Time to demand New Zealand Government (Marxist/Socialist) regime to heep their dirty hands of your children as they continue down this road indocrinating their captive minds with a Marxist-Socialist narrative. Sexuality and Gender Diversity indocrination. Promoting an overwhelmelming emotionalism in the classroom, this can only harm your child.

Teaching ‘Equality’. Is teaching equality good or bad? I personally believe it is dam evil.

Please click on the image above this will link you to my rumble video explaining why I believe it is dam evil.

LATEST RESEARCH I HAVE FOUND ON CDC WHICH MAY INTEREST MANY OF YOU- Carol Sakey WakeUpNZ

OUTSIDE GIFTS: CDC has delegated authority from the Assistant Secretary for Health, HHS, to accept outside gifts. Specifically, Section 231 of the Public Health Service Act (42 USC 238) authorizes acceptance of unconditional and conditional gifts “…for the benefit of the Public Health Service or for the carrying out of any of its functions.” https://www.cdc.gov/partners/gift-funding.html   In the spring of 2016, CDC’s ACD made seven recommendationspdf icon pdf icon[PDF – 285 KB] for ethical considerations with CDC’s public-private partnerships. These recommendations focused on how CDC engages the private sector and reaffirm CDC’s commitment to the American people. The workgroup found it necessary to understand the complexity of relationships with private partners. This included both direct relationships between the agency and outside organizations from multiple sectors including private, NGO, philanthropic and business sectors. Additionally, CDC has a unique and somewhat complex relationship with the CDC Foundation, an organization established by Congress for the sole intent of facilitating public private partnerships with CDC. Further background on these relationships and the Legislative framework for CDC public private partnerships can be found in Appendix B. Ethical_Considerations_for_Public_Private_Partnerships_Recommendations_to_ACD.pdf (cdc.gov)    https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jcm.00134-06?permanently=true 2007

EXPERIMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE FLU CHIP DIAGNOSTIC MICRO-ARRAY FOR INFLUENZA VIRUS SURVEILLANCE: By using a new algorithm (22, 29) developed in our laboratory for sequence selection and described in the companion paper (22), a low-density microarray (the FluChip-55 microarray) was designed to use a relatively small set of capture and label sequences (n = 55) for analysis of the subtypes of three important influenza A viruses and some influenza B viruses. The results from a thorough blind study involving 72 samples provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are described herein. The samples contained RNA from influenza viruses recently isolated from several species, including human, avian, equine, and swine species. Additionally, nine patient samples that had previously been shown to be positive for influenza virus were tested on the microarray. The total cost per assay, including the chips and all reagents used during printing, amplification, and hybridization, is less than $20. The unique aspects of this work include the microarray design and sequence selection, the use of target RNA rather than DNA, the broad range and large number of viruses used to test the microarray, and the implementation of a novel and highly effective visual identification methodology.

THE FLU CHIP AND CDC: The CDC provided 72 samples for a blind study of the FluChip-55 microarray. The sample set was later revealed to contain three negative controls: two water samples and one sample that contained bovine serum albumin. An independent negative sample (water) was added to the sample set in the University of Colorado laboratory for control purposes. The viral isolates provided represented samples from human, avian, equine, and swine species. The original samples were acquired by a range of techniques, including from throat swabs, nasopharyngeal swabs, or tracheal aspirates or by bronchoalveolar lavage. The viruses were propagated in either embryonated eggs or MDCK cells (15). Genomic RNA was extracted directly from allantoic fluid or cell culture supernatant with an RNeasy kit (QIAGEN, Valencia, CA). The virus type and subtype were predetermined at the CDC by sequencing of the hemagglutinin and neuraminidase genes and by traditional serological techniques.

CAPTURING B Y ALGORITHM: A new algorithm for the mining of large databases to identify regions of genetic conservation for highly mutable viruses such as influenza virus was recently developed in our laboratory; the algorithm is fully described in the companion paper (22). Sets of capture and label sequences that were anticipated to be capable of discriminating between different influenza virus types and subtypes were selected, spotted in an easily visualized microarray format (Fig. 1), and evaluated. Specifically, the 55 capture-label pairs were chosen to enable identification of influenza A virus M, HA1, HA3, HA5, NA1, and NA2 genes and influenza B virus M, NP, and HA genes, thereby covering the two most common influenza A viruses currently circulating in the human population as well as the avian A/H5N1 virus that is of great concern throughout the world. The entire set of capture and label sequences is shown in Table 1.

