Should Vaccination be a Matter of CHOICE, or CRIMINALIZED?

See also:
Biblical Critique of Vaccines series
Vaccines make Diseases Disappear? Correlation is not Necessarily Causation

by Stephen Halbrook

Prologue: Vaccination as genocidal and spreading disease, and criminalized in Dublin, as noted in The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review, 1879

Meanwhile, the awful fact on a great scale confronts us, that small-pox has become more and more prevalent, more and more fatal, since Vaccination has been made compulsory. Now at last the cause comes out without a blush of shame from our orthodox school. The Government vaccinators have for many years obtained a large part of what they call lymph ( a fraudulent name – pus, or matter, is the only right word) by inoculating calves or bullocks with small-pox. The result in the animals they are pleased to call cow – pox, and when the poisonous matter is transferred back to human infants they assume that it will not reproduce small-pox !! But while this doctrine is orthodox in London, the Local Government in Dublin allows no such dealing ; for on February 10th last it warned all vaccinators that such proceeding spreads small -pox by inoculation, and is a crime against the law. Another broad fact is, the widespread suffering, disease, and death which Vaccination causes in infants. A third is, the utter failure of Vaccination to prevent small-pox, and the zeal of doctors for re-Vaccination.

The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review, no. 4, July 1879, in The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review, Volume the First, April 1879 to March 1880 (London: Edward W. Allen, 1880), 51.

In response to the increasingly tyrannical COVID vaccine mandates — which are based on lies and are mass murder — those who support liberty overwhelmingly respond that vaccination should be a matter of choice.

Is this correct?

Partly. There are two aspects here: the right to be vaccinated, and the right to not be vaccinated.

Since vaccination is harmful, deadly, and based on a mountain of lies, we do indeed — in response to mandatory vaccination — have the right to not get vaccinated.

But for this same reason – that vaccination is harmful, deadly, and based on a mountain of lies — we don’t have the right to be vaccinated. And we most certainly do not have the right to vaccinate our children.

Not only this, but since vaccination is needless, harmful and deadly, it should be criminalized as any unlawful act of violence should be. More on this below.

Topics in this article include:

• The “right” to vaccinate oneself is premised on a pro-euthanasia/pro-poisoning philosophy
• The “right” to vaccinate a child is premised on a “pro-choice” abortion philosophy
• Legalized vaccination is inconsistent with laws against assault and murder
• Applying biblical principles to criminalizing vaccination
• Calls for the criminalization of vaccination in history
• But wouldn’t criminalizing vaccination be “dangerous”?
• Taking the steps to ban vaccination

The “right” to vaccinate oneself is premised on a pro-euthanasia/pro-poisoning philosophy

The “right to be vaccinated” assumes a pro-euthanasia philosophy. It is in essence saying one has the right to harm or even murder oneself. Of course, unlike euthanasia, such infliction of harm on oneself is unwitting. But the effect is the same.

Euthanasia, vaccination, and all versions of suicide should be criminalized. But perhaps we are understating what this really is. In euthanasia, someone knows what he is getting into. He knows he is killing himself. In vaccination, one thinks that he is doing something to prevent himself from dying. This can be more appropriately described as murder.

After all, suicide is taking one’s own life. Murder is taking the life of another. When someone is killed by vaccination — either immediately or over time (via heart attack, cancer, etc.) — and that person was told that vaccination is good for his health, then he was in effect murdered. Murdered by poison. He took in good faith that what he was given was healthy — and yet it was unhealthy, and maybe even lethal.

Poisoning, like all forms of murder, should be criminalized. Vaccination is the kind of poison that can either be fast-acting or slow-acting. It’s a kind of poison roulette. It can result in a quick kill, or a soft kill. (And in between, all kinds of health problems and injuries — autism, autoimmune, etc.) Some die immediately from vaccination. Some die in the near future. And some die much later.

