy and public opinion.
Misrepresentation and concealment of data: Because of the belief that vaccination would provide a net public good, authorities continue to feel it is important to hide information about high adverse effects from the public. In NZ this has happened in government departments and hospitals, particularly with regard to cardiac problems subsequent to vaccination.
Lack of adverse effect data by category: Little data has been provided concerning individual categories of adverse events. This happens because a great many specific adverse effect reports have been dismissed since in the opinion of physicians, based on experience of safety with past vaccines, they could not possibly be related. This happened despite the fact that some unusual categories such as miscarriage have reportedly become common relative to historical data.
Lack of follow up of secondary health issues: The Covid vaccine trials were too short to carry out the standard investigation of incidence of secondary health issues over an extended period of time. As a result the long term effects of vaccination cannot be known unless the health outcomes of vaccinated individuals is followed over time and compared to population norms. This has not happened. The data from OneAmerica insurance highlights the absolute folly of this omission
The net effect is that data documenting the risks of Covid vaccination has been concealed to the extent that insufficient or inaccurate data is made available to researchers. Thereby government policy remains unsupported by real world data, but instead driven by politically biassed or uninformed ideas.
Guy Hatchard PhD was a senior manager at Genetic ID, a food testing and certification company. He has experience in statistical analysis of social indicators.Guy Hatchard PhD
The DNA is in every cell, but also coordinates the physiology as a ‘whole system’ mirroring our sense of Self as a unique whole person. If you are using lego there are individual blocks which fit with one another, but to create something sophisticated you need an overall plan. This same organisational system known as non-locality is found throughout nature.
2. Non-Locality
Crystal growth in nature was formerly understood as a purely local or ‘on-site’ process where a limited number of shapes can only be joined in specific ways like lego blocks, these repeated patterns then generate the exterior crystal shape; but in 1974 physicist Roger Penrose discovered a pseudo five-fold symmetry which was later found in an aluminium manganese crystal alloy.
This crystal has a non-repeating pattern which can only grow if the local pieces have a knowledge of a complex global structure, as in a jigsaw. The specific rules governing the behaviour and orientation of incoming atomic groups in the crystal formation process have to be non-local or holistic. Penrose has since formulated a notion of space-time in which each local region has encoded or enfolded some aspect of a more general order.
3. DNA is embedded in quantum reality
The experimental findings of quantum physicists indicate that such non-local or holistic laws are fundamental to physical reality. As we move towards smaller time and distance scales from the surface of our perception towards molecules and atoms and beyond we find connections that transcend time and space.
Sitting at the interface between the quantum world and the physical world, DNA is a molecule that partakes of both. Every part of the DNA is connected to every other part which is why one part of the DNA molecule cannot be edited without affecting its whole function. In this sense DNA is not only a collection of linear sets of instructions, it is also self-interacting. It’s most sophisticated functions which support human development rely on the self-interacting connections within the DNA molecule.
4. DNA is the most protected level of the physiology
DNA sits at the heart of levels of protection embodied in the physiology. It is analogous to the commader sitting in the middle of a walled city. The city is under constant seige but the defenders at its walls are constantly protecting its gates and fending off unwanted attackers. Everyone wanting to enter has to be carefully vetted.
The digestive system ultimately transforms food into useful biologic components while the lymphocytes, T-cells and antibodies etc. protect against unwanted viruses and other invaders. The insertion of genetic material directly into the body via injection amounts to a breach in these defences.
Similar to the effect of a Trojan Horse admitted inside the city gates where it can cause havoc. Worse can happen when a foreign agent gains the confidence of the king and directs his actions as Wormtongue did to King Theoden. The insertion of DNA directly into the cell nucleus can and does cause unforeseen disruptions to the functioning of the physiology as a whole.
5. Our DNA is constantly being repaired
In every cell the DNA needs to be repaired as much as 70,000 times a day to protect it from damage such as that caused by oxidation. The physiology is set up to keep the integrity of DNA sequences intact at all cost. DNA is the blueprint of life. The higher functioning of life, our consciousness, depends upon it.
6. DNA functions in tandem with the Epigenetic environment
You have probably heard the term epigenetics, it is the study of all factors outside of the DNA molecule which affect its structure and function. The factors affecting our health range from the abstract field of consciousness through the physical fields and matter particles, the elements, molecular aggregation of elements, the complex DNA molecule, biochemical messengers, proteins, metabolic macromolecules, cellular components, cells, organs, organ systems, the physiology as a whole, our food, the air we breathe, the near environment including the epigenetic environment, our home, our family, our society, our world, and even the distant reaches of the universe.
