It was the late 1980s, and I was pregnant with my daughter. My husband and I were excited about the future with our growing family. Upon my first maternity visit, in addition to other information, the doctor gave me instructions to be wary of taking any medications. I wasn’t taking prescription medications; however, my doctor also warned me about over-the-counter medications. She said that I should not even take acetaminophen (Tylenol) unless I really needed it. I was very careful to follow her instructions, wishing to give my baby the best chance of being born healthy.

In 2021, it was my turn to support my daughter who was having her first baby. I was happy to attend those first appointments with her eagerly sharing in this special time. Her pregnancy was advancing normally, and all systems were go. Then, during one of her appointments, the physician’s assistant (PA) said something that almost made me fall off my chair. She told my daughter that it was now time to give her some vaccines to immunize her developing fetus. Giving vaccines to a developing fetus, I had never heard of this, and it sounded strange. The PA explained that the nurse would give the shots in my daughter’s arm muscle so the vaccines would go through her blood stream, cross the placenta, and enter her baby’s blood stream through the umbilical cord. She would be receiving the Tdap vaccine and the Covid-19 vaccine. My daughter and I looked at each other in shock. This was a far cry from the advice several decades earlier not to take a Tylenol unless you absolutely must.

When my daughter refused the vaccines because the Covid-19 vaccine was new and untested on pregnant women, the physician’s assistant said something that made us extremely concerned about her knowledge base. She said that the Covid-19 vaccine was just a weakened virus in some salt water and nothing to be alarmed about. She did not even know the brand she was promoting was in fact new and experimental mRNA technology which did not have final approval by the FDA at the time and had not been tested on pregnant women. She had no idea about mRNA technology or its mechanism of action in the body.

Needless to say, I was alarmed. This new technology was far from a weakened virus in sterile salt water. In addition, my daughter had been fully vaccinated as a child. My husband and I had dutifully followed the doctor’s orders without question back then. We didn’t do our own research, because we fully believed after eleven years of education and years of practice in the field, the pediatricians had completed thorough research on the medications they were ordering, including any vaccines. We trusted them completely.

I was shocked that a health care practitioner was recommending my daughter take a new technology not tested for safety on pregnant women and their developing babies. In the past, obstetricians didn’t want their patients to even take a Tylenol or cold medication, and suddenly, they were recommending a new experimental technology for pregnant women whose age group has a very low chance of death from Covid-19. This made no sense. There was no research regarding the effects on the developing baby before and after birth when my daughter was pregnant in 2021. Therefore, I continued to complete my own research on the subject, and what I discovered was alarming.

In 2022, more research data became available, and I searched for a source that was not supported by money from pharmaceutical companies and had no conflicts of interest with the World Health Organization (WHO) that developed guidelines with the stated intention of fully controlling all pandemics for member nations. These guidelines remove the national sovereignty of these countries to address pandemics within their own borders. Thus far, these guidelines have been voted down by the member nations (VOA, 2024). These developments made me even more concerned about the direction the WHO was taking. However, I found the reliable source I was looking for.

Naomi Wolf (2022) gathered a number of medical and health professionals and scientists who volunteered to review Pfizer’s own documents regarding what they discovered about pregnancy and the Covid vaccine. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) did not want this data revealed for 75 years. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request was made, and a judge ordered the documents released. It was discovered that pregnant women had not been included in phases 1, 2 or 3 of the Pfizer Covid-19 trials. However, when the Covid-19 vaccine became available, they were recommended to receive it anyway. Below is what the safety data revealed when collected on women pregnant and nursing after being given mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. 

The FDA requires Pfizer to collect any publicly available data on adverse events related to vaccination once it goes to market. Confidential document (5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports) contains case reports for the first 68 days of vaccine rollout (from 12/20/2020 to 2/28/2021). The section covering pregnancy and lactation on pages 12-13, reveals that 20% of the 413 reported cases of adverse events were “serious.” These included 25 miscarriages, 5 fetal deaths as well as uterine contractions during pregnancy, preterm deliveries, premature rupture of membranes, and fetal growth restriction. Also included were serious and less serious adverse side effects of breast-fed babies that included infantile vomiting, fever, rash, agitation, and allergy to the vaccine. There were also 6 cases of women having adverse events who received COVID-19 vaccine while breast feeding; some of these include paresis (partial paralysis), suppressed lactation, breast pain, migraines, and breast milk discoloration. Pfizer’s response to the above alarming data was, “There were no safety signals that emerge from the review of these cases of use in pregnancy and while breast feeding” (DailyClout, 2022).