Future directions. In subsequent efforts the FluChip microarray will be expanded to cover a larger number of important influenza virus strains, such as the avian H7N3 (34), H7N7 (3, 12, 14), and H9N2 (4, 19, 26) virus strains. Novel viruses transmissible from species to species, such as the equine influenza virus H3N8 (6), which was recently found in canines, will also be addressed. S

ACKNOWLDGEMENTS: This CDC Collaboration  Article on the FluChip concluded with aknowledging funding from National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIH) Grant Number Uo1 AI056528-03. Thanking InDevR, LLC for use of its Genetix microarrayer and particularly thanking Linda Kuck for spotting the microarrays and her helpful discussions in array design and layout. Thanking Rebessa Garten at the Centre for Disease Control (CDC) for her assistance with the database organization and selection of conserved regions targeting influenza virus. Also thanking Patricia Young of the Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment for providing patient samples.

A LITENY OF UNTRUTHS: Despite the claim that “CDC does not accept commercial support,” this agency does indeed have financial ties to industry organizations, through their government-charted foundation. Congress has created foundations for many government organizations, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to supplement the agencies’ funding for specific projects and encourage more public-private partnerships.

FINANCIAL CONFLICTS: https://lowninstitute.org/cdc-disclaimers-hide-financial-conflicts-of-interest/  Since the CDC Foundation was created in 1995, hundreds of corporations have contributed to public health programs, for a total of $161 million in donations. Many of these contributions could be seen as conflicts of interest–for example, a $193,000 donation from Roche, the maker of antiviral drug Tamiflu, to fund a CDC flu prevention campaign. Despite the significant funding the CDC receives from industry via its foundation, few were aware of these conflicts until Jeanne Lenzer called attention to the foundation in The BMJ a few years ago. Recently, the CDC accepted $3.4 million from Pfizer for the prevention of Cryptococcal disease, $1 million from Merck & Co. pharmaceutical company for a program on preventing maternal mortality, and $750,000 from Biogen for a program on screening newborns for spinal muscular atrophy, the petition states

FALSE DISCLAIMERS: The petitioners ask that CDC should stop publishing the false disclaimers, remove the disclaimers from their website and resources, and issue corrections to retroactively disclose financial relationships with industry. “It’s time for the CDC to be truthful with health professionals and all Americans, and to stop denying that it takes corporate money,” said Gary Ruskin, co-director of U.S. Right to Know, in STAT. “The CDC is violating the public trust by misleading us in this way.”

CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC HEATH: Many in the health community believe corporate ties are undermining the authority of the hugely influential public health agency. Many people in and out of the medical community were shocked to read in an article published earlier this year in the medical journal the BMJ that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) takes funding from industry. As Jeanne Lenzer, an independent reporter and associate editor at the BMJ, pointed out in that article, pharmaceutical and other types of companies can — and do — fund CDC projects by giving money to the CDC Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress in the mid-1990s to “connect CDC to the private sector to advance public health.” And that has raised some serious conflict-of-interest concerns. For example, to help pay for its new “Take 3” flu-prevention campaign, the CDC, via its foundation, accepted a $193,000 donation from Roche, the company that makes the antiviral drug Tamiflu, Lenzer reported last February.

THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY WERE SHOCKED: Many people in and out of the medical community were shocked to read in an article published earlier this year in the medical journal the BMJ that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) takes funding from industry. As Jeanne Lenzer, an independent reporter and associate editor at the BMJ, pointed out in that article, pharmaceutical and other types of companies can — and do — fund CDC projects by giving money to the CDC Foundation, a nonprofit organization created by Congress in the mid-1990s to “connect CDC to the private sector to advance public health.” And that has raised some serious conflict-of-interest concerns.

THE CDC AND ITS DONATIONS: For example, to help pay for its new “Take 3” flu-prevention campaign, the CDC, via its foundation, accepted a $193,000 donation from Roche, the company that makes the antiviral drug Tamiflu, Lenzer reported last February. One of the central tenets of the “Take 3” campaign is the recommendation that people take an antiviral drug like Tamiflu if they develop symptoms of the flu. That advice, however, is highly controversial. Indeed, another government agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), says that the clinical trial data it has reviewed does not support the claim that Tamiflu saves lives or reduces hospitalizations, including among the elderly.

