If some of you are still thinking that the nation's health is built on universal vaccination protocols you might examine the results of research more closely. 

The Cleveland Clinic is a prestigious medical institution in Ohio. It is consistently ranked as one of the best hospitals in the United States. For the past twenty years in the fields of cardiology, heart, and vascular surgery, Cleveland Clinic has been ranked and regarded as the best and highest-performing hospital in the world. It requires regular vaccination for its 54,402 staff, but allows applications for exemptions on medical or religious grounds.

In 2024/25 it mandated the flu vaccine. In all, 43,857 staff (82%) received the vaccine. The remainder received exemptions and were unvaccinated. A study approved by the Clinic has just been published on MedRxiv under the title "Effectiveness of the Influenza Vaccine During the 2024-2025 Respiratory Viral Season". It examines the outcomes of the vaccination program over a 25 week period. It found:

"Over the course of the study the cumulative incidence of influenza increased more rapidly among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, clinical nursing job, and employment location, the risk of influenza was significantly higher for the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated state (HR, 1.27; 95% C.I., 1.07 – 1.51; P = 0.007), yielding a calculated vaccine effectiveness of −26.9% (95% C.I., −55.0 to −6.6%)."

In other words the flu shot predisposed its staff to become infected with influenza—a negative effectiveness. The results are challenging to the accepted flu vaccination protection paradigm.

Sometimes it is necessary to go back to basics to examine the fundamentals of what we believe in and what we do. A message that has never been more timely than today. Increasingly, public messaging is being based on belief, ideology and advertising tricks rather than science and common sense. The effect of this mistake is exacerbated by the rapid changes taking place in medicine, food and technology.

The slice of toast we are eating today could be quite different from that of last year, but the packaging might be unaltered.

An article entitled "Making genetically engineered food palatable", just published by Chemistry World, the journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry, spills the beans. It promises that the latest round of GM foods, about to be released following deregulation, will include "more aesthetically pleasing fruits and vegetables" that will boost vitamin content, have a longer shelf life and "make greens that actually taste delicious"???

According to the article, mega corporation Bayer (that acquired Monsanto in 2016 for US$66 billion) "is deeply attuned to what consumers are seeking" ??? It is marketing a CRISPR edited GM mustard green which has been stripped of its pungent bitter taste by a biotech startup called Pairwise. Bayer believes this has improved [bland?] flavour and nutrition which will make salad more appealing to consumers. The claim of higher nutritional value is based on nothing more than a suggestion from the CEO of Pairwise that the taste is so improved that consumers will eat more of it than traditional lettuce, because the 'strong flavour' has been removed. In other words, we will stuff our face with it in an effort to detect the taste.

Forget about this hype, the main reason Bayer is so excited is contained in this quote from the article:

"Bayer and Pairwise point out the genetically altered salad greens aren't considered a genetically modified organism under the traditional understanding of a GMO – and this could make a big difference in how appealing these next-generation foods could be."

Translating this into plain English, under the new GM regulations, or rather lack of them, there will be no requirement to label the switch. Consumers need not be told that the product is genetically altered. In other words, under the Gene Technology Bill here in NZ and similar deregulation overseas, gene edited foods using CRISPR will be classed as 'natural'. A slight of hand that has Bayer rubbing its hands in glee. The UK Food Standards Authority (UKFSA) has also joined in saying that up until now consumers have been confusing gene-edited food with genetically modified food??? Luckily for us, any sense of confusion will all come to an end with the removal of any requirement for labelling. We won't know what we are eating.

Those working in the biotech industry are at pains to point out that no one has found even a single case of an adverse effect of a GM food. A rather bold claim since it might also be said that no definitive comparison has ever been undertaken. Instead, the claim of safety is largely based on a rather loose comparison between the health of Americans who have unlabelled GM foods and Europeans where labelling has been required so far. According to this imperfect analysis published in 2016 by the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine, which aims to promote US science, "there is no difference in patterns of cancer, diabetes, kidney diseases, autism or food allergies between the US and the EU".

This is an absurd claim. According to multiple studies published in learned journals over the last decade, Americans enjoy some of the worst health statistics in the developed world. For example a 2023 report of the Commonwealth Fund concludes:

"The U.S. has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rates for avoidable or treatable conditions and the highest maternal and infant mortality. It has the highest rate of people with multiple chronic conditions and an obesity rate nearly twice the OECD average."

