See also: Should Vaccination be a Matter of CHOICE, or CRIMINALIZED?
Considering the countless lives destroyed by vaccination, which is based on deception, it should be the hope of anyone who values truth and life that vaccination will someday be criminalized. There simply is no moral right to poison and murder people in the name of health, regardless of one’s sincerity.
It is not as if criminalizing vaccination has not happened before. Long ago the procedure was criminalized in Dublin, as noted in 1879 in The Vaccination Inquirer and Health Review:
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 smallpox 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.
Even prior to this, smallpox variolation — the forerunner to vaccination, but vaccination in all but name — was criminalized. Writing in the 1800s, Professor Robert A. Gunn, M.D., Dean of the United States Medical College in New York, summarizes the rise and fall of inoculation in the form of variolation — from the initial zeal for it and its cultural acceptance, to its eventual official discrediting and criminalization:
Its advocates claimed that the ravages of small-pox were thus greatly diminished, and the profession and public, alike, worked zealously to promulgate the practice. After vaccination was introduced, it was ascertained that inoculation added greatly to the number of small-pox cases, and that the mortality was not diminished, but rather increased. Stringent laws were then passed, in different countries, making the practice of inoculation a crime.
Robert A. Gunn, Vaccination: Its Fallacies and Evils (New York: Nickles Publishing Company, 1882), 5.
In the 1800s, Arthur Wallaston Hutton, M. A., said that when the medical community wanted to replace inoculation with vaccines, 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.[17]
Cited in James Martin 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.
Not that vaccination which replaced smallpox variolation was good either, as history shows; only that there was at least an admission to the dangers and failures of vaccination’s forerunner. But the principle of blood poisoning in the name of health continued.
Really the vaccinators gave with one hand and took with another. Just as smallpox variolation spread smallpox (whether we want to call it a virus, or something else), so did smallpox vaccination. If in fact smallpox variolation spread smallpox on a greater scale, smallpox vaccination likely caused cancer on a greater scale. In any case, both caused widespread suffering and death.
Historical quotes calling for the criminalization of vaccination
For conviction and inspiration, 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 (1721):
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 (1722):
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 (1879):
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 (1879):
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
lawful …” — Rev. Isaac
Lockhart Peebles
From Rev. Isaac Lockhart Peebles (1902):
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.
From John Crane (1878):
[V]accination is unnatural, inefficacious, and opposed to the true principles of medical science ; we therefore consider the practice of it unreasonable, even if harmless ; but we go further, and say that being opposed to the laws of nature, and being proved in some cases at least to have communicated loathsome diseases to healthy infants, it is likewise dangerous, and instead of being made compulsory or left optional, ought to be abolished altogether.
John Crane, “Vacciantion: Unnatural, Unreasonable, and Inefficacious,” To the Editor of the Birmingham Daily Gazette. National Anti-compulsory-vaccination Reporter, Vol. II, No. 12, September 1, 1878, in National Anti-compulsory-vaccination Reporter, Vol. II, October 1877 – September, 1878, 224.
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.
If you find this site helpful, please consider supporting our work.
