Monday, September 28, 2015

Pastors Won’t Preach Political Issues - Which Candidate Should Christians Vote For? (Generations Radio)

"The Old Testament prophets would preach against cultural and national sins.  Paul addresses the sins of the Cretans.  But, why won’t American pastors preach against national sins, and talk religious liberty issues on a Sunday morning?   Kevin Swanson refers to a Barna survey indicating the lack of discipleship (in some of the things we are taught in the Word of God).   Then, we look at the CNN Republican Presidential debate, and analyze the candidates on ability, the fear of God, covetousness, and truth.  Which candidate should Christians go for in the 2016 elections?"

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Vaccine Pandemic: Part 4: The Medical Profession's Legacy of Tyranny, Torture, and Murder

Doctors played a major role in oppression in Nazi Germany,
which was not an isolated incident. Throughout history,
the medical profession has engaged in tyranny,
torture, and murder.

by Steve C. Halbrook

posts in this series:
part 1: The Inoculation Controversy of the 1700s
part 2: Opposition to Vaccines by Doctors and Others in History
part 3: The Inquisition Against Opponents of Bad Medical Practices
part 4: The Medical Profession's Legacy of Tyranny, Torture, and Murder

Series Intro
Vaccines have become one of the most polarizing issues of the day. There is an aggressive push by lawmakers to force everyone to become vaccinated, as well as intense hostility by many vaccine supporters towards those who question the efficacy and safety of vaccines. 

Where's all the opposition to vaccines coming from? Are opponents of them crazed fanatics, looking for a conspiracy, or are their concerns legitimate? Having given this topic much reflection and research, we are of the view that they indeed have a case against vaccines, and that vaccines—far from being safe and effective—are a dangerous plague and one of the greatest deceptions in our day.

This series is a case against vaccines from both an historical and biblical perspective. Our hope is that it will equip Christians to better understand how dangerous vaccines really are, and to approach the situation from a biblical worldview.

The Medical Profession as a Tool of Tyranny and Murder

Many may find it hard to believe that vaccines are dangerous because so many doctors endorse it; and why would they do so if vaccines are unsafe? Aren't doctors among the most compassionate members of society? Don't they join the medical profession to help mankind? 

Indeed, society apparently puts doctors on a moral pedestal above others. In Biblical/Medical Ethics: The Christian and the Practice of Medicine (1985), Dr. Franklin E. Payne, Jr., writes:
Surveys continue to show that people's trust in physicians remains high, and sometimes it even tops the list. Within the profession itself an AMA committee concluded that "physicians as a group are inherently decent, honest and trustworthy."[1]
Many Christians see how virtually every area of our society is infected by evil (e.g., the press, Hollywood, universities, government, and law). And yet, it seems that many of the same Christians — as evidenced in their unwillingness to question their doctors — don't see much evil in the medical profession. It is as if they see the mainstream medical profession as standing alone as this great bastion of truth and morality — immune from being permeated by falsehood and wickedness. 

However, man is not naturally a morally-neutral being; he is born with a sin-nature inherited from Adam (Romans 5:14-21). He is naturally predisposed to rebelling against God's law: men are "by nature children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3b). As Romans 8:7 describes the state of the unconverted: "For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot." (And even the converted, while not as sinful as the unconverted, nevertheless still struggle with sin.) 

Some more passages:
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way ... (Isaiah 53:6a).
The godly has perished from the earth, and there is no one upright among mankind; they all lie in wait for blood, and each hunts the other with a net. (Micah 7:2)
The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)
None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. (Romans 3:11)
Also, the hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts while they live, and after that they go to the dead. (Ecclesiastes 9:3b)
Of course, God in His good providence may keep fallen, non-Christian man from being as bad as he could be, so that fallen man may do some things that help others; but given his sinful nature, his heart is in constant rebellion against God, and outwardly, he often does more harm than good. 

And thus, it seems that many Christians have more or less denied the infection of sin in the medical profession. Ever see even Christians who affirm the doctrine of total depravity become incredulous (even mockingly so) when it comes to questioning certain medical practices  as if they think it impossible that the medical profession could ever have error?

Indeed, so many (Christians and non-Christians alike) find it hard to believe that vaccines are dangerous because so many doctors endorse it; vaccines cannot be considered unsafe since it is assumed that doctors have impeccable morality. 
Knowledge of how the body works 
can be just as easily (if not more
used to kill as it can be to heal.
Emperor Nero used Locusta's 
knowledge of poison to 
kill many of his subjects.

But as we have just proved from Scripture, natural, unconverted man (which includes unconverted doctors) is not moral, but immoral. He does not have impeccable morality, but is plagued by immorality. While not everything he does is to the detriment of his fellow man, he still does many things that are.

And thus we cannot naively trust everything he says or does  especially in such matters as life and death; we must not think that by having the title "doctor," one magically transforms into a sinless being. 

Now, historically, the medical profession has to a certain extent been a blessing to mankind. Not all of those in the profession are misguided or evil. However, the profession has also been used as a great means for evil: namely, to further tyranny and murder

Since people are often at the mercy of doctors for medical needs — and since doctors have access to the lives of patients in a way that others do not  the medical profession is a convenient tool for the state to manipulate and control people. 

Scripture gives an example of the profession's great potential to be a tool of murderous, tyrannical states. In Exodus 1 we read about the fear the Egyptians had for the multiplying Israelites that dwelled in their land. As a solution, the king of Egypt sought to murder their newborn males. He found the Hebrew midwives as being in the right position to fulfill his bloodthirsty desire, and so he ordered them to carry out his program of murder. (Thankfully, they refused to comply and were blessed by God.)

Regarding a physician's training, we must keep in mind that knowledge about how the human body works can be used to kill just as easily (if not more easily) as it can be used to heal. Considering fallen human nature, we should not be surprised. For example, in the time of the Romans, such knowledge was valuable in order to murder with poison — and one could, with the blessing of the state, even make a career out of it:
The Romans had an intense interest in poisons. Records back to the fourth century B.C. indicate that poisoning was common as a means of suicide and murder. Cicero's court speeches confirm the high incidence of murder by poison in the first century B.C. ... Horace tells of the professional poisoner Canidia, who with Martina and Locusta became the infamous trio of women poisoners in Roman times. ... The new emperor, Nero, made use of Locusta to eliminate many of his subjects, including his half-brother, Britannicus. Once Britannicus was dead, Nero ... made her his adviser on poisons. Locusta organized a school of poisoning where she could tutor others and conduct experiments to determine how to poison and defend the emperor against poison. Locusta became one of the first to systematically investigate the use of poisons with state sponsorship. 
Reports of poisoning continued during the reign of subsequent emperors during the first century A.D., and poisoning almost became a status symbol with the moral decay of Rome. Suicide by poisoning was not uncommon ... mass poisonings were recorded as well.[2] 
From this one can see how knowledge of how the body works is an asset to those looking for an efficient means to harm or kill. And the doctor, with his extensive knowledge of biology and medicine, is the most natural choice to fulfill this role — whether at the behest of the state or the citizenry, or by his own initiative. 

In Medical Murder: Disturbing Cases of Doctors Who Kill, Robert M. Kaplan writes:
Doctors have frequently been accomplices in state-led repression, brutality and genocide, in direct contravention to their sanctioned role to relieve suffering and save lives. Doctors have performed inhumane experiments on victims, participated in torture and directed programs to exterminate the enemy. In addition, they have beaten, tortured and killed victims for no other reason than they had the power to do it at the time, and gave every indication of enjoying what they did.[3] 
We now turn to examples of the medical profession's role in tyranny, torture, and murder. 

Note: end notes in this piece are at the end of each section, instead of being combined at the end of the article itself.


[1] Franklin E. Payne, Jr., Biblical/Medical Ethics: The Christian and the Practice of Medicine (Milford, MI: Mott Media, 1985), 59.
[2] Richard W. Lane and Joseph F. Borzelleca, "Harming and Helping through Time: The History of Toxicology," in A. Wallace Hayes, ed., Principles and Methods of Toxicology (Fifth Edition) (New York, NY: Informa Healthcare USA, 2008), 14. 
[3] Robert M. Kaplan, Medical Murder: Disturbing Cases of Doctors Who Kill (Australia: Allen & Unwin, 2009), 5.

During the persecution of the French Huguenots, Roman
Catholicism's heretical version of baptism (which entails
the doctrine of baptismal regeneration) could be imposed
on Huguenot newborns with the help 

of the medical profession.

Spiritual Tyranny

Medical tyranny against the French Huguenots

In the 1600s, during the days of the persecution of the French Protestants (Huguenots), France's medical profession was a useful tool for spiritual tyranny.

In a petition by a one Marischal Schomberg to the French king, Schomberg complains that state officials only allowed Protestant women to use Catholic surgeons and midwives when giving birth. The rationale for this tyranny was that if a newborn was in danger of dying, Roman Catholic baptism could be administered to supposedly save his soul.[1] 

The dangerous, false gospel of baptismal regeneration the Protestants opposed, and so Schomberg notes: 
[T]heir consciences will never allow them to consent hereunto, because ... they cannot believe that baptism is of an absolute and indispensable necessity, where death prevents the due care and caution we use to obtain it ... [2] 
According to the Huguenot Society of London, the attempt by officials to promote the false gospel of baptismal regeneration was imposed on midwives at the point of the sword:
Only women who were Roman Catholics could act as midwives, and they were bound under the severest penalties to announce the birth of the children of Protestants to the authorities, who could have them at once forcibly baptized in the nearest Catholic church.[3] 
If Huguenots were to baptize their children biblically, they had to do so in secret.[4]

Vaccines and spiritual tyranny

In America, the 
Modern Medicine Cult has assumed powers analogous to the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, you can't question the Modern Medicine Cult —  and if you do, you are a heretic. And you especially can't question vaccines, which are the sacrament, or rite of entrance, into the Modern Medicine Cult; just as water baptism is the rite of entrance into the Roman Catholic Church. 

However, vaccination cannot be just a one-time-act; to stay within the Modern Medicine Cult's good graces it must be performed continually. Otherwise, one risks excommunication and being placed outside the camp with the "unscientific" who supposedly risk the destruction of society via disease.  

Moreover, just as there were those who would force the Huguenots to accept Roman Catholic baptism and therefore violate a biblically-informed conscience, some in the Modern Medicine Cult are pushing to end religious exemptions to vaccines to force Christians to violate a biblically-informed conscience in regards to the Sixth Commandment. 


[1] "Petition Presented by Marischal Schomberg for the French Protestants," in John Gordon Lorimer, An Historical Sketch of the Protestant Church of France, from Its Origin to the Present Times. With Parallel Notices of the Church of Scotland During the Same Period. (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 1841), 253. The petition states:
In fine, so far are they proceeded, as to make a declaration forbidding Protestant women to make use of other chirurgeons [surgeons - ed.], or midwives, than those which are Catholics, that so their children may be dipped in water by them in case of necessity,—which, as it is directly opposite to the sense of the edicts, so it is also to the principles of that religion which your petitioners profess; for their consciences will never allow them to consent hereunto, because that, as on one side, they cannot believe that baptism is of an absolute and indispensable necessity, where death prevents the due care and caution we use to obtain it; so, on the other side, your petitioners have that just reverence to so great a sacrament, as not to commit the same to the administration of lay persons, nor believe that such dipping or sprinkling with water can ever supply the place of baptism. Ibid. 
[2] Ibid.
[3] Huguenot Society of London, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London, Volume II: 1887-1888 (London: Spottiswoode & Co., 1889), cviii.
[4] Ibid.

With a long history in aiding and abetting torture, doctors have used
their knowledge of the body to both implement this atrocity, as well
as to cover it up.


