THE CHRISTMAS LIE: It's Bigger Than You Think

A   R   T   I  C   L   E

TITLE:                                         THE "VACCINATION" CONSPIRACY



Many people believe there is a "Vaccination Conspiracy" afoot.  There is unquestionably ample evidence to support the notion there may be a "vaccination conspiracy" underway. The only problem is, it is not being conducted by those offering a "Vaccination", it is being conducted by those who are intentionally spreading disinformation, with the willful intent, fully knowing it's effect, may be the "death" of those who relied upon their information. In other words, they are literally "killing people".  (Let's look at "the real facts")






THE UNVACCINATED ARE "STILL DYING IN DROVES"  (Why are they "still" unvaccinated?)

* Current total of deaths in the U.S. from Covid-19 as of September 15th, 2021 - 658,754 Thousand (0.66 Mill)

* 107,000 Hospitalizations have occurred SINCE THE VACCINE BECAME AVAILABLE (4 Months ago)
Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. now are in people who weren’t vaccinated
AP NEWS - JUNE 29, 2021
Nearly all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. now are in people who weren’t vaccinated, a staggering demonstration of how effective the shots have been and an indication that deaths per day...  could be practically zero if everyone eligible got the vaccine.


"Con-Artists"  have "flooded" the "Christian  community" with "Disinformation" about  Covid, that  is literally "Killing them"




PLEASE NOTE: All these "Dead Preachers" came from the same "Theological Family Tree" (Counter-Reformation "Rapture" theology) who advocated "compulsory Christmas laws", the "Merchandising of religion", and the very same  "Rapture Eschatology".

And while they were completely against "vaccine mandates" that actually saved people's lives (which would have been even their own), they were all for "Christmas mandates" that violated not only the U.S. Constitution, U.S. values of "freedom of religion", but the Scriptures as well, and have "eternal consequences" concerning one's own salvation. (2 Thess. 2:3-12)

Be very "worried" if this is where you have been getting your "Christianity" from lately.

Matthew 7:20 
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.


There is no "worse" and more "obvious" a bad "fruit"... than literal physical DEATH.  The "congregrants" of thse so-called "ministries" should all be "running for their very lives", right now. (But they won't, will they?)

2Thessalonians 2:10 

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.





It makes little to no sense, to secular outsiders, why "Preachers" would become so adamant about "church services" in person, even when the very premier demographic "age-groups" (of their own "congregation") would be "most-at-risk" for "death" (including themselves) in many cases, during the "Covid-pandemic"?

When outsiders see them screaming about "religious freedom", most people never think to ask "what sort of freedom" are you wanting, that would not be fully accomodated at home remotely? (After all, no one was telling them not to "practice" or "believe" their religion anymore)  So what was it about those "in-person" meetings that was so "valuable" to these preachers? ...or to be willing to "die" for "in-person" Sunday meetings? (Even during a DEADLY "quarantine"?)

The old addage "follow the money", may "explain" more than most realize.  In this case, especially.

It turns out, that "religion" is really "big business".  Statistics on it, are pretty astounding. According to the Washington Post article in the link below, over $32 "Billion" (that's "Billion" with a "B") is "given to Church" in America, every year.  $32 "Billion". (That's a lot of money)  And you would think that that much money, would be "funding" all kinds of things. (after all, that is more money than most "countries" possibly have for their entire GDP [about 115 out of 211]) See:

And according to the Washington Post, while they recieve donation cash of $32 Billion a year, they also recieve $82 "Billion" in government "subsidies" and "tax exemptions", as though $32 "Billion" isn't enough already. (That's $82 "Billion" (with a "B") on top of their $32 "Billion" (with a "B"))  That's an absolutely rediculous amont of "money". Right? (And according to these same "preachers" however,  they need much much more). Even if it means they have to kill your Grandmother to get it.  As you will see why, in a moment.

But, that's not even the half of it. It might be that the Washington Post was being extremely "conservative" in what they reported. Because accoring to "" (a financial "ministry" whose job it s to know "Church finance", they reported, the actual figure in 2018, was $124 "Billion" (with a "B"), which you could fit $32 "Billion" (with a "B") "inside of", almost 4 times over. Not counting the $82 "Billion" (with a "B") from the "religious welfare rolls" of  "government handouts" and "tax exemptions". ("Catholic charites" alone, before they even get to their "donations",  recieves a "blank check" [from US Treasury] for $2-$3 "Billion" a year (with a "B") because "politicians" want their votes")  And they don't really care, what the first amendment has to say about it, either.

But of course, if you are a little country Church in rural south Georgia ? Well... you better just love God, because that's pretty much all you are going to get. "Politicians" neither need, nor care about, you or your 50 people, who work in a south Georgia peanut field.  "Religion for sale" needs to be a good "political investment", for those who "purchase it".
With all that money however, (a rediculous amont), you would think these "preachers" would be busy "feeding the poor", and "converting millions of souls" across the world "to Christ", but actually, they do very very little of that anymore, (which might not really be a suprise to anyone these days).

 Most of it  goes to "personnel costs"...i.e., in other words, straight into their personal pockets. (Because after all, we know how "poor" our "preachers" are these days)  The other percentage that doesn't make it straight into their pocket, often goes to pay for extravagant cathedrals or "mega-church" facility"mortgages", which are never modest. 

Imagine a 501(c)3 "non-profit" facility that is so "grand"  it takes up to 21% of an average "million" dollar budget, just to keep "cut" & "clean".



the largest expenditure...

(But the "percentage" spent on the "mortgage" is on average only around "7%") Beyond that, they keep most of it for themselves. Their "salary", their 401K, their Roth IRA, their retirement, their health insurance,  their dental work, their college tuition fund, their social-security, their insurance, their benefit plan, their travel, their TV sets, their cars, their wardrobe, their laundry bill, their watches, their shoes, their hair stylist, their fine dining and their miscellaneous personal expendatures, especially for their wives. (Just as God would have wanted it?)
But here's the problem with their "spikett" of "tax free money" that they are busy stuffing into their pants, as fast as their parshioners can hand it to them... they collect virtually ALL of it, IN PERSON, during the "Sunday morning collection". Stastics show that "congregants" do not give "digitally".  In other words, you can "tell" your parishioners to "give" over the internet, but unless they are sitting in the middle of a "Church service", for which they feel financially guilt-ridden enough to "pay for", ...they just won't give. Which means... if THEY don't "COME" to a service, preachers DON'T GET PAID THEIR MONEY !!!  

And, eh, so what if it "kills" your "Grandmother" in the process. Wasn't she "old", anyway?  "God" must have just wanted to "take her home", praise the Lord. Yep, it was all about "the money".  No "religious show", no "ticket sales".
Fraud Thriving In

 U.S. Churches, 

But You Wouldn't

 Know It

Oh, and BTW, "Financial Fraud" in "American churches" is so "common" and "acceptable" now, according to FBI sources, it is usually never even reported (at all), no matter what the amount involved happens to be. Because "people" "like" their "preacher", and do not want to be responsible for "sending him to jail" as the "white collar criminal" (that he probably most often is). (Even if he DID kill your "Grandmother" in the process) to "get" his money. He bathes, he is "friendly" and he says the word "God", an awful lot, in between his "requests" for money. (That makes him "a very good person")

So you see, "Religious Freedom" really had nothing to do with anyone's "religion", or their "freedom".   It had to do with their "money". And their "business". Which they only get $124 "Billion" + $82 "Billion" dollars a year for.  (And that is what was "missing" with all their "people" at home).  "Collection plates" were going "empty".

 It's not a very pretty thought, if you really think about it. There was nothing "noble" involved with it.  The right to kill Grandma, in order to keep "the lifestyle I'm accustomed to", was the "proposition" being called "religious freedom".  