We are even now beginning to understand that there is an epigenetic environment whereby the integrity of the human genome is supported by the wider genetic environment of micro-organisms, plants and animals, and even ancestral experiences.
7. DNA’s co-evolutionary relationship with the food environment
Our immune system, guided by the intelligent network of the DNA contained in every cell and functioning as a whole, is constantly fighting off challenges to the order, integrity, and longevity of the physiology. The success of the DNA in not only preserving life but supervising its evolution and adaptation comes down to its stable relationship with its environment of food and other experiences.
Climate, mineral and chemical composition of soil, water, and air, plant-based DNA, social interactions, internal electro-magnetic fields, etc are all important players in the epigenetic web which protects our species. Our digestion and metabolism has evolved by processing a finite set of foods based on DNA.
It is important to realise that for millions of years, this has been a relatively stable and finite set. Our physiology has not so much learned to cope with a finite set of compounds, but it has actually come into existence in tandem with this finite, limited set of specific compounds.
Any radical change in this finite set, such as the catastrophic climatic changes in prehistoric times, did and can lead to the destruction of entire species. Aside from our own consciousness, the critical element in this finite set is the DNA itself.
All of our traditional food sources have been intimately linked to and derived from DNA. Our survival and evolution over millions of years has been possible because of, has been designed by, is constituted entirely of an interlocking biological web of genetic structures centred on the DNA molecule which is shared by micro-organisms, insects, plants, animals, and humans.
Now in the modern era, we have passed through the nineteenth, twentieth, and into the twenty-first century, a tiny fraction of the 4.85 billion years of earth’s existence, and witnessed a sea change in our epigenetic environment. The discovery and deployment of a wide range of novel compounds, chemicals, and biochemicals in food, air, soil, and water is threatening to overwhelm the delicate balance between the second law of thermodynamics and the biology of living systems. And this deployment of chemical compounds is accelerating rapidly.
We are subjecting ourselves to dietary components never before seen in history that are not derived from natural living systems capable of defying the second law of thermodynamics, but rather sterile chemicals or worse man-made genetic mimicry.
Compounds that are not part of our evolutionary history and never have been. Compounds that our physiology, our digestion, and our metabolism are not adapted to. We are ingesting them through the food we eat, the liquids we drink, the air we breathe, the space we live in, the injections we receive, and the experiences we have.
At the present time, we are being exposed to an additional 2000 novel chemicals each year which are being approved by lax government regulators. As a result, we are creating a health crisis of such proportions that we are sowing the seeds of our own destruction.
Your DNA Diet
To find out more Guy Hatchard Ph.D., former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company, has written a book Discovering and Defending Your DNA Diet.
The Government Should Be Your Single Source of Truth
September 4th 2020 PM Jacinda Ardern in Parliament “I want to send a clear message to the New Zealand public: we will share with you the most up-to-date information daily. You can trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the Director-General of Health and the Ministry of Health…Otherwise, dismiss anything else. We will continue to be your single source of truth. We’ll provide information frequently. We will share everything we can. Everything else you see—a grain of salt.“
This is one of the most oft repeated and misleading lies of Jacinda Ardern. In fact whistleblowers from within government departments including nurses, doctors, and officials have reported that they have been instructed to refrain from revealing to the public the true extent of adverse events and deaths following vaccination, thus hiding the real risks. The excuse presented to employees by the government was that ‘a medical emergency’ justifies the expedient of hiding the truth. Moreover the risks of Covid itself have been consistently over blown to stoke the fear narrative. Based on this lie, the government has refused to acknowledge the import of published research.
The Virus Spreads Because of the Unvaccinated
October 4th 2021 PM Jacinda Ardern quoted in Stuff “The vast majority of New Zealanders eligible now are being vaccinated, but the virus is finding our unvaccinated individuals. A boundary is not an ironclad way of protecting ourselves against Covid; a vaccine is.”
Even before the start of the NZ vaccination roll out in February 2021, the government was warned that the vaccine allowed transmission. Dozens of published papers since show that there is little or no correlation between transmission and vaccination.