How doctors abet torture

"Torture," writes Steven H. Miles, "is universally illegal yet widely practiced. More than half of the world’s nations systematically use torture, and medical personnel have a long history of involvement."[1] According to Robert M. Kaplan, 
Doctors have regularly been involved in state-sponsored torture. The doctor's role could extend from performing medical examinations before torture commenced  to show that they were 'fit'  issuing false death certificates, ignoring injuries from torture when treating patients later, or participating in torture itself.[2] 
The medical profession's complicity in torture includes the following areas:
1. Medical scientific knowledge and experience is used in the design of the methods and techniques of torture, for example pharmacological torture.
2. Doctors teach the torturers/perpetrators regarding the practical application of these methods.
3. Doctors actively participate in carrying out torture and in executions in relation to the death penalty. [Editor's note: we do not consider all implementations of the death penalty as torture, namely, when the death penalty is for biblical reasons, and carried out biblically.]
4. Doctors are present  'passive'  during the implementation of torture (in more than sixty per cent of cases) for example monitoring the clinical condition of the victim in order to prevent death; are present when the death sentence is carried out, and then write out death certificates. Many of these are later shown by forensic documentation to be false.[3]
Miles writes more on the roles of the physician torturer:
Prison medical staff who collaborate with torturers play several roles. They devise methods of torture that will not leave marks or that inflict severe suffering without killing. Extending the nontherapeutic use of medical knowledge, military physicians and behavioral scientists study how to use psychoactive, hallucinogenic, or caustic drugs or sensory deprivation to cause pain, anxiety, disorientation, or regression. They certify prisoners as fit for torture. They monitor torture to assess when the abuse can be increased without causing death, or decreased to avoid killing the prisoner. In some cases, they experiment on prisoners for national security purposes. Finally, to protect torturers from accountability, physicians have failed to record signs of torture on medical reports and death certificates.[4]
Physician torture in history

In the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, "Torture Physicians" determined whether torture candidates could endure brutal judicial interrogations.[5] "[A]s a representative of authority," the doctor "legitimised the torture."[6]

At the Nuremberg trials, Nazi doctors were condemned for subjecting prisoners to sadistic medical experimentation.[7] Japanese physicians during World War 2 likewise engaged in this practice. (We discuss medical experimentation more in the next section.) 

According to Kaplan, 
Doctors were frequently involved in repressive state practices in South America. In Uruguay, psychiatrists were involved in maintaining state repression in prisons. Dr Dolcey Britos was in charge of Libertad Prison, ensuring that suspect prisoners were abused and received the worst possible care. Following the Pinochet regime in Chile, at least nine army doctors were indicted for direct involvement in torture and injection of prisoners with pentothal during interrogation. In 1975 a School of Intelligence in Montevideo, Uruguay, ran 'practical courses in torture' in which participants took part in the torture of detainees brought there for that purpose. The detainees often lost consciousness but were revived by the course army doctor, Major Dr Roberto Scarabino Caravodosi.[8]
According to a piece in 2010, allegations of torture against 110 doctors have been received by two regional medical boards in Brazil, and 17 physicians have been punished for the crime by Brazillian medical associations. In Chile, ten have been punished for torture by, we presume, the Chilean College of Medicine, which has held that more than 80 were guilty of the crime. Argentinean physicians estimated to have collaborated with torture exceed 200.[9]

Since mid-2009, the authors of the same piece have found that 56 doctors in eight countries "have been punished for torture or crimes against humanity"  sometimes by the state, but usually by medical societies or licensing bodies.[10] 

The extent of physician torture is difficult to ascertain. Torture per se is rarely codified as a crime, and thus can be difficult to prosecute. Few doctors who torture are discovered  and even fewer are called to account.[11]
Governments shelter their physicians who abet torture. Armed Forces are hostile to punishments. Some governments require cases to be screened by courts sympathetic to the military. Others grant general amnesties, excuse actions that were under orders, or institute retroactive statutes of limitations that preclude cases from being filed. Some governments obstruct hearings against their physicians.[12]
Compounding the problem is the possibility of retaliation against those who would speak out against torture.[13]

Vaccines and torture

As we can see, physician torture is especially a problem when doctors are employed by the state that condones or encourages torture. The closer that physicians work with the state, the more they are prone to this crime.

In America, doctors are increasingly becoming subservient to the state, such as by state licensing and a gradual state control of healthcare. This is a cause for concern regarding torture. 

The current push for mandatory vaccinations is another example of state-control of medicine, although vaccines carry with them a form of torture in and of themselves: the emotional anguish that parents suffer for children who die or are injured by vaccines, as well as the physical torture suffered by those injured by vaccines themselves. 

Children may also suffer torture as they gradually die from vaccines. To give just one example, a testimony published on the website of vaccine researcher Neil Z. Miller reads:
I had a child die of SIDS. After reading your information, I dug out his shot records and baby book only to find that he had the DTaP just 3 weeks prior to his death, and during those 3 weeks, my records show that I had him to the pediatrician 4 times for respiratory infection and 2 times to the emergency room for respiratory distress related to the "diagnosed" upper respiratory infections. These symptoms began within 2 days after the administration of the shot! [My son] was last seen in the E.R. for this reason. He died on November 1 of SIDS. I am convinced after my research that the DTaP is responsible for his death. Furthermore, the 3 precious children I have left will not recieve another vaccine![14]


[1] Steven H. Miles, "Torture: The Bioethics Perspective,"  The Hastings Center. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from
[2] Robert M. Kaplan, Medical Murder: Disturbing Cases of Doctors Who Kill (Australia: Allen & Unwin, 2009), 185.
[3] Jorgen Cohn, "Proceedings of the International Symposium on Torture and the Medical Profession: Preface," Journal of Medical Ethics (1991), Dec;17 (Suppl): 3. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from  
[4] Miles, "Torture: The Bioethics Perspective."
[5] Miles, "Torture: The Bioethics Perspective"; Steven H. Miles, Telma Alencar, and Brittney N. Crock, "Punishing physicians who torture: A work in progress," Torture, vol. 20, no. 1 (2010): 23. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from; Peter Vesti and Niels Johan Lavik, "Torture and the medical profession: a review," Journal of Medical Ethics (1991), Dec;17 (Suppl): 4. Retrieved July 7, 2015, from
[6] Vesti and Lavik, "Torture and the medical profession: a review," 4.
[7] Miles, Alencar, and Crock, "Punishing physicians who torture: A work in progress," 23.
[8] Kaplan, Medical Murder: Disturbing Cases of Doctors Who Kill, 186.
[9] Miles, Alencar, and Crock, "Punishing physicians who torture: A work in progress," 26, 27.
[10] Ibid., 25.
[11] Ibid., 25, 26.
[12] Ibid., 27, 28.
[13] Miles, "Torture: The Bioethics Perspective."
[14] "Vaccines and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Is There a Link?," Think Twice Global Vaccine Institute. Retrieved September 15, 2015, from

Nazi doctor Karl Brandt was convicted at the Nuremberg trials for his role
in human medical experimentation. Throughout history, the profession
has been involved with this practice, which subjects victims to some of
the most horrible tortures imaginable.  

Medical Experimentation

Human medical experimentation in earlier history

Medical experimentation may be almost as old as the practice of healing itself. It is recorded that the Greek physician Herophilos (335-280 BC) — the famous "father of anatomy" dissected living slaves to further his knowledge of the human body. According to the church father Tertullian (AD 197-220), Herophilos subjected more than 600 slaves to vivisections.[1] 

Andrew Goliszek writes,
Although sporadic, vivisection was practiced by the ancient Greeks and Romans to augment their knowledge of science and medicine. In the third century B.C., vivisection was performed on condemned criminals. Persian kings also allowed physicians to experiment on criminals, as did Egyptians who made great advances in medicine, no doubt because of human experimentation. In fact, Jewish law articles about Nazi medicine describe experiments by Cleopatra to determine how long it takes to form a male versus a female fetus. According to the Alliance for Human Research Protection, Cleopatra would force her condemned handmaidens to become impregnated and then subjected them to periodic operations to open their wombs at specific times of gestation.[2] 
Human experimentation also existed in the Middle Ages to assist physicians with their craft, as well as to further the education of students.[3] According to R. Cruz-Coke in the Review of Medicine in Chile, "there was no cruelty in performing vivisection on criminals, since useful knowledge for the progress of medicine and relief of diseases was obtained."[4] 

In the Renaissance, there were accusations against anatomists for practicing vivisection.  The grand duke of Tuscany permitted the Italian physician Fallopius, whom the fallopian tube was named after, to subject criminals to any kind of experimentation that he wanted.[5]

The Nazis and human medical experimentation

In more recent history is the infamous Nazi experiments. The horror of these experiments knew no bounds, especially considering that they included children of all ages.
Infants, toddlers and older children died on cold surgical tables after experiencing unimaginable pain as "scientific experiments" were performed without the distraction of anesthesia. Thousands of children died in the name of science during the Third Reich. ...
SS doctors carried out Nazi "medical" experimentation primarily in concentration camps often with the direct assistance and cooperation of civilian academicians from reputable medical schools and universities.[6] 
These torturous tests included 

1) Freezing experiments to determine how long it takes death to occur from freezing temperatures and/or to determine how to revive those who have been frozen.[7]

2) High-altitude experiments using low-pressure chambers to determine the effects of parachuting from a high altitude. Victims lost consciousness and some ceased to breathe. Their skulls might have been broken open, allowing for the chief experimenter, Dr. Sigmund Rascher, to dissect their brains while they were still conscious.[8]

3) Antibiotic experiments to test experimental drugs in curing gas gangrene, which many German soldiers suffered from. Victims were inflicted with battlefield-type wounds to test the drugs' efficacy, although they normally didn't save the victims from sepsis, dismemberment, or death.[9]

4) Poison-related execution methods were experimented with, including injecting victims with poison, poisoning their food, and firing poisoned bullets at them. Survivors were murdered to be analyzed by autopsy.[10]

Other experiments included the use of toxic gas; limb, bone, muscle, and nerve removal; forced sterilization and artificial insemination; a diet of only seawater; and burning the skin to test treatments for phosphorus burns.[11] There was also genetic experimentation, led by the notorious Dr. Joseph Mengele, who
dissected live infants; injected chemicals into the eyes of children in an attempt to change their eye color; sterilized and castrated inmates without anesthetics; burned prisoners with incendiary bombs to examine their injuries; inflicted high-voltage electric shocks upon subjects of varying ages; froze inmates to study the effects of hypothermia; injected malaria-contaminated blood into test subjects; and exposed inmates to mustard gas and other poisons. After he had gassed any survivors of the experiments, he defleshed and skeletonized the victims for measurements of the bones to satisfy his interest in human anthropology.[12]
The Japanese and human medical experimentation

Japanese physicians have likewise engaged in human experimentation. Prior to and during World War II, their victims numbered in the thousands. Supported by the Japanese government, their subjects were mostly Chinese, but also included Americans, Russians, Koreans, Burmese, and Mongolians.[13] 

Experiments were to train inexperienced military surgeons; study effects of chemical and biological weapons (on segments of the Chinese population); use purposely injured victims to research new treatments; and learn more about the body's ability to endure hostile environmental conditions.[14] 

These experiments "were little different from the medical atrocities committed by the Nazi physicians."[15] Victims might suffer from injections of air into the bloodstream; frostbite; freezing temperatures; choking; starvation; electrocution; bleeding; spinning to death in centrifuges; glass rods pushed into their rectums; and deadly amounts of radiation.[16] Some prisoners suffered through surgeries without anesthesia.[17] 

An article by the New York Times describes an interview with a Japanese doctor involved with the atrocities. The doctor could easily switch from joking to describing the process of cutting open and dissecting a man alive without anesthetic.[18] The doctor reportedly said:
[W]hen I picked up the scalpel, that's when he began screaming. I cut him open from the chest to the stomach, he screamed terribly, and his face was all twisted in agony. He made this unimaginable sound, he was screaming so horribly. Then finally, he stopped. This was all in a day's work for the surgeons, but it really left an impression on me because it was my first time.[19]
America and human medical experimentation

