Great day for the children of the USA! Thank you president Trump and Secretary Kennedy! This is long overdue.
The Golden Age of MAHA is Here! Childhood Vaccine Schedule Reduced From 72 to 11 in Historic Shift
- Thread starter Scrubby
- Start date
Great day for the children of the USA! Thank you president Trump and Secretary Kennedy! This is long overdue.
This is imbecilic and is not based on any studies. Get ready for more diseases that are completely unnecessary.
Beautiful that it came out the same day we got fauci texts confirming he knew the covid shot could indeed cause miscarriages in pregnant women.
I'm going to get dart gun so I can vaccinate these poor kids myself and save them from their idiot parents.
Care to share any single study that actually supports this crazy move?
Typical scumbag maga celebrating the potential death of children from diseases that are prevented by vaccines.
Defaulting to creating an autism gun over supporting "my body, my choice" policy? Fascinating choice lol
mRNA shots do not cause miscarriages. There is extensive research on this
The mandated and doctor recommended COVID-19 shot for pregnant women was effectively an abortion shot according to new documents just released by Senators Johnson and Paul.
“The authors claimed a miscarriage rate of 12.6%, but the raw data revealed an 82% miscarriage rate in women vaccinated during the first trimester. This is consistent with the 81% miscarriage rate noted in the Pfizer 5.3.6 post-market data. These figures mirror the effects of chemical abortion drugs such as RU-486.”
Fauci also outright states this in his newly released text messages, specifically as it relates to first trimester injection.
It was "their body their choice" until the kid is born. After that it's not longer their body.
We were discussing childhood vaccines that your idiot president thought was a good idea to change.
Then it becomes their body, your choice? You're spouting absolute nonsense lol
Unreal they did this in the midst of the largest outbreak of measles in decades due to vaccine hesitancy
Stick to the trans posts. This is above your
pay level
Measles is still on the schedule, genius.
Reading comprehension and critical thinking has always been hard for you.
You got owned. You can just admit you are wrong my guy. This is getting embarrassing for you.
And Republicans in current office are freaking pissed. They begged him not to do this since it is so widely disliked unless you are dumb like Scrubby...
Says the person who's taken 7 boosters of the clot shot
Nobody is pissed. This is being massively celebrated online at the moment. So sorry this is happening to you?
None of these concerns were ever made public.
Lmao keep believing the internet.
everyone - if you are so inclined, here's the actual study being referenced
it showed no adverse outcome of the vaccines on pregnancies...unless you just want to believe non-specific claims of what the "raw data" says
He doesn't want to see that, he'd prefer to share a tweet that confirms his beliefs.
I believe the study from Stanford medical school. You believe anthony fauci, the guy who lied about everything related to covid. We are not the same.
To be fair, he also believes the DOJ and the Secret Service are negotiating for Obama's surrender.
You’re alive because of vaccines. Now go back to your basement and find some more trans posts
Trump making parents use more PTO (if they're lucky enough to have it) in order to vaccinate their children.
I haven’t reviewed the actual changes, but not sure why people are worried about flu, covid and hepatitis B. My kids never have had flu or Covid shots. My wife and I haven’t had covid shots and don’t get flu shots. Totally healthy. No issues with covid and we never get the flu.
Hep B is for druggies, needle sharers, gays and the promiscuous running in rough circles. My kids probably didn’t need that one at 24 hours old.
Hep B is for druggies, needle sharers, gays and the promiscuous running in rough circles. My kids probably didn’t need that one at 24 hours old.
There was never a reason to give any of those shots to children. Hep B was the biggest red flag prior to covid. They test the mother multiple times before delivery for the disease and the causes are very easy to mitigate. The vaccine was originally released for adults, but none wanted to take it, so big pharma does what they do and lobbied to have it added to the child vaccine schedule. It was only ever recommended because people were bought and paid for. Autism rates immediately surged after its addition.
All of these shots are still immediately available should any parents want to give them to their kids for whatever reason.
Informed consent and choices in healthcare is a good thing.
The Hepatitis B vaccine is mandated for children to attend public schools in 47 states.
Hepatitis B is transmitted through needles or sexual contact, so why is this vaccine pushed babies on their first day of life?
Doctors don’t have a valid answer. In fact, if you ask them why your child needs the Hep B shot on the first day of life, they give you the lame excuse that there could be a hepatitis B-infected needle on the playground.
The thing is, there are ZERO documented cases of a child contracting Hepatitis B from an infected needle found on a playground.
Mothers are tested for Hep B beforehand, so the disease poses no risk to the baby. Yet, we are injecting them to prevent Hep B on the first day of life?