The government failed to call out false information in articles published by the media and sponsored by vaccine interests pretending that Covid spreads 20 times more easily among the unvaccinated. This created unnecessary fear of the unvaccinated and overconfidence among the vaccinated. It has divided our nation. It has led to an economic disaster for businesses who are required to discriminate against the unvaccinated. It has caused personal hardship for thousands of highly qualified and experienced NZ professionals and greatly reduced the pool of qualified individuals in NZ. This lie was the false basis for mandates.
The Vaccine Is Entirely Safe
22 October 2021 PM Jacinda Ardern quoted in the NZ Doctor “The vaccine we are using in New Zealand is safe and effective.”
This lie has been repeated again and again in the saturation government advertising which has cost millions. Individuals known to be vulnerable to vaccination adverse effects including people with a history of anaphylactic shock, past reactions to vaccination, etc have been denied information which might enable them to make informed choices. They have also been denied exemption to vaccination. Young people who have very little risk of serious covid outcomes, yet a relatively high risk of vaccine injury have been left completely uninformed.
There Is No Need to Require Reporting of Vaccine Adverse Events
December 15 2021 Astrid Koorneeff Director National Immunisation Programme writing on behalf of Dr. Ashley Bloomfield “An accurate measurement of all adverse events [subsequent to vaccination] is not required”.
This is among the most damaging of lies. Faced with a novel vaccine with a short period of testing developed by a company with a history of medical harm lawsuits against it, the government refused to institute mandatory procedures which would correctly evaluate the extent of any adverse effects. Instead they continued with a voluntary system. A Medsafe website records that only 5% of adverse effects are reported. This has enabled Jacinda Ardern and the government to publicly deny the extent of adverse events and death following vaccination by pleading insufficient information.
Heart Disease Affects Only 3 Out of 100,000 Vaccinated Individuals
15 December 2021 letter to DHBs Dr. Ashley Bloomfield Director General of Health “Myocarditis and pericarditis have been established as very rare but serious adverse events associated with the Comirnaty vaccine….these conditions are usually diagnosed, investigated and managed effectively within our health system….In New Zealand, the true incidence of vaccine-associated myocarditis is unknown as the onset of symptoms occurs in the first few days after vaccination and is potentially under-reported. However, the overall rate of this event in New Zealand is reported to be around 3 per 100,000 vaccinations.”
How can any rational person say in the same paragraph that incidence of myocarditis and pericarditis is underreported in NZ, but also assert an absurdly low rate for incidence? In fact a new study puts the risk of myocarditis to be higher among vaccinated males under 40 than from Covid itself.
Multiple reports from individuals reveal that it is common practice to turn recently vaccinated individuals experiencing symptoms of myocarditis away from NZ general practices and hospitals without treatment or a report of cardiac problems. This is mediated by another myth that myocarditis is a ‘mild’ disease that is short lived. That’s a frightening lie. The damage to the heart from acute viral myocarditis is typically permanent, and the three- to five-year survival rate for myocarditis has historically ranged from 56% to 83%.
Whistleblower reports from emergency rooms around NZ report that facilities are being overwhelmed with cardiac cases among vaccinated individuals.
Taken together the misinformation effort by the NZ government led by Jacinda Ardern has irreparably changed the character of our society and caused needless suffering for thousands.
Guy Hatchard PhD is a former senior manager at Genetic ID a global food testing and certification company. He is an advocate for natural medicine.
Your DNA Diet
To find out more Guy Hatchard Ph.D., former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company, has written a book Discovering and Defending Your DNA Diet.
UPDATED: 04 January 2022. Today I reviewed my 2021 diary and correspondence and had an aha moment. Up until September most of my exchanges and the press articles I read involved discussion and interpretation of the relative merits of published scientific papers.
After that the official dialogue reported in the media subtly changed and started to assert that ‘science’ was on the side of vaccination without actually citing research papers—the merit of vaccination had become an accepted ‘fact’.
In contrast after September the publishing of Covid-19 science papers picked up pace and they certainly weren’t supporting the government narrative. Scientifically speaking, the government narrative was becoming an embarrassment, but that did not in any way deter the media or the government and their advisors from deciding to rigidly enforce and support draconian vaccination mandates.
Sometime early in 2021, there must have been a NZ government decision to accept at face value data from Pfizer that the vaccine was 95% effective and completely safe.
On this basis they launched a public advertising campaign emphasising its complete safety and effectiveness. Yet even in January before our vaccine rollout, studies were surfacing indicating that the effectiveness of the Covid vaccines dropped off rapidly.
