Can New Zealanders get 'Healthy Again'? If so, how exactly?

The covid era divided public opinion. Some Kiwis retain full trust in advice from healthcare staff. Others cannot imagine ever trusting any pharmaceutical-based system again. Then there are those in the middle ground, carefully trying to negotiate the complex web of conflicts of interest - researching constantly, making and adjusting personal assessments, routines, interventions. Balancing those pros with cons, knowns with unknowns is near impossible. In this article we hope to raise awareness of some factors that may tip the balance...

At the crux of any healthy lifestyle balancing act, is the word 'natural'. A word that has been hijacked by lawfare and propagandists as a usefully-ambiguous term; it can have all kinds of re/marketing interpretations (and conveniently, rarely any legal complications). To add to these muddy waters, in NZ (like the US) BigPharma can freely advertise its (potentially fraudulent) profitable products. So, when is a natural product, truly authentic? Is a synthetically-replicated dietary 'supplement', combined with other potentially 'beneficial' substances, 'natural'? Or is it just a 'food'? Who define's 'beneficial' and is evidence of benefit or harm from any product, acknowledged, recorded and acted upon? We're gonna try to answer some of those questions below and evidence some uncomfortable truths.

The natural vs synthetic binary is an age-old debate which we don't need to repeat here. But it is important to reconsider some of these issues, especially now, in the run-up to another NZ General Election. Suddenly this topic is front and centre - as we'll explain.

IMPORTANT NOTE: This article shares a theme of many other articles that we have both (together and individually) voluntarily researched: Due Diligence. Ursula knows personally some of the individuals involved in our topic here 'Is a MAHA Playbook being Applied in NZ?'. This is NOT to be interpreted as any kind of criticism of those individuals, their affiliates or work. As Hrvoje Moric of Geopolitics & Empire recently pointed out on our conversation Dissident Crossfire: controlled opposition isn't a simplistic concept - there are multiple levels of understandings and manipulations at play - including unwitting naivete. Plus we know how powerful Hopium is - it's an emotive and highly-addictive drug. And some politicians play on that emotion to their advantage.

This article is divided into Seven Sections and a Conclusion:

1. The MAHA Context - what is it, who leads it, is it authentic?
2. Is the same MAHA playbook being applied in NZ (through MNZH and associates) ?
3. What is the Natural Health Alliance (NHA) and its role in MAHA in NZ?
4. Utah: 'Silicon Valley' of the Nutraceutical Industry.
5. All is not what is seems: Nature's Sunshine, China & Covid
6. MNZH and NZ First in this General Election
7. Follow the Money: Funding Sources in NZs Political Lobbying
8. Conclusion: Disappointment (again?)

To return to our opening question - Can New Zealanders get Healthy [Again] ? Some more relevant questions might be: Can the regulatory capture of entities like Medsafe and our university medical education systems come to an end? Will lobbying groups become more transparent? And will our future Government(s) reduce the stranglehold that BigPharma has on Kiwis, and instead, promote eating real food, taking preventative action, promoting natural health with holistic well-being? If you're beginning to sense déjà vu, here's why...

MAHA: what, who and why?

When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unexpectedly suspended his Presidential campaign in August 2024, and formally supported Trump, he did so under the promise to:

Make America Healthy Again!

As he did that, a slick website popped out - literally overnight - and his former running-mate Nicole Shanahan released this emotive propaganda video (which she has since removed from her X profile, but the Internet never forgets) (3m 38s):

Once Trump won the 'elections' (selections) and became POTUS 47, he appointed RFK Jr. as his Human & Health Services (HHS) Secretary and the "MAHA Movement" he headed became official government policy (allegedly), as you can see here and here. The rest, as they say, is history... but two years later and MAHA hasn't delivered its promises. Crucially, widely-held expectations that further mRNA covid jabs would stop, remains unaddressed, as this recent X post shows:

Open Letter Regarding the Removal of the mRNA Platform — Americans for Health Freedom

Read the September 18, 2026 open letter to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and President Donald J. Trump.

Americans for Health Freedom

There's also this Open Letter (above) co-authored by Sasha Latypova and Debbie Lerman and co-signed by multiple 'Freedom Movement celebrities':

Open Letter to RFK Jr/Trump Co-authored by Sasha Latypova Signed by Tucker Carlson & Many More

Again, we’re asking to revoke the PREP Act/emergency declaration for Covid and remove unregulated military countermeasures, aka mRNA vaccines.