When the bloodstream is poisoned by vaccine ingredients, your body could be a walking time bomb. You might eventually drop dead suddenly, as so many athletes have recently — apparently due to the COVID shot. You may get cancer. And so on.

Subtly killing someone over time makes it easier to murder without a trace. Slow-acting poison is nothing new, and has been used throughout history:

The atrocious system of poisoning by poisons so slow in their operation as to make the victim appear, to ordinary observers, as if dying from a gradual decay of nature, has been practised in all ages. Those who are curious in the matter may refer to Beckmann on secret poisons, in his History of Inventions, in which he has collected several instances of it from the Greek and Roman writers. Early in the sixteenth century the crime seems to have gradually increased, till in the seventeenth it spread over Europe like a pestilence. It was often exercised by pretended witches and sorcerers, and finally became a branch of education amongst all who laid any claim to magical and supernatural arts. In the twenty-first year of Henry VIII an act was passed rendering it high treason. Those found guilty of it were to be boiled to death.

Charles Mackay, Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, Vol. II (London: Office of the National Illustrated Library, 1852). Project Gutenberg EBook version (2008), 272, 273.

Vaccination continues in the tradition of slow-acting poison to subtly kill. It is a tool of the Globalists to reduce the population. While many participants in this genocide scheme are clueless, those at the top of the vaccine pyramid know exactly what vaccination does. It must be criminalized — and those behind it must be prosecuted and punished like any poisoners would.

Beyond all this, vaccination can go beyond harming the individual who was jabbed — not just affecting one person:

• At least some vaccinations can spread illness and disease to others via shedding and transmission.
• Women who take vaccination while pregnant can kill and or permanently maim their child.
• The DNA changes that come from vaccination — via animal DNA, aborted baby DNA, and/or mRNA — might negatively affect the genes of one’s offspring for generations to come.
• The more who willingly get vaccinated, the more the tyrants are emboldened to force it on the population. Tyranny requires a degree of compliance to work.

The “right” to vaccinate a child is premised on a “pro-choice” abortion philosophy

From The National Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Reporter (1877):

ANOTHER DEATH FROM VACCINATION.
On Tuesday the Leeds coroner held an inquest on the body of a child fifteen weeks old, which, it was alleged, had died from vaccination. The facts disclosed are but a repetition of the old, old story. The child is perfectly healthy, gets vaccinated, erysipelas sets in, speedily ending in convulsions and death. Mr. Malcolm’s great anxiety appeared to be to shield himself from blame in having consented to ho’d an inquest to protect Mr. Sharpe, the vaccination officer. In fact, both the coroner and the doctor seemed to us not to act like men who were earnestly seeking the truth, but as those who knew it, and were determined to hide it. It is perfectly clear to the most superficial observer, that the primary, or real cause of death was vaccination. Mr. Malcolm’s anxiety to shield the public vaccinator from blame is perfectly absurd. It is not the operator, but the operation itself, that does all the mischief. If you insert poison into the system it must poison, whether the operation be performed skilfully or unskilfully. When a child dies from vaccination, it is amusing to observe how careful the doctors are to avoid naming the real cause, and how adroitly they lay the blame on some secondary cause, or on something that has not the remotest connection with the death.

Cited in The National Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Reporter, Vol. II, No. 3, Dec. 1, 1877, in National Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Reporter, Vol. II, from October 1877, to September, 1878, 48.

Despite the fact that vaccination has taken countless lives – either immediately, or over time – it is ironic that pro-life anti-vaxxers will say

“I personally would never vaccinate my children, but I will defend your right to do so. Parents should have the freedom of choice. I only oppose government-mandated vaccinations; parents, not the state, should decide.”

But why, if you personally would never vaccinate your child because you know it will harm or even kill him, would you tell other parents that they should have the “right” to decide in vaccinating their children? Do not their children matter too??!!