Doctors in America have likewise participated in medical experimentation. Victims have largely included minorities, the poor and disadvantaged, and veterans. They have also largely included those conveniently numbered within "captive populations" — prisoners, the institutionalized, and military personnel.[20]  

In 1998, the following testimony about unethical medical experimentation was given by Professor Adil E. Shamoo of the University of Maryland and the Citizens for Responsible Care and Research to the U.S. Senate's Committee on Governmental Affairs and the U.S. House of Representatives' House Committee on Veterans' Affairs:[21] 
This type of research is ongoing nationwide in medical centers and VA hospitals supported by tens of millions of dollars of tax payers money. These experiments are high risk and are abusive, causing not only physical and psychic harm to the most vulnerable groups but also degrading our society’s system of basic human values. Probably tens of thousands of patients are being subjected to such experiments.[22]
Dangerous and deadly experimentation in the U.S. over time has included withholding proper nutrition from Filipino prisoners, as well as infecting some with plague (following the conquest of the Philippines in 1902); the Tuskegee Syphilis study, where hundreds of black males with syphilis were deceived and left untreated (1932-1972); the infection of 1,200 prison inmates with malaria (1942-45), 64 Massachusetts inmates with cow blood (1942), and 200 female prisoners with viral hepatitis (1950s); the injection of cancer cells in 22 senile black women (1963); keeping 16 mentally disabled individuals in refrigerated cabinets of 30°F for 120 hours straight (1943); testing acne medication on children (1962); the injection of plutonium into soldiers and civilians by the Manhattan Project's medical team (1940s); and the subjection of soldiers in Operation Desert Storm to an experimental drug, believed by some to be the cause of "Gulf War Syndrome" (1990-1).[23] 

Vaccines and medical experimentation 

Vaccines have regularly been used for medical experimentation. Around the time of World War II, prisoners of the Japanese died from clinical trials of vaccines that were poorly developed.[24]  To test the effectiveness of experimental vaccines, prisoners of the Nazi regime were infected with certain diseases (such as typhus, smallpox, and cholera) and vaccinated; more than 90% of those tested died.[25] 

Without their knowledge, prisoners in the Philippines were used by Dr. Richard P. Strong in the early 1900s to test a live cholera vaccine. The vaccine, somehow carrying plague organisms, killed 13 of the 24 prisoners. Strong, suggested an investigating committee, neglected "the respect due every human being in not having asked the consent of persons inoculated." However, Nazi doctors at the Nuremberg trials appealed to this experiment in defense of their own experiments.[26] In 1956, a polio vaccine was tested on 133 prisoners by Dr. Albert Sabin[27] (according to one source, this was done voluntarily).

Prisoners have not been the only subjects of vaccine experimentation. So have children. Andrew Goliszek writes, "Many vaccine experiments have been conducted in secret and are only now being disclosed to the shock of parents whose children were used as guinea pigs."[28] Goliszek writes the following about the Australian state of Victoria:
[H]undreds of children, some of them babies as young as three months, were human subjects from 1945 to 1970 in experiments to test vaccines against herpes, whooping cough, and influenza. Even though researchers knew the vaccines produced severe reactions, abscesses, and vomiting, and that some had actually failed safety tests done on animals, they gave healthy children full adult doses anyway. Asked about the experiments, Dr. David Vaux, who was a spokesman for the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute years after the events, said, "Doctors should be seen as heroes saving lives rather than as using children as guinea pigs." He went on to say that "If similar studies were carried out today, the experimental protocols would have to be approved by a human ethics committee, and informed consent would have to be obtained."[29]
Also according to Goliszek, between 1948 and 1956 thousands of babies in England, without the consent of their parents, were used as guinea pigs to test a whopping cough vaccine. And in London and Surray in 1960, children with Down's syndrome were guinea pigs for testing a measles vaccine; some had reactions, and one died.[30]

Goliszek writes that in the mid-1980s the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Agency for International Development used an experimental measles vaccine on babies who were as young as four months old. Some of the nations victimized by this experiment included such poverty-stricken nations as Haiti, Senegal, South Africa, Zaire, Cameroon, Mexico, Guinea Bissau, Rwanda, Gambia, and Bangladesh.[31]
Since vaccines are (quite ignorantly) heralded as "the greatest medical miracle" in our day  if not in history  then we should not be surprised to see them regularly used for human experimentation, and would expect them to continue to be used for such, so long as men are sinners and cling to this mirage. 

It should be seen as a given by all that vaccine medical experimentation was at least heinous to the extent that informed consent was not given; and yet, informed consent is not even given regarding vaccines openly given to the general public. The dangers are either severely minimized or completely ignored. 

Practically speaking, then, there is no difference between someone receiving a vaccine who is not informed of the dangers because it is being used for experimentation, and someone receiving a vaccine that is insidiously touted as being "safe." In either case, the one who consents to the vaccine for himself or his children is deceived about the dangers, which could be fatal or at least lead to ongoing health problems. 



[1] Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina, When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How (New York, NY: Copernicus Books, 2010), 69.
[2] Andrew Goliszek, In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2003), xi, xii.
[3] Ibid., xii.
[4] Cited in Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Perper and Stephen J. Cina, When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How, 70.
[7] Ibid., 71.
[8] Ibid., 73.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 74, 75.
[12] Ibid., 72.
[13] Ibid., 79.
[14] Ibid., 83.
[15] Ibid., 79.

[16] Ibid., 84.
[17] Ibid., 83.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Cited in Ibid.
[20] Ibid., 87.
[21] Ibid.

[22] Cited in Ibid., 87, 88.
[23] Ibid., 89-94, 96. 
[24] Ibid., 84.
[25] Ibid., 75.
[26] Ibid., 89.
[27] Ibid., 92.
[28] Goliszek, In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation, 244.
[29] Ibid., 
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid., 245.


Hippocrates opposed
abortion in the Hippocratic
Oath, but in our day the

bloody medical profession 
has largely ignored its 
emphasis on the dignity 
of life.

Abortion in history

Throughout history, the medical profession has targeted unborn children for murder. Medical papyri from Egypt include prescriptions on how to induce abortions.[1] In Roe v. Wade (1973), Justice Harry Blackmun said that "abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the Roman Era, and that 'it was resorted to without scruple.'" 

While those in the medical profession were not the only ones to carry out abortions (in Greece, they were often performed by the pregnant woman's mother),[2] the profession's hands was nevertheless bloody. In ancient Greece, "The practice of abortion, done by midwives or by physicians, appears to have been widespread ..."[3] In ancient Rome, "Roman physicians built on Greek medicine and continued many of the same approaches to abortions."[4]

Abortion and the Hippocratic Oath

Long ago Hippocrates recognized the need for restraint on physicians when it came to using their knowledge for harming others, including the unborn. In the Hippocratic Oath, which has been watered down in our day, he emphasized the physician's duty to do no harm:
The pagan worldview of the Greeks encouraged abortion and infanticide as a way to keep the race pure and to control population. Newborn babies, particularly females, were often discarded and exposed to the elements where they would starve or be eaten by wild beasts. Hippocrates, however, opposed abortion because he believed that it was the duty of physicians to do "no harm" to their patients. Hippocrates considered pre-born babies to be persons. His written statement, called the Hippocratic Oath, includes this anti-abortion pledge: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman a pessary to cause abortion." ... However, only a minority of physicians followed the Hippocratic Oath in the ancient world until Christianity made its impact on medical ethics. Over time, the Oath was adopted as an ethical standard for physicians until abortion was made legal in the United States in 1973. Now physicians pledge to "do nothing illegal."[5]
In 2010, doctors Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina wrote that many medical schools had omitted the Hippocratic Oath's prohibitions of abortion and euthanasia. According to a survey of 150 U.S. and Canadian schools in 1993, only 14% of oaths forbade euthanasia, and 8% forbade abortion.[6]

Exceeding the Nazi Holocaust

The abortion holocaust as performed by doctors (whether we are talking about in all of history, or just in America), has far exceeded the physician-abetted Nazi Holocaust in terms of body count. 

Prior to Roe v. Wade (1973), Japan, due largely to a "powerful lobby of doctors",[7] had legalized abortion in 1948  as if the country had learned nothing about genocide after being recently victimized by two atomic bombs.
The first year there were 250,000 abortions; in the first eight years Japanese women had 5,000,000 abortions. The Japanese experience indicates that as people become used to abortion  as it ceased to be a shocking thing to talk about, and as people talked about products of conception rather than about unborn babies  abortions took place later and later in pregnancy. By 1956, 26,000 abortions in Japan were at five months, 20,000 were at six months, and 7,000 were at seven months. In 1972 there were no fewer than 1,500,000 abortions.[8]   
Due to China's "one child" policy, doctors — at the behest of the state — have used their medical knowledge for the murder of countless children. According to the Financial Times in 2013, 
Chinese doctors have performed more than 330m abortions since the government implemented a controversial family planning policy 40 years ago, according to official data from the health ministry.[9]
In America, abortions at the hands of physicians have not been insignificant. According to the Guttmacher Institute, "From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred."[10] This doesn't count the number of children murdered by abortifacients prescribed by doctors.

We have only addressed three countries here; imagine all the physician-caused infant deaths when all pro-abortion countries are considered. The scale is unimaginable.

Horrible abortion methods

Modern medicine enables abortion techniques that can torture the unborn child for a long period of time prior to death. If anyone cringed when reading about the Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele's method of dissecting live infants, don't think that the American medical profession is any better. Just consider these horrendous abortion methods in recent history.

In 1978, C. Everett Koop, M.D., noted that salt-poisoning abortion was one of the three most common abortion techniques. In this procedure (performed after 16 weeks of pregnancy), "a rather long needle is inserted through the mother’s abdomen directly into the sac surrounding the baby and a solution of concentrated salt is injected into it." As the baby is poisoned by inhaling and swallowing the salt, "The outer layer of the baby’s skin is burned off by the high concentration of the salt. … It takes about an hour slowly to kill the baby by this method."[11] 

In “Dilation and Curettage” (D & C) (usually performed on unborn children between seven and twelve weeks), the surgeon employs "the curette, a tiny hoelike instrument" to scrape "the wall of the uterus, cutting the baby’s body to pieces and scraping the placenta from its attachments on the uterine wall. Bleeding is considerable."[12]  

"Suction Abortion," "an alternative to D & C during the same period of pregnancy,"[13] employs "a powerful suction tube" which tears off the baby’s arms, legs, head, and other body parts. This method was, if not still is, used in more than two-thirds of the executions of unborn children in Canada and the U.S.[14] 

There is “Hysterotomy,” a later-term execution method which[15] 
is exactly the same as a Cesarean section with one difference — in a Cesarean section the operation is usually performed to save the life of the baby, whereas a hysterotomy is performed to kill the baby.  These babies look very much like other babies except that they are small and weigh, for example, about two pounds at the end of a twenty-four week pregnancy.  They are truly alive, but they are allowed to die through neglect or sometimes killed by a direct act.[16] 
There also is "Dilation and Evacuation" (D & E) (an execution reserved for the unborn between 12 and 24 weeks), where a pliers-like device, or a sharp knife, slices the baby to pieces; and, "prostaglandin" (an execution for the unborn older than twelve weeks), where chemicals applied to the uterus muscle causes contractions forcing the baby out of the womb.  In this process, babies have been born alive, and others have been decapitated.[17] 

Who knows how many children are murdered once outside of the womb (not that murdering children in the womb is any less heinous). The notorious Kermit Gosnell comes to mind, whom was found 
guilty of three of the four murder charges for babies in the case, including "Baby C," which was "moving and breathing for 20 minutes" before its neck was snipped, and "Baby D," which was born alive in a toilet, "swimming," trying to get out.[18]
Due to the business of selling aborted body parts, murdering born infants may be a common practice. More on this next. 
Infant torture, murdering born infants and harvesting body parts

If there is any doubt that U. S. physicians can be among the most vile people on earth, then consider abortion and the business of harvesting and selling body parts of aborted children for medical research. This can require abortions to be longer and more torturous.
One reality kept hidden from the public is that babies often need to be manipulated into the proper position and slowly butchered alive during the harvesting process to ensure that the valuable goods are not damaged. A 1990 article in Archives of Neurology describes abortion techniques that take three to four times longer than normal in order to preserve tissue and obtain the best samples possible. The longer the procedure, the longer the baby is subjected to the torture.[19] 
In a recent controversy, Planned Parenthood executive Deborah Nucatola was caught discussing the manipulation of abortions in order to sell body parts. Mark Antonio Wright, drawing from her statements, summarizes:
Changing how and where "to crush," trying to "change the presentation," and using "ultrasound guidance" in order for abortionists to "know where they’re putting their forceps" looks like an admission of altering abortion practice with the specific intent of harvesting organs.[20]
According to a "fetal tissue procurement technician" interviewed in 1999 for 20/20, doctors, in order to maintain "perfect" specimens, would execute children following live births in such ways as breaking their necks and beating them with metal tongs. The technician was horrified when a doctor, bringing her live, born seven-month twins in a bucket, poured water into it to drown them.[21] 
In some cases, the technician revealed, they would begin a dissection by cutting open the chest, assuming the baby was already dead, only to find that the heart was still beating.[22]
A procurement technician named Lawrence Dean Alberty, Jr. testified in a congressional hearing in 2000 that he would be "cutting open their chest cavities, only to see a beating heart moving ever so slowly until it stopped, all the while drawing blood from their heart"; or, he would be "watching fetuses in a metal pan covered with blood, moving and breathing ..."[23]

All the name of medical progress.