Debbie Lerman's SubstackDebbie Lerman

I think we can all guess what response they might get. But what will happen to MAHA? Will MAHA supporters halt the covid jabs? Will the hold that BigPharma has on US regulators finally be broken? Time will tell. The more pressing question for Kiwis is....

As the New Zealand General Election on November 7 approaches, past Deputy Prime Minister and current Foreign Minister Winston Peters, leader of NZ First, released a major campaign announcement promising to "Make NZ Healthy":

Our concerns about this campaign start with the timing. But also do those first two points above (monitoring our bodies for 'prevention') refer to the use of wearables? Contradicting the anti-globalist rhetoric of MAHA, RFK Jnr's agenda clearly does support BigTech wearables for surveillance and monitoring (data harvesting) - and we'll return to that point later.

RFK Jr. wants everyone to use wearables. What are the benefits, risks?

HHS Secretary RFK Jr. said he wants to encourage all Americans to use wearables to track health metrics. What are the benefits and drawbacks?

ABC NewsMary Kekatos

The health policy plan is presented through an organisation called Make New Zealand Healthy (MNZH) which is a newly created Charitable Trust (Charitable Trust Registration number CC64803) Founded by John Appleton and Patrick Fahy.

About Us

About us Trustees John Appleton Trustee and Founder John who lives on the north shore in Auckland has worked in the natural health industry for 25 years. John embarked on this journey when both of his parents died prematurely of heart disease. Mitochondria and Coenzyme Q10 popped up

MNZH - Make New Zealand Healthyfinity

MNZH is headed by a board of trustees which currently has these five members:

The above trustees are supported by the following 'Advisory Panel' - many are familiar faces to New Zealanders in the holistic health and 'freedom movement':

There are genuinely good people involved, so that gives us all hope, doesn't it? And in addition to an 'Advisory Panel' in NZ, MNZH has appointed some fairly prominent international names on its 'International Advisory Panel':

This Substack Post from Ian Brighthope - one of the more prominent members of the Australian contingency of the "International Advisory Panel" - provides further details of this initiative, stating how MNZH is an:

... independent charitable movement [which ] has set itself an inspiring objective: to end the epidemic of chronic disease by transforming a reactive sickness system into a prevention-first culture. It recognises health as physical, mental, social and environmental wellbeing—not merely the management of symptoms with an ever-growing list of drugs.

Brighthope doesn't mention how it is political lobbying, regulatory capture and Public Private Philanthropic Partnerships (PPPPs) that dictate public health and educational realities in NZ (and elsewhere). Mergers and acquisitions of nutraceutical companies by BigChem and BigFood are also adding to the propaganda consumers have to navigate. For example:

From Procter & Gamble’s $3.8 billion purchase of Thorne to Nestle’s recent US$1 billion offload of supplement brands to Yellow Wood Partners, the supplement industry has entered a new era. These two transactions are noteworthy considering the U.S. supplement market was valued at $74.15 billion in 2025, according to Nutrition Business Journal. [Source]

It's disappointing how inconvenient truths seems to (so far) be left out of the conversation, along with how 'timely' this sudden announcement is, in the run-up to our NZ election. After all, it's not like NZ First has been excluded from our Parliamentary proceedings for the past decade? So what's changed now? Could influence from Globalists be driving this?

Below is an X post by an NZ member of the 'Make New Zealand Healthy' initiative, Prof Caryn Zinn - an academic at AUT (an institution Ursula has written about recently regarding a complaint about unethical research):

As someone pointed out on X, this political promotion was problematic:

Prof Zinn's role in NZ First's strategic adoption of the MAHA-style Make NZ Healthy provides one of many direct connections (more of those in a moment) between our countries' political manoeuverings. The Journal of Metabolic Health (based in South Africa) was previously called the Journal of Insulin Resistance and is funded by memberships of the American, Society of Metabolic Health Practitioners (SMHP) - a strategic lobby group, promoting MAHA policies, such as the new Dietary Guidelines. NZs Prof Caryn Zinn is Editor-in-Chief of that journal .

And if that previous name 'Journal of Insulin Resistance' sounds familiar, it's because that's where British-born Indian consultant cardiologist, Dr Aseem Malhotra published his 'ground-breaking' exposé of the risks of deaths and injuries caused by the mRNA covid 'vaccines' (after his own father died suddenly as a result of taking the jab). The journal was, back then, fairly obscure by academic criteria, so maybe that 'celebrity' boost was beneficial for some academics' careers?

We've both published our personal concerns about what David A Hughes identifies as the 'Camp 2' nature of Dr Malhotra's behaviours, HERE and in the wider context of Bollywood and the Bigtech-Crypto swampland Liberland, HERE. Incidentally (but importantly) Dr Malhotra was appointed Chief Medical Advisor to the MAHA team last year.

