by Guy Hatchard

Cabinet Minister Judith Collins is promising us an economic miracle if only she can deregulate biotechnology. According to Collins, gene technology research using CRISPR will be a money spinner. She is absolutely right, but it won’t benefit NZ. CRISPR techniques are subject to patents. They can be licensed for use by academic laboratories, but if you want to commercialise a product produced using CRISPR it comes at a cost, a huge cost. For example, in 2023, Vertex Pharmaceuticals in Boston, Massachusetts, secured approval to sell its CRISPR-based treatment for sickle-cell disease only after paying $50 million in up front fees to a licence-holder authorised by the Broad Institute, a genomic-research centre in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that holds the patents. It seems that any CRISPR money spinning largely takes place in America, which is why US trade negotiators are reportedly demanding biotech deregulation as a precondition of a free trade agreement with NZ.

Which brings us to another point. Will the Gene Technology Bill benefit public health as Auntie Collins tells us? Examples of benefits of gene technology are a rare animal indeed (disasters abound), but one has had its share of headlines recently. Gene therapy treatments for sickle-cell anemia cost about $NZ 6 million per person and they involve bone marrow transplants. The mortality rates after bone marrow transplants reported in the published literature range from a massive 74% to 10% depending on a number of factors including the pre-existing health of the individual. The massive costs and low survival rates are not going to impact NZ’s appalling public health statistics, only our balance sheet.

More and more as every day goes by Collins is beginning to sound like Bernie Madoff, but will gene technology allow us to live longer? You might have come across Bryan Johnson, the billionaire poster child for longevity via gene technology. He has a Netflix series devoted to his quest to live forever. Bryan’s every move is governed by the advice of his team of 30 doctors. According to some reports in glossy magazines, he believes he has succeeded in reducing the age of every one of his organs by upwards of 30%. The Netflix documentary lauds Bryan’s use of immunosuppressant rapamycin which, along with 54 other pills, is supposedly helping him to live forever.

What Netflix did not tell us: Johnson stopped taking the drug because he found the side effects were too severe including a rather icky looking skin rash on his otherwise trim frame along with “soft tissue infections, abnormal levels of fats in his blood, elevated blood sugar and a higher resting heart rate”. Johnson decided rapamycin just might have been making him age faster. His doctors sheepishly admitted they had been encouraging him to take the drug whose “side effects include very dangerous bacterial infections, and things like pneumonia or cellulitis or pharyngitis.” If I was Bryan, I’d change my doctors.

The devil is always in the detail, and there are a great many details about the risks of gene technology that the government has forgotten to tell us about. In 2023, the University of Auckland, to great fanfare reportedly identified a drug alpelisib that helped mice live 10% longer, but the side effects included weaker bones and higher blood sugar—a known cause of diabetes. 

A drug that helps you live longer is not much use if it makes you chronically sick and terminally ill. 

Which reminds me of something else. If you are reading this, you are one of the lucky ones, you have lasted through five pandemic years, but studies show not all of us have been that lucky, including about 30 million worldwide unexpectedly no longer with us. In the light of the Covid Pandemic and the Wuhan Virology Lab, listening to Judith Collins lecture us about the safety and health benefits of deregulating biotechnology all helps to cement the Bernie Madoff impersonation. In an unlikely volte-face Mark Zuckerburg speaking with Joe Rogan has changed sides. According to Zuckerburg, Biden administration officials “screamed and cursed” at Meta executives to take down posts critical of Covid vaccine safety. Specifically, any mention of vaccine side effects was censored by the US government. Anything, including human lives, that might come in the way of $100 billion US pharmaceutical industry Covid vaccine profits was off the table in the White House.In an act of atonement, Zuckerburg has announced that FB posts will no longer be subject to ‘fact checking’. BUT this is only being trialled in the USA.

So unfortunately none of this backtracking will have dented the enthusiasm of NZ mainstream media to persecute those shining a light in dark places.