It was a kind of "religious freedom" no one ever in previous ages, of American history, would have ever dared, to call "religious". Or at least, the vast majority of "Christians" would have "laughed out loud", over, after hearing. (Back in the day, when they routinely knew real "Missionaries" who spent their lives, living in "mud huts" in the jungle, just to "spread the gospel")  A "preacher" missing a few dollars from his "collection plate" would have never been "conflated" with "religious freedom" (where the absence of "real religious freedom" meant a "torture chamber" or being "burned alive"). Somebody complaining over a few missing dollars from the "collection plate" would have been cause for properly placed "rebuke", not a "national crisis" over "religious liberty".

Such "claims" to materialistic entitlement, at the expense of someone's life (posing as "religious freedom"), would have literally been, completly  morally "offensive". (Even to other ministers themselves, who would have publicly denounced such a thing) But of course, not today.  Today, such outrageous claims by our "religious leaders" are  perfectly "predictable" and are "the norm".  (Because this is what "religion", collectively has become) in our "post counter-reformation" society.

And while we are discussing literal "Fraud", remember, that does not even touch on the question of "theological fraud" these same "faux money preachers" are spreading to justify their actions, spiritually. (Which is the worst part of "the fraud" there is)  Because that "fraud" involves more than just your "wallet". It involves your "soul". (See the "Bible Study: 100 Reasons You Should  Never "Tithe" to a Preacher in a Church" below)





During the August recess, (Oklahoma Congressman), Tom Cole [R] said he traveled to different hospitals in the Fourth Congressional District to meet frontline workers and talk to people dying from COVID.

While visiting different hospitals, he heard a strikingly similar message from different people who were dying from the virus, he said.

You talk to the patients, if they’re in a condition where they can talk, and they’ll all tell you ‘I wish I had done it, I should have done it. I didn’t listen and I didn’t get around to it,’ or ‘I had concern and now here I am,’” Cole said. “These are just the facts. So I would hope that people take this very seriously, it’s a very dangerous disease. Even if it doesn’t kill you, some of the long-term health implications can really change the course of your life, and again, we’ve got three vaccines that all work and will give you high levels of protection.”

They’ll all tell you ‘I wish I had done it, I should have done it. I didn’t listen and I didn’t get around to it,’ or ‘I had concern and now here I am









Researchers have found just 12 people are responsible for the bulk of the misleading claims and outright lies about COVID-19 vaccines that proliferate on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.

"The 'Disinformation Dozen' produce 65% of the shares of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms," said Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which identified the accounts.

They include anti-vaccine activists, alternative health* entrepreneurs and physicians. Some of them run multiple accounts across the different platforms. They often promote "natural health." Some even sell supplements and books.
Many of the 12, he said,

have been spreading

scientifically disproven

 medical claims

and conspiracies for years.
Center for Countering Digital Hate


"Alternative health" can be "confusing" because there are actual forms of "medicine" that are valid, have medical effectiveness, and are generally (rightly or wrongly) thrown into that "category".  (Along with all "medical quackery"), unfortunately.  But there is a very real difference, despite "sharing that label".  The term "Alternative health" for the most part is an "oxymoron".

* The term "Alternative health" is kind of like the term "Alternative seat-belts". It means some thing which isn't.

If a "policeman" pulled you over for "not wearing selt-belts", you could explain to him that in fact YOU ARE! 

They are "Alternative seat-belts" and what makes them "Alternative" is that they are "INVISIBLE"!!! (But they still work just as good)  ... so says it's "inventor", which was "you"! 

Chances are, you would get at least a "citation", along with a couple of choice "cuss words" or insults.

If you "remained consistent" with the way the term "Alternative-Health" is used, then you might as well say an "Assassin" is an "Alternative body guard".  Or a "narcotics dealer" is an "Alternative Pharmaceutical rep". 

Or a "butcher" could be seen as an  "Alternative Veterinarian". Or an airplane "Hijacker" could be said, to be your "Alternative pilot". 

In most instances, including that of your "health", the "Alternative" to "safe & effective" , is neither (by definition).  If it were "safe & effective", then it would already be included under the label of such things, nominally called "medicine". (Not the absence  of it)  



We identified 637 COVID-19 vaccine-related items: 91% were rumors and 9% were conspiracy theories from 52 countries. Of the 578 rumors, 36% were related to vaccine development, availability, and access, 20% related to morbidity and mortality, 8% to safety, efficacy, and acceptance, and the rest were other categories. Of the 637 items, 5% (30/) were true, 83% (528/637) were false, 10% (66/637) were misleading, and 2% (13/637) were exaggerated.
Many of the messages about the COVID-19 vaccines being widely spread online mirror what's been said in the past about other vaccines by peddlers of health misinformation.
"It's almost like conspiracy theory Mad Libs. They just inserted the new claims," said John Gregory, deputy health editor at NewsGuard, which rates the credibility of news sites and has done its own tracking of COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation "superspreaders."

Although the term "conspiracy theory" is a technical term that comes from law, in the colloquial sense, it is not a  "theory" that there is a "crusade" to stop people from complying or cooperating with CDC health recommendations, intended to "prevent death", during this "pandemic".  This is an empirically based factual observation. There is no "theory" to it. The people involved in doing it, openly proclaim their intentions.  Their goal is to intentionally reject all reported factual  "data", in favor of "non-compliance" to "Covid-19 Vaccination and pandemic mitigation" efforts.  That is not a "theory", that  is what their devotees will openly and publicly state (to you). 




"CONSPIRACY" (In the "Legal sense" of the word)

In law, a conspiracy theory is a theory of a case that presents a conspiracy to be considered by a trier of fact.[a][b] A basic tenet of “traditional conspiracy theory” is that each co-conspirator is liable for acts of co-conspirators “during the existence of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”[2] Procedures and proof requirements for conspiracy theory litigation as well as the definition of ‘conspiracy’ vary by jurisdiction (British, U.S., …) and body of law (criminal, civil, …). In civil litigation, it can offer advantages relative to aiding-and-abetting or joint tortfeasor case theories.[3]


An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal.  Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.  An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense."


Conspiracy, in common law, an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means.


[ kuhn-spir-uh-see ]

See synonyms for: conspiracy / conspiratorial on

noun, plural con·spir·a·cies.

1. the act of conspiring.

2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.


While the "anti-vaxxer" propaganda crusade might fall short of the "legal definition" of "conspiracy theory", it certainly meets the criteria of a "conspiracy" in the "Dictionary definition", especially noting definitions 3,4, and 5.

So, ironically, those filling the internet with "Vaccination Conspiracy Theory" are actually in effect, the "Vaccination Conspirators".  They are using "fraud" and "disinformation" to convince thousands of people to refuse medical treatment, that could be saving their life. They are "killing people" with deceit. That is the very definition of "evil".

And as the research uncovered, mentioned above, these are people who are doing this for "economic" benefit.  They do not care, what they are telling people is a fraud, because they are "making money" off of the "fraud". Do you really want to give up your life, so a "scam artist" on the internet can sell some good old fashioned miracle "snake-oil"? Please think about the "wisdom" of that.









In "conspiracy" statutes, "against the law" usually refers to "criminal law", not "civil law", although in many cases "civil law liability" can migrate into "criminal law" when death and bodily injury are the result.  Death as a result of "misinformation" is definitely open to "civil liability" lawsuits, and could be "charged" on that basis.  If a "criminal charge" could be brought from that, it is highly unlikely, those in charge of the State's prosecution would pursuit it, if they felt it would "fail" under opposition from either state or federal Supreme Courts.




Any fatality caused by the wrongful acts of another may result in a wrongful death claim. The claim is brought in a civil action, usually by close relatives, as enumerated by statute.


