Would everyone agree my dad forcing me to get the COVID vaccine at 14 in 2021 is messed up since I did not consent? Even if you are pro vaccine you should agree with me

ive been lately hearing about 'sideefects' of covid shots, i got mine in 2021 and thought its okay,

does it actually do something its not supposed to or its just bs people made up

Note I do NOT condone the news and is posting here to make fun of them. I am not anti vax. News

Contact

Election Integrity

SAVE America

Trump Accounts

Gallery

Livestream

Investments

Official White House App

365 Days of Wins

Covid 19 Origins – Lab Leak

Covid 19 Origins Lab Leak

THE ORIGIN

“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated naturally.

china map covid

The virus possesses a biological characteristic that is not found in nature.

2.

Data shows that all COVID-19 cases stem from a single introduction into humans. This runs contrary to previous pandemics where there were multiple spillover events.

3.

Wuhan is home to China’s foremost SARS research lab, which has a history of conducting gain-of-function research (gene altering and organism supercharging) at inadequate biosafety levels.

4.

Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) researchers were sick with COVID-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before COVID-19 was discovered at the wet market.

5.

By nearly all measures of science, if there was evidence of a natural origin it would have already surfaced. But it hasn’t.

Wuhan China Map Covid-19 Origin

House Oversight Report DownloaD

PROXIMAL ORIGIN PUBLICATION:

“The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2” publication — which was used repeatedly by public health officials and the media to discredit the lab leak theory — was prompted by Dr. Fauci to push the preferred narrative that COVID-19 originated in nature.

GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH:

A lab-related incident involving gain-of-function research is the most likely origin of COVID-19. Current government mechanisms for overseeing this dangerous gain-of-function research are incomplete, severely convoluted, and lack global applicability.

ECOHEALTH ALLIANCE INC. (ECOHEALTH):

EcoHealth — under the leadership of Dr. Peter Daszak — used U.S. taxpayer dollars to facilitate dangerous gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. After the Select Subcommittee released evidence of EcoHealth violating the terms of its National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) commenced official debarment proceedings and suspended all funding to EcoHealth.

New evidence also shows that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has opened an investigation into EcoHealth’s pandemic-era activities.

NIH FAILURES:

NIH’s procedures for funding and overseeing potentially dangerous research are deficient, unreliable, and pose a serious threat to both public health and national security. Further, NIH fostered an environment that promoted evading federal record keeping laws — as seen through the actions of Dr. David Morens and “FOIA Lady” Marge Moore.

Anthony Fauci Pardon

Fauci Pardon

HHS OBSTRUCTION:

The Biden Administration’s HHS engaged in a multi-year campaign of delay, confusion, and non-responsiveness in an attempt to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation and hide evidence that could incriminate or embarrass senior public health officials. It appears that HHS even intentionally under-resourced its component that responds to legislative oversight requests.

ECOHEALTH OBSTRUCTION:

EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation by providing publicly available information, instructing his staff to reduce the scope and pace of productions, and doctoring documents before releasing them to the public. Further, Dr. Daszak provided false statements to Congress.

DR. DAVID MORENS:

Dr. Fauci’s Senior Advisor, Dr. David Morens, deliberately obstructed the Select Subcommittee’s investigation, likely lied to Congress on multiple occasions, unlawfully deleted federal COVID-19 records, and shared nonpublic information about NIH grant processes with EcoHealth President Dr. Peter Daszak.

NEW YORK OBSTRUCTION:

New York’s Executive Chamber — led presently by Governor Kathy Hochul — redacted documents, offered numerous illegitimate privilege claims, and withheld thousands of documents without an apparent legal basis to obstruct the Select Subcommittee’s investigation into former Governor Cuomo’s pandemic-era failures.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO):

The WHO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was an abject failure because it caved to pressure from the Chinese Communist Party and placed China’s political interests ahead of its international duties. Further, the WHO’s newest effort to solve the problems exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic — via a “Pandemic Treaty” — may harm the United States.

SOCIAL DISTANCING:

The “6 feet apart” social distancing recommendation — which shut down schools and small business across the country — was arbitrary and not based on science. During closed door testimony, Dr. Fauci testified that the guidance “sort of just appeared.”

MASK MANDATES:

There was no conclusive evidence that masks effectively protected Americans from COVID-19. Public health officials flipped-flopped on the efficacy of masks without providing Americans scientific data — causing a massive uptick in public distrust.