This was quantified as about 39% after six months. By the end of May Israeli scientists had found a risk of some degree of myocarditis in as many as 1 in 2,500 recipients, especially after the second Pfizer dose. These warning signs did not appear to have any impact on government policy or messaging.
As the year went on key studies carried a clearer message. A study in the European Journal of Epidemiology published on 30th September found incidence of COVID‐19 is unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States.
On October 25th, a study published in the Lancet of 1.6 million individuals in Sweden found that effectiveness of mRNA vaccines becomes undetectable after 7 months.
On 8th November a study published in Circulation raised the alarm about increased markers of cardiac illness among the vaccinated. This was followed by comments from cardiac physicians that the incidence of cardiac illness was increasing alarmingly.
Despite high levels of vaccination, data from EU countries showed high levels of Covid infection continuing and even growing as the year progressed towards its end. This was certainly not the predicted outcome of vaccination programmes. The one remaining ‘fact’ that justified vaccination mandates was the narrative that vaccination reduced hospitalisation and death.
In mid December the figures from the UK Health Security Agency (Week 49 Vaccine Surveillance Report) showed that the proportion of vaccinated individuals dying from Covid in November (all ages) mirrored the proportion of the eligible population who were vaccinated (84% and 83% respectively) indicating an absence of net mortality benefit from vaccination.
On Christmas Day, a study of the case histories of 42 million people in the UK was published by MedRxiv, this found that for under 40 males, the risk of developing myocarditis (cardiac inflammation) was greater following mRNA vaccination than it was after contracting Covid itself. Moreover the risk increased with each successive shot including the booster shot.
On 22 December a Danish study was published which showed that the efficacy of the vaccine entered into negative territory after 90 days, in other words as the protective effect of mRNA vaccination wore off, it left recipients more vulnerable to Covid than the general population. The effect was largest for the Pfizer vaccine.
None of these newly published studies seem to have impacted government policies. Instead a measure of panic about the need for boosters has been projected by authorities around the world. To cap it all, despite there being no credible evidence, the scapegoating and persecuting of unvaccinated people has reached a crescendo. For example an article on January 1st 2022 in the Guardian written by Professor Devi Sridhar, Chair of Global Public Health at Edinburgh University rails against the ‘misinformation’ being promulgated by the unvaccinated.
She uses emotive phrases such as ‘alleged side effects’ of vaccination and denies that vaccination could change your DNA or ‘poison’ a person. Not a single study is cited by Prof. Sridhar in the whole article. Clearly there are serious side effects, numerous studies including some belated data from Pfizer itself have described these. Referring to these as poisoning is not prima facie a stretch. Is the professor aware of a study which came out at the end of 2020 showing that RNA sequences can and have been incorporated into our DNA?
Or is this perhaps a no go area for epidemiologists whose narrow field of interest is vaccination and now compulsory vaccination? In a show of professional entitlement, she bemoans the fact that her years of experience in infectious disease control is being ignored by a few people and wonders why the public does not offer the 100% unthinking support that her position should command whether it is based on science or not.
This is just one of an endless stream of articles, political pronouncements, and laws that scapegoat, punish and impoverish the unvaccinated. You need to dig a little deeper to find the source of this prejudice, because it certainly can’t be found in the published scientific narrative. There appear to be three main streams of thought that came together in 2021, all three of which are seeking forms of control, finance, and monopoly.
The first is the medical and pharmaceutical establishment with their magic bullet philosophy of manufactured drug-based approaches to health. Inherent is the idea that side effects are an ‘unfortunate’ but inevitable price to pay for health. More recently the use of biologic genetic medicine has been seen as the future of this sector, even though none of the promised breakthrough cures have come to fruition during the last 30 years. This sector wishes to gain a monopoly of healthcare, and potentially of the food sector.
The second is the technology and media sector. This stream of thought carries within itself the necessity of constant innovation. Innovations are seen as the essential stepping stones to progress. Each innovation replaces previous technology. For example we go from vinyl, to CDs, to streaming.
This sector is highly competitive. The media feeds off technology news; new inventions promise a better quality of life. This sector also ignores the side effects of technology. For example, educational attainment is declining as IT use in education increases. In this sector there are winners who take all, and the rest are losers.