"Wrongful death" is a cause of action, or type of claim, that can be brought when one person or entity wrongfully causes someone's death.[13] It allows a lawsuit to be filed even though the person who was harmed is no longer alive to bring the case. Each state has its own wrongful death statute and, although the details of the statutes vary significantly from state to state, the roots of most can be traced back to Lord Campbell's Act, passed by the United Kingdom's Parliament in 1846.[14] In some states, the family of the decedent must bring two different types of claims: a "wrongful death" claim to recover the "full value of the life" of the deceased, and a survival claim on behalf of the decedent's estate to recover for funeral expenses, pain and suffering, or punitive damages.[13]

The standard of proof in the United States is typically preponderance of the evidence[15] as opposed to clear and convincing or beyond a reasonable doubt.

Each state has different laws regarding wrongful death claims.[16] In most states, the statute of limitations (time limit to file a case) varies according to how the death occurred. For example, in Oregon, many wrongful death claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations - but there are many exceptions, including: when alcohol is involved, when a public body is involved, or in product liability claims.

One of the most difficult wrongful death issues — and a particularly poignant illustration of how wrongful death expands liability beyond what was available at common law — is whether a wrongful death claim can be founded upon intentional infliction of emotional distress that caused the decedent to commit suicide. The first jurisdiction to allow such a claim was California in 1960,[17] followed by Mississippi,[18] New Hampshire,[19] and Wyoming.[20]


In re: K. Y-B, 242 Md. App. 473. In In re K. Y-B, the mother of an infant objected to the child receiving vaccinations on religious grounds. After the filing of a CINA petition, the Department of Social Services was granted limited guardianship and permission to allow the minor child to receive routine vaccinations. The mother filed an immediate appeal, and the Court of Special Appeals held that a parent is free to believe as they wish, but cannot act on their beliefs in such a way as to pose a serious danger to the child’s life or health or impair or endanger the child’s welfare. The Court further held that the significant risks to the child and to the public if he does not receive childhood immunizations outweigh a parent’s right to religious freedom.

A look at recent cases across the country on this issue evidences an emerging trend towards a public policy the requires vaccinations. It is also an indication that a parent’s anti-vaccination stance may be a determinative factor in awarding sole legal custody or tie-breaking authority to the other parent.  In 2004, the Texas appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to give the father sole decision-making over vaccines when the mother was anti-vaccination.  See Garcia-Udall v. Udall, 141 S.W.3d 323 (Tex.App. 2004).

In 2006, Colorado awarded sole legal custody to the parent who wanted to vaccinate the minor child in accordance with the recommendation of medical professionals. “Citing the special advocate’s finding that providing medical care consistently and under the advice of a qualified physician was in the child’s best interests and that father was more likely to follow such advice, the court allocated decision-making responsibility for the child’s medical care to father.”  In re Marriage of McSoud, 131 P.3d 1208, 1214 (Colo.App. 2006).
In 2017, three (3) states issued opinions awarding sole legal custody to the parent who supported vaccinations for minor children.




Because this area of "law" is usually the function of "State" law, definitions vary widely throughout the United States, from State to State. Most laws have codified statutes aimed at making "assisted suicide" illegal. Some but not all "States" in the U.S. have language in these laws that also address the act of "encouraging it" through communication, texts, telephone conversations, etc.

Example: Connecticut Law -  1. intentionally causing a person to commit suicide by force, duress, or deception is classified as murder (CGS § 53a-54a) and  2. intentionally causing or aiding a person, other than by force, duress, or deception, to commit suicide is classified as 2nd degree manslaughter (CGS § 53a-56).



Negligent homicide is a criminal charge brought against a person who, through criminal negligence, allows another person to die.[1]

Criminal Negligence - In criminal law, criminal negligence is a surrogate mens rea required to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability offense. It is not, strictly speaking, a mens rea because it refers to an objective standard of behavior expected of the defendant and does not refer to their mental state.


Negligent homicide is a legal term referring to instances when a person kills another due to acts of gross negligence.  In other words, the person killing the other did not have an intention to kill the other (malicious intent) but the death occurred as a result of the acts of gross negligence or recklessness.


The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when an offender kills (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.  The concept of felony murder originates in the rule of transferred intent, which is older than the limit of legal memory. In its original form, the malicious intent inherent in the commission of any crime, however trivial, was considered to apply to any consequences of that crime regardless of intent.


An unenforced law (also symbolic law) is a law which is formally in effect (de jure), but is usually (de facto) not penalized by a jurisdiction. Such laws are usually ignored by law enforcement, and therefore there are few or no practical consequences for breaking them.

There are however, many laws, which do not fit into the catagorey of "unenforced law".  They may be "laws" which "have not been enforced", but are not "unenforced law".  The distinction is important, because whie the likelihood of "unenforced law" ever becoming "enforced" is very low, active laws which "have not been enforced", simply constitute an area of new legal application and new legal theory. (Based on applicable active law)  That difference is important.

The application of any law to a set of circumstances, is determined by a long chain of legal "supervisors" and "interpreters". 

The state's Attorney General must agree to "enforce".  The "police department" must agree to "arrest". The local court system must agree to "charge". And over-seeing all this, is the state's layered court system, going all the way up to the State's supreme court. And over-seeing the State's supreme court, the Federal Supreme court.

Reliance however, upon the local, state and federal justice systems, to always remain committed to "not"enforcing", a legal remedy against a [deadly] public action, which is potentially in violation of statutory law (already on the record), is a dependence on the arbitrary, and what may prove to be temporary, nature of current law enforcement practices.  (Which could change at any time, in any jurisdiction, for any reason)  
If you are "executing", or "aiding and abetting", a vaccination "disinformation" campaign, you are not only endangering your own saftey by refusing (life-saving) medical treatment, you are also endangering the "public health". The legal system (at any level), could grow "weary" and "run out of patience", at some future point. And... it would have every right to "enforce" it's already existing laws, to address the problem.
If you are "executing", or "aiding and abetting", a vaccination "disinformation" campaign, you should be aware, that you are currently legally engaging in, what is described by the expression, "walking on thin ice", ...which could "break" at any time.



Currently, it is not treated as criminally "illegal", to talk someone into taking actions, that lead to their death, under the catagorey of "Covid" and "public health" (despite existing language in statutory laws pointing to the contrary).  Mainly due to the application of the "First Amendment" protecting "free speech", but this is mostly applied to "the Press". (Not individuals, or "professions") 

In other words, false diagnostic information from a "Physician" is not "protected speech" under "free speech". (It could be grounds for a "law suit", termination of license, and criminal negligence charges) But if that very same information were "published" in the "National Enquirer" to all America, it would be fine. Even though there, it could kill millions, instead of just one. (The "Doctor" who gave it however, might be in trouble with his "peers") But that is all that would happen. (Because it involves "freedom of speech" of "the Press")

But that does not mean, however, that at no time in the future, could these same laws, ever be "interpreted" to be "applicable". "Interpretation" of law is decided by the court (and whoever the ruling "Judge" presiding over the "Court" at that time happens to be) The "language", is already present, for such a criminal prosecution.

Refusal by the current court system to apply the language of these laws to the act of "talking someone" into their own "death", through vaccine "disinformation", doesn't prohibit families of the deceased from filing "wrongful death" claims, against those who gave the false information, and which resulted in the death of the deceased, because they relied on that information. (And "reliance" on that false information, led to their "death")

Nor does it prevent, "family courts" from removing custody of "children" thought to be "endangered" by the negligent acts of parents who unreasonably refuse life-saving medical treatment for their children.