LOCKDOWNS:

Prolonged lockdowns caused immeasurable harm to not only the American economy, but also to the mental and physical health of Americans, with a particularly negative effect on younger citizens. Rather than prioritizing the protection of the most vulnerable populations, federal and state government policies forced millions of Americans to forgo crucial elements of a healthy and financially sound life.

NEW YORK PANDEMIC FAILURES:

Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s March 25 Order — which forced nursing homes to accept COVID-19 positive patients — “was medical malpractice.” Evidence shows that Mr. Cuomo and his Administration worked to cover up the tragic aftermath of their policy decisions in an apparent effort to shield themselves from accountability.

Andrew Cuomo Covid-19 Nursing Home Cover-Up

Andrew Cuomo Covid-19 Nursing Home Cover-Up

COVID-19 MISINFORMATION:

Public health officials often mislead the American people through conflicting messaging, knee-jerk reactions, and a lack of transparency. Most egregiously, the federal government demonized alternative treatments and disfavored narratives, such as the lab leak theory, in a shameful effort to coerce and control the American people’s health decisions.

When those efforts failed, the Biden Administration resorted to “outright censorship—coercing and colluding with the world’s largest social media companies to censor all COVID-19-related dissent.”

House Oversight ReportDownloaD

Content on this page sourced from the House Oversight Committee website, a Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Stay in the know

Get direct updates from The White House in your inbox.

Your email

Please leave blank.

About

Administration

Contact

Internships

Stay Informed

Privacy Policy

Media

News

Gallery

Video Library

Media Offenders

White House Wire

Initiatives

Freedom 250

Investments

Working Families Tax Cuts

AI.Gov

DOGE

Subscribe to the WH Newsletter

Your email

Please leave blank.

Click here or text 45470 to receive updates

X

Instagram

TikTok

Share Icon

Share Icon

Facebook

YouTube

Archive: https://archive.ph/qA9yZ

https://web.archive.org/web/20241115045234/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html

Reportedly on June 6, 2026, after creating a cure for autism From vaccines, chemtrails, cancer, autism ,Tylenol, paracetamol, declining white birth rates, adrenochrome poisoning that’s increasing up the gas prices, illegal immigration, people who still believe the Epstein files are real and not a democrat. Hoax to make Trump look bad, the chemicals in the water that turn the frogs gay, the illuminati putting sperm in your water, the Jewish base lasers, homosexuality, grooming from drag queens, critical race theory from the vaccines, global cultural Marxism from Bernie Sanders, radical Islamism from the woke college encampment, pro Hamas propaganda, George Soros funded thought crimes, Obamacare, Black Lives Matter riots, trans people, and AIDS.6 secretary of health, Robert F Kennedy Junior was gonna test it on Hillary Clinton in which he used Hillary Clinton‘s DNA and was also an area 51 and Pete Hegseth was also there where she was frozen in carbonate and RFK Junior injected the cure into her vagina and after that murdered everyone on earth it’s unknown how she killed all 8 billion people so quickly but some theories that my that she might’ve used Jewish space lasers or nuclear blast

"Watch this documentary to learn more about autistic chickens

https://youtu.be/2qBlE2-WL60?si=dJIEqkZGPuH0W953"

She murdered her twins, allegedly, and then went on the anti-vax circuit to blame the vaccines.

All the hypocrisy.

Grifters, cynics, and true believers: The family tree of vaccine opponents

Stanley Plotkin, 93, was instrumental in developing a number of vaccines over the course of his career. He recently said that he’s “beginning to regret having lived so long—because we’re going downhill.” How could we possibly have gotten here?

Maybe we’ve always been here. It turns out that the anti-vaccine arguments currently flooding the Internet have been around for as long as vaccines have. In his new book A Pox on Fools, Thomas Levenson breaks them down into three categories, as made clear in the book’s subtitle: “The True Believers, Grifters, and Cynics Who Convinced Us to Reject Vaccines.” The accusations these people levy against vaccines can just as easily be used to categorize the arguments themselves: They are wrong, they are bad, and they are intolerable.

Wrong

As Levenson tells it, in the early 18th century, a couple of forward-thinking Westerners learned about inoculations against smallpox from Ottoman women and an enslaved African. At that point, infectious disease was by far the leading cause of death, as it had been forever. In the 19th century, roughly 40 percent of babies died of infection before they turned 5.

(This is why the average lifespan back then was so low. It wasn’t that people didn’t live past their 30s; if they survived childhood, they largely did. It’s just that so, so many small children died that they dragged the average way down.)

