Guy Hatchard
hatchardreport.com
Dr Guy Hatchard 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.
Information
Opinion
Most vaccinated or unvaccinated people are probably taking a deep breath (without a mask) and wondering where to from here?
The pharmaceutical/biotechnology lobby will not be pausing for a minute: they will be redoubling their efforts on all fronts while unsuspecting citizens are trying to recover from the deprivations of the last three years.
One out of many aims of the biotech lobby is to persuade everyone that any negative effects (and deaths) associated with the pandemic resulted from Covid infection and nothing else. Counter narratives will continue to be dismissed as conspiracy theories. In order to secure the whitewash, no method, however underhand, will be left unused.
As we have frequently noted, the biotech lobby is anxious to dismiss any idea that Covid resulted from a lab escape. If it did (and the evidence is frankly overwhelming), the whole pandemic resulted from risky biotech experiments A to Z.
If so, whichever side of the argument you are on, vaccinated or unvaccinated, you should be asking for a ban on risky biotechnology experimentation.
To counter this, those in receipt of biotechnology grants and funding, and related income sources, are busting their gut to sing the praises of mRNA technology and hide the adverse effects.
A paper published on August 4 2022 entitled “BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccination Against Covid-19 is Associated with Decreased Likelihood of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in US Children Ages 5-18 Years” is a case in point.
Mathematician and Substack blogger Igor Chudov has analysed the paper in depth and at length. He found that the study overstated the benefit of “Covid vaccines”, purposely undercounted Covid vaccinated children who had Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS-C) and used incorrect calculations to arrive at the purported benefit.
When calculated properly, children who received Covid vaccines have a greater, not lower, risk of MIS-C, compared to unvaccinated children.
Let’s just look at one of the ways the outcomes are distorted in the study. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children is a condition where different body parts can become inflamed, including the heart, lungs, kidneys, brain, skin, eyes or gastrointestinal organs. It can be deadly. Its cause is unknown.
The study designated anyone who received an mRNA vaccine less than 14 days prior as unvaccinated and also anyone with just one dose. Look at the graph from the paper with Chudov’s annotations in red:
The blue dots are cases of MIS-C. You can see that the closer you are to the vaccination date, cases are more frequently clustered. There is every reason to suppose that cases may be more frequent even closer than 14 days, but the authors of the study excluded these.
The study reported 24 cases of MIS-C among the vaccinated and 280 cases among the unvaccinated. When the excluded data was reinstated and other data corrected, Chudov found 181 MIS-C cases among the vaccinated and 182 among the unvaccinated.
Since there were far fewer vaccinated children among the initial study participants, the relative risk of suffering MIS-C was 1.43 times higher among the vaccinated. The opposite conclusion of that reported in the published study.
Another way you can hide the effects of mRNA vaccination is to simply ignore the fact that it could have had an effect. A study “Neurological and psychiatric risk trajectories after SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis of two-year retrospective cohort studies including 1 284 437 patients” takes this approach. The authors tacitly assume that mRNA vaccination did not play any role in the observed incidences of neurological and psychiatric illness, despite microbiological and statistical evidence that it could and does.
For more evidence of efforts to cover up deficiencies in assessment of risks, read this article by Dr Mercola. It is written in a style that is easy to assimilate without overloading the reader with obscure technicalities. In essence, different batches of mRNA vaccines had radically different adverse effect rates and genetic characteristics. Some batches were disproportionately associated with severe outcomes.
It also covers the implications of the Pfizer release documents which reveal just how many severe adverse effects and deaths following mRNA vaccine trials were hidden and/or excluded.
The approach of the pharmaceutical PR lobby to articles like these is to dismiss them as the work of conspiracy theorists, never answering the detailed questions raised concerning publicly available data. A tactic that works very well if you have been able to pay off the media.
By November 2021, Bill Gates had spent $319 million on direct grants to media and he is just one player among a great many. We know about his payments because they come from his foundation which publishes [its] accounts. Pharmaceutical company PR efforts reportedly consume a higher proportion of total revenue than the total research budgets. They spend more money on PR than they do on medical research. This involves expenditures which dwarf those of Gates, but whose details are not so easy to find.
The CDC, FDA and other government health agencies around the world, who benefit from Big Pharma largess, have joined in by sending misinformation to Facebook and other social media outlets designed to encourage them to delete posts counter to government policy.
The full extent of the intention to transform our medical system into a biotechnology juggernaut is spelt out in this article in Nature Communications “A global forum on synthetic biology: the need for international engagement”. The article proposes: A global forum on synthetic biology to discuss policy futures at the highest level across international borders to usher in the age of engineering biology.
Saying: “2020 marks the first moment in human civilisation when in silico-designed biological code was used to address human biological vulnerability en masse via an mRNA substrate.”
The hubris in this article is breathtaking as is the intention to capture policymakers and regulators around the world under the roof of one synthetic biotech umbrella.
Just to give you a short introduction to the age of engineering biology, read this article in Town and Country (yes, a publication covering High Society) entitled “How a Diabetes Drug Became the New Weight Loss Trend for the Rich”. The article describes how a diabetes drug Ozempic is being used off-label to gain the slim figure of a true socialite at a cost of just $1000 a month.
The article doesn’t tell you that one of the known side effects of regular use of Ozempic is thyroid cancer, but then again what is cancer compared to the perfect figure in the age of synthetic biotech engineering?
The pandemic has allowed the commercial arm of biotechnology to legitimize its control of medicine, but it doesn’t stop there. Biotech is also busy cornering the food business. When I worked for Genetic ID, I used to attend the Natural Products Expo West. A giant annual trade show in Anaheim California for all things organic. The show has been cancelled for two years, but it started up again this year.
Completely unexpected was the presence of companies selling GMO 2.0 or synthetic biology technologies. This is genetically engineered food rebranded as precise and safe without any safety testing – synthetic meats and ingredients made in giant biotech vats worthy of sci-fi extravaganzas.
The bad news – it is already on our supermarket shelves and there are no labels to warn you, just the misleading PR that you will be saving the world from climate change if you buy in. Synthetic ingredients are often labelled as ‘natural’, a misuse of the term, but they are not.
Just remember that the pandemic should have taught us just how vulnerable we are to novel biotechnology. We have been eating fresh natural foods for millions of years. We enjoy a healthy mutual co-evolutionary relationship with traditional food sources. Overturn that at our peril.
It is time to reevaluate the huge influence the biotech lobby wields over government policy and regulation. This is not a time to leave the door open for influence peddling, cronyism and corruption which disregards the very real and severe adverse effects on human health – genetic dysfunction that can also be inherited by subsequent generations.
Guy Hatchard PhD is formerly a senior manager at Genetic ID a global food safety testing and certification company (now known as FoodChain ID).
Guy is the author of Discovering and Defending Your DNA Diet.