If you are a purveyor of "Vaccination disinformation" on the internet, or in "religious circles", you should probably talk to your "attorney" and plan to be sued, by someone's relative, you killed with your disinformation campaign. It will happen to someone, eventually.  It's only a matter of time. And it could be you. (Remember to "factor that in") to the "cost of over-head" from your "snake-oil" sales, when calculating the "margin of your profit".




If an "anti-vaxxer" wishes to claim that "wearing masks" are pointless and do nothing to slow the spread of the virus, ask them if they would be comfortable having a doctor perform surgery on them, without wearing a surgical mask? (Because after all, they do "nothing")

Chances are, they will not agree to that. Because they know that that very same mask they claim does nothing, might potentially save their life, during a surgery. And this has been known to be true for a very long time in medicine, and it's never been even thought of, to be "controversial" until now. 

(Because most everyone understands the idea of "germs", and what happens when you are "exposed" to them, from someone else's breath)

And obviously, if that claim were actually true, there would be no "statistical evidence" to the  contrary,  but  there  is.  Plenty actually. (See below)



The study looked at the reduction of secondary transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in Beijing households by face mask use (10). It found that face masks were 79% effective in preventing transmission, if they were used by all household members prior to symptoms occurring.

Both the Australian influenza RCT and the Beijing households observational trial found around 80% efficacy among compliant subjects, and the one SARS household study of sufficient power found 70% efficacy for protecting the wearer.
 Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, and her colleagues found that even a cotton T-shirt can block half of inhaled aerosols and almost 80% of exhaled aerosols measuring 2 µm across. Once you get to aerosols of 4–5 µm, almost any fabric can block more than 80% in both directions, she says.
A recent study published in Health Affairs, for example, compared the COVID-19 growth rate before and after mask mandates in 15 states and the District of Columbia. It found that mask mandates led to a slowdown in daily COVID-19 growth rate, which became more apparent over time. The first five days after a mandate, the daily growth rate slowed by 0.9 percentage-points compared to the five days prior to the mandate; at three weeks, the daily growth rate had slowed by 2 percentage-points.
  • A retrospective case-control study from Thailand documented that, among more than 1,000 persons interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported having always worn a mask during high-risk exposures experienced a greater than 70% reduced risk of acquiring infection compared with persons who did not wear masks under these circumstances.38

Could Exposure to a Higher Viral Load Make You Sicker? The short answer seems to be yes. The seriousness of symptoms from viral infections is often due directly to the amount of the virus that gets into your body. In addition, studies on two previous coronaviruses (SARS and MERS) showed people exposed to higher loads got sickerPeople with COVID-19 who continue to show a high viral load seem to have more serious symptoms. As viral loads go down, their chances of getting better go up.  These symptoms may get worse if you have an underlying condition, especially one that weakens your immune system.

The CDC is now recommending universal masking indoors reguardless of vaccination status.

Wear a mask if indoors or even if outdoors in a large group of people. Wash your hands frequently. Check with venues regarding their plans for social distancing or cleaning procedures as applicable.  If symptoms of possible COVID-19 develop, even if mild, self-quarantine and seek testing.


The Centers for Disease Control has conclusively stated that “there is no link between vaccines and autism.” Since 2003, there have been nine CDC-funded studies concluding that neither vaccines nor vaccine ingredients cause autism. More recently, a 2011 study by the Institute of Medicine and a 2013 study by the CDC added to the growing body of research debunking this myth.





FALSE. You get "animal DNA" in you every time you "eat" (unless you are a vegan) Animal DNA has been in insulin shots for decades. It saved thousands of lives every day, from the mortal consequences of "diabetes". Originally, insulin was made from "pigs" (and even Kosher Jews found "insulin shots" more theologically acceptable than death from diabetes)

The only vaccine using anything remotely related to animals, is the AstraZeneca vaccine used in Europe. It uses something called a adenovirus vaccine vector. A completely harmless genetic piece from (a "cold") in a Chimpanzee.  It is no "big deal". But... that vaccine is not even available in the United States. (See link above)

There are no animal products in the five vaccines that are currently approved in Canada.


COVID-19 vaccines do not change or interact with your DNA in any way. Both mRNA and viral vector COVID-19 vaccines deliver instructions (genetic material) to our cells to start building protection against the virus that causes COVID-19. However, the material never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA is kept.

- The Centers for Desease Control
Myths and Facts about Covid-19 Vaccines


Professional medical organizations serving people of reproductive age, including adolescents, emphasize that there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination causes a loss of fertility.1–4 These organizations also recommend COVID-19 vaccination for people who may consider getting pregnant in the future.

Professional societies for male reproduction recommend that men who want to have babies in the future be offered COVID-19 vaccination.5 There is no evidence that vaccines, including COVID-19 vaccines, cause male fertility problems.

Many people have become pregnant after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, including some who got vaccinated during COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials.6–8 In addition, a recent report using the v-safe safety monitoring system data showed that 4,800 people had a positive pregnancy test after receiving a first dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (i.e., Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna).9 Another report using data from 8 U.S. healthcare systems documented more than 1,000 people who completed COVID-19 vaccination (with any COVID-19 vaccine) before becoming pregnant.10
- The Centers for Desease Control
Myths and Facts about Covid-19 Vaccines




So what if they were? Would you stop using toilet paper if you discovered it had been "invented" by a "Jesuit"? Hopefully not. (That is a very strange objection, by people who simultaneously have no problem with embracing "Jesuit eschatology"?)

"Jesuits" have been around a very long time, and because they were a secular order, they have, through the centuries, invented many things.  (including computer "hypertext") However, the "theology" they "invented" is much more important and problematic, than any material "thing" they invented.

You can use an "umbrella" (which a "Jesuit" introduced to Europe, after returning from Asia), without advocating "Jesuit theology", when you use it. 

But what would you say to someone who "refused to use an umbrella" allegedly because they "hate Jesuits" so much, but then "teaches classes" on "Jesuit theology" to make "converts to it"? Wouldn't that be entirely "missing the point"? And that is precisely what those who cite this complaint actually do!

But, in this particular instance, it's not even a valid claim.  In other words, it is complete fabrication anyway, unless you simply accuse everyone in the "medical establishment" of secretly being a "Jesuit".
Jenner's work is widely regarded as the foundation of immunology—despite the fact that he was neither the first to suggest that infection with cowpox conferred specific immunity to smallpox nor the first to attempt cowpox inoculation for this purpose.
The  disinformation that "vaccines" are "Jesuit", is based on the claim that an English physician, "Edward Jenner", invented "inoculation" (who was a "master-Mason"). The only problem with the claim is that while he was given credit for this in England, it had already been introduced to the country. 

The first introduction came from Lady Mary Wortley Montagu who brought the technique over from Constantinople (Istanbul), where it was already an ancient "established practice". 

And, an Episcopalian farmer by the name of Benjamin Jetzy, was documented 20 years earlier before Jenner, as having been the earliest practitioner of the technique involving the use of cowpox to inoculate against small pox. So Jenner enjoyed the credit for something, he probably did not deserve. (But also making the Jenner-Jesuit claim, completely wrong) And that is completely ignoring the intentional conflation of a "Mason" with a "Jesuit".
In America, the story was quite different, and had nothing to do with "Jesuits" or "Masons".  In colonial New England, it was introduced (to America) by Cotton Mather, a Puritan Minister. Who, by the way, faced down, serious persecution which threatened his life. His conviction it was a "wisdom" given by God to "spare New England" the plague, was also unrelenting in his effort to see inoculation given to all, for the benefit of all. And the Rev. Cotton Mather, did not get his knowledge of it from "England's" "Masons" or "Jesuits", but his African slave, "Onesimus", who was familiar with the technique, already ancient, in his homeland of Africa.