When we consider the harm that comes to children via vaccination, we can see that this is equivalent to a pro-abortion (“pro-choice”) philosophy: “I might decide to let my child live, but it’s okay if you kill yours.”

And so, just as the pro-abortion philosophy says that women should have the freedom of choice to murder their unborn children, “freedom of vaccine choice” says that parents should have the right to harm or even kill their children with poison (via vaccination).

Now of course, such harm via vaccination is not intended by vaccinating parents. But this is the inevitable result. Vaccination bypasses the detoxifying function of the intestinal tract and liver with poisons that your body is not designed assimilate. As such, it is probably best to say that all vaccines do harm. Even if vaccination has any true benefits (which I highly doubt), countless injuries and deaths throughout vaccine history warn us that vaccinating children is never acceptable.

Count the cost: you don’t fire a round into someone’s chest in order to help him avoid a paper cut.

And so, sincerity of the parent does not trump the right to life. Just as abortion is an infringement on a child’s right to life, so is vaccination. To a vaccinated child, it makes no difference whether he was poisoned due to a government mandate, or to the choice of his parents; both are equally tyrannical and dangerous to his health.

Imagine the mischief that would ensue if parents should be given the freedom to practice whatever harmful practices they want to in the name of helping their child.

A parent might have his child bitten by poisonous snakes because he sincerely believes that doing so will give his child immunity to snake venom. Or, a parent might beat his child because he sincerely believes that doing so will make him tougher and stronger in a vicious world. Everyone knows that such practices should be criminalized, no matter how many corrupt “experts” vouch for their practice.

But if such child abuse should be criminalized — and they should — so should vaccination, which is analogous to such practices. By risking the health and life of the child, the practices are self-defeating in and of themselves.

(Note: we are not calling for the state to micromanage parental decisions for their children. That would be tyranny. For instance, some medical procedures are debatable as to their safety and effectiveness. Surely parents should have discretion here. We are talking about something that has shown throughout vaccine history to be extremely harmful to the life and health of a child. Like mercury treatments and indiscriminate bloodletting, there is a point where medical intervention goes too far, requiring the state to intervene.)

Finally, let’s note that vaccination is, in a sense, worse than abortion. For those who vaccinate are assured that they are helping — not harming — their children. And yet, the opposite occurs.

Children do not belong to the state, and ultimately, not even their parents, who are but stewards of their children; children, and everyone else, belong to God, their Creator. Since God says “Do not kill”, parents do not have the right to harm their children (whether by vaccination or otherwise) — but the duty to protect them. They have no right to impose dangerous views of vaccination on the child (by vaccinating him) in the name of denying the state the right to impose a safe view of vaccination on them (by forbidding them to vaccinate).

And the state has the duty to protect children from being maimed and murdered — even at the hands of doctors and parents in the name of “health” and “science.”

With so much information showing that vaccination is objectively dangerous and murderous — such as countless reports of harm throughout vaccine history — the “right to vaccinate” argument looks more like moral relativism (“true for you, not for me”) than biblical ethics.

Legalized vaccination is inconsistent with laws against assault and murder

While acts of assault and murder are officially criminalized, those who vaccinate are granted immunity from being punished for such acts (as are abortionists). This makes the law hypocritically inconsistent.

Such was recognized in the following from a Boston paper in 1899:

The supporters of that … barbarism known as vaccination are no doubt rejoicing with exceeding great joy over the beneficent effects of its application in Malden, Mass. Percy Tanner, a boy of thirteen years, is the latest victim to this wicked practice. He was vaccinated on Friday, Dec. 1, and his arm began to swell shortly afterward. On Saturday he went into convulsions, and passed away on Sunday. Medical aid was summoned, but the doctor could do nothing to save the boy. If the boy had been stabbed, or killed by a blow, his assailant would have been arrested for murder. As it is, the vaccinating doctor is still at large, ready and even anxious to treat other healthy patients by similar methods. Wherein does murder by assault differ from murder by vaccination? Only in one respect –the latter is enforced by law, and those who commit it are protected from punishment. Other kinds of homicide are deemed crimes, but this one seems to be a special privilege of a few men called doctors, to whom the state gives a license to kill ad libitum. Young Tanner’s death is the third caused by vaccination in Malden alone.