...And has this month relocated his clinical practice to Florida, USA. It's obviously common sense that Real Food is part of a solution to the global public health problems. But are these words, conferences and policies likely to lead to Real Change? What about the ubiquitous fast food outlets, pesticides in food, addictions and other impacts upon Americans' public health? Can we suggest a root cause analysis to address the regulatory capture, retailers' monopolies, political lobbying and lack of farmers' support that prevents real food from reaching families' dinner tables, everyday? But practical details seem to be missing from the SMHP's gushing endorsement of Trump's MAHA 'food pyramid' 'Turning Consensus on its Head' - see below:

SMHP Statement on the New Dietary Guidelines for Americans - The SMHP

The Society of Metabolic Health Practitioners (SMHP™) welcomes the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are a significant improvement on previous versions and represent the first move towards more evidence-based dietary guidelines. Positive changes include: Prioritization of whole, nutrient-dense foods, primarily from protein (animal or plant-based), dairy, vegetables, fruits, healthy fats, The explicit restriction of […]

The SMHPDoug Reynolds

The contradictions, tensions and fuzzy interpretations between the rhetoric and realities of 'natural food' versus 'dietary supplements' are clear. As Prof Zinn states, her academic research and experience as a commercial consultant nutritionist provides strong evidence that real food - no pharmaceuticals or supplements, unless absolutely necessary - holds the solution to our global public health crisis (1m 27s):

She's right. Affordable, nutrient-dense real food, poison-free, is what NZ needs. But is that what MNZH is really promoting? To emphasise this potential contradiction, consider how this all-party policy lobbying from MNZH was made in collaboration with an organisation called the Natural Health Alliance (NHA) which also placed the numerous media ads - as you can see from the disclosure statement at the top of this poster:

At first glance, the NHA, and it's associated company Nutricom seems innocuous enough. The connections between these entities being Patrick 'Paddy' Fahy, the CEO of the "Natural" (that word again) Health Alliance and Trustee of the newly-minted MNZH. But you'll notice that when you click on Nutricom.co.nz you are redirected to the international trading name 'Nature's Sunshine'. This nutraceutical company imports and supplies a wide variety of products like those pictured above. Here's the company's large manufacturing plant, based in Utah, US:

Utah: 'Silicon Valley' of the Nutraceutical Industry

Utah is viewed as the "supplement capital" of the U.S. thanks to decades of intense political lobbying by millionaire Mormon Senator Orrin Hatch (who died in 2022), his son, and his associated law firms. This is a topic for another article, but suffice to say that regulatory safety and auditing restraints for pharma/nutraceutical companies have been strategically controlled or crushed in Utah, and tax benefits increased. Hence a 'natural' medicine commercial empire in Utah has grown to an estimated sales value of >US$16Billion p/a.

Of the hundreds of nutraceutical companies in Utah, Natures Sunshine Products (NSP) is one of the largest. Its production plant has its own research lab and hub, with pseudo-academic articles as outputs that promote their latest innovation (Ursula has written about these kinds of outputs at length). NSPs global direct salesforce has >660,000 active 'independent' managers, distributors and customers in more than 40 countries (including NZ). Nature’s Sunshine also owns Synergy Worldwide, a direct (online) marketing company.

Distributors and sales staff are recruited using pyramid-type 'Multiple Level Marketing' (MLM) commission-based schemes which in some states/countries is illegal due to risks of exploitation - broadly it's a business model similar to a licensee agreement or franchise. Someone with decades of experience as a distributor for NSP is likely to have an extensive professional network. We're curious: What is the general public's view of Nature's Sunshine NZ? Is Fahy being honest in claiming his company is 'Kiwi owned and operated' on the basis he imports branded products from this US corporate giant?

Looking at the NSP Australian version, it seems this 'family owned' framing is a successful marketing tactic? The Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) network certainly seems widespread in NSP, and the addition of a US 'Foundation' is also predictable.

Fahy has a long history of speaking out publicly against various Government proposals connected to his business. The Therapeutic Products Bill for instance, aimed to enforce regulation and compliance requirements on products like the supplements that Nature's Sunshine NZ imports, distributes and sells.