The use of cell lines of aborted children in vaccines

Some vaccines use the cell lines of children murdered in the womb. As ABC News reports:
"Merck, as well as other vaccine manufacturers, uses two well-established human cell lines to grow the virus for selected vaccines," Merck said in a statement to ABC News. "The FDA has approved the use of these cell lines for the production of these Merck vaccines."
Other common vaccines, including those for chicken pox, hepatitis and rabies, are also propagated in cells originating from legally aborted human fetuses, according to the FDA.[24]
The U.S. Centers Disease Control and Prevention says that the abortions "were not undertaken with the intent of producing vaccines."[25]

A thorough discussion of the morality of using the cells of murdered children for medical purposes is beyond the scope of this piece. However, vaccinating people in and of itself is immoral, so the use of any ingredients to carry out this procedure is naturally immoral as well. But assuming that this wasn't the case for argument's sake, Steven Kellmeyer's words in Medical Cannibals: The Moral Implications of Fetal Tissue Vaccines are worth noting:
[T]he abortion industry is reaping both monetary benefits and an enhanced reputation from the use of this tissue, and they have gained quite a few emulators.[26]
Moreover, Daniel Maher writes:
 [I]f one judges that the use of these vaccines is indeed morally coherent for those who condemn abortion, even if it is not unqualifiedly desirable, one must be prepared for a further challenge. If the use of these vaccines despite their connection with abortion were to become customary, and if people cease to be uncomfortable with the regrettable origins of these vaccines, it will probably become more difficult to maintain the distinction between the use of existing fetal cell lines for vaccines and the use of fetal tissue for research and transplantation, not to mention the various experimental uses of frozen human embryos. The distinction articulated above — between a noncomplicit, accidental relationship and an association that is incoherent with principled opposition to abortion — will probably become more difficult to defend in public.[27] 
With America's widespread utilitarian philosophy of justifying murder for the "greater good," one can see how the abortion industry, and its lucrative business of selling body parts of aborted children, can further prosper and gain legitimacy; after all, it was aborted fetal cells that are being used for supposed "life-saving" vaccines. What other "medical miracles" can aborted fetal cells be used for?

Moreover, if in fact the current cell lines of aborted children used for vaccines were not procured from those aborted with the intent of producing vaccines, this could easily change in the future, since vaccines are deemed necessary to save the entire nation from eradication by disease; if abortion is justified to "save the life of the mother," how much more might it be justified to "save the life of the nation"?

Vaccines as a cause of abortion

Aside from the matter of cell lines of aborted babies being used in vaccines, vaccines can directly result in abortions. This is easy to deduce, given that vaccines poison the bloodstream, and would thus poison a child in the womb of a mother who vaccinates. 

For example, in the 2009 piece  "Swine Flu Alert -- Shocking Vaccine Miscarriage Horror Stories," Dr. Joseph Mercola writes:
U.S. health authorities have made pregnant women one of the highest priority groups for getting the H1N1 swine flu vaccine, but is it actually safe for pregnant women and their babies?
In fact, the package inserts for the swine flu vaccines actually say that the safety of these vaccines for pregnant women has not been established. And miscarriage reports from pregnant women who have taken the H1N1 swine flu vaccine are starting to pour in from all over the nation.[28]
The National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) concurred about the vaccines:
Documentation received from the National Coalition of Organized Women (NCOW) states that between 2009 and 2010 the mercury-laden combined flu vaccinations have increased Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting Systems (VAERS) fetal death reports by 4,250 percent in pregnant women. Eileen Dannemann, NCOW’s director, made abundantly clear that despite these figures being known to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the multiple-strain, inactivated flu vaccine containing mercury (Thimerosal) has once again been recommended to pregnant women as a safe vaccination this season.[29]
In an assessment of the fetal deaths related to the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season, Dr. Gary Goldman, in the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology, notes:
[T]he safety and effectiveness of the pandemic (monovalent influenza) A-H1N1 vaccine had neither been previously established in pregnant women nor the combination of two different influenza vaccines ever tested in pregnant women. The A-H1N1 vaccine inserts from the various manufacturers contained this caution: "It is also not known whether these vaccines can cause fetal harm when administered to pregnant women or can affect reproduction capacity."[30]
As dangerous as a single vaccine is for pregnant women, the synergistic toxicity of two vaccines is even more so. And so, Goldman concludes in his assessment:
Thus, the concomitant administration of the seasonal influenza and pandemic A-H1N1 vaccines during 2009/2010 suggests a synergistic toxicity and a statistically significant higher rate of fetal loss reporting relative to the single-dose seasons. When capture–recapture is applied to the two-vaccine 2009/2010 influenza season, the ascertainment-corrected reports yield an estimated rate of 590 fetal-loss reports per 1 million pregnant women vaccinated (or 1 per 1695). Without additional ascertainment sources, it was not possible to determine the reporting completeness of fetal losses associated with the 2008/2009 and 2010/2011 seasons.[31]
Damage to the health of surviving children is also a concern:
In addition, because of the order of magnitude increase in fetal-loss report rates, from 6.8 fetal-loss reports per million pregnant women vaccinated in the single-dose 2008/2009 season to 77.8 in the two-dose 2009/2010 season, further long-term studies are needed to assess adverse outcomes in the surviving children.[32]
This is just one example of the dangers of vaccines to unborn children. (We also discuss effects of a tetanus vaccine in the section on eugenics and depopulation.) We must remember that since vaccines endanger the health and life of those who are born, they will surely do the same to the weakest and most susceptible to health risks — the unborn.

Vaccines and infant mortality

If the poison in vaccines will kill children in the womb, then they'll kill those outside the womb as well. Keeping in mind the United States' high vaccination and infant mortality rates, Barbara Loe Fisher, in 2013, writes:
Equally shocking is the fact that the U.S. now has the highest first day infant death rate of all industrialized countries and ranks number among nations in infant mortality. Preterm birth rates have increased 36% since the early 1980’s and 6 out of every 1,000 babies born alive in America die before their first birthday. Birth defects, chromosomal damage, premature birth, low birth weight and sudden infant death syndrome are the leading causes of death for about 23,000 newborn infants every year, with half of those deaths occurring on the first day of life. A baby born in America is twice as likely to die within the first 24 hours as babies born in the European Union. ...
Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Iceland and Norway recommend but do not legally require vaccines and 15 countries in the European Union, including United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Greece, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland and Austria similarly recommend but do not mandate vaccines. All of these countries have lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. and do not recommend that infants under one year old get as many vaccines as American infants do.[33]
In the journal Human & Experimental Toxicology, Dr. Gary S. Goldman and vaccine researcher Neil Z Miller write,
The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.[34]
On sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), Goldman and Miller write,
Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics. In the United States, national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1960s when several new vaccines were introduced and actively recommended. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines. Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome. In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD. SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant which remains unexplained after a thorough investigation. Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system. By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the United States.[35]
Vaccine researcher Viera Scheibner, Ph.D., notes that 
Between 1970 and 1974, 37 infant death[s] occurred after DPT vaccination in Japan; because of this the doctors in one prefecture boycotted vaccination (Iwasa et al. 1985 and Noble et al. 1987). Consequently, the Japanese Government first stopped DPT vaccination for 2 months in 1975, and, when vaccination was resumed, the vaccination age was lifted to 2 years. 
Interestingly, not only the entity of sudden death disappeared from vaccine injury compensation claims (only 2 deaths were subject of vaccine injury compensation claims in the 2-year olds compared with 37 in younger children), but the the overall infant mortality has improved: Japan zoomed from 17th to first place in infant mortality in the world. This means that Japan moved from a very high bracket to the lowest infant mortality rate in the world (Jenny Scott 1991).[36]
We need to stop pretending that vaccines don't harm children. They do, and they are a significant cause of abortions in the womb, and death beyond the womb. The consistent pro-life position is to oppose vaccines, which are a means of medical murder.


[1] Paul Carrick, Medical Ethics in the Ancient World (Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 2001), 75.
[2] Sue Blundell, Women in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 110.
[3] Erich H. Loewy and Roberta Springer Loewy, Textbook of Healthcare Ethics (2nd edition) (Springer Science & Business Media, 2005), 218.
[4] Joyce E. Salisbury, Encyclopedia of Women in the Ancient World (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO Inc., 2001), 1.
[5] Gary DeMar and Fred Douglas Young, To Pledge Allegiance: A New World in View (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1996), 24.
[6] Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina, When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How (New York, NY: Copernicus Books, 2010), 10.
[7] John F. May, World Population Policies: Their Origin, Evolution, and Impact (NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012), 79.
[8] C. Everett Koop, "A Physician Looks at Abortion," in Richard L. Ganz, ed., Thou Shalt Not Kill: The Christian Case against Abortion (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House Publishers, 1978), 13.
[9] Simon Rabinovitch, "Data reveal scale of China abortions," The Financial Times/China (The Financial Times Limited 2015). Retrieved March 23, 2015 from
[10] Induced Abortion in the United States (Guttmacher Institute, July 2014). Retrieved March 23, 2015 from
[11] Koop, "A Physician Looks at Abortion," in Ganz, ed., Thou Shalt Not Kill: The Christian Case against Abortion, 11.
[12] C. Everett Koop, M.D., and Francis A. Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Old Tappan, N.J.: Revell, 1979), 41.  Cited in Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993), 46.
[13] Beckwith, Politically Correct Death, 46. 
[14] Koop and Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, 41.  Cited in Beckwith, Politically Correct Death, 46, 47
[15] Beckwith, Politically Correct Death, 47.
[16] Koop and Schaeffer, Whatever Happened to the Human Race?, 42.  Cited in Beckwith, Politically Correct Death, 47.
[17] Beckwith, Politically Correct Death, 47.
[18] Elizabeth Harrington, "Guilty: Abortionist Gosnell Convicted of First-Degree Murder of 3 Babies," (May 13, 2013). Retrieved July 18, 2015, from
[19] Andrew Goliszek, In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2003), 291.
[20] Mark Antonio Wright, "There’s More Illegality in That Planned Parenthood Video Than Just Selling Baby Body Parts," National Review (July 17, 2015). Retrieved July 18, 2015, from 
[21] Goliszek, In the Name of Science, 293.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Cited in Ibid., 294.
[24] Liz Neporent, "What Aborted Fetuses Have to Do With Vaccines," ABC News (February 17, 2015). Retrieved September 7, 2015, from
[25] Cited in Ibid.
[26] Steven Kellmeyer, "Medical Cannibals: The Moral Implications of Fetal Tissue Vaccines," Vaccination LiberationRetrieved September 7, 2015, from
[27] Daniel P. Maher, "Vaccines, Abortion, and Moral Coherence," The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly (Spring 2002): 67.
[28] Joseph Mercola, "Swine Flu Alert -- Shocking Vaccine Miscarriage Horror Stories," (November 28, 2009). Retrieved September 9, 2015, from
[29] Christina England, "4,250% Increase in Fetal Deaths Reported to VAERS After Flu Shot Given to Pregnant Women," Vactruth (November 23, 2012). Retrieved September 9, 2015, from 
[30] Gary Goldman, "Comparison of VAERS fetal-loss reports during three consecutive influenza seasons: Was there a synergistic fetal toxicity associated with the two-vaccine 2009/2010 season?" Human & Experimental Toxicology, vol. 32, no. 5 (May 2013). Retrieved September 9, 2015, from 
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Barbara Loe Fisher, "Vaccination During Pregnancy: Is It Safe?," National Vaccine Information Center (November 9, 2013). Retrieved September 14, 2015, from
[34] Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldman, "Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?"  Human & Experimental Toxicology, vol. 30, no. 9 (Sep. 2011). Retrieved September 14, 2015, from
[35] Ibid.
[36] Viera Scheibner, "Scheibner Comments on the SIDS Rebuttal," Vaccination News (August 24, 1999). Retrieved September 14, 2015, from

In the Samurai practice of sepukku, a swordsman would help
a samurai "die with dignity" by decapitating him. Today in
the West, doctors are increasingly serving in this
executioner role by performing euthanasia.