I received a polite e-mail recently from Kiwi journalist George Driver who is an official ‘fact checker’ for Facebook who queried one of my recent posts. According to Driver, he is working hard for Meta “to mitigate misinformation in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands.” He queried my claim that the Gene Technology Bill will “bypass the medical choice provisions of the NZ Bill of Rights”. He questioned whether the Bill was being fast tracked and required evidence that shows the Bill would remove a person’s right to refuse a medical treatment. I answered as follows and I am sending this out to you because I am not sure what the final outcome will be as far as FaceBook is concerned.

Dear George

Thanks for writing. There are a number of points to consider here. In short:

I. Formerly, labelling of gene altered food was required via HSNO legislation. The Gene Technology Bill effectively rescinds the requirement for mandatory labelling. Thus some gene altered foods will enter the food chain without the public’s knowledge. This not only bypasses public choice but also has implications for individual health. For example, it could affect individuals with food allergies.

2. My use of the term Fast Track was intended to mean that the coalition is making its passage a priority. In particular, contrary to usual practice, the public submission process is taking place over the holiday period. This appears to be designed to move the bill forward under the radar. Btw, your final sentence misquotes me ‘was “passed under fast track legislation”? Should be ‘is being’ not ‘was’.

3. The Mandatory wording in the bill is as follows “Mandatory medical activity authorisations: for a human medicine that is or contains gene technology that has been approved by at least two recognised overseas gene technology regulators.” The emergency use wording is as follows “Emergency authorisations: when there is an actual or imminent threat to the health and safety of people or to the environment, for example, threat from a disease outbreak, or an industrial spillage, the Minister responsible for the Gene Technology Act (Judith Collins) will have the power to grant an emergency authorisation.”The intent of these clauses (which is not made sufficiently clear in the Bill) is mystifying nor is the reason for their inclusion obvious or explicitly justified. The implications of the wording of both taken together are so general that the regulator and the Minister are granted very wide powers which could be used to legally justify mandatory public health measures involving the use of gene technology. This might include environmental and health measures that affect individuals generally. Because these measures involve gene technology, they may not be containable. For example the use of sprays to distribute gene technology can remove choice from the public.

While the regulator will be required to seek public submissions, they are not obliged to act on them. It is hard to see any outcome for this position other that that of a biotech industry facilitator. In fact from Collin’s public pronouncements, this seems to be an intent of the Bill

These are short answers to your questions. IMO the Bill is very poorly worded and too permissive. I refer you to my video on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5b2skQADT4&t=432s which includes some references to recent cautionary public statements from highly qualified biotech insiders about safety. Also to the HatchardReport.com where I have written extensively about the Bill. I am happy to talk to you by phone at 094372012.

FYI I was formerly Director of Natural Products at Genetic ID (now FoodChain ID). Genetic ID provided genetic testing and certification services to bulk food exporters like ADM and Cargill. You introduced yourself as providing fact checking services for Meta. I understand from media reports that Meta is no longer requiring fact checking. Could you clarify your current role?

from Auto Expert John Cadogan

by Steve Kirsch

ChatGPT provides excellence guidance if you know how to ask in the right way. But if you ask the same question the wrong way, I’ll show you what happens.

Executive summary

If you are trying to change someone’s core beliefs, confronting people head-on with facts invokes what is known as “the backfire effect” where your efforts end up making them dig in even more.

Here’s a quick guide to how to change their mind written by ChatGPT.

Here’s the query I gave to ChatGPT

The Backfire Effect shows us that simply lobbing more facts at someone with a different position on a key topic is not only often a waste of time and energy, but can also actually be counterproductive. How do you change people’s core beliefs then?

How to change someone’s core beliefs

Changing someone’s core beliefs—especially when they are deeply tied to their identity or worldview—is a complex process that requires more than presenting facts. The Backfire Effect highlights how simply providing contradictory evidence can entrench someone’s existing beliefs further. Instead, changing beliefs often involves building trust, empathy, and framing ideas in ways that reduce defensiveness.