Cited in J. M. Peebles, Vaccination a Curse and a Menace to Personal Liberty: With Statistics Showing Its Dangers and Criminality (Los Angeles, CA: Peebles Publishing Company, 1913), 158.

We see, then, the sin of partiality in legal matters when it comes to vaccination: doctors are excepted from being punished for assault and murder. Scripture condemns this:

But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (James 2:9, ESV)

You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. (Leviticus 19:15, ESV)

No one — from the poor to the great — is exempt from the law. This entails everyone, doctors included. The prohibition of assault and murder must consistently apply across the board.

Applying biblical principles to criminalizing vaccination

With vaccination proved overwhelming unsafe, it is not only wrong if it harms someone after it is performed (e.g., autism or death); its potential for harm (which is enormous) is cause enough for it to be wrong in and of itself. To vaccinate is to irresponsibly play Russian Roulette with someone’s life and limb. Moreover, some vaccine harm can be too subtle to detect, but may manifest later in life as, for instance, cancer.

Actually, when it comes to vaccines, I would consider potential harm an understatement. Rather, it is probably better to say that all vaccines do harm, which we would expect whenever we assimilate material that our body is not meant to assimilate (i.e., poison). This is especially when injected into one’s bloodstream, which bypasses the innate immune system and the detoxifying function of the intestinal tract and liver.

For these reasons alone, vaccination should be criminal. But let’s examine the question of criminalizing vaccination in light of Scripture, which speaks to all moral matters:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

The Bible has much to say on crime and punishment, especially in the Older Testament. Yes, of course not all laws from the Old Testament bind us today. But many still do, and surely matters of murder and bodily harm — which Scripture speaks to — are perpetual concerns. Even non-Christian societies, even if inconsistent, know to legislate regarding these matters.

Hence regarding criminalizing vaccination, we turn to the Bible’s safety laws. The Bible’s safety laws require putting a barrier between a person and a potential threat. (This principle would naturally mean to avoid vaccination). For instance, Scripture forbids endangering the blind with a stumbling block:

Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the Lord. (Leviticus 19:14)

Vaccination is too, in a sense, putting a stumbling block before the blind, as it endangers those who are blind to its dangers. Scripture elsewhere reinforces the idea that not only death and injury must be avoided, but the neglect of precautions that could result in such things:

When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence. (Deuteronomy 22:8)

Neglecting precautions, then, for something that is dangerous can make one morally culpable for someone harmed accidentally by it. Now, regarding the text above about making a battlement for one’s roof, keep in mind that the safety laws have underlying moral principles that apply beyond their particular application. Thus, Greg L. Bahnsen writes,

The Old Testament required that a railing be placed around one’s roof as a safety precaution, since guests were entertained on the flat roofs of houses in that ancient society; with our sloped roofs today we do not need to have the same literal railing, but the general underlying principle might very well require us to have the fence around our backyard swimming pool — again, to protect human life.

Greg L. Bahnsen, By this Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985, 1991, 1998), 138.

The following describes the moral culpability of neglecting to take safety precautions after one is warned about a particular danger:

When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall not be liable.

But if the ox has been accustomed to gore in the past, and its owner has been warned but has not kept it in, and it kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.

If a ransom is imposed on him, then he shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed on him. (Exodus 21:28-30, ESV)

This is a criminal matter, so serious that it may warrant capital punishment by the state. Moreover — the owner of the ox is not left off the hook if he haughtily dismisses the warnings as “nonsensical conspiracy theory.” Neither if he defers to “experts” who have a financial interest in unleashing goring oxen into the community.