Euthanasia defined

Euthanasia is unjustified killing that is cloaked with the term "mercy."
Euthanasia comes from the Greek words, Eu (good) and Thanatosis (death) and it means "Good Death, "Gentle and Easy Death." This word has come to be used for "mercy killing."[1] 
A better definition would simply be murder. Euthanasia may either be voluntary on the part of the victim, or forced on the victim "for his own good," or "the greater good." As part of the history of murder, it has been performed throughout history. 

"Mercy killings" in history

2 Samuel 1 describes an Amalekite who told David that he killed Saul, per Saul's request, whom he said was wounded and wanted to end his suffering. David reacts by having the Amalekite executed on the basis of his own testimony (2 Samuel 1:14-15). (There is the question as to whether the Amalekite's story was true, or was he just telling David what he thought David wanted to hear.)

A brief historical survey:
In ancient times [in Egypt, ed.], high priests of the cult of Isis would euthanize close servants and wives of the dead Pharaoh to accompany him on his journey to the next life. ... It was thought to be the duty of those alive to show loyalty to their master, even in death. It was also a way to deal with pain and dishonor in the case of injured soldiers. ...
The Hindu practice of Suttee in India meant that a widow would throw herself upon her husbands funeral pyre. She would burn herself to death. It is an ancient custom based on the belief that a man needed companions in the afterlife. ...
Before the birth of Christ, euthanasia was widely practiced in ancient Greece and Rome ... The philosophers of ancient Greece including Plato, Socrates and the Stoics found nothing wrong with terminating a life that had become unbearable. Around 350BC Plato is quoted with saying "Mentally and physically ill persons should be left to death."[2]  
Sepukku, or harakiri, was a form of suicide practiced by dishonored samurai. The samurai would plunge a blade into his own abdomen; to assist him with "dying with dignity," a swordsman would then decapitate him. (The tradition of self-murder in Japan continues to this day, as the nation claims a high suicide rate; many end their lives in Aokigahara, the infamous "suicide forest," known for being the second most popular place in the world for committing suicide.)

Physicians have had their share of involvement in euthanasia in history. For instance, "In ancient Greece, suicide of the patient who was suffering extreme pain and had an incurable terminal illness was made easy and for this reason, the physician gave medicine (a poisoned drink) to him."[3] Although some opposed it, and thus the Hippocratic Oath states, "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan.”

Euthanasia and Nazi Germany

In more recent times, there was the large-scale Nazi euthanasia program. On this medically-backed program, Andrew Goliszek writes:
Beginning in 1939, the Nazi regime targeted disabled German nationals, euthanizing those deemed unworthy of life. Initially, that included infants and young children born with mental or physical disabilities, even common ones such as hearing and vision impairments. Adults were added to the target list later. A special unit known as Operation T4 sought out the victims, who were sometimes rounded up under the guise of getting treatment, and then shipped them to various euthanasia camps for the mercy killings.[4]  
Regarding born children in particular, Perper and Cina write, 
In the end, 70,000 German children thought to be abnormal were forcefully taken from their homes, institutionalized, and eventually killed. The parents were told by the doctors that their offspring died of natural conditions or of unavoidable complications of necessary surgical or medical therapy. The bodies were burned en mass and comingled ashes were sent to the families.[5]
The Nazi euthanasia program, which doctors assisted in and which "represented in many ways a rehearsal for Nazi Germany's subsequent genocidal policies,"[6] continued 
until the last days of World War II, expanding to include an ever wider range of victims, including geriatric patients, bombing victims, and foreign forced laborers. Historians estimate that the "Euthanasia" Program, in all its phases, claimed the lives of 200,000 individuals.[7]
Euthanasia in recent history

Regarding the participation of physicians in euthanasia in more recent history, there is the infamous 1991 Remmelink Report released by the Dutch government, which describes physicians murdering patients without their consent: 
It has been well documented ... that Dutch physicians violated protocol and euthanized patients without their consent or knowledge. The Remmelink Report (1991), prepared by the Dutch government, found that 5981 patients were euthanized at their family's request or when their physician thought they should die ... [8] 
Ryan T. Anderson further discusses the horrors of the Dutch medical system:
In 1996, two doctors prosecuted in the Netherlands for the nonvoluntary euthanasia of disabled infants were acquitted when they argued medical necessity. The Dutch courts simply followed the inexorable logic that drives the case for PAS and voluntary euthanasia to a new extent. If necessity justifies ending the life of a suffering patient who requests it, it equally justifies ending the life of a suffering patient who cannot request it. Dutch pediatricians have now devised a protocol for infanticide.
A 2005 study in the New England Journal of Medicine recorded that in the previous seven years, 22 cases of infant euthanasia were reported in the Netherlands. A 2013 Netherlands commission on euthanasia argued that as many as 650 infants per year should be eligible for euthanasia on the basis of the children’s diagnosis as “babies who in spite of very intensive treatment are certain to die in the short term, babies with a poor prognosis and very poor expected quality of life, or babies who are not dependent on intensive treatment but who face a life of severe suffering with no prospect of improvement.” The U.N. Human Rights Committee formally condemned this Dutch infanticide: “The Committee is gravely concerned at reports that new-born handicapped infants have had their lives ended by medical personnel.”[9]
Ironic that Germany and Switzerland today allow for physicians to engage in euthanasia. Germany has apparently learned nothing from the past, and Switzerland — which provided a refuge from Nazi oppression has become like the Nazis:
In Germany and Switzerland, active assisted suicide  ie a doctor prescribing and handing over a lethal drug  is illegal. But German and Swiss law does allow assisted suicide within certain circumstances. In Germany, assisted suicide is legal as long as the lethal drug is taken without any help, such as someone guiding or supporting the patient's hand. In Switzerland, the law is more relaxed: it allows assisted suicide as long as there are no "self-seeking motives" involved. Switzerland has tolerated the creation of organisations such as Dignitas and Exit, which provide assisted dying services for a fee.[10]
And so Switzerland  historically reputed as a land for those seeking refuge  has also shown itself to be a land for those seeking death. 
Switzerland, once known in the tourism business for its spectacular alpine landscape, the watches and chocolate, has a new claim to fame as the world's death Mecca. Physically and mentally vulnerable patients have been lining up for a one-way trip to Zurich.[11] 
The United States and euthanasia

The United States itself is becoming infected by euthanasia:
Physician-assisted suicide is legal in four U.S. states and in one county of a fifth state. It is an option given to individuals by state law in Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. Individuals must have a terminal illness as well as a prognosis of six months or less to live. Physicians cannot be prosecuted for prescribing medications to hasten death. Similar Montana and New Mexico court rulings are based on judicial decision and do not mention a time line.[12]
There is the question of more subtle forms of euthanasia, e.g., "passive euthanasia." In 1997 the following was written in the New York Times:
What might be called managed deaths, as distinct from suicides, are now the norm in the United States, doctors say. The American Hospital Association says that about 70 percent of the deaths in hospitals happen after a decision has been made to withhold treatment. Other patients die when the medication they are taking to ease their pain depresses, then stops, their breathing.
There is less information on the deaths that occur in nursing homes and in private homes. But doctors say they often discharge patients from a hospital with the implicit understanding that they are sending them home to die, with a morphine drip for pain or without the ministrations of what they would call overzealous doctors at a hospital who might start antibiotics to quell a fever or drugs to stabilize a fluttering heart.[13]
Euthanasia and vaccines

Euthanasia reflects a disregard for the sanctity of life. It is not surprising that we are following the same direction as Nazi Germany in this regard; the more hateful a nation becomes of God, the more hateful it becomes of life. As far as the medical profession goes, the gradual acceptance of euthanasia is just a symptom of the profession's increasing wickedness. 

However, since the invention of vaccines, countless people have been euthanized — but because neither the state nor the mainstream medical profession will acknowledge this, to this day, people continually have themselves or their children unwittingly injected with a lethal dose of poison. However, some politicians or doctors will nevertheless admit that vaccines can have dangerous side effects, but this is justified for "the greater good." 

In other words, euthanasia via vaccines is okay, since, according to vaccine lore, vaccines save more lives than they harm.


[1] "A General History of Euthanasia," The Life Information Website (2011). Retrieved July 23, 2015, from  
[2] Cynthia Bengel, Olga Ivey, Arthur Omondi and Julie M. Fagan, Death with Dignity (Rutgers University), 2. Retrieved July 23, 2015, from
[3]  "A General History of Euthanasia."
[4] Andrew Goliszek, In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2003), 94.
[5] Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina, When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How (New York, NY: Copernicus Books, 2010), 59.
[6] Euthanasia Program, Holocaust Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Encyclopedia last updated JUNE 20, 2014). Retrieved July 25, 2015, from
[7] Ibid.
[8] Marcia Sue DeWolf Bosek and Teresa A. Savage, The Ethical Component of Nursing Education: Integrating Ethics Into Clinical Experience (Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007), 264.
[9] Ryan T. Anderson, Global Experience Shows that Physician-Assisted Suicide Threatens the Weak and Marginalized, "The Heritage Foundation" (April 14, 2015). Retrieved September 1, 2015, from Netherlands Commission citation: Press release, “Clear Criteria for Medical End-of-Life Decisions in Neonates with Very Serious Defects,” Royal Dutch Medical Association, June 12, 2013,  (accessed April 13, 2015). U. N. Human Rights Committee citation: U.N. Human Rights Committee, “Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, The Netherlands,” U.N. doc CCPR/CO/72/NET, July 19 and 23, 2001,  (accessed April 13, 2015).
[10] "Euthanasia and assisted suicide laws around the world," The Guardian (July 17, 2014). Retrieved July 27, 2015, from
[11]  "A General History of Euthanasia."
[12] "Physician-Assisted Suicide Fast Facts," CNN (June 2, 2015). Retrieved July 27, 2015, from Interestingly, many who volunteer to be euthanized change their mind when treated by a sympathetic, helpful physician: 
From their decades of professional medical practice, Drs. Hendin and Foley report that when patients who ask for a physician’s assistance in suicide “are treated by a physician who can hear their desperation, understand the ambivalence that most feel about their request, treat their depression, and relieve their suffering, their wish to die usually disappears.”
Ryan T. Anderson, Global Experience Shows that Physician-Assisted Suicide Threatens the Weak and Marginalized. Citation from  Herbert Hendin and Kathleen Foley, “Physician-Assisted Suicide in Oregon: A Medical Perspective,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 106, No. 8 (June 2008), pp. 1625–1626.
[13] Gina Kolata, "'Passive Euthanasia' in Hospitals Is the Norm, Doctors Say," The New York Times (June 28, 1997). Retrieved July 27, 2015, from

Dr. Jean-Paul Marat, an instigator of the French 
Revolution's Reign of Terror, is quoted as saying, 
"In order to assure public tranquility,
200,000 heads must be cut off."