Here are some effective strategies:

---

1. Build Trust and Rapport

• People listen to those they trust. Building a respectful and empathetic relationship can make someone more open to considering new ideas.
• Avoid framing the conversation as a debate or confrontation. Instead, approach it as a dialogue or a shared exploration of the truth.

---

2. Use Questions, Not Assertions

• Ask open-ended questions that encourage reflection rather than defensiveness:
  • “What makes this belief important to you?”
  • “How do you think this idea fits with other things you care about?”
• Socratic questioning can gently expose contradictions in their reasoning without making them feel attacked.

---

3. Focus on Shared Values

• Find common ground and align your argument with their core values or priorities:
  • For example, if someone values freedom, frame your perspective in terms of how it enhances freedom rather than threatens it.
• When you show that you understand and respect their values, they are more likely to listen.

---

4. Use Stories and Personal Experiences

• Stories can bypass logical defenses and connect on an emotional level.
• Share personal anecdotes or relatable narratives that illustrate your point. For example, “I used to think the same way, but then I experienced…”

---

5. Avoid Overloading with Facts

• Too much information can overwhelm or trigger defensiveness.
• Instead, focus on one or two key points and explain them in a way that aligns with their experiences or emotions.

---

6. Create Cognitive Dissonance Gently

• Present information or examples that make them question their beliefs without directly attacking them.
• For example, “Isn’t it interesting that [data/example] doesn’t quite fit with [their belief]?”

---

7. Normalize Changing Beliefs

• Emphasize that updating beliefs is a strength, not a weakness. People resist change if they feel it’s a sign of failure.
• You might say, “We’re all learning all the time. I’ve changed my mind on so many things after learning more about them.”

---

8. Be Patient and Plant Seeds

• Changing core beliefs often takes time. Plant a seed of doubt or curiosity, and let them explore it at their own pace.
• For instance, “You don’t have to decide right now, but here’s something you might want to think about.”

---

9. Avoid Shame or Ridicule

• People are far less likely to reconsider their beliefs if they feel shamed, humiliated, or judged.
• Stay calm, avoid sarcasm, and maintain a tone of mutual respect.

---

10. Encourage Self-Discovery

• Encourage them to explore new perspectives themselves:
  • Recommend neutral or balanced resources they trust.
  • Suggest they talk to others with different experiences or knowledge.

---

Example in Action

If someone strongly opposes vaccinations, instead of saying, “You’re wrong because of X, Y, and Z,” you might:

• Share a story: “My friend was hesitant too, but then she saw how it protected her parents.”
• Ask questions: “What worries you most about the vaccine?”
• Find common ground: “We both care about keeping our families healthy.”

---

Now here’s what happens when you ask ChatGPT the exact same question as before, BUT you make it more specific

Summary

Changing someone’s core beliefs isn’t about “winning” an argument—it’s about creating the conditions for them to reconsider their perspective. Respect, curiosity, and patience are your most powerful tools. Even if the change doesn’t happen immediately, your approach can set the stage for future reflection.

The house featured on the “Grand Designs New Zealand” TV series (see earlier post).

You may wonder why we mention this now, but the reason is that for any complete or relatively unknown candidate to have a good chance of being successful, they need to start campaigning now.

Back in 2019, Gwynn Compton was in this category, and he began his run for mayor in January. By the time voting got underway in September he had conducted a very effective campaign and although he didn’t succeed in unseating the then mayor Guru, he came close and topped the districtwide candidate poll for a council seat. (He chose not to seek reelection in 2022.)

Here in the Waikanae Ward at present we have a good Councilor, Nigel Wilson, and a bad one, Jocelyn Prvanov. Het attitudes and behaviors frankly make her a hindrance to getting anything worthwhile achieved. We know that last year, Richard Mansell, then Chair of the WCB was so exasperated that he told her not to sit at the table of WCB meetings again. When the council told him he could not ban her, he stood down as Chair.