However, vaccination is more aggravated than neglecting to properly deal with a known dangerous ox. It is not accidental, but deliberate — purposeful injection of poison. However well-intentioned it might be, it is equivalent to deliberately unleashing a “goring ox” on the populace — an especially murderous ox that has proven to kill again and again for centuries.

Having a delusion that the ox is benign does not justify the action. However, the question becomes whether it should mitigate the severity of punishment for the crime of vaccination. This the judges would have to decide.

The more doctors, nurses, parents, and other parties that willingly take part in vaccination are warned about the dangers of vaccines, the more aggravated and criminal their participation in vaccination is. The greater the knowledge, the greater the responsibility (Luke 12:47-48).

Per the case law above about the goring ox, penalties for vaccination could range from the death penalty (for the most aggravated instances) to a fine. When the penalty is less than capital, flogging can also be considered, applying the principal of “stripe for stripe” (Exodus 21:25), since vaccination harms the body. The Bible prescribes a maximum of 40 stripes as punishment via flogging (Deuteronomy 25:3) — which of course would be in proportion to the damage done by vaccination.

Regarding fines as a penalty: those who injure others via vaccination should be forced to financially support the person injured regarding medical bills and inability to work. We see this principle in Scripture:

“When men quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist and the man does not die but takes to his bed, then if the man rises again and walks outdoors with his staff, he who struck him shall be clear; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall have him thoroughly healed. (Exodus 21:18, 19, ESV)

And of course, if someone kills another person via vaccination, whether he receives the death penalty or not, he must make restitution to that person’s family — at least if the victim was a bread winner.

What about when someone doesn’t die from the vaccine, but suffers severely, such as brain damage or cardiac problems? Would the vaccinator deserve capital punishment in these cases, since the person’s life has in effect been stolen from him?

Kidnapping with the goal of enslaving someone is a capital offense (Deuteronomy 24:7); it is, in a sense, robbing one of his life. Perhaps the equity of this law extends to cases of severe vaccine injury, which in some cases robs one of his life even more than enslavement.

Intent must also be considered, regardless of the result of the vaccine. Deuteronomy 19:16-21 requires punishing malicious witnesses, even if their intent to harm the accused fails. If their goal was the death of the accused, then they themselves should suffer the death penalty.

Even though this speaks in the context of the courtroom setting, perhaps the principle of punishing the malicious in proportion to how they wanted to harm the innocent biblically extends to all scenarios. As such, those who design vaccines with the goal of murder should receive the death penalty — regardless of whether this goal is achieved.

Important considerations for judges in determining penalties for vaccination include degrees of aggravations and mitigations regarding knowledge of the danger of vaccination, and intent of the vaccination; and the harm that the vaccine does. The challenge with the latter is that harm can come later in life — making it difficult to legally prove it came from the vaccine.

Great wisdom is needed to properly determine criminal penalties for vaccination. It will require judges with minds conformed to Scripture. My own thoughts on applying biblical principles regarding punishments are offered here as a starting point for better students of Scripture to build on.

Calls for the criminalization of vaccination in history

We are not the first to call for criminalization of vaccination; in fact, as shown in the quote in the top of the article, there was a time in Dublin where it actually happened.

Moreover, smallpox variolation — which is vaccination in all but name — was criminalized long ago (the word “inoculation” may describe either procedure). Variolation is technically the forerunner to vaccination, but in essence it is the beginning of vaccination.

In the 1800s, Arthur Wallaston Hutton, M. A., said that when the medical community wanted to replace variolation with vaccination, they essentially “confessed” to the failures of the former:

In the early years of the present century, when medical men, with almost complete unanimity, were seeking to replace the variolous inoculation by the vaccine inoculation, they confessed, or rather urged, that the earlier practice had destroyed more lives than it had saved.

Cited in J. M. Peebles, Vaccination a Curse and a Menace to Personal Liberty: With Statistics Showing Its Dangers and Criminality (Los Angeles, CA: Peebles Publishing Company, 1913), 18. (More about the criminalization of smallpox variolation here.)

