Rabbis and Doctors and Measles Oh My!
This past week two rabbis of import weighed in publicly on the measles outbreak, parents who refuse to vaccinate, and schools that are expelling children that are not compliant with the CDC vaccine schedule.The esteemd Rabbi Elya Brudny of Brooklyn and Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch of Jerusalem. I have the deepest respect for both of them as saintly, authentic, Torah scholars and teachers who have dedicated their lives to public service. That said, their reasoning and analysis of this issue is severely flawed and has lead them to issue religious and ethical public policy guidance that is incorrect.
The main argument they have advanced is that a majority of doctors are in favor of vaccination and that vaccination prevents spread of diseases which have the potential to be fatal and therefore we must accede to the majority of mainstream establishment medical opinion. They have further argued that an unvaccinated child is to be considered dangerous and capable of spreading disease and therefore can rightfully be excluded from school.
The first thing wrong with their argument is that majority establishment medical opinion in this matter is not a real majority. This is because most doctors and health agencies do not formulate their own independent evidence based policy.Rather they rely on the guidance of one singular body of authority namely the CDC. The CDC and its parent agency the HHS have been implicated in very serious and credible fraud allegations pertaining to vaccine safety in general and MMR vaccine in particular. As such, the opinion of all the doctors who follow the CDC no longer counts, not as a majority and not even as a minority expert opinion since the prevailing opinion is based on scientific fraud and deception.
The second thing wrong with their argument is the notion that a healthy asymptomatic unvaccinated individual should be considered a danger as though they have a disease. This is simply not supported by science. There is much scientific evidence that the opposite is true - namely, a vaccinated individual is more likely to be an asymptomatic transmitter then an unvaccinated person.There is no reason to assume an unvaccinated individual is a carrier unless they have been "exposed" to a contagious pathogen.
The third error in their guidance is their failure to take into account a large, diverse, well informed group of parents, journalists,activists,scientists,doctors, attorneys, and politicians, who have all done their own independent evidence based evaluation of the risks and benefits of vaccination.They have come to the conclusion that it is safer and healthier overall to not vaccinate, than to vaccinate, both on an individual level and even on a population wide level. It would appear that the real majority expert opinion in this matter is that of people who have delved into the science and not simply relied on the advice of a single corrupt government agency.
No one, not even the greatest rabbi in the world, should be offering ethical or religious guidance on this issue without having at least read the Aabe study from Africa and the Mawson study in the US. From the Aabe study in Africa we see that vaccine protocols conducted by the World Health Organization in Africa led to significantly increased rates of childhood mortality. The Mawson study likewise demonstrated many severe and permanent adverse affects from the CDC vaccine protocol in the US. Both of these studies compared unvaccinated children to vaccinated children.
This is a genuine scientific controversy. In science the facts are determined by conducting a properly designed experiment. Science is not determined by majority opinion or legalistic argument. You have to conduct the experiment. The CDC has been asked, to conduct a comprehensive long term study on all health outcomes and all cause mortality between a fully unvaccinated population and a vaccinated population. This is a study that should have been conducted 60 years ago at the beginning of the mass vaccination era. The CDC refuses to conduct such a study.
The leading proponents of mandatory mass vaccination public policy, have refused numerous invitations to publicly debate dissenting credentialed scientists. Instead they want to force a public policy on the public without having to defend that policy. This kind of dictatorial machination should not be condoned with a rabbinical stamp of approval.
The main argument they have advanced is that a majority of doctors are in favor of vaccination and that vaccination prevents spread of diseases which have the potential to be fatal and therefore we must accede to the majority of mainstream establishment medical opinion. They have further argued that an unvaccinated child is to be considered dangerous and capable of spreading disease and therefore can rightfully be excluded from school.
The first thing wrong with their argument is that majority establishment medical opinion in this matter is not a real majority. This is because most doctors and health agencies do not formulate their own independent evidence based policy.Rather they rely on the guidance of one singular body of authority namely the CDC. The CDC and its parent agency the HHS have been implicated in very serious and credible fraud allegations pertaining to vaccine safety in general and MMR vaccine in particular. As such, the opinion of all the doctors who follow the CDC no longer counts, not as a majority and not even as a minority expert opinion since the prevailing opinion is based on scientific fraud and deception.
The second thing wrong with their argument is the notion that a healthy asymptomatic unvaccinated individual should be considered a danger as though they have a disease. This is simply not supported by science. There is much scientific evidence that the opposite is true - namely, a vaccinated individual is more likely to be an asymptomatic transmitter then an unvaccinated person.There is no reason to assume an unvaccinated individual is a carrier unless they have been "exposed" to a contagious pathogen.
The third error in their guidance is their failure to take into account a large, diverse, well informed group of parents, journalists,activists,scientists,doctors, attorneys, and politicians, who have all done their own independent evidence based evaluation of the risks and benefits of vaccination.They have come to the conclusion that it is safer and healthier overall to not vaccinate, than to vaccinate, both on an individual level and even on a population wide level. It would appear that the real majority expert opinion in this matter is that of people who have delved into the science and not simply relied on the advice of a single corrupt government agency.
No one, not even the greatest rabbi in the world, should be offering ethical or religious guidance on this issue without having at least read the Aabe study from Africa and the Mawson study in the US. From the Aabe study in Africa we see that vaccine protocols conducted by the World Health Organization in Africa led to significantly increased rates of childhood mortality. The Mawson study likewise demonstrated many severe and permanent adverse affects from the CDC vaccine protocol in the US. Both of these studies compared unvaccinated children to vaccinated children.
This is a genuine scientific controversy. In science the facts are determined by conducting a properly designed experiment. Science is not determined by majority opinion or legalistic argument. You have to conduct the experiment. The CDC has been asked, to conduct a comprehensive long term study on all health outcomes and all cause mortality between a fully unvaccinated population and a vaccinated population. This is a study that should have been conducted 60 years ago at the beginning of the mass vaccination era. The CDC refuses to conduct such a study.
The leading proponents of mandatory mass vaccination public policy, have refused numerous invitations to publicly debate dissenting credentialed scientists. Instead they want to force a public policy on the public without having to defend that policy. This kind of dictatorial machination should not be condoned with a rabbinical stamp of approval.
Comments