ADDITIONAL CONFLICTS: Earlier this month, Lenzer wrote again for the BMJ on CDC’s industry funding. In that article, she offers two additional examples of how controversial decisions recently made by the CDC are associated with that funding. One involves the CDC’s recommendation that everyone born between 1945 and 1965 be screened for the hepatitis C virus. As Lenzer details in her article, the science behind such widespread screening has been challenged. She also describes how industry’s connections with the CDC raise questions about why that screening recommendation was made: 

FINANCIAL TIES TO DRUG MANUFACTURERS: In 2010, the CDC, in conjunction with the CDC Foundation, formed the Viral Hepatitis Action Coalition, which supports research and promotes expanded testing and treatment of hepatitis C in the United States and globally. Industry has donated over $26m to the coalition through the CDC Foundation since 2010. Corporate members of the coalition include Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, OraSure Technologies, Quest Diagnostics, and Siemens — each of which produces products to test for or treat hepatitis C infection. Conflict of interest forms filed by the 34 members of the external working group that wrote and reviewed the new CDC recommendation in 2012 show that nine had financial ties to the manufacturers.

TIES TO THE SUGAR INDUSTRY: The CDC has also accepted $1.7 million from the sugar industry to fund a series of studies involving an epidemic of chronic kidney diseases among agricultural workers in Central America, particularly among young men working in the sugar fields. The epidemic has killed more than 20,000 workers over the past two decades. As Lenzer notes, researchers have cited two interrelated factors as the most likely explanation for the epidemic: dangerous pesticides and difficult working conditions. When the men cut sugar under a hot, tropical sun, they get dehydrated, which may leave them more susceptible to the kidney damage caused by chemical toxins.

INDUSTRY BIAS: “Industry funding undermines trust and introduces a bias in the presentation of results and treatment recommendations that is deplorable for a government agency,” he said. “If the allegations of industry funding and influence are true, we will have to look very carefully at recommendations we are following now and those made in the future by the CDC.”- Dr. Neil Calman, president and chief executive of the Institute of Family Health, a large New York-based community health center network

 Published on the 14^th Dec 2022 Rumble…

10^th March 2022 The Director of Health Ashley Bloomfield announced a change in the reporting of COVID-19 deaths. From this date onwards deaths are automatically reported if the person had a COVID19 Positive test and died within 28 days they are to be classified as a COVID19 death

. Sometimes the window of time will be broadened, however a person may have had a road accident, other serious injuries or even been shot by a police officer or gang member, they are still classified as a COVID 19death. Of University of Canterbury said people who died within 28 days of testing positive is a ‘number’ that you can easily count, provide quickly”

Michael Baker who wanted masks for people who have flu even said as to the new classification on COVID deaths “it’s worth considering how valid some of the cases listed as COVID19 deaths are” and added “It’s worth having healthy suspicion for every bit of data, making sure that is valid when analyzing rates and measurements”

Prof. Michael Platt COVID19 Modeler  from Canterbury University said “People who died within 28 days of testing positive is ‘a number’ that you can easily count and provide quickly” He added that “there is an increasing likelihood

A ‘Nature’ article points to another challenge “working out excess deaths is a complex research challenge, not simple counting up each country’s excess deaths that some of these deaths will be accidental, that have  died within 28 days of the positive test, that information takes longer to get, its easier to do a ‘simple death count’, data and indicators shows that the disease is having an impact”

Scientific experts are reporting they have found more than a hundred countries that do not collect reliable, accurate stats on actual COVID19 deaths and do not release them in a timely manner.

Since the change of classification for reporting COVID deaths of course published  rates have significantly increased. Prof Plank said “there will be a lot of variability in daily numbers of deaths recorded, 100’s from Omicron. NZ Ted Whatu Ora. Health NZ Govt have reported as up to 12^th December 2022 2,257 COD 19 Deaths. And they state that some deaths will be reported outside the given window of 18days

The Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act Abortion had been a criminal offence in New Zealand since 1866. By the 1970s it had become a deeply divisive social and political issues.

Family First NZ has quickly become a household name, advocating for families, and speaking common sense and values on a broad range of family issues in New Zealand, sharing free information on many topics on family matters particularly around Ardern’s Labour led Relationships and Sexuality Education. Family First NZ bringing awareness to parents of children of what their children are taught in the school curriculum. Warning about school sexuality, gender diversity programmes in schools that involve Mates & Dates, Rainbow Youth and Family Planning Association NZ.

It was during the third Labour Govt that the ‘Little Red Book’ was re-published in New Zealand that caused quite a controversary, then followed by ‘Under the Plum Tree’ at the beginning of the National Govt in 1976. Followed by another book entitled ‘Display Under the Palm Tree’ . The obscenity of sexual language  and images had been targeted at children from 10 years upwards.