Sadly, they gave with one hand while taking with the other — replacing one form of genocide for another. Practically speaking, the differences in variolation and vaccination was semantics.

Variolation involved infecting people with smallpox in the name of protecting people from smallpox. Vaccination claimed to protect from the same disease, but infected people with cowpox instead (hence “smallpox variolation” was replaced by “smallpox vaccination”; “vaccinia” is Latin for “cowpox”). But both procedures entail poisoning the bloodstream, and resulted in spreading disease and death.

Here we include quotes calling for the criminalization of vaccination in history (the first two quotes relate to the analogous practice of variolation).

Civil rulers should apply the Lex Talionis (“eye for eye”) to those who harm others via inoculation

From Reverend John Williams:

A Case may be so circumstanced, that may make it immoral. I shall demonstrate it to you thus: A Man in the Country, living far from Neighbours, may have a great Stump of a Tree in his Land, which he may desire to have out of the Way, and he may put Fire unto it, and burn it down, and do no Body any harm; And I see no reason the Authority has to call him to an Account for it; but should he for the same Reason do the same thing for kind in Boston and not only endanger his Neighbours Houses but eventually consume them, Will not this be looked upon Immoral, and ought not the Authority to call him to an Account for it? And what saith the Law of God? Exod.21. Life for Life, and Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth, and Burning for Burning; Wound for Wound, Stripe for Stripe. And seeing this Way of Inoculation cannot be carried on without hazarding the Life and Health of People, how does it become our noble Towns-Men to take Care in this Matter, if there was no other reason to be given.

Reverend John Williams, Several arguments proving, that inoculating the small pox is not contained in the law of physick, either natural or divine, and therefore unlawful: together with a reply to two short pieces, one by the Rev. Dr. Increase Mather, and another by an anonymous author, entitled, Sentiments on the small pox inoculated ; and also, a short answer to a late letter in the New England Courant. (Boston, MA: J. Franklin, 1721), 4.

Inoculation, as poisoning, is a criminal act

From Dr. William Douglass:

Poisoning and spreading infection, are by the penal Laws of England Felony. Inoculation falls in with the first without any Contradiction; and if a Person of so weak a Constitution, that any the least Illness may prove fatal to him, should be inoculated, and suffer but the tenth Part of what several of the Inoculated have done, he must unavoidably perish, and his Inoculator deemed guilty of willful Poisoning.

Dr. William Douglass, Inoculation of the Small Pox as Practised in Boston, Consider’d in a Letter to A-S– M.D. & F.R.S. in London (Boston, MA: J. Franklin, 1722), 13, 14.

Vaccinating children a criminal practice

The view of Dr. Abraham Capadose (1795-1874), who was a model opponent of vaccination in Christian history, was that to vaccinate a child is to engage in a heathen medical practice deserving of criminal punishment. More about Capadose here.

[Jaap Grave, Rick Honings, Bettina Noak, eds., Illness and Literature in the Low Countries: From the Middle Ages until the 21st Century (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 153.]

Poisoning children with vaccination a monstrous crime

In regard to mandatory vaccination laws, a one W. Stoddart said the following in defense of his child:

I have been summoned before the magistrates and compelled to pay costs because I will not risk the life and happiness of my child by allowing the virus of cow-pox to be injected into its blood. If my child’s happiness was blasted, who would be responsible? If my child were murdered by law, could the law clear my conscience of the crime of murder? Should I not be responsible before God for the murder of my child, and doubly guilty because I knew it was morally wrong to risk a child’s life or happiness by putting a disease into its blood? I could not plead ignorance of my duty. I consider human life too precious and too sacred a thing to be wantonly risked. It is unnatural and immoral to give a disease to a child, and when the laws of God are better known and taught, it will be considered a monstrous crime to poison the blood of a child. … Hundreds of children have had their existence blasted by this vile law. Hundreds of helpless infants have been massacred by this immoral law, and it is the duty of every parent to protect his offspring against cow-pox and the horrible diseases which are sometimes communicated by vaccination.