Mass Murder

Mass murder and doctors

In history doctors have been involved with mass murder. Take, for instance, Dr. Jean-Paul Marat, a leading figure in the French Revolution's Reign of Terror ("liberty, equality, fraternity, or death"). Marat established the murderous "Committee of Surveillance" to "root out anti-revolutionaries."[1] He is quoted as saying, "In order to assure public tranquillity, 200 000 heads must be cut off."[2]

Then there is the infamous communist revolutionary, Ernesto Che Guevara. Che, who helped Fidel Castro seize control of Cuba, was both a doctor and an advocate of the bloody religion of communism  and sought to bring it about by global revolution. Guevara praised the "extremely useful hatred that turns men into effective, violent, merciless, and cold killing machines."[3]

German doctors were crucial to the mass murders of the Nazi regime. On Auschwitz in particular, Robert Jay Lifton writes,
In Auschwitz, Nazi doctors presided over the murder of most of the one million victims of that camp. Doctors performed selectionsboth on the ramp among arriving transports of prisoners and later in the camps and on the medical blocks. Doctors supervised the killing in the gas chambers and decided when the victims were dead. Doctors conducted a murderous epidemiology, sending to the gas chamber groups of people with contagious diseases and sometimes including everyone else who might be on the medical block. Doctors ordered and supervised, and at times carried out, direct killing of debilitated patients on the medical blocks by means of phenol injections into the bloodstream or the heart. In connection with all of these killings, doctors kept up a pretense of medical legitimacy: for deaths of Auschwitz prisoners and of outsiders brought there to be killed, they signed false death certificates listing spurious illnesses. Doctors consulted actively on how best to keep selections running smoothly; on how many people to permit to remain alive to fill the slave labor requirements of the I.G. Farben enterprise at Auschwitz; and on how to burn the enormous numbers of bodies that strained the facilities of the crematoria.[4]
In the 1915 Armenian genocide, 
Two doctors were among 'the ultimate decision-makers in wartime Turkey' who in 1915 drew up the Ten Commandments for the massacre of the Armenians. ... Individual doctors were directly involved in the massacres, having poisoned infants, killed children and issued false certificates of death from natural causes.[5]
Regarding the Bosnian Genocide, 
Two Serbian psychiatrists carry major responsibility for the genocidal killing of more than 100,000 people during the military conflicts of the 1990s associated with the breakup of the Yugoslavian Republic.[6] 
There was also the Rwandan Genocide, where, "In April and May 1994 about 800 thousand Tutsis, out of a total of about 930 thousand, were massacred by Hutus, including Hutu doctors."[7] At the university hospital at Butari, 
'People were being expelled. Some of our [Hutu] doctors were colluding with the extremists: they expelled them [the Tutsi patients] and chased them out of the hospital to be killed. .. Some of the doctors were also conniving ... And they were the doctors in charge. In the morning they would go round during the medical check ... and they would say "This patient is healthy. Out, Out!" . . . So they had to go ... After the roadblocks they were killed ... The doctors were also asking for their ID cards before treating them. They refused to treat sick Tutsis [Some Hutu doctors courageously defended the Tutsi patients . ]. The medical staff went around spreading the news [of peace] "Come out of hiding and go back to your homes, you have nothing to fear". So people came out. Later on these people were all killed'.[8]
This, of course, doesn't even include the countless unborn children massacred by doctors throughout history.

Mass murder and vaccines

How many have died from vaccines, it hard to say; but if we knew exactly how many, the numbers would surely be staggering. Reports of deaths from vaccines have been ongoing since their inception (we plan to discuss this more thoroughly later in this series). 

Regarding vaccine-related deaths in more recent history, in October 2013, Shawn Siegel, in discussing the 5,000 deaths following vaccination as reported in the CDC’s VAERS database, writes:
By extrapolating to the recorded VAERS deaths, we can reasonably assume that 3,900 of the reported 5,000, or 78%, are “probably” causally related to the vaccines. But in reality, that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Back when NVICA and VAERS were on the drawing board, JAMA published a study finding that hospitals were reporting to the FDA only about 1% of serious drug-related events  that is, suspected reactions. There is no substantial reason to expect that a higher percentage of actual serious vaccine reactions ever get reported, and while it is obviously impossible to truly accurately assess how much you don’t know, the evidence from scores of parental anecdotes of vaccine damage, and subsequent visits to, typically, many doctors, including specialists, confirms that very few reactions are even acknowledged, let alone reported.
We, the parents, grandparents, friends and relatives of kids we’re being universally urged to vaccinate, can be confident that the 3,900 vaccine deaths will translate in reality to many more, but have no idea whether that number, over the twenty-five years of the VAERS database, will be 39,000 or 390,000. We are confounded by the fact that the great majority of them are reported as caused by something other than vaccines.
This is just a suggestion of the outrage. Reports of life-threatening vaccine reactions are more numerous than reported deaths, and permanent disabilities outnumber life-threatening reactions. The number of reported vaccine-induced trips to the ER, over 150,000, is potentially staggering when you consider the almost resigned reluctance on the part of doctors to admit, acknowledge, or report vaccine-related incidents.[9]


[1] Robert M. Kaplan, Medical Murder: Disturbing Cases of Doctors Who Kill (Australia: Allen & Unwin, 2009), 173.
[2] Cited in Ibid.
[3] Regis Debray, Loues soient nos seigneurs (Paris: Gallimard, 1996), 186. Cited in Stéphane Courtois et al., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 652.
[4] Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (Basic Books, 1986), 18.
[5] Jeremy Hugh Baron, "Genocidal doctors," Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 92 (November 1999): 590. Retrieved July 30, 2015, from Citation from Dadrian VN. "The secret Young-Turk Ittihadist Conference on the
decision for the World War I genocide of the Armenians," Holocaust Genocide Stud 1993; 7:173-201. 
[6] Joshua A. Perper and Stephen J. Cina, When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How (New York, NY: Copernicus Books, 2010),124.
[7] Baron, "Genocidal doctors," 591.
[8] Omaar R., Rwanda: Death, Despair and Defiance (London: African Rights, 1994). Cited in Ibid. 
[9] Shawn Siegel, Revelations (International Medical Council on Vaccination, October 19, 2013). Retrieved August 11, 2015, from

Doctors have played on disease hysteria by considering
certain groups of people as disease carriers, if not diseases
themselves -- dehumanizing them to the level of rats and
therefore enabling genocide.

Murder and Disease Hysteria

Disease hysteria as a means of persecution

The notion of disease outbreak is understandably feared; however, many are so paralyzed by such that they are subject to irrational and even evil behavior in the name of preventing it. 

For instance, in 1321 in France, lepers were "killed in riots or burned at the stake without trial" for allegedly plotting to spread disease.[1] Jews "incriminated in a poorly defined causal pathway of contagion and thousands were executed in organized efforts in various places and times to control plague, particularly in the 14th century."[2] In Nazi-occupied territories of the Soviet Union, wandering gypsies were killed for, among other things, allegedly being disease carriers.[3]

Persecuting regimes or societies may equate the objects of persecution with diseases — making it easier to murder them. Gregory H. Stanton, President of Genocide Watch, writes:
One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder.[4] 
In Latin America, an Indian group called the Ache, hunted by the Paraguayans, were considered "'rabid rats'; and rabid rats must be exterminated."[5]

The medical profession and disease hysteria

The medical profession has had its share in atrocities in the name of combating disease. It is justified on the basis of the "greater good"; harming the patient is considered necessary in order to heal the nation. Prior to his suicide,[6] Dr. Mehmed Resid, complicit in the 1915 Armenian genocide and known as the "butcher of Diyarbakir", wrote:
Even though I am a physician, I cannot ignore my nationhood. Armenian traitors ... were dangerous microbes. Isn't it the duty of a doctor to destroy these microbes? My Turkishness prevailed over my medical calling. Of course my conscience is bothering me, but I couldn't see my country disappearing. As to historical responsibility, I couldn't care less what historians of other nations write about me.[7]
Robert M. Kaplan comments:
Resid's statement is a crucial example of doctors who see their historic obligation to care for their patients as secondary to their responsibility to the state, where they turn their skills at saving lives into mass murder. Whether they knew of Resid or not, this was the same defence used by the German doctors in the Nuremberg medical trials.[8]
Thus, in Germany, "many medical professionals ... began identifying Jews as carriers of disease and in fact as disease themselves."[9] And so,
Medical metaphor blended with concrete biomedical ideology in the Nazi sequence from coercive sterilization to direct medical killing to the death camps. The unifying principle of the biomedical ideology was that of a deadly racial disease, the sickness of the Aryan race; the cure, the killing of all Jews.[10] 
Regarding the prevention of literal disease, Nazi doctors in Auschwitz "conducted a murderous epidemiology, sending to the gas chamber groups of people with contagious diseases and sometimes including everyone else who might be on the medical block."[11] 

Dangerous hysteria against "Anti-Vaccers"

If human nature and history teach us anything, the ongoing slanderous attacks against those who oppose vaccines could fuel violence and murder. Those who recognize the danger and fallacies of vaccinations are regularly vilified as enemies of society who are responsible for promoting disease outbreak. The recent hysteria about Measles spreading in Disneyland, fallaciously blaming the unvaccinated, is an example. 

With so much rage instilled by pro-vaccine propaganda by the medical profession, the media, and others, it may not take much for those who do not vaccinate to become the objects of violent persecution. If a town were to suddenly become subjected to an infectious disease (which, ironically, may be caused by vaccinations), one can see how enraged mobs might inflict violence on the non-vaccinated.

According to Alex Alvarez, the Nazis fostered conditions to portray Jews as natural disease carriers to justify their genocidal actions:
Under the Nazis, this supposed connection between Jews and disease created the ideal situation for a self-fulfilling prophecy. The segregation of the Jews from the general population could be justified on the grounds of preventing the transmission of disease and once they had been crowded into ghettos and deprived of enough food and sanitation facilities, the outbreak of disease in these places was inevitable. The Nazis, however, attributed it to the Jewish propensity to carry disease, not the conditions in the ghetto. In short, the Nazis were able to portray their discriminatory and genocidal actions as necessary to maintain the health and welfare of German society.[12] 
One can see parallels between this and the mindset of those who are militantly pro-vaccine. Jews were demonized for spreading disease, even though bad living conditions and sanitation were the main reason for outbreaks. Those who oppose vaccines are demonized for spreading  or at least potentially spreading — disease. However, it was improvements in living conditions and sanitation that actually resulted in the decline of disease in the West, although vaccines erroneously have taken the credit and considered necessary for disease prevention. 

The Nazis also justified murder "as necessary to maintain the health and welfare of German society" in short, "for the greater good." This utilitarian philosophy is the very basis for the insistence that everyone must be vaccinated, for such a philosophy maintains that, for the greater good, vaccine-related deaths are acceptable. Once this philosophy is assumed instead of God's law, then anything can be justified; including persecuting and murdering those who supposedly undermine the greater good by refusing vaccination. 

Regarding misrepresentations of opposing vaccines as promoting disease, we concur with Susan Sontag, "[T]o describe a phenomenon as a cancer is an incitement to violence."[13] Regarding the state's unwarranted promotion of vaccines in the name of eradicating disease, we concur with Robert Jay Lifton, who writes:
If you are curing a sickness, anything is permissible. That image of cure lends itself to the restorative myth of state violence and to the literal enactment of the myth. Attitudes associated with modern nationalism  the healing of the wounds of one's own extended biological group or family  can readily move the myth into the territory of genocide.[14]
This scenario only seems inconceivable when we forget that human nature hasn't changed since Nazi Germany.