"Vaccines" are no more "Jesuit" than "toilet paper". But regardless, you should not stop using either. It is not what a "Jesuit invents", it is the "Jesuit eschatology" in your "head" that it is problem. (Not your use of an "Jesuit umbrella")

"Protestants" who incessantly rail against "Jesuits", (for no other reason than to rail against them), are usually guilty of also holding onto "Jesuit Eschatology", which they, for some strange reason, have no discomfort in "holding onto" (while they simultaneously denounce Jesuits?)  The animus they display, is "over-compensation" for the fact they never got the "beam" out of their own eye, first.

Christ said "love your enemies". Not waste your time spewing vitriol, and then defend what you just denounced. You can disagree with a viewpoint, without hating the one you wish to persuade. (What is the point of that?)

Be highly suspicious of vitriol against Jesuits, for vitriol's sake. (You are probably listening to a "Protestant" devotee of Jesuit "Eschatology") whose "hiding" themselves behind some vitriolic "fig-leaves".  (...Trying to vainly earn some semblance of "Protestant street-cred", because they know they don't really have any left) 

They wrongly think the louder they spew and slobber their vitriol against "Jesuits" (the more "Protestant" they will "magically" make themselves).  But in reality, that "clown act", has nothing to do with getting rid of all the "Jesuit eschatology" (and theology), they have floating around between their own ears, in their own head. Using an "umbrella" doesn't mean you therefore collaborate with, and endorse "Jesuit-ism". It means you needed an "umbrella".




Once again, the question would be, "so what"? Did a "Christian" invent your  "tennis shoes"? What about your TV? What about your computer? What about the chair you are sitting in, while you read this? (It is not "the thing" but "the theology")

Vaccines probably were "invented by pagans" in pagan lands, during pagan periods of history (that is what everyone was).  "Inoculations", were done thousands of years ago, in both Asia and Africa.
But "Pagans" also "invented" wine, "bread" and "circumcision".  So, are you going to throw those out too (based on that same argument?) [despite the fact, they are commanded in the Bible?]?

And don't forget, "Pagans" also invented alphabets, writing, language, boats, fishing, farming, wheat, the wheel, aspirin, tooth-brushes & brushing, poetry, theater, drama, beds, glass-making, libraries, museums, music, musical notes, sculpting, painting, computers, logic, philosophy, math, geometry, medicine (as a field), all classical architecture, plumbing, (running water & toilets), central heating, brick making, carpentry, Barb-B-Que, sushi, steaks, vitamins, plates, spoons, knives and forks,  shoes, hats, coats, scarfs,  buttons, corn, tomatoes, chairs, portraits, gymnasiums, weights, jogging, bread, rubber, coffee, coco, chocolate, beer, yeast, crop rotation, coconuts, noodles, pasta, cheese, schools, houses and even church buildings. (Yes, even "church buildings" - see Acts 19:37)

And for each of all these things, "Pagans" had a "god", an "idol", and a "demon",  for which it was dedicated to. And despite that, concerning the "use" of "things", Paul wrote this...


Titus 1:15

Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

So you see, the problem is NOT the "thing" that someone "invents" (it is the "theology in your head), that is the problem.  Henry Ford was a Nazi. Does that mean everyone who drives a "Ford 150" is a "Nazi" or endorses the "Nazi party"? You might drive a very "un-Nazi" car, and actually BE a "Neo-Nazi". (It is your "theology" that is the problem)

Paul wrote on papyri, it was A THING invented by the Egyptians. He made "Tents", it was A THING, according to archeologists, invented around 40,000 BC, by primitive humans (who were  "Pagan") and worshiped snakes.

Paul was circumcised, which had been invented by the Egyptians. But, he didn't therefore "confuse" his religion with "Isis worship". Paul appealed to Rome's legal system (surrounded by attributions to pagan gods), and to "Caesar" who called himself "God" (and received worship). [clearly blasphemous]  But he didn't "assimilate" Rome's pagan "holidays" or "feasts" or "religious rituals" or "polytheism".

It is not the "thing", it is the "theology" that is the problem.   Cotton Mather, the Puritan minister, used A THING called "inoculations", but he didn't "convert" to worshiping "Aman-Ra", anymore than you become a "Nazi", when you drive a "Ford Pick-up" truck, or use a "pagan tooth-brush" to brush your teeth.




All "plagues" and "healing" come from God in the Bible, therefore there is no need to see a "Doctor" or take prescribed "medicine".  This is all just a "trick" by the quote: "medical establishment" !  If you "have faith in God" you don't "need" a Doctor, or his "medicine"!

FALSE DICHOTOMY.  The basic structure of this argument is that it creates a "false dichotomy".  "God" is the source of everything, including "life" itself. But... you still eat. Why? Because you reject God? No, because it is God's will, that you eat. And if you stop doing it, you will die. Because the source of all life, also wants you to eat.  There is a very profound spiritual "lesson" in the "need" to eat food. In "theology", it is called "propitiation". Look it up.  You might even "think" it is very good "idea" to never eat again, but "reality" will eventually, teach you another lesson.

When Christ said...

Mat_9:12  But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

Mar_2:17  When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luk_5:31  And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

He could have said, "They that are sick, DONT need a PHYSICIAN", but that is not what he said. He said that they DO.  And he compared his relationship to "sinners" in precisely the same terms, as a "physicians" relationship to the "sick".

So obviously, if there were something wrong with it, he would have both "distanced" himself from it, denounced it, and certainly never would have compared himself, to it. (He never compared himself to "prostitutes" or "murderers")

When you are SICK, you NEED a PHYSICIAN. (At least according to CHRIST)  The fact that God uses "medicine" to heal the sick, does not mean he immediately falls off the throne, (or ceases to exist) and gets replaced by a "physician".  Anymore than he ceases to be the source of "life", simply because you ate "lunch", ...or washed your hands, took a bath, or brushed your teeth. (It really is amazing, on an extremely basic level, this would even have to be explained)

And this is all the more pointed, when you study history, and find out what "Physicians" actually did, during that time in history. Their "treatments" (back then) were not anywhere near, as effective, as they are today.  Yet Christ used the word "need". (Something he never ascribed to the "religious leaders" of his day)  His "disciples" were all lay people, none of whom had attended the Rabbinical academy, or had any "degrees", in Rabbinical studies. SEE Acts 4:13

The situation would be quite different with the apostle Paul, however. (Who had been "trained" by Gamaliel)

But Christ made it very clear in the New Testament, when you are "sick", you NEED a "Physician" a lot more, than you NEED a Rabbi. Let that fact, sink in.  It is "profound" in a number of ways. (Especially during this "pandemic", with all the deadly "medical advice", coming from some very "deluded" preachers)  You had better listen to your "Physician", and ignore your "Rabbi", if you wish to keep living.




This is an example of "anti-vaxxers" "grasping for straws" in the Bible.  The text in Leviticus 19, 21 & Deut. 14, have nothing to do with "vaccinations" and you can't even "stretch it", to get it to mean that. Why? Because the "target" of these texts were a practice that had to do with appeasing, honoring, worshiping, consulting, "the dead".

Leviticus 21:5 

They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.

Leviticus 19:28:
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

Deuteronomy 14:1
Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.
Cutting, Cut = H8296
שָׂרֶטֶת    שֶׂרֶט
śereṭ    śâreṭeth
seh'-ret, saw-reh'-teth
From H8295; an incision: - cutting.
Total KJV occurrences: 2
sâraṭ, saw-rat'; a primitive root; to gash:—cut in pieces, make [cuttings] pieces.

A "vaccination" (using a "pin prick") is clearly the farthest thing from a "Gash" as there could possibly be.

Obviously, these "prohibitions" were not "universal prohibitions" against any and all "cutting of the skin", because "cutting of the skin" is precisely what the ritual of "circumcision" was. That fact ELIMINATES the claim, this text refers unconditionally to all "skin cutting" for any reason, or any purpose, whatsoever, including getting an "vaccination".