To put it simply, debates hinge on whether a 'dietary supplement' is legally defined as a 'food' or a 'pharmaceutical' for retail/distribution compliance. Hence our use of the word 'nutraceutical' although that too is problematic, but at least that term presents products within that grey area between a nutrient and a synthetic medicine. The fact is, the differences in the terminology, application, manufacturing and marketing of supplements have changed significantly over the decades - so has the names/ownership of these companies. Thirty-two years ago, for instance, Hollywood actor Mel Gibson, performed in this short [funny] TV advert for the US pro-supplement lobby groups (1min):

For reasons that may become clearer in a moment, RCR interviewed Fahy prior to the 2023 Natural Health Alliance public meeting about the proposed Amendments to the Bill (where Winston Peters also gave a speech), Here's Fahy's and Peter's speeches from that event:

And along a similar vein, Fahy was interviewed on The Platform about his opposition to the legislation change:

VFF's RCR and The Platform along with many other entities (more on that later) have explicit links to NZ First. For instance, Platform presenter Michael Laws is a NZ First Candidate, and VFF (RCR) is an authorised advertiser for NZ First's election campaign.

The exponential growth of BigTech and BioTech industries have led to the capture of all sides of the healthcare market. Whether natural, synthetic or a mix of both - those lines are blurring as the monitoring and surveillance of technocracy's transhumanism evolves. Just like pharmaceuticals, without adequate regulation, nutraceuticals are also vulnerable to risks of manipulation in contents or labels, contamination or fraud. A complaint from a non-profit of high levels of toxic lead in this ketogenic powder supplement for example, was a manufacturer in Utah. The FDA reports high levels of tainted supplements, many with dangerous substances. But those reports are likely to be the tip of an iceberg.

The challenge for us - voters and consumers - is to try to identify when claims of 'too much' regulation and changes to the tax laws are genuinely an infringement on our personal choice and health freedoms, and when it is simply a commercial company defending its territory and profits. We're genuinely interested in what our readers think about that, with the evidence and questions we pose here.

Reading through the NHA's website, there are multiple references to NZ First and also conflicting statements and documents. And we're confused by many statements in NHA Goals like this one:

...availability of naturally occurring ingredients (or their ‘Generally Recognised As Safe’ (GRAS) synthetic equivalents) should only be restricted when there is robust evidence of harm. The same criteria should also apply for setting maximum dosage levels. Such restrictions should apply only to the form of the ingredient where harm was proven...

To Joe Public, this goal may seem admirable. However, the devil is in the detail. The GRAS regulation, long recognised as outdated and heavily criticised for its lack of scientific rigour, is under review by the FDA. The commercial political lobbying we mentioned above from Hatch and other Trump supporters/politicians and celebrities has (so far) maintained the Dietary Supplements Health Education Act (DSHEA) which arbitrarily allows substances marketed in the U.S. before October 15, 1994 as 'presumed safe' i.e. the burden is on the US FDA to prove they are unsafe. (Sound's familiar to the 'vaccine' industry, eh?) And any New Dietary Ingredients (NDIs) products not marketed before 1994, require {only} a 75-day pre-market notification to FDA with 'evidence of reasonable expectation of safety'. Just over 2 months of monitoring - does that seem robust and valid to you? Trying to halt the policy change are lobby groups like the DSHEA Preservation Alliance. A lot of profit rides on these proposals!

Compared to the 1990's, we know much more now about the (lack of) notification of 'adverse events' to the US (and other) regulators-turned-enablers. And with that issue of adverse event reporting in mind, let's turn to one of our most significant concerns about this MAHA/NHA/NSP/MNZH/NZFirst campaign...

Natures Sunshine, China & Covid

We’ve established that Fahy’s NZ-registered company is part of a multinational US-based supply-chain network, assisted by the strong network of the Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) that for decades has been subjected to intense pressures from numerous and complex, conflicts of interest, including revolving doors of power. Does the NHA and/or the NSP NZ have evidence of genuine ‘natural health’ intentions?

One quick method to identify what ‘Camp’ any entity fits best with, is to ask: ‘What were its actions during the covid era?’ So, what evidence do we have about what the NHA in NZ and NSP in Utah were doing during covid?

The NHA's website provides no clues; strangely, its ‘News’ pages during that crucial time for sharing knowledge about 'natural health' between July 4^th 2018, and Feb 2^nd 2023 reveals... nothing published at all! What a wasted opportunity. Outside those dates features regular election cycle campaign posts, with PR for Winston Peters. So, what about NSP's HQ?

Back in 2014, NSP evidenced its shared goals with BigPharma when it agreed to a joint venture to enter the Chinese market after an investment by Shanghai based Fosun Pharma of approx. US$46.3 million that acquired a 20% shareholding of Nature's Sunshine. The subsequent investment in laboratories, publications, marketing, global networking and management teams were considerable for NSP. Then...