What doctors also don't tell you is that the Hepatitis B vaccine wears off by the time children become teenagers.
So, there's literally no point in injecting a newborn baby with a Hepatitis B shot.
Watch @calleymeans and @CaseyMeansMD explain this in detail. This is a must-see conversation.
Context on what's actually being discussed:
First message (Jan 25): This follows an earlier text from Fauci (not shown in your screenshot) noting that since many people get significant cytokine symptoms and fever after the second dose, that reaction theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the first trimester. Murthy replied that he'd separately been hearing lay concerns about mRNA causing mutations in a developing fetus, and called Fauci's cytokine-storm point a good one.
Second message (Jan 26): Murthy flagged that the WHO had put out an announcement advising against pregnant women taking the Moderna vaccine due to lack of data, and asked Fauci and Walensky for their take since it was generating a lot of questions.
What's not in your screenshot but is part of the same released chain, for context: Fauci's follow-up response addressed both concerns — he noted that more than 10,000 pregnant women had already been vaccinated with no issues reported, that FDA, ACIP, and ACOG guidance allowed pregnant women to choose vaccination, and that animal toxicology studies hadn't raised red flags. On the "mRNA causing mutations" worry specifically, later messages in the chain show Fauci noting that some people mistakenly believed the mRNA vaccine was "genetic" and could alter genes — i.e., he was characterizing that particular fear as based on a misunderstanding of how mRNA vaccines work (mRNA doesn't enter the cell nucleus or alter DNA).
A couple of things worth flagging:
- The texts show officials weighing an early, cautious WHO recommendation (based on limited data at the time) against reassurance from other health bodies — WHO later aligned its guidance with other agencies as more data came in.
- Political commentators are drawing sharply different conclusions from these same texts — some framing them as evidence of officials privately voicing doubts, others noting the texts show fairly standard scientific back-and-forth (flagging risks, weighing evidence, updating recommendations) that's normal in a fast-moving pandemic.
Your endless fauci cope is next level. At least you knew to not even bring up hep b considering how dicked down you got on that topic last time we "discussed" it
The idea that healthy kids ever needed 72 shots is laughable at face value.
Why this is contested, not settled
This isn't a new dispute — it's been argued back and forth since 2021/2022, and it hinges on how the original study's denominator worked. The standard rebuttal (which several outlets note today) is that the 82% figure is likely an artifact of incomplete follow-up: many of the women vaccinated in the third trimester simply hadn't been pregnant long enough yet, at the time of data cutoff, to have reached the first/second trimester risk window, so they were never at risk of an early loss and were correctly excluded from that specific rate — not because their pregnancies were "successful," but because the study design tracked ongoing pregnancies prospectively and reported the loss rate only among the sub-cohort whose pregnancies had progressed far enough to be evaluable. This is a known statistical concept in pregnancy registries called "left truncation" — it's genuinely confusing and it's fair to demand the CDC explain it clearly, but it is a different claim from "82% of pregnant women miscarried." The Conservative Treehouse
What later data show
Several peer-reviewed studies published after Fauci left office, including US-based research as recent as 2025, have found no evidence that vaccination directly increased miscarriage risk, and no comprehensive national database shows a documented spike in first-trimester losses correlating with the vaccine rollout. CDC's public guidance by August 2021 stated preliminary v-safe findings suggested mRNA vaccination in early pregnancy did not increase miscarriage risk. Town Hall + 2
Bottom line
The texts themselves (Fauci privately flagging a theoretical miscarriage risk tied to cytokine reactions) are authentic and newsworthy — that's a real story about what officials were privately weighing. But the "82% miscarriage rate" framing in the tweet is a contested statistical reinterpretation of a four-year-old study, not a new data point Fauci "hid," and mainstream epidemiologists dispute that it reflects the true risk. I'd treat the tweet's framing ("this is a crime of historic proportions") as one side's characterization rather than an established fact, and the "12.6% vs 82%" comparison as something to read with real skepticism until you see the CDC's or independent statisticians' response to Thorp's methodology.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated
Inside the contrast in styles between how Clemson and LSU are handling practices this month
-
02
Tiger Illustrated
Friday Clemson Football & Recruiting Nuggets
-
03
Rivals
Clemson, Oklahoma, Georgia three to watch as touted LB Jay Schell's junior visits take shape
-
04
Tiger Illustrated
What Clemson's real depth chart looks like on the offensive line following scrimmage No. 2
-
05
Tiger Illustrated
Takeaways from Clemson's Thursday scrimmage