OPINION
Guy Hatchard
Dr. Guy Hatchard is an international advocate of food safety and natural medicine.
Last week, we published an open letter to parliamentarians, which was personally sent to every MP and marked URGENT. So what happened? We got some responses.
You will recall that the letter raised questions about the plan of the government to deregulate biotechnology. In particular we raised questions about safety and risk, and suggested that parliament pause this move until phase 2 of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Covid Pandemic reports its findings.
We pointed to our high rate of excess deaths, which is continuing, and the failure of the government to investigate its causes. We noted that both the Covid virus and the vaccine were linked to biotechnology experimentation. We pointed to the current unprecedented highly elevated rate of hospitalisation for heart disease, cancers, and other conditions which come at a massive personal and financial cost. We also noted, contrary to government PR, that biotech derived foods are not attracting consumers overseas – many companies are failing.
Alarming disability figures
The scale of the problem was brought home to us this week when we analysed the June 2024 Quarter Labour Market Statistics. Alarmingly, the working age population who are disabled rose by a massive 8.2 per cent from June ’23 to June ’24. This underlines our excess deaths figures. People are also falling sick and unable to work in unprecedented numbers. During this period the New Zealand working age population rose by just 2.3 per cent, so the year to June quarter rise is not an artefact of population growth.
For comparison, in terms of numbers, from Jun ’17 to ’Jun 21 the annual average increase in the working age population who are disabled was 2300 mirroring population rise. From Jun ’21 to Jun ’24 (post Covid vaccination) the annual average increase is 5300. In the last 12 months the increase was 10400. Things are getting worse, not better.
This underlines the urgency of our letter to MPs which suggested their plan to deregulate biotechnology had implications for public health and the economy.
So what did MPs reply?
The Hon. Nicola Willis, Minister of Finance, replied: “As the issues you raise fall within the portfolio responsibilities of Hon Judith Collins, Minister of Science, Innovation, and Technology, I have referred your email to her office for consideration.”
Fair enough, so Judith Collins, Minister of Science and Technology, who is pushing biotechnology deregulation on behalf of her party is being asked to reply to my detailed letter. Great.
The Hon. Judith Collins, skilled politician that she is, passed the parcel again replying: “Upon further consideration by our office, we feel your correspondence is more appropriately directed to Hon Dr Shane Reti (Minister of Health).” How is that?
Well good to hear my letter deserved ‘further consideration’.
The Hon. Shane Reti’s Office replied “As the matter you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister of Health, Hon Shane Reti, your email has been forwarded to this office for consideration. On behalf of the minister, thank you for taking the time to write. I have made note of your email below and passed it to the health team for their consideration.”
Curiously then, no members of the ruling National Party felt that the safety of biotechnology deregulation was worthy of immediate comment.
The ACT Party is a member of the coalition government and a big supporter of biotechnology deregulation (which as I pointed out in my letter is de facto already happening). Dr. Parmjeet Parmar MP writing on behalf of the ACT office replied: “I appreciate you taking the time to contact me with your detailed information. New legislation to regulate [actually deregulate] biotechnology will be introduced to parliament in the future and once this new legislation is tabled, the public will have an opportunity to submit on this matter. You may wish to consider this option when it becomes available.”
In other words the ACT Party admitted that our letter contained ‘detailed information’, but they didn’t feel any need to reply to the content.
UPDATED: Stuart Smith, the National Party MP for Kaikoura, replied: “Thank you for the informative email, which is helpful and timely.” Thank you, Stuart.
I did not receive a reply from the third member of the ruling coalition, the NZ First Party, but I understand through third-party communications that NZ First is prepared to find out more about the issues. I hope they do so.
Which brings me to the nub of the problem. MPs know next to nothing about biotechnology risks and safety, but they are planning to deregulate it. Why would the government act so decisively on something they don’t understand?
No one from the Labour Party, Greens or Te Pāti Māori replied.
In the 1970s, I was able to walk into the office of Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, have a conversation with his private secretary, ask some questions and receive a detailed written reply from Muldoon himself. I also met the Director General of Health Dr Hiddlestone in person. He assembled his whole team to listen to me make a presentation about the potential savings from natural approaches to healthcare.
Today I seriously doubt whether any more than a small handful of politicians got to even see my letter, let alone read it. They probably get their information from newspapers like Stuff which yesterday printed an article blaming the unvaccinated for a resurgence in Covid at the Olympics. It quoted Maria Van Kerkhove, a WHO epidemiologist, who said, “I am concerned with such low [vaccine] coverage.” The article managed somehow to transfer this concern to New Zealand, which has a vaccination rate of 90 per cent (along with most other Western nations experiencing renewed Covid waves. Kerkhove inexplicably forgot to mention IgG4 mediated vaccine induced immune deficiency among highly Covid vaccinated populations, which is subject to much discussion in current scientific literature. I wonder why?