In 2022, when Fosun Pharma was still NSP's shareholder and had Chinese Board members, Fosun Pharma, partnered with Pfizer for the development, manufacture and distribution of those 'safe and effective' covid19 BioNTech mRNA 'vaccines'. This wasn't at the beginning of the covid era. This was months after the adverse events were beginning to be widely known and the NZ 'no jab, no job' mandates began. This is a current screenshot from Fosun Pharma, still advertising its booster jabs:

The Fosun Pharma clinical trials outcomes were not fully published, but by Feb 2022 20 million doses of the BNT162b2 jabs had been administered in various countries (see Geoff Pain PhD excellent research on this) and we note how ironically, this version of the Pfizer jab was never authorised for use in China.

The graph of the share price illustrates the success of Fosun Pharma products during the covid era:

Another clue about a company’s ethos is found in its Nasdaq: NATR shareholders: many of the shareholders protagonists are also NSP Board members and are from private equity, investment banks, BigFood packaging and labelling companies (different labels needed for different jurisdictions) and BigPharma. Interestingly, Fosun Pharma retained its NSP shareholding until June 2025, when it sold-up, keeping less than 5%. Had China obtained what it needed? Clearly, Fosun Pharma considered NSP an unsuitable future investment. We can speculate why. Are all four walls closing-in, pressuring business models such as Fahy’s company out of the sector? In recent times:

1.      The market is flooded and consumers are increasingly buying online, in Fahy’s own admission (eg the RCR interview), this is the most efficient business model, with little/no restrictions on product compliance or regulators etc.

2.      NSP’s stated goals are to double sales this year via their MLM and online retail arm, Synergy Worldwide. (NSP apparently prohibit distributors to sell on platforms like Amazon).

3.      Expansion of ‘pile it high, sell it cheap’ retailers like Chemist Warehouse in NZ present strong competition and lowers an already challenging profit margin. Fuel hikes will add to these supply chain costs.

4.      Due to the legal caselaw and growing public awareness of risks, regulators like the TGA in Australia and the US FDA are under increasingly pressure to apply controls/audits, change outdated legislation and lessen tax benefits to companies like NSP.

Is the political lobbying from BigPharma, commerce and legacy entities like Orrin Hatch’s Foundation enough to keep the profitable status quo for the Utah nutraceutical industry? On a society level: if more people recognised the close financial partnerships between companies like NSP, Pfizers and Fosun Pharma, would they be less likely to have trust in their 'natural' products?

And on a personal level, consider this question: if you owned a commercial "natural health" company that was closely linked to the BigPharma covid 'vaccine' machinery, would you have sought (then, or now) to acknowledge that opposition and separate your business from it? Accountability can never begin, until these problems are identified.

MNZH & NZ First in the General Election

We can see how MNZH appears a serious initiative, headed by well-qualified, prominent people in the 'Health Freedom' space who are widely respected and inevitably have differing views. Not only do they differ about how a 'Health NZ' might be achieved, but also for what they may gain from such policies, if they were ever implemented. But what of NZ First, what would the party and those lobbying and funding NZ First stand to gain from MAHA-type MNZH policies?

As ALWAYS, the answer to that question hides in the $$$...so we went looking. What we found is also concerning, to put it mildly.

To start with, it is important to point out again, that whatever the great ideas are and the good intentions of those who come up with them, it is ultimately up to NZ First and its leader Winston Peters to implement them - if that party maintains (or increases) its power following the November 7 2026 General Election. Let's briefly analyse NZ First's track record as a senior member of NZs currently governing coalition. But before we do that, we'd like to bring this personal experience of interaction with Peters, from a prominent NZ dissident who you have almost certainly heard about (but in case you didn't, this interview provides a good summary):

Whether you are sympathetic to Barry Young's situation, or indifferent, it is interesting to observe Peters' interactions with audience members who ask those 'uncomfortable questions'. Remember the Covid-19 Royal Commission Part 2 - which was encouraged by, and held under the CURRENT government? The clue was in the subtitle of the Inquiry: 'Lessons Learned' (for the next 'pandemic')...This interview we did with Deb Cunliffe (The Nurses Collective NZ) and Kathryn Pick (mandated-out headteacher) is a good summary of the process, people and the frustratingly inevitable outcomes:

Gaslighting continues in NZ: Submissions to the COVID Inquiry IGNORED

What role does the Royal Commission into the Covid Response in New Zealand have and what use is the evidence that has been submitted?