That "interpretation" is FALSE because:

(1) The "cutting of the skin" prohibited was "A GASH" (Vaccinations are very small "pin-pricks") [an "opposite"]

(2) The "cutting of the skin" being prohibited was "for the dead". (Vaccinations are for "the living")

(3) "Circumcision" was "cutting of the skin" (not for "the dead), and was "commanded" (Did not violate the command)

 NOT APPLICABLE: Vaccinations neither "cut the skin" (as in an "incision"), nor are they done "for the dead"


Those who claim "Pharmakia" means the unconditional use of any mineral, chemical, or organic material, for the treatment of any disease, or "condition", is "Sorcery", simply  do not understand what they are talking about.  And they have created (in their interpretation) an unjust unconditional condemnation of thousands of years of Biblical history, in the process.  The fact they have openly thereby called the Qodesh, from Joseph, to Jeremiah the prophet, to the Apostle Paul, "sorcerers", as a result of their "interpretation" of "Pharmakia", might not be immediately apparent to them.  But hopefully the information below will help bring it to their attention.

The Greek word "pharmakia" was used in the Greek language in the same way, the modern word "Drugs" (or medicine) is used today.  And they have an identical meaning. (And this is precisely the point of it's use in the New Testament)

The use of it in the texts in 9:21 and 21:8, was NOT a blanket condemnation of the use of all (drugs as) "medicine" it was the condemnation of the use of "drugs" as "spells", "poisoning", i.e., like our use of the term,"illegal narcotics", meaning it would be used to "poison" or "drug" (a victim). "Poisoning" was a very accomplished art in the ancient world. It was used as a form of assassination. It was used as a military tool. And it was used by "thugs" in ancient cities, to take over control of a city. In the very same way, "drugs" are still used today.

We still say in our English use of this term,

(1) First Use: "Why did he do such a terrible thing? Oh, everyone knows he was on DRUGS" (Pharmakia)

(2) Second Use: "Doctor is there anything that can treat my disease? Yes, there is a new DRUG" (Pharmakia)

The same exact double-usage existed in Greek, when this term was used in the New Testament. And "WORD STUDIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, by M.R.VINCENT", cites PLATO'S explanation of the two uses of that term in his commentary on Greek law, noting the distinction of the two usages (Sorcery versus Medicine). QUOTE:

Plato says: “There are two kinds of poisons used among men which cannot clearly be distinguished. There is one kind of poison which injures bodies by the use of other bodies according to a natural law... but there is another kind which injures by sorceries and incantations and magic bonds, as they are termed, and induces one class of men to injure another as far as they can, and persuades others that they, above all persons, are liable to be injured by the powers of the magicians.

Now it is not easy to know the nature of all these things; nor if a man do know can he readily persuade others of his belief.

And when men are disturbed at the sight of waxen images, fixed either at the doors, or in a place where three ways meet, or in the sepulchers of parents, there is no use of trying to persuade them that they should despise all such things, because they have no certain knowledge about them.
But we must have a law in two parts concerning poisoning, in whichever of the two ways the attempt is made; and we must entreat and exhort and advise men not to have recourse to such practices, by which they scare the multitude out of their wits, as if they were children, compelling the legislator and the judge to heal the fears which the sorcerer arouses, and to tell them, in the first place, that he who attempts to poison or enchant others knows not what he is doing, either as regards the body (unless he have a knowledge of medicine) or as regards his enchantments, unless he happens to be a prophet or diviner” (“Laws,” xi., 933). END QUOTE - Vincent Word Studies, Revelation 9:21



Gen 50:1  And Joseph fell upon his father's face, and wept upon him, and kissed him.
Gen 50:2  And Joseph commanded his servants the physicians to embalm his father: and the physicians embalmed Israel.

"Physicians" because of their knowledge of "Chemicals" and "Anatomy", were in "charge" of "embalment" in Egypt.  This is being "interpreted" to mean "Pharmakia" (Rev.9:21, 21:8)

Joseph was also "personally" "embalmed" by them as well.

Gen 50:26  So Joseph died, being an hundred and ten years old: and they embalmed him, and he was put in a coffin in Egypt.


Exo 21:18  And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed:
Exo 21:19  If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.


2Ch 16:12  And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians.
2Ch 16:13  And Asa slept with his fathers, and died in the one and fortieth year of his reign.
2Ch 16:14  And they buried him in his own sepulchres, which he had made for himself in the city of David, and laid him in the bed which was filled with sweet odours and divers kinds of spices prepared by the apothecaries' art: and they made a very great burning for him.

What is "Apothecaries Art"?

apothecary noun
apoth·​e·​cary | \ ə-ˈpä-thə-ˌker-ē

plural apothecaries

Essential Meaning of apothecary

: a person who prepared and sold medicines in past times

Full Definition of apothecary

1 : one who prepares and sells drugs or compounds for medicinal purposes

2 : pharmacy (i.e.,from "Pharmakia")


2Ki 8:29  And king Joram went back to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which the Syrians had given him at Ramah, when he fought against Hazael king of Syria. And Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah went down to see Joram the son of Ahab in Jezreel, because he was sick.


Jer 8:21  For a breach of the daughter of my people have I been broken, I have been black, astonishment hath seized me.
Jer 8:22  Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? For wherefore hath not the health of the daughter of my people gone up? - YLT

The implication of the question is that it is "rhetorical", meaning "of course there is". Also showing the fact that at this time, "physicians", would have been expected to be present in most urban centers in Israel. 586 BC

The additional identification of "balm" for "healing", refers to a "prepared medicine" which the local "physician" would also be commonly known for.

"Balm preparation" also would be "Pharmakia". (a Medicine)


צֳרִי    צְרִי
tserı̂y    tsŏrı̂y
tser-ee', tsor-ee'
From an unused root meaning to crack (as by pressure), hence to leak; distillation, that is, balsam: - balm.
Total KJV occurrences: 6


balm noun
\ ˈbä(l)m
Definition of balm

1 : a balsamic (see balsamic sense 1) resin especially : one from small tropical evergreen trees (genus Commiphora of the family Burseraceae)

2 : an aromatic preparation (such as a healing ointment) applied a balm to the wound - [Note: Pharmakia, a medicinal concoction]



There are several Talmudic references to physicians; 

in Sheḳālı̄m ii 1, it is said that there was a physician at the temple to attend to the priests.

A physician was appointed in every city (Giṭṭı̄n 12b) who was required to have a license from the local authorities (Bābhā' Bathrā' 21a).

The familiar passage in Ecclesiasticus 38:1-15 the Revised Version (British and American) in praise of the physician gives him but limited credit for his skill: “There is a time when in their very hands is the issue for good,”

and later, “He that sinneth before his Maker, Let him fall into the hands of the physician.”

                                                                                    - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Article, "Physician"





Col_4:14  Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

2Ti_4:11  Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.



Luk 1:1  Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2  Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3  It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4  That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.



(Authored by Luke, the Physician)

Act 1:1  The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Act 1:2  Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
Act 1:3  To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:



Matthew 9:12 
But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

Mark 2:17 
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came [in like manner] not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 5:31 
And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.


According to the "Pharmakia" is "Medicine" interpretation,  Joseph was a "head sorcerer".  Jeremiah promoted the use of "sorcery". The Torah itself "paid" for "sorcery. "Sorcerers" were appointed (and licensed) to every city in Israel, and to be "on duty" in the Temple. And ... the apostle Paul, personally used the services of a "sorcerer", who also as a "sorcerer", authored 2 books of the New Testament !!! (One of which, was called "the Gospel")... of LUKE, a practicing "sorcerer" !?!?!?!

