Table of Contents
Guy Hatchard
Guy is an international advocate of food safety and natural medicine. He received his undergraduate degree in Logic and Theoretical Physics from the University of Sussex and his PhD in Psychology from Maharishi University of Management, Fairfield Iowa. He was formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID, a global food safety testing and certification laboratory.
Dear director
Sometimes information helps us to understand puzzling situations. Business models can be very informative. It won’t have escaped your notice that the public health sector has no clear business incentive to understand what is making more people more sick more often with more serious conditions as we reported this week.
The opposite is the case with health insurance companies like yours. You have an absolute need to understand health data in great detail. Your business model, the livelihood of your employees and the returns of your investors require that you get it right. To do so, you employ actuaries. Highly mathematically competent analysts who run complex computer programmes to identify what specific factors among your client profiles are associated on average with elevated volumes and costs of claims.
In other words, you analyse the health data of your clients in great detail in order to decide what premiums people should pay. An obvious factor is age. Older people generally need more healthcare. Along with smokers and heavy drinkers, older people may need to pay more for health insurance to make things equitable and to ensure that you can meet the costs of claims. As we reported this week, you have recently announced sustained losses which have necessitated substantial increases in health insurance premiums. According to media articles, this was due to increases in volumes of claims and to increased medical costs.
Despite the lack of detail available from Health NZ, you must be fully aware of a changed profile of health outcomes since 2020. No doubt this involves an increased incidence of cardiovascular, neurological, immunological and oncological conditions which have additionally impacted the capacity of some of your policy holders to maintain employment. This has become an open secret because increased rates of illness are hard to hide. Hospitals are overcrowded, the wait times at ED or to get a specialist appointment are long. Anecdotal comments and/or leaked data we have received from doctors, hospital staff and insurance brokers are also instructive.
The actual cause(s) of increased sickness rates is therefore a matter of grave concern. It seems likely that some of the increase in sickness rates will be associated with rates of Covid infection and/or adverse effects of prevention and treatment strategies and their sequelae. It is probable that the Covid virus likely originated in a lab, the vaccines certainly did, and therefore, whichever is at fault here, increased sickness rates appear to be associated with the implementation of novel biotechnologies.
Personalised medicine involving biotechnology poses some special challenges for health insurance companies. There are now known to be in excess of 10,000 diseases with a significant inherited or genetic component. Many biotechnology companies are involved in developing individualised gene therapy procedures to tackle these illnesses. Problems arise for a number of reasons, as explained and referenced in our article “The Big Debate: How Many New Doctors Will NZ Need if the Gene Technology Bill is Passed?”:
- The costs involved are very high. A recent trial of treatment for sickle cell disease for example cost around NZ$5 million per person. CAR T cell therapy costs almost $1 million per person.
- The success rates are low. The sickle cell trial had a one-year success rate of just 22 per cent. CAR T cell therapies have one-year success rates around 50 per cent.
- The adverse effects are significant and serious. They occur at high rates. There are literally dozens of critical steps involved in gene therapies, which all carry specific risks.
- The long term prognosis and risks of these novel therapies are unknown at this stage. In some cases it may involve a lifetime of recurring treatment.
Therefore the current direction of medicine and the projected passage of the Gene Technology Bill should be of concern to health insurance companies. As we discuss in our article “A Very Important Read: What is the Solution to NZ’s Health Crisis”, there are many well-researched preventive self-healthcare strategies with very large effect sizes and virtually no side effects which could help to address the current health crisis which could be encouraged and promoted by health insurance companies to great effect.
I understand that insurance companies are careful to protect the privacy of their data. Despite this, you are in possession of very important summary and specific information which could help shape NZ Health policy. If you are aware of any data which shows that there have been any recent sudden increases in specific medical conditions, then there is an imperative to investigate and share any information whether positive or negative with the public. Especially as Health NZ is continuing to promote Covid vaccination for some people whilst maintaining its safety.
We note that the US FDA and CDC are starting to ask serious questions about Covid vaccine safety. This is quite rightly a matter of public record and debate. Some mainstream publications in the US like the Atlantic have started to roll back their previous endorsement of Covid vaccination safety in the face of concerning data. Similarly US universities who mandated Covid vaccination for students and faculty have begun to issue legally worded retractions that fall short of apology, but admit serious adverse effects and deaths.
Here in NZ it has been remarkable that the government, health authorities and the media have continued to constitute a united front maintaining Covid vaccination safety. They have done so despite the unprecedented rates of adverse effects reported to CARM and the disturbing results of recently published studies like the very large population wide studies conducted in Korea and Japan for example. In other words, they are failing to investigate potential problems in the face of accumulating evidence.
There is a need for an open public debate in our country and access to source data for demonstrably independent qualified researchers. As a director of a health insurance company with access to fully analysed health data, you can play a key role in initiating and opening up this debate. At this point, any failure to investigate vital information germane to public health planning and individual choice is not in the public interest or anyone’s individual interest.
I trust you will consider this request very seriously. Please share this email with your leadership team. I and colleagues are available to discuss any of these issues with you in person or to provide more further information. I was previously a director at Genetic ID, a global genetic safety testing and certification company. I have lobbied governments on health strategies and biotechnology safety. Due to rapid changes in health policies and procedures, the time has come to consider the facts in the light of up-to-date comprehensive health data rather than simply relying on prior viewpoints.
Yours sincerely
Guy Hatchard PhD
This article was originally published on the Hatchard Report.