[1] Timothy S. Miller and John W. Nesbitt, Walking Corpses: Leprosy in Byzantium and the Medieval West (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2014), 97.
[2] Raj S. Bhopal, Migration, Ethnicity, Race, and Health in Multicultural Societies (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2014), 96.
[3] Christopher R. Browning, "The Nazi Empire," in Donald Bloxham and A. Dirk Moses, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies (NY: Oxford University Press, 2010) (no page number given - part of Google Books preview). Retrieved July 21, 2015, from
[4] Gregory H. Stanton, "The Ten Stages of Genocide," Genocide Watch. Retrieved Monday, July 20, from
[5] Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (Basic Books, 1986), 489. Citation from Eric Wolf, quoted in Kuper, Genocide, 40.
[6] Robert M. Kaplan, Medical Murder: Disturbing Cases of Doctors Who Kill (Australia: Allen & Unwin, 2009), 187.
[7] Cited in Ibid., 188.
[8] Robert M. Kaplan, "Monstrous Complicity: Doctors and the Armenian Genocide," ABC (April 21, 2015). Retrieved July 20, 2015, from 

[9] Alex Alvarez, Genocidal Crimes (New York, NY: Routledge, 2010), 52.
Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide (Basic Books, 1986), 16.
[11] Ibid., 18.
[12] Alvarez, Genocidal Crimes, 53. Guenter Lewy writes, 
Jews, Gypsies and other "alien races" were seen as natural carriers of lethal parasites such as lice, and the resort to draconian measures for ending epidemics among them was almost standard operating procedure. "The Nazi methods of 'fighting' infectious diseases," writes Isaiah Trunk, "were well known and were feared not less than the epidemics themselves."
Guenter Lewy, The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2000), 114.
[13] Susan Sontag, "Disease as Political Metaphor," New York Review of Books (Feb. 23, 1978), 29-35. Cited in Lifton, The Nazi Doctors, 488.
[14] Lifton, The Nazi Doctors, 488.

The medical profession has participated in ridding society of the
"unfit" or 
"unwanted" for the "greater good" -- either preemptively 
(as in the American eugenics movement via sterilization)  
-- or reactively (as in Western abortion practices 
and the Nazi Holocaust).
Eugenics and Depopulation

Depopulation in history

One motivator of tyranny and murder is the concept of depopulation: ridding society of the "unfit" or "unwanted" for "the greater good." Many are familiar with the modern eugenics movement, but the concept of depopulation has existed throughout history:
The practice of eugenics, quite apart from the existence of the word, has existed from ancient times and it has always been associated with death  with defining and eliminating the unfit. In the ancient world it involved exposing infants. In Greece (both Plato and Aristotle supported the practice), in Sparta, and in Rome under the Laws of the Twelve Tables infants were exposed in order to eliminate visibly impaired newborns and to weed out the weak.[1]
In the days of the Old Testament, Pharaoh, in order to reduce the increasing Israelite population (which he feared would become large enough to join his enemies in battle and escape from the land), ordered Hebrew midwives to murder male Israelite newborns. (Thankfully, the midwives refused to obey.) (Exodus 1:8-19)

Leaders of the French Revolution saw overpopulation as a barrier to establishing their socialistic paradise: 
[T]he plan of dividing things up into equal shares presented an insuperable difficulty, for it became evident that amongst a population of this size there was not enough money, not enough property, not enough employment, not even at this moment enough bread to go round; no one would be satisfied with his share, and instead of universal contentment, universal dissatisfaction would result. What was to be done? The population was too large for the scheme of the leaders to be carried out successfully, therefore either the scheme must be abandoned or the population must be diminished.[2]
Thus so-called overpopulation would jeopardize valuable resources and universal contentment. The solution was mass murder: "[A] plan of systematic depopulation must be carried out all over France."[3]
That this idea, worthy of a mad Procrustes, really existed it is impossible to doubt, since it has been revealed to us by innumerable revolutionaries who were behind the scenes during the Terror. Thus Courtois, in his report on the papers seized at Robespierre's house after Thermidor, wrote: "These men, in order to bring us to the happiness of Sparta, wished to annihilate twelve or fifteen millions of the French people, and hoped after this revolutionary transfiguration to distribute to each one a plough and some land to clear, so as to save us from the dangers of the happiness of Persepolis."
Another intime of Robespierre, the Marquis d'Antonelle, a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, actually explained the whole scheme in print whilst the Terror was at its height. ... 
Moreover, that this was indeed the system on which it was founded does not rest on the authority of Courtois, Babeuf, and D'Antonelle alone, the very words "plan of depopulation" occur repeatedly in the writings and speeches of other contemporaries. Thus Prudhomme, in describing the massacres of September, explains the enormous proportion of "the people" amongst the victims as the first evidence of this scheme: "The plan of butchery did not end with the destruction of priests and nobles . . . but from that date there existed a plan of depopulation conceived by Marat, Robespierre . . ., etc., and this is what the method of the Terror has proved."
Later on, at the trials of Fouquier Tinville and Carrier, several witnesses referred to the same scheme: Grandpre of the police declared that the most powerful means employed by Robespierre was "a vast system of depopulation"; Ardenne, Deputy Public Accuser, said the plan was "to clear out the prisons in order to depopulate France," and in his summing up to the president and judges of the Revolutionary Tribunal stated that "Robespierre, St. Just, Couthon, and others, had expected to depopulate France, and above all to make genius, talents, honour, and industry to disappear"; Trinchard, member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, ended his evidence with the words: "Such was the system of depopulation organized by the last tyrants, and in order to make sure of its execution they employed the most immoral men"; indeed, Carrier himself admitted that "this plan of destruction existed." Carrier, Fouquier, Freron, Lebon, and the other monsters were therefore only acting on orders from headquarters when they set out to decimate Paris and the provinces, and the terrible phrase of Carrier, "Let us make a cemetery of France rather than not regenerate her after our manner," simply epitomized the philosophy of Robespierre on which the system of the Comité de Salut Public was founded.[4]
The medical profession itself has been complicit in aiding and abetting depopulation. Jean-Paul Marat, a driving force behind the mass murder in the French Revolution, was a physician, and according to what we've just read, he was behind the French Revolution's depopulation scheme. 

Long before this was Soranus of Ephesus' advice to dispose of "the infant not worth rearing":
In his writing 'How to recognize the newborn that is worth rearing', the famous ancient doctor Soranus of Ephesus who worked in Rome in the first and second centuries A.D. and was 'called by some the most important figure in gynecology in the ancient world', said that after a birth of a child, the midwife should examine various specified bodily parts of the new-born to see if these parts functioned properly in order to determine if the child is worthwhile to be reared. He then sanctioned murdering imperfect babies by saying, 'And by conditions contrary to those mentioned, the infant not worth rearing is recognized'.[5] 
In more recent times, there was the eugenics movement:
Coined by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, and used to describe the science of heredity and good breeding, the term eugenics is derived from the Greek roots eu or good and genics or origin. It is often grouped into positive eugenics, which aims to improve genetic stock through selective reproduction, and negative eugenics, which uses forced sterilization and euthanasia to keep inferior genes out of the population.[6]
Eugenics became closely associated in Europe and the United States with segregation, forced sterilization of the “unfit,” and decisions by doctors and/or parents to allow deformed or defective children to die. "Unfit" was a term aimed against the Black race, immigrants, the poor, the immoral, criminals and the mentally defective. The United States was an early leader in the sterilization movement. By the year 1920 twenty states (beginning with Indiana) had forced sterilization laws, and between 1931 and 1939 over 20,000 institutionalized patients were sterilized. These laws had the support of medicine, the media, and the courts. Buck v. Bell was a famous case in 1927 in which the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Virginia’s involuntary sterilization program. In the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote the majority decision: “Three generations of imbeciles is enough.” Another famous case was the 1936 suit of Ann Cooper Hewitt against her mother and two doctors for sterilizing her without her knowledge or consent during an emergency appendectomy.[7]
Influenced and inspired by the American Eugenics movement (promoted and carried out by the medical profession), Nazi Germany went beyond America's sterilization programs to mass murder:
The seeds of America's early eugenics movement took hold in Germany as that nation's best hope for the future. In the beginning, it was simply a matter of sterilization. The disabled, mentally ill, and those with genetic diseases were the first targeted. Soon, euthanasia or mercy killings were added to eliminate the unproductive and those who would place an undue burden on the rest of society.[8]
This would naturally culminate in the Holocaust, which saw depopulation by murder in the millions of those deemed "unwanted."

America's population control movement  whether for eugenics or other reasons — continues to this day:
Since World War II the number of organizations devoted to limiting the population has burgeoned. United States government transfusions of money for birth-control services and research pump the lifeblood of the worldwide network. Unquenched, the proliferating "private, non-profit" population agencies prod and plead, immerse Congress, the media, and the public in statistics at politically strategic moments.[9]
Whether regarding public funding of contraceptives, sterilization, and abortions, the United States government is a major promoter of population control. In The War Against Population, Jacqueline Kasun estimates that the nation's foreign and domestic expenditures for population control and research in 1985 to be 1,015,000 (in just some categories, not including population and sex education, and publishing).[10]

The medical profession, naturally, provides the accomplices, most egregiously regarding abortion. 

Forced vaccines as a justification for eugenics

The concept of forced vaccines for the greater good provided a justification for the infamous pro-eugenics Buck v. Bell decision in 1927 justifying forced sterilizations:
The decision in the Buck v. Bell case is usually cited in regard to the history of eugenics, but the decision contains another argument raised by Justice Holmes that is less frequently quoted: "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." According to Holmes, the same principle that justifies compulsory vaccination  that is, precedence of the public welfare over the rights of the individual in the prevention of infectious diseases  holds in regard to involuntary sterilization as well.[11] 
And so, if vaccines can be justified to (supposedly) prevent infectious diseases, then forced sterilizations can be justified to prevent the births of (so-called) "degenerate offspring." Those clamoring today for forced vaccines may find themselves regretting it if they get their wish.

Not that the scenario of forced vaccines isn't horrible enough (especially for those who see their loves ones, such as their children, suffer and die from vaccines), but  giving the state powers to coerce in so-called medical matters for the "greater good" opens the floodgates to all kinds of oppression.

Those who insist on forced vaccinations and get their wish may tomorrow find themselves forcibly euthanized by a doctor because the state deemed them as a burden to society  all because of the "greater good" precedent established by forced vaccination.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.,
justified the tyranny of eugenics by the tyranny of
forced vaccines. In Buck v.Bell (1927), he states:
"The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination
is broad enough to cover cutting the
Fallopian tubes."

Vaccines and population control

There is the question as to whether vaccines are a deliberate tool of depopulation. There is evidence to support this.