And.. worst of all... CHRIST said "the sick" NEED A "SORCERER" !!!! (Which he himself was like) ?!?!

...OR... you didn't "interpret" that correctly. (Which do you think is  more "plausible"?)




Not if you are bothering to read anything at all about "the mark of the beast'.  It is given "in the forehead" and right "forehand".

"Covid-19 Vacinations" NOT the "Mark of the Beast"
                            (1) "Covid Vaccinations" go nowhere near either of those two spots.

                     (2)  The "Vaccinations"  are not given "upon" (epi) the skin.

                     (3) "Mark of the beast" is given when there are "slaves", "kings" and "swords"

                                             (13:1-Kings, 13:10-Swords, 13:14-Swords, 13:16-Slaves)
It is in fact, "Jesuit eschatology" which has convinced many "Christians", the thing that will actually save their life, will damn them to hell. Which is precisely the "opposite of the truth".  Just like the "Eschatology" they cite to claim this, is.


As you can see from the photo above, the Florida GOP politician who called the "vaccine" the "mark of the beast" is wearing a "Trump" mask on his face.  Ironically, if the "vaccination" were the "mark of the beast" (and it is not), it would make "Donald Trump" "The Beast"! (His own "Operation Warp-speed" brought it to market)

There are in fact, a number of "antivaxxers", that have actually decided, that is precisely the case. And they point to "Donald Trump" as "the Beast" in the prophecies of Revelation as their description of him.

While there are many "Independents" and "Democrats" who would heartily endorse the appellation of "The Beast" to "Donald Trump" (because that is precisely what they think he acts like), fortunately or unfortunately, (depending on your perspective), while it may be true that "Donald Trump" does "act" bestial, it is absolutely certain, he is not "The Beast" referred to in Revelation. (100% certain)  But that fact, does not erase "the irony" of this claim, created by "anti-vaxxer" "Trump" politicians, who do not even realize, they are "impugning" their own "political hero", in their claim.


One of the reasons "religious people" are constantly falling "victim" to "con-artists" and "political propagandists" is that the vast majority of them have made a conscious "decision" in life to "reject truth" as an idea, in "favor" of their "religion". This open and willful "rejection" of "truth" as an idea, is "encouraged" by their "religious leaders" who themselves have willfully and openly "rejected truth" as well. And they justify their open and willful rejection of "truth" in order to "protect" their falsified religious beliefs, behind the "fig leaves" of such willful rebellion, under the pretense of words like "faith". (As though "Faith" is some kind of "synonym" for self-delusion and "the unconditional and uncritical belief" in deceit) None of which are actually true, if we are talking about "Biblical faith".

"Biblical faith" was based on "the word of God".  It was an objective "faith".  The "process" of hearing God speak, and having "confidence" in that information, that it was a "precognitively derived" accurate reflection of reality. (To be fully "verified" or "exposed as false" by real events in the future).  It was never a "blank check" to "believe" in whatever deceit or stupidity the latest local religious leader decided to spew from his mouth, or endorse for money, power or fame. (In the name of, and under the protective skirt of "religion")

As "anti-vaxxers" grasp for straws to justify their irrational rejection of medical science designed to "save lives" in the midsts of a global pandemic that is killing millions of people, they will contort and distort any number of "facts" to make their "square peg" of "vaccines" fit into the "round hole" of "the mark of the beast". The fact they have to actually  "lie" a little to make that case, is not considered troublesome. (After all, it's just "propaganda" anyway) and they have already openly "rejected" the "idea" of "truth". So, engaging in these little "mind-games" is "no problem", to them. (They do not actually care what the "real truth" is anyway) They really don't.


One such "trick" used to do this, is to "claim" that while the New Testament in Greek is extremely "clear" that John said "on" (epi) the "forehead" and "forehand", IN THE HEBREW, the word "Hand" really means "Arm".  Therefore John was REALLY saying "ARM". (As in where you get your "vaccine")  This bogus claim is being repeated now on the internet as "justification" to "believe" any and all "vaccines" are therefore the "mark of the beast".


(1) Revelation was written in Greek, so whatever is actually in Hebrew, does not nullify what the Greek word means.

(2) The provider of this erroneous "disinformation" has failed to inform the public that there are numerous words for "hand" in Hebrew.  (Much more specifically meaning "Hand" than even the Greek reference)

In fact, Hebrew was much more "specific" about the word "hand" actually and literally meaning "hand", than even the Greek language. Because in Hebrew there were SEVERAL SPECIFIC words for HAND. (Which meant "Hand" in some very SPECIFIC unmistakable ways, meaning "Hand" and ONLY "Hand". 

First and primarily, there was  (A) "Yawd" (the primary word) and meant specifically "the open hand" or "Palm", (taken from the Hebrew letter), but there was also

(B) "Kaph" which meant specifically "the closed hand", but then there was also

(C) "Kaphaph" which meant specifically "the curved hand", and yet, there were even MORE words for "hand" in Hebrew. Such as ...

(D) "Semole", which specifically meant "the left hand", and that was in contrast to the Hebrew word which specifically meant...

(E) "right hand" (that being "Yamin", as in "Ben-yamin" [son of my RIGHT HAND]) And of all these DIFFERENT "Hebrew words for HAND" (Which all in fact mean HAND, only hand,  and definitely not ARM in any way), none of them are either ambiguous or would leave any room for the complete "Disinformation" (that you have been told) that "hand" in Greek, (really means "arm" in Hebrew) as the liar you have been listening to, attempted to imply to you. 

The only word used in this "ambiguous manner" is the Hebrew word...

(F) "Minney", which is translated in the KJV as "hand" but actually means "any part of", and is usually clarified by it's double use with the other Hebrew word for HAND "Yawd". "Minney" does not actually even mean "Hand" (at all). (That is why it is most often used along WITH "Yawd", when it is is used). 

But in any of these cases, John was writing in GREEK. And Greek had a word for ARM. That word is ==> βραχίων <=== and if John had meant ARM, he would have written the word ==> βραχίων <== (which actually means ARM)

...instead of the word ===> χείρ <=== which means HAND. (Not to mention the fact that "MARK" ==> χάραγμα<== does not mean "STICK" or "JAB" or "PRICK" or "POKE" or "STRIKE", which would have been the word ==> κέντρον <== "From κεντέω kenteō (to prick); a point (“centre”), that is, a sting (figuratively poison) or goad (figuratively divine impulse): - prick, sting.)  That is what SAUL was "fighting against". A JAB. A PRICK.

" χάραγμα" literally means "To Write". (Like when you "write" an "+" on the forehead or right forehand)

Mat 23:24  Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

The people telling you this "disinformation" will also tell you as a "matter of fact" without any hesitation and in full confidence, that "Christ-MASS" on Dec.25th,  is really, fully and truly the real "Christ" [the same Institutionalized by Pope Sixth III] . in "666". So while they will militantly"reject" life-saving "vaccines", they will "swallow wholesale, the entire LIE about "Christ-mass", without the slightest hesitation. (And that should tell you all you really need to know about them) along with who and what they are serving with their "disinformation".

(If you haven't been "vaccinated" yet, you should do so as soon as possible) It is not the "mark of the beast". (Not even close) ... and what actually is, they apparently haven't even noticed. Should you "trust your life" to someone that spiritually "obtuse" ???  Christ said no.



This false claim usually goes with the above claim that it is the "mark of the beast".  In order to fit it into the "Jesuit eschatology" scheme of "futurism". And the claim is, this is being done so that the "government" can "track you". Which is the most ridiculous claim of all.

1. "Micro-chip" technology is not advanced enough to create "nano-chips" that are small enough to fit through a "vaccination needle" (which is so small, some people do not even feel the insertion). "Vaccination needles" today are so small, they are not much larger than a "mosquito" spear (proboscis). It is not physically "large enough" for "micro-chips" of any kind to go through these sized needles.