Even after this data was released, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) continues to encourage vaccination for pregnant women. The CDC (2024) website states, “There is limited information available about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines for people who are pregnant, however, based on how these vaccines work in the body, experts believe they are unlikely to pose risk for pregnant people.” This is not the most reassuring statement I have ever read about a new medical product being given to pregnant women and their developing babies.

Any physicians taking a stand against pregnant women, or anyone for that matter, receiving the Covid vaccine may have had their hospital admitting privileges and even their license to practice threatened. The most courageous physicians had their licenses removed by their state medical boards, and they are fighting to have them reinstated. 

I searched professional academic literature for recent research, and it is full of conflicts of interests with the scientists involved with the CDC or the WHO (Pub Med, 2022). In addition, many research studies have funding from pharmaceutical companies. Even some physicians I talked with did not know the top position at the CDC is politically appointed by the President. The leader in the top position at the CDC is very influential in setting policy for the entire government agency. Currently, the US is the largest donor to the WHO (2024) with Bill Gates’ foundation being the second largest donor. Mr. Gates’ foundation (2024) has serious investments in virus technology as well as vaccine development. Please educate your health care practitioners. Many do not know and are not educated in their medical school or by their professional organization regarding these issues.

Pfizer’s own evidence proves the potential safety risks of pregnant women receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (DailyClout, 2022). We live in an age when profits are sometimes placed over safety. However, we also live in a time when access to information and knowledge is greater than it’s been in recorded history. Censorship is a constant threat from leaders and governments who do not want people to do their own research. It’s important to take advantage of this time to check the accuracy of what we’re being told by public health officials, scientists, and practitioners alike.

We must be our own health advocates when traversing the medical world by completing our own research of the evidence. This includes considering where the evidence is coming from and who is paying for it. My biostatistics professor in college clearly demonstrated to our class how easy it is to lie and mislead the public using statistics. We must support policies and laws that identify the wolves in sheep’s clothing and get the wolves out of the chicken pen. Then, we must hold these wolves accountable for their actions that have harmed people. And, if this means liquidating their assets to help those they have harmed, it’s been done before. They should no longer be allowed to hide behind a law that lets them say, "You can’t sue us no matter the destruction we have caused." The people must take a stand!

Having worked in the medical and health world for many years, I know that the vast majority of professionals who have devoted their lives to this field are good people who have care and compassion for their patients and truly want to “do no harm.” We must support them as well, as they were on the frontlines of this pandemic battle, being told the same information as the rest of us, and when they balked, physicians had their licenses threatened and some removed, and the nurses had their jobs threatened and many were fired. Too many nurses were pulled from the bedside of their very ill patients during a nursing shortage and perp-walked out the front door of their hospitals by security guards like a common criminal because they refused to comply with the Covid-19 injection mandates after completing their own research. Last but not least, pay close attention to your gut feelings. If something doesn’t feel right, it may not be right. When in doubt, check it out! 

References:

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2024). Committed grants. Committed Grants | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

CDC. (2024). CDC recommendations before, during and after pregnancy. Vaccine Recommendations Before, During, and After Pregnancy | Pregnancy & Vaccines | CDC

DailyClout. (2022). COVID-19 vaccines & pregnancy: Risky business. Report 07: COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy: Risky Business - DailyClout

PubMed. (2022). Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines - PubMed (nih.gov)

Voice of America (VOA). 2024. WHO negotiators fail to draft pandemic treaty. WHO negotiators fail to draft pandemic treaty (voanews.com)

WHO. (2024). Top contributors. Our contributors (who.int). 

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) today filed an amicus brief urging the North Carolina Supreme Court to overturn the dismissal of a case involving a 14-year-old boy who was given the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine against his will and without his parents’ consent.

