by Steve Halbrook
read entire series
Whether due to the COVID shot or vaccines in general, throughout vaccine history there has been countless witnesses who have observed vaccine injury and murder. Sadly, and to the detriment of those who believe in vaccination, such eyewitness testimony is suppressed by those who publicly frame the vaccine narrative.
This is because in the pro-vaccine paradigm, what is considered safe (and effective as well) regarding vaccination can only be determined by certain “specialists” behind closed doors. In this view, it doesn’t matter how many are observed to be injured or killed by vaccination — these are “anecdotal” examples, and thus must be incorrect — “mere coincidences.”
“Official” vaccine history thrives on not reporting, and even suppressing, the constant testimonies of people harmed and slain by vaccination — and any other testimonies that bring reproach on vaccines as well (whistleblowers on corruption in the vaccine industry, manipulated data to make vaccines appear safe and effective, etc.).
Eyewitness testimony in Scripture
The dismissal of eyewitness testimony that shows vaccines are harmful is contrary to Scripture, which gives much importance to eyewitness testimony. For instance, regarding punishment for crimes, including capital punishment, Scripture says:
A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. (Deuteronomy 19:15, ESV)
If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness. (Numbers 35:30, ESV)
Moreover, Scripture also says this about witnesses regarding church discipline and excommunication:
If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (Matthew 18:15-17, ESV)
However, witnesses must be reliable (cf. Isaiah 8:2) — they must not spread false reports, nor be malicious witnesses in court cases:
You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. (Exodus 23:1, ESV)
Since Scripture forbids spreading lies, we must not keep anyone or anything above scrutiny regarding the possibility of lies. There must be, after all, a way to detect lies if they exist, and thus Deuteronomy 19:16-18 (which we discuss later) discusses judges inquiring diligently to determine if a witness is a lying, malicious witness. Moreover, Proverbs 18:17 speaks to the value of both sides of a story.
But the official vaccine narrative — backed by all of the powerful institutions in the U.S. — is framed to dismiss Scripture’s prohibition of false witnesses, and the biblical principle of inquiring diligently in regards to falsehood. By neglecting and censoring any information at the outset that potentially or actually demonstrates falsehood in the vaccine narrative, pro-vaccine spokesmen, or “witnesses,” are protected from being considered as liars — even when they are — by the general public.
On the other hand, anyone critical of vaccination is considered a “malicious witness” at the outset — even without consideration of what they have to say, and despite the value Scripture holds for eyewitness testimony.
So the deck is unfairly and unjustly stacked against critics of vaccination from the outset: witnesses who support the narrative are automatically assumed to be innocent, and witnesses who criticize are automatically assumed to be guilty.
The Bible’s safety laws
Since we are discussing here witnesses and vaccine safety, Scripture has much to say on safety. It includes safety laws with underlying moral principles that extend beyond their immediate circumstance.
And such laws are so weighty that if one even accidentally harms someone by violating such laws, he could be tried in a court of law and punished (e.g., Exodus 21:28-34; 22:6). Such cases, of course, assume the validity of witnesses. For example, those who witnessed an unsafe act, those who witnessed harm due to unsafe conditions, etc.
Regarding vaccination, by applying biblical principles, we see that those who witness vaccine harm done to themselves or someone else must be taken seriously — and even taken as evidence that vaccination is dangerous.
The sheer volume of witnesses to vaccine harm over the centuries proves that they are not mere coincidences. It also more than sufficiently proves that vaccination is unsafe and therefore morally unlawful — and makes parties to vaccination criminally liable.
Vaccine manufacturers know this, of course, which is why in America, they are immune from liability. Such partiality is both unbiblical and unjust. Scripture says:
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)
Cited in The National Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Reporter, Dec. 1, 1877
Witnesses and God-given common sense
We all know deep-down to take very seriously witnesses when it comes to danger because, long before a pro-vaccine medical elite, God blessed mankind with common sense. We have the capability of discerning cause and effect.
For instance: we can determine that eating certain berries is dangerous if one dies after doing so; that eating too much food makes us fat; and that starvation leads to death. Even without corrupt doctors!
When a boxer has problems thinking straight after receiving a hard blow to the head, he knows that the blow caused it. When several people get sick after eating at a particular restaurant on the same day, common sense tells us that it was food poisoning.