So, if any reader is interested in unseating her, now is the time to give it serious consideration

Key dates for the 2025 local elections

1 July 2025 Candidate nominations open and roll opens for public inspection 

1 August 2025 at 12 noon Candidate nominations close and roll closes 

6 August 2025 Public notice of candidates’ names 

9-22 September 2025 Voting documents delivered 

7 October 2025 Last day for posting vote by mail. After this date votes must be returned to council’s secure ballot boxes. 

11 October 2025 at 12 noon Election day – voting closes midday 

11 October 2025 from 12 noon Preliminary results 

16-22 October 2025 Declaration of results 

Information for candidates – Vote 25 | Pōti 25

comment by Donna Buck

Below is the link to one easy page to do a submission on the Phase 2 of the Covid hearings. Once again there is hardly any info available from NZ First who claimed to be instigating it. I got one e-mail from them before Xmas as I am a party member and I expected more than just one short communication on this. They should be making it a huge priority to put out ways for people to submit and keep them informed.

But again, NZDSOS has done it for us: please use this, do a submission and make it a good one and then share that link with everyone you know — so many of us can try to get someone to listen.

https://nzdsos.com/2025/01/25/heres-how-to-participate-in-phase-2-of-new-zealands-covid-hearings

Colombian President Gustavo Petro (above) quickly reversed course about accepting flights of deported illegal migrant criminals on US military aircraft from the US after President Donald Trump threatened emergency tariffs of up to 50% on the South American country for refusing to cooperate.

Petro not only acquiesced to Trump’s demands, he even offered up the official Colombian presidential plane to help shuttle migrants back to the country, calling it a response to “the Government’s commitment to guarantee decent conditions.”

“The Government of Colombia, under the direction of President Gustavo Petro, has arranged the presidential plane to facilitate the dignified return of the compatriots who were going to arrive in the country today in the morning, coming from deportation flights,” a translated official statement read in part.

Source

America’s Big Pharma industry doesn’t want him, and Senators swayed by it may vote against him.

by Andrew Korybko

Trump’s preference for sanctions and his latest threat to double down on secondary ones could derail India’s careful multi-alignment between the US and Russia by forcing it to choose between them.

The media has been awash with reports speculating that Russo-Indo relations might suffer as a result of the US’ latest energy sanctions seeing as how they’ve recently centered on Delhi’s large-scale import of discounted oil from Moscow that could be jeopardized by these latest unilateral restrictions. An unnamed Indian source told the media that “Russia will find ways to reach us” and predicted steeper discounts to counteract the new sanctions risks, however, so there isn’t much cause to worry for now.

The measures won’t kick in till March so there’s still time for both parties to plan workarounds, one of which is taking the form of India recently expanding its Russian insurers’ pool to include non-sanctioned companies, though it remains unclear what they’ll do about Russia’s sanctioned “shadow fleet”. In any case, it’s a step in the right direction and shows the importance that India places on continuing its large-scale import of discounted Russian oil, the strategic significance of which will now be explained.

Not only did it help avert a polycrisis over the past few years that could have catalyzed disastrously cascading consequences across the Global South as touched upon here in late 2023, but it also kept India’s impressive growth trajectory on track, thus retaining its foreign investment attractiveness too. Additionally, India preemptively averted Russia’s potentially disproportionate dependence on China by diversifying its energy revenue streams, thus preventing Russia from becoming China’s junior partner.

This stopped Sino-US bi-multipolar trends and facilitated the tri-multipolar transitional phase of the global systemic transition towards more complex multipolarity (“multiplexity”). That outcome might be seen by some US policymakers as detrimental to their country’s grand strategic interests, but on the flipside, Russia has yet to turn into a raw materials reserve for turbocharging China’s superpower rise like it could have already become had it not been for India diversifying Russia’s energy revenue streams.

India’s grand strategic interests are to prevent that from happening due to the possibility that China might one day leverage its senior partnership over Russia to get the latter to curtail and ultimately suspend (regardless of the pretext) new and spare military supplies to India. Moreover, Russia’s turbocharging of China’s superpower rise could compel India to become the US’ junior partner in kind, which could lead to serious concessions on its hard-earned strategic autonomy.