Actionable Truth MediaMichael Ginsburg

We've outlined the diverse group members of Make New Zealand Healthy (MNZH) and in particular, we've looked at how the actions of at least one of the protagonists, Patrick Fahy of MNZH, the Natural Health Alliance (NHA) and NSP might be described as being problematic, with perhaps less-altruistic motives for promoting a MAHA-style policy in NZ.

Now let's look at NZ First itself and more specifically, its funding. Winston Peters and his party have a long (and proud?) history of controversies when it comes to their funding. However, for the relevance of this article, let's focus specifically on the funding of NZ First during the CURRENT election campaign. While there are fairly strict rules around how political parties in New Zealand have to disclose any donations they receive or loans they are given, there are additional requirements that are in place during an election year.

The Electoral Commission's "Register of Promoters" lists the entities spending >NZ$17k on party political advertising. In that list are some familiar names from our communications over the years seeking recognition for the covid era policies that caused so many harms. For instance the NZ employment unions, NZ Nurses Organisation (NZNO), the PSA and E Tu and TEU all of which ignored members who were mandated-out of the jobs, and denied their workplace rights not to be discriminated against. Have NZ First asked for acknowledgements, apologies or compensation from these donors for the part they played in compliance with Jacinda's tyranny?

Rewiring Aotearoa is another registered advertiser for NZ First - we'll return to this entity in a moment. The NZ Taxpayer's Union (the focus of Nicky Hager's controversial new book). The NZ Free Speech Union, a spin-off from UK Lord Toby Young's problematic globalist entity, (as Ursula explains here). 350 Aotearoa a 'Just Stop Oil'-type astroturf lobby group that won't be popular with our Marsden Point Refinery supporters! Greenpeace and Forest & Bird - both 'watermelon'-type fake environmental 'charities' that promote and support the >70 years of horrific aerial-1080 poison operations throughout NZ. And then Christian-based 'non-profit' Family First, is listed. And Voices for Freedom (RCR) (again, Ursula has published about that problematic entity before) and of course, Fahy's Natural Health Alliance (NHA) that we described in detail above too. Are we beginning to see a UniParty pattern? We have a returning question: are the 'donors' to the abovementioned 'non-profits' (some of which do not publish their Annual Financial Accounts) aware their money is being used for political lobbying purposes? And also, what are these lobbying groups hoping to achieve in this election result, in exchange for their 'support'?

Turning specifically to donations (and this is a direct quote from the Electoral Commission's own website):

For 2026, registered political parties have to let us know within 20 working days when they get more than $20,000 from a single donor between 1 January of election year and the day before election day.

The list of disclosures (so far) for NZ First's current election year reveals a fairly significant donation of 100K received recently from an individual named:

Brian Cartmell

Mr. Cartmell's involvement in Philanthropic endeavours in New Zealand has been significant since this (US-Born) Tech Entrepreneur relocated to New Zealand in 2010 and became a New Zealand citizen five years later in 2015 - after which he has also gone through (as many others have too) the fairly arduous process of renouncing his US Citizenship:

As you can see from the above statement from his own website, Mr. Cartmell has donated over a million dollars to various organisations in New Zealand over the last 16 years. One of the organisations Mr. Cartmell stated he donated to is Rewiring Aotearoa, which coincidentally as we just mentioned, is also a registered advertiser for NZ First. This entity has multiple partnerships with NZ Government depts and has a trustee with a very interesting surname(!) Rewiring Aotearoa states the following on its own home page:

Rewiring Aotearoa (NZ) is closely connected to UN Agenda 2030 and the SDG goals. It's new (est. 2023) stated 'charitable purpose' is:

...to support New Zealander's in their transition to electrification through meaningful research, data-driven evidence, effective communication, and practical demonstration.

Preventing (new) Kiwi homes from having wood-burning fires (and promoting heat-pumps instead) and having EV chargers fitted are priorities, as it's website states:

Rewiring Aotearoa is an independent non-partisan non-profit. It is a registered charity working on energy, climate, and electrification research, advocacy, and supporting communities through the energy transition. The team consists of New Zealand energy, policy, and community outreach experts who have demonstrated experience both locally and internationally.

Energy 'experts' to help us transition - thank heavens for that! With nearly NZ$2 million in 'donations' in recent months, they are serious about change. One of the initiatives being pushed by Rewiring Aotearoa is the idea of the "electric home":

There are still a lot of households in New Zealand that burn fossil fuels for water heating, space heating, driving and cooking.
An electric home swaps some or all of those fossil fuel machines for much more efficient electric equivalents and, if possible, adds solar panels to generate their own electricity and batteries to reduce their energy bills to store that electricity for when it’s needed.