In August 2022, Emily Happel and her teenage son, Tanner Smith, sued the Guilford County Board of Education and Old North State Medical Society after Smith was given a dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine — which at the time was available only under emergency use authorization (EUA) — by clinic workers at a school vaccination site. The vaccine was administered in August 2021.

Smith and Happel alleged battery, violation of a North Carolina statute prohibiting vaccination with EUA products without parental consent, and constitutional violations.

The trial court dismissed the case in February 2023 on several grounds, including that the defendants are immune under the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP Act, and that relevant state laws are preempted by the PREP Act.

In March 2024, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit.

by Connie Domino, BSN, MPH, RN

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer is crossing the country with a mobile science “escape room” — complete with a robotic dog — to provide students in rural communities with a “science-based learning experience.”

In the process, students are “exposed to a multi-national company” and they get to meet Pfizer employees.

In its promotional video for the “School of Science Mobile Experience,” students in rural Sanford, North Carolina, are greeted by a Pfizer robot dog, which makes several appearances during their field trip.

Students enter the Pfizer mobile trailer for a “fantastic, interactive, escape-room-like experience,” where they work with Pfizer employees to solve a mystery about a pandemic outbreak that starts with people showing up in doctor’s offices with scaly, lizard-like skin.

As they move through the pandemic tabletop exercise, proceeding through different rooms in the trailer, the children learn different lessons. They learn about antigens in one room, about vaccine manufacturing in another, and more.

North Carolina mother Beth Secosky told The Defender she wouldn’t want Pfizer teaching science to her children or anyone’s children.

“Pfizer has paid billions in penalties for false claims and safety violations,” she said. “Why would schools invite a corporation that is notorious for putting profits over people to teach their children ‘science’?”

Michael Kane, New York City educator and founder of Teachers for Choice told The Defender he was struck by the fact that the experience would highlight antigens and manufacturing as part of science education for young people.

“It’s definitely crossing a line from education to directly marketing or promoting their products to kids,” he said. “It just feels so wrong.”

The hands-on learning modality is great for kids learning, Kane added, but even in the short video, it’s clear this is just an attempt to promote their vaccines. “It kind of blows me away.”

The robotic dog was especially concerning, Kane said. Police departments across the country and the world have controversially begun deploying robot dogs to surveil citizens with cameras, sensors and microphones and militaries are starting to weaponize them for military applications by mounting them with machine guns.

“They are bringing these dogs to the kids in such a disarming way — showing how cute this robotic dog is when it looks precisely like the dogs that they’re putting out into police departments and into the military,” he said. “That is very frightening in terms of what they’re programming these children to be used to and to think is cool, and to think is normal.”

The video was released a couple of weeks ago. The comment function for the video on Pfizer’s YouTube channel is turned off, so viewers have not been able to share their thoughts.

A new school year is upon us. Each new year brings more concerns about government overreach and a reminder for parents to be extra vigilant in protecting their children. 

We wanted to provide you with some warnings on what is happening in the schools this year and tips on what you can do to ensure your children remain safe. 

1) No shots, no school is not true. One of the biggest misconceptions that continues to confuse parents is that vaccines are mandatory to attend school. All NC public schools must accept a religious or medical exemption. Visit HEALNC's website to learn more and to download a sample religious exemption. 

2) Children are being surveyed and assessed for non-academic purposes. Did you know that our children are increasingly subjected to surveys during school hours? And the information being collected is not directly related to their education, but instead features questions about their mental health as well as their home life and their belief systems. The mental health information is being used to move more children into profitable psychiatric drugs. In addition, because of the U.N. agenda to make schools a "community home," many parents rightly object to questions about their personal life. It is the role of parents, not the school, to shape a child’s moral and/or religious beliefs.

According to journalist Alex Newman, schools around the country are asking young children questions that might be construed as grooming because they normalize certain behaviors. Some of the questions that have been reported are:

Privacy is the underpinning of individual liberty. Surveys and health care without parents present are detrimental to your family’s privacy. Have a conversation with your child about being aware of service providers and outside educators at school. Wise parents are telling their children to opt out of any surveys or health assessments and to let them know if anyone asks personal questions or talks to them about their emotions or health.