These imperatives suggest that India will do everything in its power to retain its large-scale import of discounted Russian oil since the alternative is to risk Russia becoming China’s junior partner with all that would entail for reshaping the global systemic transition by restoring Sino-US bi-multipolarity. In the event that India feels coerced into complying with these latest sanctions, such as if Trump is misled by misguided advisors into threatening crippling secondary sanctions, then it could try to strike a deal.

In exchange for sanctions waivers, which India could explain would be required for preventing Russia’s transformation into a raw materials reserve for turbocharging China’s superpower rise at the expense of the US’ grand strategic interests, it could try to convince Russia to accept Trump’s peace plan. While it remains unclear exactly what he has in mind, the signals that he’s sent thus far suggest that he’ll demand tough compromises from Russia, which Putin might reject and then Trump could escalate in response.

This could lead to even more anti-Russian sanctions, including the enforcement of threatened secondary ones against third countries like India, and more armed aid to Ukraine for perpetuating the conflict. If Russia doesn’t accept the ceasefire, armistice, or peace terms on offer, then it might have no choice but to become China’s junior partner out of desperation for funding and potentially even military-technical equipment in exchange for selling its resources at basement-bargain prices like it’s thus far refused to do.

Trump wants to “Pivot (back) to Asia” pronto in order to more muscularly contain China, which necessitates him swiftly resolving the Ukrainian Conflict, so its possible perpetuation could indefinitely delay that while resulting in Russia turbocharging China’s superpower rise like he wants to avoid. He and his advisors might not see it that way, but India could help convince them of this scenario forecast, which some on his team might be receptive to due to their Indophilia.

Even if India can’t convince Trump to demand tough compromises of Putin and then can’t convince Putin to accept them, it might still defy the US’ predictable secondary sanctions threats to continue importing discounted Russian oil, even if perhaps not at the same scale as before. This possibility is premised on the grand strategic importance of their energy ties as they relate to the global systemic transition from India’s perspective and the imperative to prevent Russia from becoming China’s junior partner.

With all this insight in mind, the likelihood of the US’ latest energy sanctions harming Russo-Indo ties is low and nowhere near what some in the media have speculated, but the risk still exists that they might be damaged a bit if they’re not successful in pioneering workarounds. The other variable of significance is whether India can convince Trump to grant it a sanctions waiver due to how these large-scale purchases prevent Russia from becoming China’s junior partner or in exchange for mediating on Ukraine.

Trump’s preference for sanctions and his latest threat to double down on secondary ones in that event could derail India’s careful multi-alignment between the US and Russia by forcing it to choose between them, which it doesn’t want to do under any circumstances. This contextualizes India’s recent expansion of its Russian insurers’ pool as a pragmatic compromise for now at least, which proves how much India doesn’t want to be forced into the aforementioned dilemma, though it might still ultimately be.

At the end of the day, everything depends on how far Trump is willing to pressure India on its large-scale import of discounted Russian oil and the degree to which India might then defy him. Trump might be convinced by India to reconsider going all out, while India might then boldly pursue its grand strategic interests if that doesn’t happen, though at the risk of a serious crisis with the US. Observers should therefore keep a close eye on these dynamics due to their potentially huge impact on the world order.

No, it’s not satire.

by Jordan Williams of the Taxpayers Union

 

A few months ago the Taxpayers’ Union went public exposing the taxpayer-funded “science” project our researchers uncovered to (and this is no joke) record whales, mixing those sounds with recordings from healthy Kauri forests, to take into unhealthy Kauri forests, play back the audio recordings and assess whether the whale music could be effective in ‘soothing’ Kauri trees and beating myrtle rust and Kauri dieback. 

You really couldn’t make it up.

To recap, it was part of the “National Science Challenges” which are to bring together “the country’s top scientists” and use “the best science to address the Challenge[s]”.

One of the challenges relates to protecting New Zealand’s biodiversity, including our iconic trees.