When one keeps getting poison ivy after touching it, then that person knows that he is allergic to poison ivy. When one’s throat swells up after eating peanuts, that person knows that he is allergic to peanuts.
When doctors prescribe medicine and patients complain of side effects, doctors (at least if they have any sense) know to get their patients off of the medicine.
When a cobra bites someone and he dies afterwards, we know that it was due to the bite. And, without a doubt, when person after person is harmed after vaccination — as demonstrated by countless witnesses — we know that vaccines are the cause of harm.
Thus, the oft-cited mantra “correlation is not causation” is an inconsistent and hypocritical attempt to deny the obvious.
And so not only is the suppression of witnesses against Scripture, but against our God-given common sense.
Vaccine tyrants and suppression of witnesses
Vaccine propaganda demands that all counter-perspectives be suppressed. No public debates on the matter; no posting of different views on social media; only the pro-vaccine side is presented in our public institutions, whether the corporate media, government, education, etc.
But as we have shown, all sides must be considered. And so, for instance, we have a law in Scripture where judges must “inquire diligently” to protect innocent people from harm:
If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 19:16-19, ESV)
Surely to “inquire diligently” can involve witnesses on contrary sides. And so on this passage and witnesses, Bible commentator John Gill writes,
And the judges shall make diligent inquisition,…. Into the case before them, into the nature of the evidence and proof that each witness brings for or against …
Scripture says,
The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. (Proverbs 18:17, ESV)
And so when considering anything about vaccination — regarding safety, efficacy, etc. — there is a moral obligation to make known the counter-perspectives to the popular narrative.
As we see so often, getting both perspectives makes the difference between discerning truth and falsehood, good and evil, and life and death. People continue to slaughter themselves and their children because of the suppression of witnesses who know vaccination to be a murderous scam.
The truth of the matter is that the pro-vaccine narrative, based on lies, cannot withstand cross-examination. It cannot handle public debate. As a cult, the vaccine religion suppresses information to keep its followers loyal — and when this fails, employs shaming on those who start questioning their faith in vaccination.
The wisdom of Solomon versus vaccine propagandists
Two prostitutes came before the wise King Solomon because of the death of one of their children. Both had children recently, and one complained that the other had killed her own child at night after laying on him, and then switched their children while she slept. The other insisted that the living child was hers.
This is how Solomon deals with it:
Then said the king, The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living.
And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king.
And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.
Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for her bowels yearned upon her son, and she said, O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.
Then the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.
And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment. (1 Kings 3:23-28, KJV)
Solomon counted on the trustworthiness of parental affection: that when it comes to a child’s physical welfare, parents tend to want what they think is best for their children. Not to say that there are no exemptions, but in all probability — due to the natural affection God gives parents for their children — when it comes to life and death, parents are more protective of their own children than anyone else would be.
Now, regarding vaccination, we have countless parents who have witnessed their children suffering injury or death following this procedure. And yet, their testimony is dismissed by the vaccinators, who say that only a doctor is qualified to determine if the vaccine caused death (and at that, only doctors who will always say that the vaccine was not the cause of harm). As if parents don’t know about their child well enough, or care enough about their child, to discern that vaccination was the cause of harm.
All of this, even though the doctor is blinded by ignorance at best — if not money, self-interest, and unwillingness to risk his job to consider the obvious. (Or even motivated by malevolence.) Scripture says
And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right. (Exodus 23:8, ESV)
Considering this, which testimony is more trustworthy? The doctor who is bought and paid for by Big Pharma — or the parent with natural affection for his child? The doctor who risks nothing by going along with the government-backed narrative, or the parent who risks ridicule, slander, or even something worse? (There was a time when many parents suffered fine or imprisonment for not vaccinating their children.)
In short, parents have much credibility — they know their children, and they have a natural affection for them. Contrast this with the typical doctor, who has financial incentives to vaccinate children, and not to oppose the vaccine narrative for fear of losing his license (losing his job might mean not paying off his expensive loans for medical school). Moreover, how many doctors have the moral courage to admit to a parent that they harmed or even killed their child via vaccination?
The vaccinators lack the wisdom of Solomon. They side with the doctor who refuses to admit that he killed a child, and lies to cover it up — just like the prostitute who did the same. And unlike Solomon, who sided with the mother guided by natural, parental affection to preserve the life of her child, they dismiss at the outset concerned parents whose children suffered vaccine harm.