3) Minors can say "yes" to medical treatment without your knowledge. In NC, a child of any age can consent to a range of controversial therapies such as vaccines, birth control, psychiatric drugs, and "gender affirming" counseling without parental knowledge or consent. Check out our recent article about NC's shocking minor consent law, which is considered one of the worst in the country.

4)School Based Health Centers are being implemented across North Carolina.

There is an alarming movement afoot in public education, the establishment of School Based Health Centers (SBHC). SBHCs are a partnership between public schools and local healthcare organizations to offer care that includes but is not limited to primary care, mental health, oral health, and vision services. A copy of the SBHC contract can be obtained by calling your local school administration office. 

There are approximately 90 SBHCs currently in North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (NCDHHS) reports that in July 2024 it received a $2.5 million grant from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to expand its School Based Health Center services. 

Attorney Nicole Johnson, co-director of theGeorgia Coalition for Vaccine Choice, is sounding the alarm on these health centers, warning parents that they may have no insight into the medical and behavioral services that their children could receive at their school. In addition, NC-based attorney Justine Tanguay warns that parents may be providing their consent for these services without understanding what they are signing. She said, "This year, many schools will be sending home blanket consent-to-treat forms for parents to sign." These forms are not for basic treatments by a school nurse.

Cyndi O’Brien, former K-12 Counselor, Teacher, and Whistleblower, corroborates Tanguay's warning. She attended a US Department of Health and Human Services sponsored webinar on School Based Health Alliances Community Schools, and consent forms were addressed. According to the information provided in the webinar, parents sign only one consent form at the beginning of the year that gives the centers permission to administer any health services to their children for the rest of the year. 

SBHCs may actually be a Trojan Horse for medical tyranny.

In her podcast episode titled, "Are Community Schools the Back Door to Community Health," Cyndi highlights alarming information she learned during the webinar: 

• 49 states already have SBHCs. They start small, but the aim is to make them fully functioning health centers. California and Washington already have fully-functioning centers.

• All centers offer well-child exams, immunizations, dental and optometry services, and behavioral health services.

• There was an emphasis in the webinar on STD testing, which prompted Cyndi to do additional research. She discovered that these health clinics offer reproductive services, gynecological exams, gender affirming care, pregnancy testing, and contraception.

• For students who attend schools without health centers, there is sometimes transportation provided during the school days to take students to schools that have health centers.

• Telehealth will be a service provided, especially for behavioral health and primary care and for those who don't have health centers at their schools.

• Centers have begun creating contracts with pediatricians so that children can be seen at the clinic and then told to follow up with their pediatrician.

• Webinar hosts emphasized how to obtain and retain buy-in for the creation of these centers. He said that upper level staff must be contacted and met with often. People running the centers should attend faculty and staff meetings.

In addition to these disturbing facts, Cyndi reveals that Melinda Gates and Mackenzie Scott have contributed $25 million to SBHCs. Other funders of these health clinics include Big Pharma, Walgreens, the CDC, Planned Parenthood, and the National Teachers Union. 

North Carolina parents, as you send your children back to school this year, here are some ways to protect you and your children from this terrible agenda:

1. Call your local school BEFORE you sign any consent papers for your children to receive treatment to find out if your school offers this service. You may also request a copy of the contract your school has with the local healthcare organization.

2. As mentioned above, keep in mind that because of NC's extreme minor consent law, your child can legally consent to vaccines and other controversial therapies without your knowledge or consent. Teach your child to never accept medical treatments without you present. The only exceptions are having a temperature taken and receiving adhesive bandages.

3. Read everything that comes home in your child’s homework folder and paperwork.

4. Let your voice be heard by emailing or calling your state and local officials, as well as school officials, to let them know you object to the School Based Health Centers.

5. Stay in constant contact with your school board and other school officials regarding your concerns about the School Based Health Centers.

6. Have frequent, candid, and open conversations with your children.

7. Read the fine print on all forms you are asked to sign. 

8. Even if you homeschool, stay vigilant about situations where your child is vulnerable, such as emergency rooms or with family members who do not share your views on health care.