“TRUTH WITH VIGOUR.” in The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review, no. 8 (November 1879). In The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review: Volume the First: April 1879 to March 1880 (London: Edward W. Allen, 1880), 116.

The state should forbid “infusing a disease”

From Professor F. W. Newman:

We admit that the State may assault our bodies in two cases. First—if we are criminal; only the crime must not be a fanciful crime, arbitrarily created by law. … That is, they voted his opinion to be a crime. Now-a-days, they vote non-vaccination to be criminal. A hundred years ago the physicians would have advised the State to enforce inoculation; but now inoculation is penal! Well may the State forbid infusing a disease! but to command the infusion of disease is sin and crime, whatever men may vote.

The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review, no. 2, May, 1879,
in The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review, Volume the First, April 1879 to March 1880 (London: Edward W. Allen, 1880), 18.

Better to criminalize vaccination than legalize it

From Rev. Isaac Lockhart Peebles:

It would be more laudable by far to enact laws making the practice of vaccination a crime than to make its practice lawful, and therefore we hope that all laws that advocate and enforce vaccination will be repealed as soon as possible. It is right to do so, and therefore we most earnestly appeal to our lawmakers to see that it is done as soon as possible. Read this whole book if you have not done so, and then see whether or not you can afford not to repeal all laws in favor of vaccination, if you do not enact a law making its practice a crime.

Reverend Isaac Lockhart Peebles,Unanwerable Objections to Vaccination (Nashville, TN: South Bigham & Smith, 1902), 69.

Treat vaccination as manslaughter

As recorded in Book Notes (1908):

Manslaughter should be the punishment for the crime of vaccination. For a man to thrust a morbid poison taken from a sore on some man, or other animals into my flesh is a crime. No man has any right to do such thing. No man living, or who has ever lived can show, and prove it, that vaccination will prevent a man from taking the small pox, when the man’s condition is favorable to his taking it; but any number of cases have followed vaccination.

Book Notes: Historical, Literary and Critical. Conducted by Sidney S. Rider, Saturday, Jan. 11, 1908. Vol. 25, No. 1 (Providence, RI), 7.

But wouldn’t criminalizing vaccination be “dangerous”?

But one might say: “Wanting to criminalize vaccination is dangerous! It is just as extreme as mandating vaccination! You are opposed to human rights!”

First, either position — the “right to choose” vaccination, or criminalizing vaccination — finds itself in opposition to “rights.” My position is said to oppose the “right” to choose a “medical procedure.” But in doing so, my position supports something more fundamental: the right to life.

Moreover, the whole idea of medicine is to support life. Thus when opposed to this, choosing a medical procedure is self-defeating.

The “vaccine rights” position finds itself opposing the right to life (including a child’s) by supporting the “right” to vaccinate. So, which position is more opposed to human rights? Such libertarian “ethics” of “rights” that has infected conservative circles misses the forest for the trees.

It must be asked: since when is punishing murder extreme? Vaccination (whether voluntary or mandated) punishes the innocent; the other — criminalization of vaccination — punishes, or threatens to punish, the guilty. Thus criminalizing vaccination cannot be said to be as extreme as mandating (or even allowing for) vaccination.

And in fact, laws against murder should be “dangerous” to the guilty. We want dangerous laws against murder to protect the innocent! Dangerous, in a bad way, is allowing someone to murder someone via vaccination — whether a doctor doing so to his patient, or a parent doing so to his child.

Scripture says this about the duty of rulers to terrorize us into not committing evil criminal acts:

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13: 3, 4, ESV)

How dangerous to the innocent is criminalizing indiscriminate bloodletting, smallpox variolation — or any fraudulent and dangerous medical practice?