The third sector is found in the machinery of government. Governments wish to take control of every aspect of life, especially the content of education and the permissible methods of healthcare, but more particularly information. In 2021 I was invited to participate in a conference discussing a new Digital Strategy for Aotearoa (New Zealand). As the conference progressed, it became apparent that the government aim was to control internet content. In New Zealand the government already has absolute authority and accepts virtually no liability for mistakes. It now wants to be the sole voice we are allowed to tune into.
During the pandemic, these three sectors have found each other and their aims have merged. They clearly see mutual advantages. The fly in the ointment is the ‘past’—traditional and cultural values, religious sentiment, and natural approaches to health and well being.
Thus an article in the Guardian on 31st December attacks people involved with the wellness industry in NZ, and suggests that when they become ‘reactive pro-vaxxers’ supporting the radical acceptance of new vaccination technology, the true meaning of wellness would be realised.
In this article there is not a mention of adverse events resulting from vaccination nor any mention of the rapidly declining efficacy of vaccination. Nor any mention of the increasing scientific concern that Covid mRNA vaccination may be suppressing immune system function.
Essentially all three power houses of the pandemic have ended up in a cul de sac, and it is not clear to them how to get out unscathed. Public opinion has been so indoctrinated, inflamed, and coerced into believing that vaccination is the safe exit strategy, that any crack in this narrative would result in serious recriminations and consequences.
On December 27th an assessment conducted in a large integrated health system in the USA found that the incidence of myopericarditis subsequent to mRNA vaccination was being underreported due to ineffective diagnostic procedures in hospitals.
We note that here in NZ a December 15 letter from Ministry of Health chiefs to regional health authorities for the first time struck a note of alarm that cases of myocarditis can become serious if left untreated.
An essential part of the vaccine narrative has been its absolute safety. Despite the BMJ publishing on November 2nd an expose of deficiencies and falsification during a Pfizer vaccine trial,
despite the absurdly short vaccine trial periods (months instead of years), despite the reports of multiple deaths proximate to vaccination (127 official Medsafe notifications so far in NZ and five times that notified to voluntary groups), the public vaccine safety narrative has been relentlessly pushed by media, pharma, and government—an unholy alliance of propaganda.
The efforts to hide any risks from the public were an essential part of their strategy. From the start the Ministry of Health decided not to require mandatory reporting of adverse effects of vaccines. Perhaps they simply didn’t bother to think about it, or possibly they didn’t want to know about any disasters if they did happen.
Instead they decided the largely voluntary system of CARM, which they knew had a record of only 5% of cases reported, was adequate to the task. The result has been that the true extent of adverse events following novel mRNA vaccination of 4 million Kiwis is still largely unknown.
Was this a conspiracy? Probably not, but it was a coming together of like minded people, who had a very clear vision of a biotechnological future—three classes of people who all shared a common vision. People who had been influenced by popular notions of evolution based solely on competition and survival of the fittest. The idea that the individual and society are somehow always in competition with Nature which they should seek to dominate, known as Social Darwinism—a philosophy that greatly influenced Hitler.
We now know the dominant driving force of evolution is actually found in cooperative systems—symbiosis involving mutually beneficial networks of genetic intelligence. Nature prefers ways in which system elements can work to mutual benefit including even for example within predator hierarchies such as that in Yellowstone National Park where the reintroduction of wolves restored the balance in the wider ecosystem. These networks rely on the sun, the land, the water, the seed. Perhaps this is why some studies published during 2021 showed greatly reduced hospitalisation if you follow a plant based diet,
The great tragedy of modern competitive models of nature is the misuse and degradation of natural resources, resulting in problems of climate change, pollution, and scarcity. The long term stewardship of natural resources has been replaced by the political, medical, and information age imperatives of narrow economic interests whose benefits are not evenly distributed. A system that rigorously and self-righteously ignores its own failings.
In 2022 I shall be asking the authorities, show us your evidence. We have shown you published scientific evidence of risk and ineffectiveness.
Where is your evidence for mandates?
Where is your evidence for safety?
Where is your evidence for effectiveness?
Where are the statistics?
Why have you not mandated reporting of adverse effects?
Why are you still blaming the unvaccinated?
Time to fess up with a respectable scientifically justified policy, not a public relations campaign laced with divisive prejudice. And yes please, do make reference to scientific papers rather than anonymous government experts.
Guy Hatchard PhD is a former senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food testing and certification company. He is an advocate of natural health care.