As far as GM food is concerned, just a glance at these American health stats should raise alarm bells, but don't worry, if you turn the other way and refuse to look, you won't find anything to be concerned about.

So what exactly is Bayer planning for our dinner plates?

So far there have been two waves of genetic engineering of our food. The first involved GM crops. Out of the many wannabe entrants in the first wave, the main staples that have caught on globally are pest resistant and pesticide tolerant varieties of GM soy, canola and corn. Varieties of alfalfa, sugar beet and papaya are also grown in the US. These crops have all faced consumer resistance and are relatively easy to avoid if you choose foods labelled non-GMO. The second wave has involved wide spread gene engineering of food processing enzymes and additives. As we have reported in our article Major Health Alert: the Extraordinary Genetically Modified Invasion of Our Supermarkets by Stealth, this has escaped labelling requirements, yet studies show it has involved a significant degree of contamination with associated risks to health.

In addition to those already mentioned, a third wave consisting of gene-edited fruit and vegetables is being approved. These are unlabelled and are just beginning to hit markets. Including:

• GABA enriched Tomatoes from Sanatech seeds,
• Non-browning Avocados and Salad Greens from GreenVenus,
• Long shelf life Purple Tomato from Norfolk 'Healthy' Produce,
• Powdery mildew resistant Grapes from VitisGen3
• So-called Conscious Salad Greens from Pairwise
• Seedless Blackberries from Pairwise
• Arctic Apples from Okanagan Specialty Fruits
• Summer Squash and Zucchini from Bayer
• White Button Mushroom from Yinong Yang
• BG25 GM Potato from SPS International
• Golden Rice from Bayer and Syngenta

These varieties are just a small fraction of the GM types under development. Some of the above are already approved in NZ, including Golden Rice and Arctic Apples for example, but have not yet reached our supermarket shelves probably because of current GM labelling requirements. That is all about to change. They are now set to escape labelling requirements under the provisions of the Gene Technology Bill in NZ and similar legislation elsewhere. The explosive proliferation of GM foods is taking off due to the use of generative AI technology which drives research by designing experimental gene edits. Complimenting this, large companies now have been gifted another weapon for their marketing arsenal. They can simply use their profits to incentivise governments and farmers in order to take over market share without having to negotiate consumer choice, all courtesy of biotech deregulation—a potentially cosy financial relationship.

As a result, our supermarket basket and even an innocent looking packet of seeds for the home garden are rapidly becoming objects of suspicion and deceit.

Consumption of traditional fresh natural fruit and vegetables and whole foods is known to be associated with longevity and health. Multiple studies have found reduced incidence of the main killers—cancer, heart disease and inflammatory conditions. Mega corporations are now moving to control this sector and replace heritage types with patented GM varieties. The potential health outcomes are unknown, but the hype is in full swing. The UKSFA is quoted as saying consumers perceive the new generation of CRISPR gene-edited foods as "safer and more natural"??? Alexander Gutmann, spokesperson for Bayer, told Chemistry World "I wouldn't consider making food healthier or making food tastier as vanity". This is PR messaging for our consumption, softening us up to believe. It is not based on anything other than a desire to capture markets and manipulate consumers.

The writer of the article in Chemistry World, unabashedly promoting the 'virtues' of GM food, is Kristina Megget who announces herself as follows: "I have been empowering people to believe in themselves to become the people they want to be and achieve their goals and dreams since the start of 2023."

I trust you are seeing what I see, we are in danger of sinking under the weight of misguided faith in biotechnology along with unalloyed greed for profit and market control. Agriculture, food and medicine have become dominated and completely transmuted by biotech processes and products, but there are few if any attempts to critically assess health outcomes. These people have no shame, their use of the words 'natural' and 'healthy' are misleading and appear sinister in intent. A big shout out today for the Cleveland Clinic, who measured some results and had the courage to publish. We could all do with a dose of reality before we are overwhelmed by deceptive biotech assumptions and practices, cast adrift from any realistic assessment of health outcomes.

Guy Hatchard, PhD.