Now, could laws criminalizing vaccination be abused to persecute the innocent? Sure. Any good law can be abused and twisted. However, if we jettison all legitimate laws for this reason, then we are left with anarchy and bloodshed where everyone takes the law into his own hands.

But, speaking of abuse of law, what we have seen repeatedly over the centuries is the abuse of “the freedom to vaccinate” in the other direction: the lack of informed consent, suppression of dissent, and mandatory vaccination.

The mere legalization of vaccination invites vaccine companies to use their money and influence to manipulate the public perception that vaccines are perfectly safe and effective. We’ve seen this again and again — as well as the suppression of truthful information about vaccination, which keeps people from making an informed decision about vaccination. Moreover, vaccine companies gain incredible political power by bribing politicians to enforce mandatory vaccination.

Those who oppose the criminalization of vaccination hardly have any ground to stand on considering where legalization of vaccination has taken us: global genocide. We are in the middle of World War 3, where the governments of the world have declared war on their people via the COVID scam. The primary murder weapon is the vaccine bioweapon. Just how many will die from the COVID shot alone, only God knows, but it could well be the majority of the global population.

In a world where vaccination is legal, mass murderers like Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci are able to walk the streets and legitimize the use of lethal poison under the pretext of “science.” Legalized vaccination legalizes murder and genocide.

Murder by vaccination is murder — whether by deception, or by coercion. Legalization of vaccination goes hand and hand with the suppression of informed consent — murder by deception. For the reasons already given, the legalization of vaccination also fosters mandatory vaccination — murder by coercion.

Don’t trust any politician who claims to support freedom of vaccine choice but then encourages you to get vaccinated. He is still complicit in murder.

The “Good Cop, Bad Cop” (Republican/Democrat) routine to get you to get the Death Shot

Democrat — “bad cop” — “I’ll force you to get it.” (Murder by coercion)
Republican — “good cop” — “I believe in freedom, so I won’t force anybody. But, the vaccine saves lives, and I’ll make it readily available. I urge you get it.” (Murder by deception and manipulation)

Having said all of this, it should be obvious that the real danger is not criminalizing vaccination — but allowing for it.

Taking the steps to ban vaccination

A bad tree bears bad fruit. All we have seen throughout the history of vaccination is lies and murder. Our continual indulgence in this medical mayhem has left us with what we are seeing today: genocide of the entire planet.

While criminalization won’t happen overnight, we can gradually work towards it over time. Like other discredited medical practices, it can be eventually banned. We need to first get the information out. And this is why I am willing to work alongside those who disagree with me about criminalizing vaccination, but who nevertheless help save lives by warning others about the dangers of vaccination.

Effective criminalization requires a large degree of popular support. And so over time, as more and more people become awakened to the evils of vaccination, this can happen. The global imposition of the extremely deadly COVID shot is surely turning many against vaccination who wouldn’t be otherwise. Moreover, many who support vaccination in theory may nevertheless never trust vaccination again, as they will be suspicious as to whether the ingredients will be used to murder them to further the aims of psychopathic Globalists.

Criminalization would be the hardest to implement from a national level. There are certain pockets of people who worship vaccines and who will never give them up, even as they kill them. But the local level is a different story. It is conceivable that certain smaller, rural communities can have enough popular support to criminalize vaccination. They would be the model for criminalization, which can progressively influence larger communities.

If a jurisdiction were to ban vaccination, it should first provide thorough information to all citizens on why vaccination is a deadly, self-defeating practice. That way no one can plead an excuse to vaccinate.

Until we see the day where vaccination is criminalized, we need to work hard to plant seeds. Between governments of the world turning people against vaccination by imposing the COVID shot, and us providing information and warning others, the tide can turn — and vaccination could be a thing of the past before we know it.

If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.

Tagged Christianity, Coronavirus, Mass Murder, Medical Tyranny