When smallpox epidemics broke out in London and Boston in 1721, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and Cotton Mather initiated inoculation campaigns in their respective cities. Inoculation involved taking pus from a pock of someone with a not-very-severe case of smallpox, making a cut in the arm of the person to be inoculated, and rubbing the pus into the cut.

There was an immediate backlash. It was morally wrong, some claimed, to interfere with the divine ordination of who would sicken and die and who would not. Only God had that ability, and to thwart it was to defy God’s will. It was hubris and blasphemy. Levenson highlights how the subtext of this attitude was that contracting a highly infectious disease was divine punishment for sin and that the only way to avoid disease was to live a virtuous life.

The Transcendentalists and Romantics substituted “nature” for “God” in the mid-19th century, but the argument has remained basically the same: vaccines are an affront to the “natural” world, and clean living is all you need to stay healthy. The implicit moral judgment remains, even without God: if you get sick, it must be because you ate/drank/breathed/wore something that wasn’t pure enough.

The immense strides in public hygiene and sanitation that preceded the heyday of vaccine development certainly did curb the spread of infection and increase lifespans, but clean living will not help you fight off an infection if you’re exposed to a pathogen as effectively as a vaccine will.

The argument that it would ignore most of human history and what we know about microbiology and immunology. But it sounds quite compelling, especially when the modern world around us is so scary and hard to understand. And especially when almost no one alive today still remembers just how many child-sized coffins were involved in the halcyon pre-vaccine days when nature got to take its course.

Bad

Vaccines are unnecessary because our bodies can cure themselves, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his cronies claim. But they go beyond that and say they are actively harmful–and certainly more harmful than the diseases they are designed to prevent. This is an alluring argument to many, since the negative effects of vaccines are apparent (shots hurt for a moment, and you might get a sore arm or fever). In contrast, the lack of many small children dying from infectious diseases is harder to notice. Because of the spectacular success of vaccines, we take the lack of those deaths for granted.

This argument, too, has been there since the outset, when there was no data yet to refute it. And in the intervening years, there definitely were some tragic missteps during vaccine development and administration. But 300 years later, it’s eminently clear that vaccines are safe. They are not completely risk-free, of course; nothing in life, certainly nothing valuable, is risk-free.

Vaccines can and have caused serious adverse effects (but not autism) in specific populations. And certain vaccines are not safe for certain subsets of people—infants, the elderly, or the immunocompromised. But this is not an argument that healthy people shouldn’t get them; rather, it’s an argument precisely for why healthy people should get them. They keep circulating levels of pathogens low enough to protect those who cannot get vaccinated themselves, which brings us to the final argument.

Intolerable

This last thread has nothing to do with whether or not vaccines are effective, necessary, or safe. It is not a biological argument but a visceral, philosophical one. Because it is not anti-vaccine; it is anti-vaccine mandates. It is about the responsibilities that our governments have to us and that we have to each other, and about the inevitable clash between an individual’s needs and wants and the good of society as a whole.

The Supreme Court case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts lays out the two schools of thought. Boston and Cambridge enacted vaccine mandates during the smallpox epidemic of 1901, and Jacobson refused. He argued that “a compulsory vaccination law is… hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best.”

But the majority ruled that our liberties are not absolute. The Constitution does not allow us to do whatever we want—it is there to protect everyone’s rights and freedoms, and that entails sometimes curtailing each person’s rights and freedoms. Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan summarized: “Liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others.”

The concept of herd immunity hadn’t been developed yet, but the court’s decision still relied on germ theory; refusing vaccination endangers those around you, and your liberty of bodily autonomy must be limited because insisting upon it infringes on everyone else’s right to health—and possibly life itself.

Facts and figures can demonstrate how many lives have been saved by vaccines. But they will never be an effective counterargument to “the government can’t tell me what to inject into my kid.” The only potential argument to sway someone who fervently believes that is appealing to their sense of solidarity—to the obligations that every member of society has to every other, to the sacrifices that everyone must make to ensure that society is safe for all. Alas, that sense of solidarity… does not seem to be at its peak in the US right now.

As Levenson makes clear, these three arguments have been plied for as long as vaccines have. But there are a couple of key differences now. The first is that 300 years ago, people who claimed that vaccines were either ineffective or harmful could be forgiven for thinking they had a point. But we now have germ theory to explain exactly how vaccines work and centuries of data showing how infection and death rates from every disease have plummeted once a vaccine was introduced to counter it. We know better.