The irrelevancy of pro-vaccine witnesses
But one might say, “Aha! If witnesses are important, then you should know that no credible vaccine expert has witnessed serious vaccine harm. Therefore, it’s just your word against ours!”
Even if it is true that no self-appointed vaccine “experts” have witnessed vaccine harm (and it is not), it is irrelevant. One might witness an ox not goring people, and conclude that oxen never do. What simplistic bias!
To illustrate further, if a murder is committed in a town, and some witnessed it occur, you can’t cast doubt on it occurring just because other people in the town didn’t witness it occur. Not every person in the world has to witness a crime for us to know that it happened; a witness to no crime does not nullify the testimony of a witness to crime.
This point was made in 1881 in a letter published in The Christian Observer. We disagree with the publication’s promotion of Unitarianism; but this is irrelevant to the following salient comments, which reduces the notion of “witnesses” who claim vaccines do no harm to absurdity. Regarding how smallpox vaccination actually fosters smallpox outbreaks, the author writes:
Mr. Jebb’s specious remark that “no case of smallpox has come within the cognisance of either of the medical superintendents of any person who had been efficiently vaccinated and successfully revaccinated,” is most amusing. “Pat Sullivan,” says the magistrate, “I can bring two witnesses who saw you commit the assault.” “If that’s all, your honour,” says Pat, “I can bring twenty who did not see me commit it.”
The Christian Life, vol. VII., no. 249 (Feb. 19, 1881), in The Christian Life, Volume 7, 94.
The fact that we have countless witnesses throughout vaccine history testifying to vaccine harm easily proves that vaccination is deadly. First, as we have just shown, this reality can’t be refuted just because there are people who supposedly “witnessed” that vaccines do not harm.
Second, common sense and our sense of proportion tells us that there is no way that all of these witnesses to vaccine harm are making it up. You may be able to theoretically argue that a witness here and there is lying or mistaken, but the magnitude of witnesses is too great to dismiss them all. It is just too improbable that even the majority of cases are coincidences or are made up.
Concluding thoughts
The assumption by vaccine propagandists is that vaccination can do no wrong, and thus those who push it are unaccountable to God’s word, the general public, and civil rulers. They can thus lie with impunity — and the general public would be none the wiser. And in fact this is what they do.
Witnesses who can prove vaccine harm are ignored or vilified. Even though, of course, pro-vaxxers know to value witnesses in just about everything but vaccination. It goes to show that we are really dealing with a Cult.
Scripture, however, values witnesses — and it doesn’t restrict valid witnesses to “medical authorities.” Scripture values witnesses who are everyday people even concerning such important matters as crime and punishment, and excommunication from the church.
Moreover, Scripture opposes false witnesses; and potential false witnesses are not limited to those critical of vaccination. It can include those who promote vaccination.
Scripture says,
You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s. (Deuteronomy 1:17a, ESV)
When trying cases, Scripture demands impartiality, and that neither the small nor the great should be favored over the other. Witnesses for all sides must be heard.
Obviously, we can project this principle to all circumstances in life — which means that witnesses demonstrating the evils of vaccination should not be ignored. As we have shown, to ignore them is immoral, unjust, unsafe, unwise, irrational, and unbiblical.
And really, it is murder. From a biblical standpoint — and thus from the standpoint of justice — the sheer volume of witnesses against vaccination shows that the practice is morally unlawful and should be criminalized.
Appendix: The National Anti-compulsory Vaccination Reporter on the reliability of parents as witnesses vs. self-interested doctors (1878)
It will be observed that the large majority of these cases rest on no medical testimony ; but are simply recorded by parents, or eye -witnesses of the sufferings, of the hapless victims; by persons, that is, who have no interest in disguising or distorting the truth. In all such cases of mischief done by pseudo-medical treatment, self-styled medical men, who should rather be designated Disease-manufacturers, are the very last persons whose testimony should be relied upon – save and except in those honourable exceptional cases where its honesty is avouched by its running counter to the interests of such professional Disease-manufacture. When given in favour of the latter it is of no more value than that of interested witnesses in any other case.
“Vaccination Murders,” The National Anti-compulsory Vaccination Reporter (January 1, 1878), 1.
If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.