Below is some of the informative history of this area which involves sexualization of New Zealand school children:-

The radical Little Red School Book appeared in NZ bookshops prior to 1972, it was published in Denmark in 1969. And republished in other countries also  The book was modelled on Chairman Mao’s cultural revolution led by his youthful red guards in the late 1960’s. The Little Red School Book was aimed at youth-teenagers  worldwide. In England it was published by 27yr old Richard Handy side. The NZ publisher was 28yr old Alister Taylor. He recruited a team of teachers and people within the Education Dept, he claimed a senior inspector to revise the English edition for local consumption (for NZ Youth)

Taylor was a former president of the NZ University Student Assoc., had worked in Nation Radio. Launched his publishing career with LRSB whilst he was chief editor of educational books for A H & A W Reed and a spare editor of the Journal of the Post Primary Teachers Assoc.,. 200 pages of the book dealt with drugs, sex and organizations including Family Planning Clinics, the Abortion Law Reform Assoc and the Homosexual Reform Society

The Little Red School Book was said,  it filled children’s minds with utopian nonsense taking control of children’s minds and children’s lives. 25 pages of the book was on the most objectionable information, that was seen to be likely to harm teenagers, as it encouraged sexual activity. “People who warn you against strong feelings and sex are as a rule afraid of both  of sex and strong feelings and don’t know enough about it. Judge for yourself, from your own experiences. The treatment of sex was about the reduction of intimacy to the level of merely animal activity. Says very little about feelings and informed children ‘The usual word for a boys sexual organ is a pXick or a cXck. A girls sexual organ described as a fXnny or a cXnt. Intercourse as fXcking

2.Children were informed about masturbation, petting various parts of the body including the sexual organs “Can all be caressed with fingers, lips, tongue. If the school will not supply a vending machine, open your own contraceptive shop. That pornography, homosexuality, there are many other forms of family life apart from marriage between a man and woman”. Referred to abortion, pornography, contraceptives

The Police Offences Act had been amended in 1954 to make it illegal to supply contraceptives to young people under the age of 16yrs. Instruction in the use of contraceptives and persuasion to use them remained illegal. By 197- contraceptive education led to the interpretation of the law permitting the ‘giving of information’ about the use of contraceptives to ‘instructing to use’’

The Secretary of Justice submitted the Little Red School Book to the Indecent Publications Tribunal. The tribunal delivered its decision in March 1972 that 50,000 copies of the book had already been sold it was decided the book was NOT indecent. The tribunal was not bothered at the physical side of the book or the dehumanizing effect, in fact they were impressed with some of the book, adolescents were the experimental guineapigs.

SPCS  ( Society  also sent individual letters of appeal and protest for Promotion of Community) fought back questioning the right of the tribunal to pass a book that encouraged breaking the law. Trevor Young MP Eastern Hutt president of the SPCS formerly requested the Minister Of Justice to allow an appeal. Individual members of the SPCS. Alister Taylor the NZ publisher of the book had prepared the market, challenged this saying there was a great need for it, for a wide spread sex education throughout communities, particularly schools. Profits from sales of the book meant that he could make a 2^nd major contribution to the sexual education of children in NZ.

November 1972 the 3^rd Labour Government came to power, the education portfolio went to Phil Amos who was very sympathetic to the sex education lobby. Early 1973 the Director General of Education Bill Renwick appointed a committee of 12 people, the chair person was Mr J A Ross, their task was to draft a discussion paper on health and special education.

The paper was released in December 1973 entitled the ‘Human Development & Relationships in Schools Curriculum, making recommendations, actions to improve the media, to prevent sexual exploitation and outlined the content of the school program proposed for all levels-primary, junior, secondary. That this should include petting and masturbation, contraception, homosexuality and an emphasis on different attitudes to abortion.

Compulsory at all levels. Primary school teachers could talk about the bulk of this (This was called the Ross Report-Feb 1974) There was no provision for parents to withdraw their teenagers from sex education classes. It was said by many at the time that these sex education classes were driving wedges between their children and parents.

1974 a group formed in Christchurch around Christchurch High School. The 1974 NZ Council for Education Research  circulated in every school a British Family Planning comic “To Great A Risk” which illustrated contraceptive methods Christchurch parent groups decided to act. And formed the ‘Concerned Books Assembly’. Sex education plans went ahead against a backdrop 3.of increased opposition activity by the general population. 1972 Family planning had set up ‘Advice Referral Centres’ for youth in Auckland and Christchurch and then extended this to Wellington.