Recall that MBIE officials insisted that as part of the project, “matauranga Māori” (that is, traditional Māori knowledge) must be on the same footing as “colonial science” (their description, not mine!)

MBIE’s justification for this project is that according to Māori legend knowledge, sperm whales and kauri trees are brothers. 

The hypthosis taxpayers are forking out to test, is whether the whales have a “calming” effect on the trees, and therefore help the trees resist disease. Yes, it’s literally on the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment website!)

They spent HOW MUCH?! 

After we blew the whistle on the project, officials spent months playing games and refusing to answer our basic questions on the “Oranga (wellbeing) project”.

It’s all rather murky complex (the project is managed by MBIE, but the actual payments are from Landcare Research) and after much determination (i.e. staff time!), James and the research team have finally got to the bottom of how much was spent on the Ngā Rakau Taketake project.

Officials are still refusing a line-by-line breakdown (I wonder why…) but, in total, this matauranga Māori-based “research” cost taxpayers $4,027,020.

FOUR MILLION DOLLARS to mix music for trees 

That’s right, four million (plus GST) was paid to investigate whether recording whale sounds, mixing them with recordings from healthy Kauri forests, and playing them to unhealthy Kauri forests and other nonsense such as “The language of the domain of Tāne” – all in the name of “healing” them and “science”.

Here’s what the four million paid for:

Sonic tapestries of rejuvenation and well-being About the project The Oranga (wellbeing) project was set up to fight against kauri dieback and myrtle rust and consisted of five “research projects”.  1 Rongoā solutions for kauri ora 2 The language of the domain of Tāne 3 Hapū solutions for myrtle rust 4 The sovereignty of seed 5 A ‘Critical Friend’ approach

The whale song feeds into the first two points of the project, and the project was carried out by an organisation Te Tira Whakamātaki Limited (which received the funds).

So who is Te Tira Whakamātaki Limited? 

As part of this investigation, we’ve uncovered that the “research” was outsourced to a private “not for profit” company: Te Tira Whakamātaki Limited.

And that’s when we came to a stunning realisation – which now explains why the departments have been so cagey about giving us information on the project…

According to Te Tira Whakamātaki Ltd’s website, its “Co-funder and Trustee” is Melanie Mark-Shadbolt.

And here’s the startling thing: Ms Mark-Shadbolt is also the Co-Director of the very same BioHeritage Science Challenge Science – i.e. the Government initiative funding the project!

I had the team work through the finances and Charities Commission records of Ms Mark-Shadbolt’s company. The company’s costs are almost entirely salaries (surprise, surprise!), and its charitable purpose is merely “Provides advice, information, and advocacy“.  

Nice work if you can get it.

Why aren’t the media asking questions? 

It’s bad enough that this taxpayer money was spent in the first place to “research” what we all know is nothing more than a myth (whales being brothers of the Kauri, and that they’re able to communicate with each other). 

But when the provider of these nonsense projects (playing music to trees) is also one of the two Co-directors of the overall “science challenge” what hope is there the taxpayer will get value for money or scientific knowledge will be advanced?

And here’s the kicker: The project leaders openly admit that this isn’t even real research. They describe it as a way to give Māori knowledge equal footing with science, claiming it doesn’t need to meet scientific standards because it’s about “restoring mauri (life force)” rather than achieving measurable, effective results.

And yet, MBIE continues to call it “top science quality” while burning through millions of taxpayer dollars.

So, instead of putting resources toward actual science and solutions, this project uses public money to fund what can only be described as mystical performances in the forest.

Only the Taxpayers’ Union are willing to call out this grift  

In the ideal world, the media (and Opposition political parties) would be all over this. But no one likes calling-out government waste if it relates to indigenous projects. We will no doubt be labelled things even for sending this email.

Because it is Māori related wasteful spending, newsrooms fall over themselves not to cover it. We even get individual journalists contact us about some of our stories saying they’d love to pick them up, but their colleagues and editors would go berserk.