2. The "government" can already "track you". You have a GPS on your phone, on your car, and sometimes even in your watch. Every purchase is recorded electronically for time, date and location. And your computer, TV, smart device, home thermostat, baby monitors, security cameras, motion devices, and even your washer and dryer, (in fact anything that connects to the internet) can be monitored and tracked, by the "government" with a FISA warrant, that you will not even know is there. (So behave yourself) It's all already there.

3. There would be no need for it. They already know where you are, and where you're going. They can read the time on your wrist watch, from a satellite overhead, if they are so inclined to do so.

4. It wouldn't work anyway. All you would need (to disrupt such a "weak signal") would be to put on a long coat with "chicken wire" in it. Poof! The "signal" would be gone. (It would be very weak) That only works in "James Bond movies" where everything is "fiction-fantasy" anyway.


The microchips myth may have come from an idea for smart syringe packaging

(Note: NOT the VACCINE itself)

Videos containing altered or out-of-context footage from news reports and interviews have been widely shared on social media, fueling the fire of the microchips conspiracy theory.

One particular video, which has been shared more than 40,000 times since a November 15 repost, could shed some light on the myth’s origins. The video includes fragments of a CBN interview with Jay Walker, executive chairman of syringe maker Apiject, in which he talks about an optional barcode-like label for the vaccine

In the original interview, it’s clear that this label would be optional and the RFID chip in question would be affixed to the outside of the syringe, not injected along with its contents. The chip was designed to distinguish the real vaccine from counterfeit or expired doses, and to track when injections are used.

Steve Hofman, an Apiject spokesman, told Reuters that the special label has not been requested by vaccine manufacturers so far.

The video shared on Facebook also contains an obviously edited clip of Bill Gates made to look like he’s saying “innovations like vaccines, we need a measuring system that tracks the vaccine.”

Reuters tracked down Gates’ original speech from a 2013 financial inclusion forum, where he referred to vaccines as a breakthrough innovation and later called for a system to track financial inclusion, not vaccine distribution.

What’s in Pfizer’s coronavirus vaccine

Pfizer has gone public with a list of ingredients that are actually in its vaccine, and a microchip is not among them.

The active ingredient in the shot is a snippet of the virus’s genetic material called messenger RNA. As Insider’s Hilary Brueck explained, mRNA acts as “a genetic punching bag for the body to learn how to fight against the proteins that help COVID-19 invade our cells.”

A mix of sugar, salt, and fats cushion the metaphorical punching bag and make it possible to deliver the vaccine via intramuscular injection.


Here’s the full list of ingredients in Pfizer’s shot:

A nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike glycoprotein of SARS-CoV-2 (this is what makes the shot work)

Lipids, or fatty substances, including:

  • (4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate),
  • 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N, N-ditetradecylacetamide,
  • 1,2-distearoyl-snglycero-3-phosphocholine,
  • and cholesterol

Potassium chloride

Monobasic potassium phosphate

Sodium chloride (salt)

Dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate

Sucrose (sugar)

What’s in Moderna’s coronavirus vaccine

Moderna, the other vaccine maker that was recently granted an emergency use authorization by the FDA, also released a fact sheet detailing the ingredients in its COVID-19 vaccine.

The Moderna vaccine contains:

Messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA)

Lipids, or fatty substances, including:

  • SM(sphyngomyelin)-102
  • Polyethylene glycol [PEG] 2000 dimyristoyl glycerol [DMG],
  • 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine [DSPC],
  • and cholesterol


Tromethamine hydrochloride

Acetic acid

Sodium acetate

Sucrose (sugar)

(that results in "death")?

John 8:44 

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

While it may be technically "Legal" in our current "Justice system" to "Kill people", by lying to them, and seducing them into their own "self-destruction",  Christ spared no hesitation in calling that "murder". (Because that is precisely what it really is), and... for theological reference, attributing it's spiritual "inspiration" and origin to... "the Devil".

And that is precisely, what every real Christian, should [in like manner] call it too. (Because he did)

"Disinformation", "Slander", and "False Accusations" are not "protected speech" under "Freedom of speech". Neither does "Freedom of speech" include "lying" to people, despite the fact that the very same lie told, may kill them, in order to sell horse pills, Jesuit Eschatology, and/or snake oil (all on the same "Christian" TV show). (at the expense of the lives of those in it's "audiences")

Aside from being a "Devilish murderer", at the very minimum, as a "Missionary for Death", you could become "liable" for the damages you caused. And if the arbitrary winds of political disfavor per-chance blow your way, you could even be potentially prosecuted, as a full blown criminal, under the language of a number of already existing laws and statutes, against this kind of criminally negligent dangerous and deadly behavior.

But regardless of what men may or may not ever call it, Christ called it murder. And if you engage in it spreading intentional falsehood, that leads to the death of others, simply for your own personal gain, or benefit, or inflated ego, or politics, or religious "nuttery" (based on some false medieval Jesuit Eschatology, no less), then you are a "murderer" too. And God will hold you accountable for your words, that have killed innocent lives, whose only crime was to "trust you".


"Christians" are being "Targeted" by "Con-artists" For "Filthy Gain" that put their "LIVES AT RISK"



Jud_1:16  These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
2Pe_2:3  And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
2Pe_2:18  For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.


For a "real Christian" this is a "no brainer". You simply "pray" and do as you get told to do in prayer.

There will be some people (a very very few) who will have "reactions" to these vaccinations. Just like some people have reactions to "eggs" or "peanuts" or "avocados" (but it has to do with their "allergic reaction", not the shot). Everyone else on the planet will be fine. Those who have reactions will be immediately treated (most will be fine). 

But the fact is, there may be one person in the world, that God may really tell, not to take the shot, and you may be that one person. And if you are that one person, you better do what you are told. But... (know this)

The chances are much greater that you could die from "Covid-19", than they are, you could die from the "vaccine".  That is just the cold hard math on the subject.

It is not "up for debate", that you should "pray" about everything. And even if you get to do the vaccination, you should still "pray" about when, and where, and what kind, you should get. 
But failure to "pray" about it, just because of some "lie" you believed from a "snake-oil" salesman, is nothing short of personal "negligence" (on your part).  And it could be a "negligence" that will cost you your life. No one knows ahead of time, how they will fair once sickened. Many healthy young people have already died, some who were very healthy, and very athletic in their constitution.  You do not need to "roll the dice" with your "life". The "vaccinations" are FREE.

So, do not "refuse" to even pray about it, simply because of willful deceit and "false information".  The vaccine could "save your life". And not getting it, could cost you your life. And that is "the truth" about Covid-19 Vaccinations.

If you get told "not to do it", then at least if you get sick and die, you will enter into God's presence, in obedience and faith, rather than being in rebellion, deceit and fear (as most are now doing, who refused it, because of those same lies they were told).


Matthew 23:24

Ye blind guides,
which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.



The "response" to the "Covid-19 Pandemic" by some of America's most popular "religious leaders", has been a vivid illustration of who they really are. (And what you should be "afraid of", MOST OF ALL)

If you have been "following their advice" on "health" (as you do on "religion") and are still alive to read this, it is only by the grace of God, you are still here.

Maybe it is time you "take inventory" of what you have really been "listening to", for "spiritual guidance". It might be time for a "change of mind" (repentance), before it is "too late", and what you have been listening to, not only "Kills your body", but "Damns your soul" to hell, as well.
2 Timothy 2:14-17, 23 

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker:... Who concerning the truth have erred.  But foolish and unlearned questions avoid

"CANKER" = G1044


From γραίνω grainō (to gnaw); an ulcer (“gangrene): - canker.
Total KJV occurrences: 1