In 2014, there were allegations by Kenya's Catholic bishops that an anti-tetanus vaccine was clandestinely used to sterilize millions of girls. The vaccine was also said to cause miscarriages. According to LifeSiteNews in November 6, 2014:
Kenya’s Catholic bishops are charging two United Nations organizations with sterilizing millions of girls and women under cover of an anti-tetanus inoculation program sponsored by the Kenyan government.
According to a statement released Tuesday by the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, the organization has found an antigen that causes miscarriages in a vaccine being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Priests throughout Kenya reportedly are advising their congregations to refuse the vaccine.
"We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen," Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. "They were all laced with HCG."
Dr. Ngare, spokesman for the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, stated in a bulletin released November 4, "This proved right our worst fears; that this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine. This evidence was presented to the Ministry of Health before the third round of immunization but was ignored."[12]
According to the concerned bishops and doctors, when pregnancy does occur with the women who were vaccinated, the HCG antigen "triggers the production of antibodies that cause a miscarriage." It has been observed that this vaccine is given in "an unprecedented five shots"; to women of child-bearing age; and "without the usual fanfare of government publicity."[13] 

Health Impact News has recently reported that Kenyan bishops are likewise boycotting the current polio vaccine program:
According to recent news reports, the Kenyan Conference of Catholic Bishops (KCCB) has decided to boycott the current polio vaccine program because they believe that the vaccine manufactured by the Sum Institute of India may contain estradiol, a derivative of the estrogen hormone, which is believed to cause infertility.[14]
On vaccines and depopulation, LifeSiteNews further states:
LifeSiteNews has obtained a UN report on an August 1992 meeting at its world headquarters in Geneva of 10 scientists from "Australia, Europe, India and the U.S.A" and 10 "women’s health advocates" from around the world, to discuss the use of "fertility regulating vaccines." It describes the "anti-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin vaccine" as the most advanced.[15]
According to investigative reporter Jon Rappoport, 
There is much available literature on vaccines used for depopulation experiments. The research is ongoing. Undoubtedly, we only know a fraction of what is happening behind closed laboratory doors.[16]
Rappaport points to a paper published in November 1993 by The FASEB Journal referring to a birth control vaccine promoted by WHO. It reads: "Our study provides insights into possible modes of action of the birth control vaccine promoted by the Task Force on Birth Control Vaccines of the WHO (World Health Organization)."[17]

Rappaport also points to a 1993 article in The British Medical Bulletin titled "Contraceptive Vaccines." The piece says that 
Three major approaches to contraceptive vaccine development are being pursued at the present time. The most advanced approach, which has already reached the stage of phase 2 clinical trials, involves the induction of immunity against human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG). Vaccines are being engineered … incorporating tetanus or diptheria toxoid linked to a variety of hCG-based peptides … Clinical trials have revealed that such preparations are capable of stimulating the production of anti-hCG antibodies … [18] 
As previously noted, Kenyan bishops and doctors complained about a tetanus vaccine with an HCG antigen being used insidiously as a means of birth control; this journal article affirms development of contraceptive vaccines using hCG and tetanus.

Rappaport points out the article's promotion of abortion for the purpose of population control:
The authors put it this way: “In principle, the induction of immunity against hGC should lead to a sequence of normal, or slightly extended, menstrual cycles during which any pregnancies would be terminated …”
Miscarriage would then be the “normal” state of affairs. These authors leave no doubt about who the target of this vaccine would be:
“During the next decade the world’s population is set to rise by around 500 million. Moreover, because the rates of population growth in the developing countries of Africa, South America, and Asia will be so much greater than the rest of the world, the distribution of this dramatic population growth will be uneven …”[19]
Rappaport raises the possibility of tetanus vaccines being used as birth control in the Philippines and Mexico:
There were unconfirmed reports from the Philippines and Mexico that their 1993 tetanus vaccination programs — which were supposedly administered only to women of childbearing age — involved multiple injections.
Tetanus vaccine protocols indicate that one injection is good for ten years. Therefore, multiple injections would indicate another motive for the vaccinations — such as the anti-fertility effect of hCG planted in the vaccine.
My inquiries to Philippine officials went unanswered.[20]
Could population control via vaccines extend beyond certain vaccines with birth control ingredients? Since vaccines in general have always been dangerous — especially now, given the ever-increasing push for more and more vaccines  vaccines in general might be seen as a tool to keep populations down by killing off a percentage who receive them (if not immediate death, gradual death via vaccine-caused breakdown of health). 

Regarding the international use of experimental vaccines (see our previous section on medical experimentation) Goliszek writes:
Some are going so far as calling the experiments a disguised attempt at genocide and ethnic cleansing, since it seems that many human vaccine trials are conducted in Third World countries one researcher called "human offshore laboratories."[21]
That some elites would use vaccine-caused deaths in the general population as a means of depopulation is not inconceivable, considering human nature and history. Moreover, if certain elites are evil enough to use abortion as a means of depopulation, then they are surely evil enough to use vaccines for that same end. It is not as if the abundant documentation of vaccine-caused deaths over the past couple of centuries is not accessible to them. 

However, we must be careful not to simply assume that deaths caused by vaccines are a conscious means of population control without hard evidence.  But whether or not such evidence exists, we can at least say that vaccines indirectly serve the purpose of population control, in that they do in fact raise mortality rates (see, for example, our discussion of vaccines and infant mortality in the section on infanticide). 

Given the medical profession's insatiable lust for vaccines (fueled by vaccine idolatry), the vaccine schedule continues to dramatically increase. Thus, today vaccines are more genocidal than ever. Here is the schedule between 1953 and 2013:
1953: CDC recommended 16 doses of 4 vaccines (smallpox, DPT) between two months and age six.
1983: CDC recommended 23 doses of 7 vaccines (DPT, MMR, polio) between two months and age six.
2013: CDC recommended 49 doses of 14 vaccines between day of birth and age six and 69 doses of 16 vaccines between day of birth and age 18.[22]
The ever-increasing schedule is utterly insane and immoral for those who recognize the dangers of vaccine ingredients. But once the use of one vaccine is rationalized for the greater good, then vaccines for every conceivable disease (at least diseases that are said to be dangerous) can be rationalized. 

More than a century ago, the United States Supreme Court case Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) ruled that states can make vaccines compulsory. The plaintiff, Henning Jacobson, raised this concern about mandatory vaccinations:
If it be justifiable to compel the inoculation of a citizen for one disease, then by a parity of reasoning it is for the public interest that every citizen should be inoculated to render him immune against all possible contagions which may menace the community.[23]
Given today's push for both multiple vaccinations and mandatory vaccinations, this nightmare scenario may soon be upon us.


[1] "History of Eugenics," Christian Medical & Dental Associations. Retrieved July 31, 2015, from 
[2] Nesta H. Webster, The French Revolution: A Study in Democracy (London: Constable and Company LTD, 1919), 424.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 424, 426, 427.
[5] "Greek and Roman Attitudes To Abortion," Word Internet Bible College, 6. Retrieved August 25, 2015, from 
[6] Andrew Goliszek, In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation (New York, NY: St. Martin's Press, 2003), 76, 77.
[7] "History of Eugenics."
[8] Goliszek, 92.
[9] Jacqueline Kasun, The War Against Population: The Economics and Ideology of Population Control (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1988), 172.
[10] Ibid., 198, 200.
[11] Nadav Davidovitch, "Negotiating Dissent: Homeopathy and Anti-Vaccinationism at the Turn of the Twentieth Century," in Robert D. Johnston, ed., The Politics of Healing: Histories of Alternative Medicine in Twentieth-Century North America (New York, NY: Routledge, 2004), 24.
[12] Steve Weatherbe, ‘A mass sterilization exercise’: Kenyan doctors find anti-fertility agent in UN tetanus vaccine (, November 6, 2014). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from
[13] Ibid.
[14] Christina England, "Dr. Ngare Confirms That a Second Vaccine Has Been Contaminated With Hormones Known to Cause Infertility," Health Impact News (August 17, 2015). Retrieved August 26, 2015, from
[15] Weatherbe, ‘A mass sterilization exercise.’
[16] Jon Rappoport, "Depopulation vaccine in Kenya and beyond," Jon Rappoport's Blog (November 10, 2014). Retrieved August 12, 2015, from
[17] Cited in Ibid.
[18] Cited in Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Goliszek, In the Name of Science, 245.
[22] "49 DOSES OF 14 VACCINES BEFORE AGE 6? 69 DOSES OF 16 VACCINES BY AGE 18? Before you take the risk, find out what it is.," National Vaccine Information Center (Sterling, VA: 2013). Retrieved August 14, 2015, from
[23] Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Brief and Argument for Plaintiff in Error (New York: Easter Press, 1904), 29. Cited in James Colgrove, State of Immunity: The Politics of Vaccination in Twentieth-Century America (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2006), 48, 49.


As we have seen, the medical profession has a great legacy of tyranny and blood. In fact, along with the state, what entity in history has been more oppressive? 

But — are vaccine-pushing doctors consciously setting out to tyrannize and murder?

The tyrannical mindset seems natural to many doctors, who arrogantly think that their patients are too stupid to become informed on matters that concern the medical profession (such as vaccines) via their own independent study. How many doctors, I wonder, have threatened or bullied patients for not sacrificing their children to the vaccine altar? How many have even tried to have the state take action against such parents?

When it comes to murder, I don't think doctors are intentionally trying to kill people with vaccines (although, given what we've covered, some exceptions wouldn't surprise me). However, doctors do not have to consciously set out to murder to have blood on their hands. 

They may murder out of criminal negligence; that is, they may be unwilling to take the time to independently study the validity and safety of vaccines, and instead blindly lap up whatever profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies and other self-serving entities tell them. Moreover, they may insist that vaccines are safe, and yet fail to inform patients of the package inserts that come with vaccines, which describe some of the risks for taking any particular vaccine (even if the dangers of vaccines are greater than as described in the inserts). 

Or, doctors who vaccinate may murder out of cowardness; that is, they may vaccinate against their better judgment out of fear of being called a "quack" by their peers. It may also be for money: vaccines create a market for healthy patients. Or, they are just cold and don't care. 

In all these scenarios, there is a moral problem.

Many if not most doctors hold to the ungodly philosophy of utilitarianism, which advocates the "greater good" at the expense of the minority. According to Dr. Franklin E. Payne, Jr.:
The greatest good is that which is good for the greatest number. This principle has not only been misapplied to ethical issues but it is the major factor upon which medical research and practice is based. ... [T]he method of medical practice is that some harm is allowable so the majority will be helped.[1]
This utilitarian ethic that predominates in medical circles is doing evil that good may come, namely, to sacrifice a few people for the sake of the many. This evil philosophy is contrary to Scripture: "And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just" (Romans 3:8).

It is one thing to perform a risky medical practice on someone who faces a greater risk of dying from an existing malady if it is not performed; but another, in the name of protecting a patient and society from disease, to  perform a risky medical practice (such as vaccination) on the bare speculation that one with no disease may catch a disease and spread it to others

This is how vaccines are justified — poisoning one's bloodstream with toxins that may result in death or at least possibly some degree of harm for the sake of the patient (ironically), if not for the majority; doing evil that good may come. 

It is not as if today's mainstream medical profession has any moral credibility or moral discernment (consider its promotion of abortion). But if many doctors (not just abortion doctors, but regular doctors willing to prescribe abortifacients) are willing to murder the most helpless in society, unborn children, how much more might they be blind to — or even willing to ignore — the potentially-deadly effects vaccines have on everyone? 

In any case, given what we have covered about what Scripture says about man's fallen, sinful nature, as well as what we have covered about the murderous history of the medical profession, we must not blindly go along with whatever doctors recommend  including when it comes to vaccines. A physician's white cloak does not make him an angel of light; underneath it he may very well be a black robed executioner, a devil of darkness. 

And indeed, vaccines can cause various health problems, including, as we've already shown, death. Moreover, since vaccines can be insidiously used for birth control, if you are a woman (and whether the doctor knows or not), you never know whether a vaccine is sterilizing you or even aborting a child in your womb (of course, the poison in vaccines can cause the latter even if there is no intent to control birth). 

Finally, if you are being vaccinated, you never know whether you are being used as a guinea pig to test dangerous experimental vaccines; and even if you are not, you are still not being given full disclosure about the dangers of non-experimental vaccines — which are dangerous enough that they may as well be considered experimental. 

Whenever society, as ours has, rejects God, then that society loves death (Proverbs 8:36); it calls evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20). The "mercy of the wicked is cruel" (Proverbs 12:10b), and thus, in a God-rejecting society, so often the greatest compassion is the greatest inhumanity. The medical profession, seen as the greatest instrument of compassion, is often the chief instrument for fostering such perverted compassion, whether it is murdering babies in the name of "the mother's health"; euthanizing patients in the name of "mercy"; or lethal vaccine injections "for the greater good."

Do your own research on vaccines. Don't fall for the "I'm the doctor, and I know best" argument. Your life, and the lives of your children, are at stake.