Our government has declined to measure the comparative health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Yet they have become fixated in their adherence to the ‘safety and efficacy’ myth of biotechnology. MPs, especially ministers, are insulated from the public by minders, advisors, bureaucrats, experts, private consultants, technologists, media hacks and favoured lobbyists. They are spoon fed opinions which are judged to be ‘ideologically correct’, ‘electorally acceptable’, ‘party line’ and ‘consonant with those of our allies’. Facts be damned.
We are a small nation of people who have a long history of talking to one another in a straightforward and honest manner. We are a long way from the rest of the world so have had to be self reliant. We have needed to find and investigate the solutions that work for us. We have often charted an independent course, but not it seems now.
Whatever has happened to us and what can we do about it? In the modern era, letters to MPs and submissions to consultation processes disappear into a black hole, so forget about that: dig a little deeper. You might be very surprised at what I am going to say, but it reflects an older knowledge and a deeper understanding of science than the superficialities dominating political life today.
Who is really governing New Zealand, or any country for that matter?
It is the laws of nature. The sun rises everyday and warms us, the earth gives up abundance, rains quench our thirst, natural biodiversity gives us clothing, food, housing... There are natural laws governing light, heat, cold, gravity, cohesion, movement and growth. Rivers are the lifeblood of the land, trees clear the air, the ocean currents mitigate climate extremes. The display of nature’s intelligence is endless. Our connection with nature is something we rely upon completely in so many ways. Yet the government is planning to allow biological intelligence to be altered and degraded.
In our posts at GLOBE, starting from theoretical physics, we have regularly discussed the intimate connection between matter and consciousness. We have pointed out the key deficiency of the biotech paradigm: it doesn’t even begin to understand how biology supports our everyday consciousness, let alone its higher functions. Yet the biotech industry has ploughed on altering fundamental genetic processes in agriculture and in global populations without regard to the risks or consequences for our physical health or mental identity.
We have pointed out that the connection between consciousness and matter has multiple dimensions – chemistry, electricity, electromagnetic fields, vibrational modes, molecular shape, transcription regulation and uniform genetic identity. All of these play key roles in physiological immunity, homeostasis, expression, and development; and they all play key roles in supporting our consciousness.
We haven’t previously discussed the function of shape. Nature grows by enclosing space in material structures. Atoms, molecules, organisms, including humans, cells, and organs, are all analogous to houses – distinct spaces housing forms of intelligence. Structure has two aspects: shape and space. Shape is one of the most important properties of matter including biology. It helps to determine action. Enclosed space is not dead: it has characteristics and influence. Even empty space has a non-zero energy density.
What is true of the microcosm is also true of the macrocosm. We might consider the built environment. We are connected to nature through our dwelling house. The whole house is more than the sum of its parts. We live in a space defined by a structure. In many cultures, there has been a knowledge of the effect of built spaces on the individual occupiers. This involves proportions, placement, orientation, construction materials and building uses. The Greeks had classes of columns and knew about golden proportions between the dimensions of height and width. Georgian homes are much sought after because of their pleasing proportions which copied classical ideas.
Other older cultures clearly utilised a sophisticated construction knowledge like the Khmers who built Angkor or the Harappans in the Indus valley. Ancient India had one of the most developed systems of building in harmony with natural law known as Vastu which prescribes precise mathematical relationships between dimensions, placement of buildings relative to natural features, natural construction materials and alignment with the cardinal directions. The Chinese also have a Feng Shui.
One of the foundational principles of Vastu is a preference for rectilinear buildings with east facing entrances, Along with all the other prescriptions of the system, this is said to enhance health and longevity by connecting the occupant with the energy and movement of the sun. In contrast, circular buildings like the Colosseum for example are said to bring misfortune.
So this morning I remembered that in 1981 something momentous happened to New Zealand politics. The Beehive opened. The ruling government moved from the old east facing rectangular parliament building to a modernistic circular icon.
Ever since then, we seem to have been going round in circles.
The Beehive is no doubt also saddled with sick building syndrome – high levels of EMF radiation, subject to off gassing and particulates from modern materials, artificial light, and deficient in fresh air. Judging by the number of MPs who have suffered mental breakdowns over recent months and years or been accused of bullying their staff, the Beehive must be a very stressful place to work (if that is the right term).
There are always deeper, more unified principles at work at smaller time and distance scales. We need to learn a lot more about the deeper principles of nature. At some point a wider knowledge and appreciation of natural law is going to re-emerge from the chaos we are now experiencing. In the meantime politicians are acting superficially without understanding; treating biotechnology as if it were solely an economic fantasyland without rules or risks. Action without understanding is ultimately self-destructive. Our political tsars might want to break away from their minders to start thinking about that and possibly read a little more from their post bag.
Whilst I have reported the replies from MPs with an ironic tone, the concerns we raised were very serious indeed: they involve human health and life. These concerns speak to a compelling need for the International Genetic Charter. Its simple terms spell out in a few sentences the safeguards necessary to protect human life from genetic degradation driven by government ignorance, corporate greed and academic hubris. Please take a couple of minutes to sign up to The International Genetic Charter here.
This article was originally published by the Hatchard Report.