July 1974 The Statutes Revision Committee recommended to Parliament repeal of the Police Offence Act 1954. The Rowling govt did not act on it. Dec 1974 a delegation from SPCS presented a petition containing 27,640 signatures against contraception education. They stressed that sexual activity,  by no means should be introduced into the school system

There was coercion by Family Planning Assoc., personnel and the Sex Magazine ‘FORUM’ subtitled ‘The International Journal of Human Relations  edition of the sexology monthly from the stable of the Penthouse Edition, featured articles, letter on sexual experimentation of all kinds in pursuit of the ‘ultimate turn-on’. The July 1976 issue led with a 4 page article on sodomasochist experiences including an interviews with promiscuous bisexual males boasting 2,000 to 3,000 lovers, letters detailing masturbation, experiments, incest, three some’s, anal sex advice on se

A Dr Robert Chantham on penis enlargement sexology supreme.  And views on incest.  The 1974 issue listed Dr Frazer McDonald, medical supervisor of Carrington Psych Hospital Auckland, Prof James Ritchie dean of the school services.  At Waikato University three other senior academics od psychology and psychiatry, also listed was Isobel Stanton a leading abortion law reform activist, a counsellor of Auckland Abortion Clinic and one of its trustee’s. She later became a member of the govt Abortion supervisory committee.

In the July  publication of ‘FORUM” Margaret Sparrow  of the Abortion Law Reform Assoc and also the Family Planning Assoc’s medical director for Wellington, also International consultants were named in the FORUM issue, this included Ted McIvor member of the Advisory Board of the controversial Sex information and Education Council of the US.

A 1974 Issue of the FORUM namely 75 And Us- US National Sex Forum, involved in the supply of sex films and other materials for sex education and Dr Mahon Potts the medical director of International Planned Parenthood US. International Planned Parenthood and NZ Family Planning Association are affiliated.

The Forum magazine was not subject to customs inspection. Although 4 issues were classified as R18. In the 1970’s Family Planning Association was already receiving significant funding from the government. In 1976 Family Planning Assoc  employed a full time Youth Education Officer whom 10 months earlier had been an editor ofc the FORUM magazine. And was chosen to be in charge of the work done in NZ Schools and FPA clinics. That all seemed ok with the government thought. The Minister Of Education.

The FORUM magazine had been advertised in the journal of the Post Primary Teachers Association on Human Development & Relationships in the schools curriculum. Teachers were suppose to benefit from this pornographic trash, the exploiting on teenagers minds with sexual material full of obscene words.

4.December 1976 Alister Taylor published ‘Under The Plum Tree’ for children aged 10 yrs plus, it included obscene explicit body images and sexual language. Intercourse, anal and oral sex. This caused a public outcry, was sent to the Indecent Publications Tribunal, 100’s of copies had already been sold, the tribunal put 3 months freeze on the sales pending classification Feb 1977 a representative of the Secretary of Justice said the book was an afoot to commonly accepted standards of decency in NZ and asked for a ruling that the book be classified as an R18.

Alister Taylor called expert witnesses to defend the book including Margaret Sparrow and education lecturer and a secondary school teacher Robin Duff who was the coordinator for the campaign for Homosexuality. The classification remained R18 “Indecent in the bands of anyone under the age of 18yrs unless such persons are being instructed by parents or professional advisors.  This opened it up for teachers to be in the guise of professional advisors. The book was not allowed to be kept in the school library otherwise prosecution may occur.

Then came the book ‘ Display Under the Palm Tree’ this was referred to the NZ Police as a result the London Bookshop in Central Wellington was convicted in 1978 for openly exhibiting the book to under age persons. The labour govt of the 1970’s  became under great pressure from within and outside their ranks. The Contraception, Sterilization Abortion Bill entered parliament in August 1977 Part 3 Clause 56 made it mandatory such sexuality courses might be prescribed by regulations under the Education Act. Clause 3 allowed people acting in place of parents- doctors, family planning personal and other people were authorised by the minister of justice to give contraceptives and contraception instruction to children. Clause 60 allowed a girl of any age to be referred for an abortion without parental consent.

To my friends and followers on Social Media l the information I have shared with you is included in a book entitled ‘A Stand For Decency’ by Carolyn Moynihan. Published in 1995. I recently picked this book up at a Lions Monthly Book Fair in Auckland.

‘A Stand For Decency’ refers to Patricia Bartlett and the Society for Promotion of Community Standards 1970-`1995 ‘The Sex Education Debate ‘ Page 54. The SPCS fought long and hard against the obscene language and images that were displayed in certain books that were published to exploit children’s minds by sexual deviancy  and still we continue the fight to stop sexual obscenity out of our schools in NZ.

Thank you to Family First New Zealand for your compassionate continuous efforts in trying to make parents aware of what their children are being taught in schools today –which I  personally believe is sexual abuse,  sexual exploitation by the State.  I urge Parents of school age children to visit the Family First NZ website where extremely valuable information is shared free of charge – I call this ‘Heart Gifts’

PLEASE SHARE, SHARE, SHARE- LINK: Family First NZ     https://familyfirst.org.nz

Carol Sakey   https://wakeupnz.org