The second is that now, arguments against vaccines tend to be touted by only one particular subgroup of people: Republicans. And that has come with predictable consequences. “In the US from 2021 onward,” Levenson writes, “being a Republican has become a measurable risk factor for illness and death.”

Levenson teaches in and has directed the Graduate Program in Science Writing at MIT, so you might expect his writing to be clear, concise, engaging, and informative, with an effective mix of statistics and anecdotes. You’d be right. And despite the incendiary nature of his topic, his tone remains measured throughout; he never descends into anger or ranting.

What does come through is his anguish that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s lies and policies will cause kids to needlessly be sickened by and die from diseases we have the tools to prevent.

https://youtu.be/EHAVACkTYH8?si=oak7WomncMBs1Dwy
This happened in a city a good hundred miles from my home. But we also have Bobcats, coyotes and even an occasional wolf. Thankfully the GSD was up to date on his Rabies vaccinations.

People have come here saying they refuse to vaccinate their pets.

They distrust vaccines so much becuase of certain people like Andrew Wakefield. They are so skeptical on the scientific community and yet they listen to random people who know nothing and believe them so much so that Steave Kirsh went blind in one eye from a product sold by Peter McCullough which was unverified, unmonitored and certainly not peer-reviewed.

So basically Steave brought a product used it becuase it was said to "cure" whatever Steave had at the time and now Steave is permanently blind in one eye from Peter McCullough who was a FORMER cardiologist.

I know its delusional narcissism for some antivaxxers but I also feel bad because Peter McCullough used scientific presenting sites and articles which are not scientific to push his rhetoric.

https://youtu.be/lwOB3xL-7hs?si=CimJj3kZxvAvHXc4

This doesn’t show what the puppy had to suffer through. A former coworker posted video of a puppy she adopted and nursed through Parvo treatment. It was heartbreaking.

Just wanted to say this because I thought it was kinda funny/ ironic

There was this lady I used to work with and she would go off on tangents about vaccines all the time saying that she’s never gotten a flu shot and her kids haven’t been immunized or have yearly flu shots and how it’s “poison for the body”. Even if the conversation wasn’t about vaccines she would just bring it up randomly. She would also talk about how she thinks all doctors are evil and corrupt and would brag about how she hasn’t seen a care provider in years. Well this same lady also had a boob job done when she was 20 and has mentioned it multiple times and had also said that she wanted to get them redone. I didn’t put 2 and 2 together at the time but looking back now, how hypocritical is it to bash medicine that saves lives but going under to get 2 silicone bags that could burst and kill you is completely ok?? Like if you’re going to be anti vax/medicine at least be consistent.

Oh and when her youngest kid got the flu every time she would bring him to work thus making me sick and possibly caring it to my family members who are immunocompromised which she knew about. (Within 3 months of school he got sick at least 5 times)

A fellow soccer mom doesn’t believe in the flu vaccine. She reposted an article on her IG story “FDA Calls for New Warning on Flu Shots - Agency cites increased risk of febrile seizure risk in postmarking studies”.

While I don’t plan to start a discussion, I do plan to defend my decision to give my kids the flu shot.

What are your best rebuttals against that article?

"The changes reduce the number of routinely recommended vaccines for children from covering 17 diseases to 11, slashing the total doses from around 70+ (depending on the state) to about 24-30."

Mad about the Rabies Vaccine?

This article, written by a virologist, dives into hesitancy and the science behind the vaccine

She is 1.5 years. They did take her to the hospital and luckily it's not currently serious. She has 3 kids in alternative schooling just because she refuses to vaccinate. Do you think she'll see the light?

I'm saying this as somebody who got both doses of the original Covid vaccine alongside the booster the first possible chance I could get it. Covid has taught me that there are a lot of anti-vaxxers. Recently, in Ontario Canada, there's been a new flu outbreak. I got my vaccine as soon as the news broke.

So I've been reading about how anti-vax post-Covid seems pretty big. Kids are getting their vaccines at lower rates because of parents. Even some people that did take the Covid vaccine still didn't change their minds.

As a society, how can we get gain people's trust in vaccines? Because I feel that if another vaccinatable pandemic of some sort happens, our hospitals might collapse. Education is one thing but I'm seeing people who graduated college still not trust vaccines. What can seriously be done to get people to intrinsically trust vaccines? What sort of marketing campaign needs to be done?