They also provide a few visual aids for this vision of the "electric home":

Regardless of your personal views/opinions on this Agenda 2030 vision, Mr. Cartmell claims he is fully onboard:

Turning to another organisation Mr. Cartmell contributed to is the Peke Waihanga Foundation:

The Peke Waihanga Foundation is a charitable trust operated by Peke Waihanga, an autonomous Crown Entity. It engages with health research using integrated technologies (wearables) that it manufactures, for instance for amputees. According to its own website it is...

a specialist healthcare provider that manufactures high technology medical devices, mainly prosthetics and orthotics, for individual patients with an integrated rehabilitation, coordination of care, and peer support service.

The research into making connections between brain signals and bodily functions using a synthetic but biotech integrated 'device' is progressing. The ethics of this research is a deep concern for those opposed to transhumanism. In isolation, this interest, and it's connection to the NZ Government could seem irrelevant to the topic we are discussing, but in the next section, you'll understand why we are concerned.

Mr. Cartmell has also donated a total of over half a million dollars to the parties forming the current coalition government, as well as the Opportunity Party. With regards to the current elections, the official disclosures for 2026 reveal that in addition to his donation to NZ First, Mr. Cartmell also gave 100K to ACT New Zealand and the same amount was also given to the Opportunity Party. When explaining his reasons for making those donations, Mr. Cartmell said:

The current coalition parties represent the best available chance of navigating a period of significant economic, technological, and geopolitical change in a way that preserves New Zealand's sovereignty, prosperity and independence.

With regards to making a recent contribution to the Opportunity Party, Mr. Cartmell said:

New ideas enter the political process from the edges, and parties like Opportunity play an important role in making sure that process doesn't stagnate.

Who is Brian Cartmell?

The above portrait image from Brian's own website appears to be AI-generated. This is significant as you will soon find out. Here is an extract from Mr. Cartmell's own bio on his own website:

Brian's interest in the long-term trajectory of technology led him to become an early funder of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (now MIRI) in the early 2000s, supporting Eliezer Yudkowsky's work on human-friendly AI at a time when almost no one was taking the idea seriously. Yudkowsky's original vision was optimistic — that building aligned AI was essential to humanity's future.
In the years since, Yudkowsky's position has shifted from advocating for AI's promise to warning it poses an existential threat.
Brian respects the journey but doesn't share the conclusion — four decades of technological change have shown him that the future is built by those who engage with it, not those who stand in the way of technological progress, yelling STOP.

Right, so Mr. Cartmell was behind the creation of the Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence (now called MIRI).

According to this organisation's stated history on their official website:

MIRI co-founded and organized the Singularity Summit, an annual conference that covered topics such as AI, brain-computer interfaces, robotics, and regenerative medicine.

Once again, here is what MIRI (or the "Singularity Institute" up until 2013 when they sold the brand name to what is now the Singularity University) is saying on their own website on the page discussing the Singularity Summit:

The conference was founded by MIRI, Ray Kurzweil, and Peter Thiel in 2006. The inaugural conference was held in 2006 at Stanford University. [...]. The event regularly attracts over 800 scientists, entrepreneurs, academics, and other thinkers. In 2010, it was covered in a front-page article in TIME magazine.

And also:

Past speakers at Singularity Summit include inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, philosophers David Chalmers and Nick Bostrom, nano technology pioneer Eric Drexler, author and scientist Douglas Hofstadter, Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel, Sebastian Thrun of Google’s driverless car, roboticist Rodney Brooks, AI researcher Peter Norvig, Intel CTO Justin Rattner, X Prize Foundation CEO Peter Diamandis, Mathematica and Wolfram Alpha creator Stephen Wolfram, economist Robin Hanson, physicist Max Tegmark, and author Michael Shermer.

Are you concerned yet?

To clarify, this (archived) piece from the San Francisco Chronicle covering the very first Singularity Summit back in 2006 could help us understand the situation better, specifically:

In a way, the daylong summit is shaping up as the Bay Area 'coming-out 'party for the tech-inspired philosophy called transhumanism.
In a nutshell, transhumanism holds that genetics, nanotechnology and robotics are converging, creating the potential for "human enhancements." Saturday's event is supported by the Stanford [Uni] Transhumanist Association, a student group that embraces the view that humankind is poised to take evolution into its own hands.

And there's the connection to our earlier concern about the involvement of Agenda 2030 and transhumanism. If the above STILL doesn't get the alarm bells ringing yet, then we recommend you read some of WEF-based Harari's book to catch up on the basics of our adversaries agenda!

