The BFD | From the Desk of a Male Pale and Stale

I recently wrote an article addressing two significant concerns:

The bloating of the Te Whetu Ora HR Department, during its establishment (since then additional roles have been advertised!)
The visible promotion of Cultural Marxism, aided by this expansion. For instance, positions like “Group Manager, Organisational Culture Programme” or “Group Manager, Internal Communications & Culture”, essentially represent political or commissarial roles.

In July 2021, a contentious letter was authored by seven University of Auckland professors and published in The Listener. The letter disputed the equivalence of Maori knowledge, known as Matauranga Maori, with science. Their objection centred on proposed changes to the school curriculum by an NCEA working group, aiming to give Matauranga Maori equal status alongside other knowledge domains. The professors particularly opposed a description in a new course that discussed how science historically supported Eurocentric views, including its role in justifying the colonisation of Maori and suppressing their knowledge. They disagreed with the idea that science was solely a Western European invention and evidence of European dominance over indigenous groups. (1)

The academics acknowledged the role of indigenous knowledge in preserving local practices and in management and policy but firmly stated that Matauranga Maori should not be considered equivalent to science. They emphasised that while it might help, it did not meet the criteria defining science.

This stance faced criticism from both Maori and non-Maori “academics”. Tina Ngata, an advocate for indigenous rights, highlighted that the authors were not directly affected by the long-term dispossession or devaluation of Matauranga Maori (2). Associate Professor Ocean Mercier, focusing on the connection between Matauranga Maori and science, noted that these views were not novel and often resurfaced. She attributed these perspectives to scientists deeply entrenched in historical scientific norms rooted in colonialism. Mercier suggested that any mistrust in science stemmed from (Author’s note: the ‘usual tropes of’) the harmful historical legacy of research impacting indigenous peoples, Maori, minorities, and women (3).

Regardless, Matauranga Maori is not equivalent to science; you can’t build a rocket with it. While science and Matauranga Maori both seek to understand the world around us, they do so in different ways (4).

Part of Matauranga Maori is Rongoa Maori, which is traditional Maori medicine. It is a holistic healing system passed down through generations, using plants, massages, and incantations (not a feature of science or modern medicine) for treatment.

In Maori culture, illness is seen as a result of disharmony with nature. To address sickness, a ‘Tohunga’, or Rongoa Maori expert, identifies the imbalance and treats both the physical and spiritual aspects.
On the ACC website, an expert explains that “Rongoa Maori” differs from Western medicine as it (“Rongoa Maori”) “prioritises positioning the individual to enhance their healing process” (5).

This brings me to my concerns regarding the potential influences on Rongoa Maori from the European (ironically “colonial”) import of Cultural Marxism to Te Whetu Ora.
These concerns arise from historical evidence, as well as the support and funding provided to Rongoa Maori by New Zealand’s ACC. It’s not that the support itself is negative, but rather the worry revolves around the potential for an ideologically influenced version of Rongoa Maori, supported and promoted within Te Whetu Ora, to be used as a platform to contradict mainstream medicine. This situation could lead to patients being disadvantaged, conflicting with the principle of the Hippocratic oath to “do no harm”.

Essentially, I fear a locally grown version of ‘medical Lysenkoism’ emerging within Te Whetu Ora. To this point, “Health Equity” appears as an explicit objective stated on the Te Whetu Ora website.

This all sounds good in theory and looks good on paper. It makes some people look and feel virtuous (pointing my finger at you Ashley).

This objective can and will lead to harm. Rather than people treated as important sovereign cases, they will be treated as representatives of a “group”.

Some groups being supposedly more privileged (or disadvantaged) than others – despite the details of their individual circumstances and medical case histories and presentations.
We can already see this philosophy being pushed by the American Medical Association (AMA). Seeking to establish “equitable health outcomes” they redistribute harms to make outcomes seemingly ‘fairer’, e.g. funding for one group is taken from funding for another group; much as what was intended regarding having two separate health systems in New Zealand – one for Maori (Te Aka Whai Ora) and one for other New Zealanders – which incidentally Maori can still access i.e., they get to pick and choose but others don’t. Already in order to achieve “equity” an inherent unfairness is (was?) being built into the health system.

This could manifest itself in the practice of “Lysenkoism”.

What is “Lysenkoism” and how could it further manifest itself in Health New Zealand?

Lysenkoism refers to the scientific doctrines and practices advocated by Trofim Lysenko, an ardent Marxist and Soviet biologist, during Joseph Stalin’s regime.

Lysenko rejected mainstream genetics and promoted his own theories, which went against established scientific understanding. His ideas denied the role of genetics in heredity and evolution, proposing that acquired characteristics could be inherited. Towards this end, he was a huge fan of “vernalization” as a means of supposedly altering plants to inherit parental characteristics. (“Vernalization” is a process of exposing plants to low temperatures to promote flowering.) This contradicts the principles of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution. However, Lysenko’s theories found favour in the Soviet Union due to their alignment with Stalin’s ‘Economic Marxism’ (A system that grossly failed – so second time round “Progressives” are trying to gain power using Cultural Marxism). Lysenko claimed the ability to increase crop yields and develop new varieties more resistant to weather and disease. His unproven ideas became ‘State doctrine’, discrediting traditional genetics and silencing opposing scientists.

Regarding COVID, New Zealand has already demonstrated its own form of medical Lysenkoism, where state-sanctioned beliefs dominated without room for opposition. Certain medical concepts (e.g. mRNA vaccines) became official doctrine, and dissent wasn’t accepted.

Lysenko’s mentor, Nikolai Vavilov, later denounced him; as a result, Nikolai was sent to prison and died there, while Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed. In a kinder New Zealand, we demand dissenting doctors appear before a tribunal and then suspend their right to practice and/or earn a living. (7)

It is dangerous when politics and ideologies impact science. I’m concerned that Rongoa Maori, within Te Whetu Ora, will be impacted by ideological policies promoted by HR, (though it is not as if our medical schools are entirely blameless as currently, they are dabbling in the same ideologies and this also needs to be stopped), resulting in poor outcomes. This lens could distort traditional healing practices to align with a political agenda aimed at undermining modern Western medicine. There’s a risk of establishing an ‘equitable’ health system that replaces “do no harm” with “distribute harms for relative outcomes,” potentially disadvantaging certain patients and undermining genuine Hippocratic principles.

In summary, within universities driven by ideological influences in academic placements, there’s a noticeable impact regarding the interaction between Matauranga Maori and science, resulting in lower quality outcomes for students. Already we see the genesis of similar HR interference in the functionality and policies of Te Whetu Ora. We can predict the potential use of Rongoa Maori as a means to achieve equity goals in Te Whetu Ora, just as Lysenkoism distorted Soviet science for politics. This ideological imposition may compromise the authenticity of Rongoa Maori, ultimately impacting patient well-being. This would particularly affect Maori and is completely contrary to some stated objectives of Te Whetu Ora, i.e. specifically improving Maori health outcomes.

Moreover, due to apprehension about inadequate support and potential disciplinary action for not conforming to ideological (Lysenkoist) medicine, numerous healthcare workers will feel isolated within the Te Whetu Ora environment. This, in turn, will further diminish the quality of patient health outcomes.

References