"But wait, there's more!" Says Michael!

In February 2019, Open Philanthropy (now called Coefficient Giving) founded in 2011 by Cari Tuna and Facebook co-founder (and major investor in CRISPR gene-editing technology) Dustin Moskovitz, earmarked a grant of $2.1 million over two years to MIRI:

Just over a year later during the early days of the "pandemic" in April 2020, Open Philanthropy topped this with another $7.7M grant which was the single biggest grant MIRI received till then:

As you can see, the "grant investigator" in both cases was the "Committee for Effective Altruism Support" which MIRI openly aligns itself with:

AI and Effective Altruism - Machine Intelligence Research Institute

MIRI is a research nonprofit specializing in a poorly-explored set of problems in theoretical computer science. GiveDirectly is a cash transfer service that

Machine Intelligence Research InstituteRob Bensinger

Effective Altruism is deep rabbit hole all to itself which is beyond the scope of this article, but let's just say it gets very dark very quickly. Just to give you a teaser, it is THIS group that is ultimately behind the current scaremongering propaganda "AI doom" narrative, propagated by the likes of Bill Gates and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, amongst others:

As this video shows, the narrative is pushed for all reasons EXCEPT genuine care and concern for humanity's wellbeing:

Conclusion: Disappointments & More Questions

We've presented here only a small part of the research we have undertaken. And we are left with more concerns and questions than answers. We've dug deep with our due diligence because we share the concerns of those who genuinely believe in the overall need for a 'Make New Zealand Health' initiative. But knowing what we know, is this really going to come from politics, rather than from within New Zealanders' hearts? Considering our concerns and the evidence, let's ask some overall questions:

Would any genuine 'natural health alliance', outwardly promoting informed choice and medical freedoms, be simultaneously financially connected to the covid 'vaccination' roll out, and BigPharma? Would any genuine 'anti-globalist, 'pro-freedom' political party have a long list of donors and advertisers which were simultaneously promoting the Globalists Agenda 2030? Many of the funders and promoters of the MAHA-type MNZH campaign, that has been adopted by NZ First, have 'donated' heavily in time and money - what do these people/entities want/expect to gain from that investment? Some individuals and entities are undoubtedly altruistic in their objectives. But as we have shown, perhaps not all?

We asked Deb Cunliffe about this Make New Zealand Healthy policy project - she is Founder of the Nurses Collective NZ, a grass roots community of like-minded clinicians and carers, many of whom were mandated-out of their vocations during the covid era. This is her thoughtful response:

"It’s hard not to notice what’s going on here. When a party suddenly champions the concerns of marginalised communities right before an election — especially communities they’ve ignored or sidelined for years — it’s usually not about genuine reform. It’s about votes. Publicity is currency in election season. If a politician thinks a particular group is frustrated, unheard, or politically useful, they’ll campaign on whatever that group wants to hear. But campaigning on an issue is not the same as committing to fix it. And as we’ve seen, even the strongest promises evaporate once the polling booths close. When a party’s “policy” appears to be lifted directly from advocacy groups without proper engagement, consultation, or acknowledgement, it raises real questions about authenticity.
Clinicians who stood their ground in 2021 are still waiting for an apology. The workforce is still overwhelmed. Funding still doesn’t match demand. And the people carrying the system — nurses, allied health, GPs, carers — are still expected to keep going without meaningful structural support. Until we see genuine action — not just borrowed words — I personally think communities like ours might nod but will continue to feel used, rather than represented." [Deb Cunliffe, Nurses Collective NZ - our emphasis]

And our history seems to provide some insights into Deb's perspective too. In 2017, NZ First were actively seeking votes during election campaign meetings from those who were against the aerial poisoning operations that Ursula has written/spoken about extensively before. Inevitably, once in power, NZ First election promises seemed to vanish and hopeful citizens were left feeling ignored once more. But as the propagandists know well, Joe Public often has a short memory.

There is plenty more to write about this topic, but we have provided a foundation today for further development. Are we being too sceptical? One thing is for sure, election times provide lots of opportunities for the Globalists to pull more strings, for the wealthy to manipulate their power, and for the propaganda machinery to sow more division and confusion in the electorate. Stay calm, keep smiling, truth will win!

PLEASE NOTE: This research work has been undertaken entirely on a voluntary, unpaid basis by the authors, and in good faith. We reached out to the NHA for a comment, no response was received. We also spoke verbally to members of MNZH, who did not share our concerns. We welcome any feedback, comments or corrections.