Semmelweis 2.0, Abstract

Medical Ethics, Vol. 1, part 3

Download a PDF version here.

View it on LinkedIn here.

מוצש"ק פ' ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למלך, תשפ"ב

The following is a consolidation of two previous articles:  Part 1 was published 8/15/21 (22 pages), and part 2 was published 4/6/22 (30 pages).  We dealt with medical recommendations and mandates including masks, lockdowns, and vaccines as public health measures, as well as on an individual level, from the perspective of Jewish law.

We will begin with the rulings of R’ Moshe Feinstein זצ"ל.  Here is a PDF of the source material, with the relevant sections marked in red.  He concludes as follows:

ורפא ירפא – and the doctor shall heal, allows a sick patient to seek medical help.  But the intention of the treatment must be to heal.  If the primary purpose is non-therapeutic, it is forbidden on three accounts: 

1. נראה כסותר גזירת המלך – Interfering with the King’s decree.  He refers to this as a “possible” prohibition, since it depends on how to interpret תוס' ב"ק דף פה..  We can apply the rule ספק דאורייתא לחומרא. 

2. There is a prohibition to inflict injury upon oneself.  If the treatment involves puncturing the skin with a needle, it is not permitted. 

3. Injecting any type of unnatural, foreign substance into the body is a risk one is not permitted to take.  Even if all doctors believe it is safe, it is not.

For example, someone is too sick to fast on Yom Kippur, but an injected medication will be beneficial.  Since the primary goal is to be able to fast, all three restrictions apply.  Accordingly, R’ Moshe deliberates whether vaccines are permitted.  Since the recipient is in perfect health, you cannot say the intention is to ‘heal’.  Based on an obscure rule in the laws of Shabbos [אבן תקומה], he concludes vaccines are permitted:  A woman may carry the stone with the intention of preventing miscarriage, although her fear is irrational:  She never had a miscarriage before, and she is not currently pregnant.  But since in her mind it can prevent future harm, it is like an article of clothing worn for the purpose of personal protection and is not considered carrying.  Similarly, a vaccine may be used with the explicit intent of preventing future infection, even if the fear of the disease is irrational, it is still considered an intention to ‘heal’.

However, if she finds a rock in the street and wants to add it to her rock collection, it is forbidden to carry it.  Similarly, vaccines are only permitted if I am afraid of the disease, and my primary intention is to avoid getting sick.  But to avoid getting kicked out of synagogue, or getting fired from my job, or that my kids should not be kicked out of school, all three restrictions apply, and vaccination is strictly forbidden.

Those who are genuinely afraid of getting sick are permitted to vaccinate but are not obligated.  Had an obligation existed, such as פיקוח נפש, it would override any other restriction.  The proof from אבן תקומה would have been extraneous and misleading, and he instead would have ruled that vaccination is required for everyone, regardless of any personal fear or intent.  This is consistent with תפארת ישראל who ruled that the smallpox vaccine is permissible, but not obligatory.  However, R’ Moshe strongly advises against being fearful of common illnesses which rarely cause serious injury or death.  He also reprimands doctors who use misinformation and fearmongering to pressure patients into getting vaccinated, classifying those doctors as dishonest and reprehensible.

A third category, which he compares to idolatry, is one who is not afraid of the virus but is simply following the doctor’s recommendation.  There is a mindset that doctors are infallible beings, never to be questioned or challenged, subconsciously leading a person to believe that doctors are the source of good health, forgetting that G-d is the true source.  Also, Halacha is never determined based on expert recommendations.  Experts should verify the facts, but the final solution is always determined by Shulchan Aruch.

It is important to assess risk objectively, not emotionally.  The drive to the doctor’s office is statistically thousands of times more lethal than the risk of all vaccine “preventable” diseases combined, in the US.  In third world countries where mortality rates are high, clean water, plumbing, better nutrition and hygiene would be much more beneficial than vaccination, as proven by countless studies and all available historical data. 

It is misguided to think you must vaccinate, but it is far worse to coerce others.  One who pressures or coerces others to vaccinate is liable for any damage or death, if at any point in the future, the injury or death is proven to be linked to the vaccine.

טור בשם רמב"ן, also quoted by ש"ך, describes another prerequisite:  Medical treatment is only permitted if extreme measures are taken to ensure safety.  However, as we have shown with numerous examples, even a most basic level of safety has never been established.  The medical community believes it is sufficient to assume safety:  None of the childhood vaccines are tested against an inert placebo, and post-market surveillance is ineffective and practically nonexistent.

Top scientists at FDA and WHO admitted on camera that much more safety science is needed, safety studies are inadequate in detecting “major health concerns”, the safety review duration is extremely short, much of the “misinformation” you find online is true, cross reaction of different vaccines has never been analyzed, and it is a “huge problem” when healthcare providers begin asking sincere questions about vaccine safety.

The most bizarre example, and this happens frequently, is when CDC or FDA make an authoritative proclamation regarding vaccine safety.  For example, DTaP does not cause encephalitis.  Then, when asked to provide a source, they openly admit no research was done.  What you don’t know can’t hurt you.  Another example: “vaccines do not cause autism”.  Not only were they unable to provide any basis for their claim, the one relevant paper they quoted explicitly stated that no study has ever been done. 

Here is a recent example.  This one is a beauty:  CDC lists a number of “facts” about the safety of covid-19 vaccines.  A lawyer made a simple request:  please provide the sources of your alleged facts.  To which CDC responded: “A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request.”  Even worse, the letter from the lawyer documented published science contradicting CDC’s “facts”, which CDC did not contest in their response.  In effect, all available science indicates the opposite of that which CDC proclaims as fact.  You literally can’t make this stuff up.

The current state of vaccine safety is indisputably insufficient.  As such, in accordance with Halacha, vaccination is off limits.  Had R’ Moshe been aware of the complete lack of safety, he would not have permitted current vaccines.  Similarly, had תפארת ישראל been aware of the data which came out decades later showing that the smallpox vaccine caused more harm than good, he would not have allowed it.  Regarding the covid vaccine, we are obligated to adhere to the verdict of the rabbinic courts (Bais Din), several of which have denounced the vaccine, especially for children. 

This conclusion does not in fact require a decision from Bais Din or a ruling in Shulchan Aruch.  All it requires is basic common sense:  The first 15 vaccine doses on the childhood schedule, according to every expert opinion, are linked to autism.  Scientists who have no idea, claiming the issue was never studied, do not qualify as “experts”.  Similarly, all available science indicates that SIDS, as well as 135 serious injuries, are linked to vaccines.  At best, the medical establishment is not convinced by the body of science produced by thousands of doctors.  If so, that is all they should have said.  To claim that vaccines do not cause harm, admittedly with no source, refusing to conduct any research of their own, destroys their credibility.  And the fact that almost everything they told us in the last 2 years was a lie, doesn’t help their case.

This is why debate is so important:  CDC often makes wild statements, prompting a lawyer to challenge the claim, forcing CDC to respond in federal court, if necessary.  Open debate always leads to the truth.  Those who suppress open debate and free speech always have something to hide, without exception.  Pfizer, with the help of FDA, desperately tried to conceal their vaccine data until the year 2096.  If not for the adept legal work of Siri & Glimstad LLP, they would have had their way.  Ever since the dreadful mistake of Stanley Plotkin allowing himself to be locked in a room together with Aaron Siri for 9 hours, the vaccine industry has largely adopted the policy: It is better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.

In theory, a communicable disease could rise to the level of פיקוח נפש.  Even if it did, the proper approach is שב ואל תעשה עדיף – it is best not to mitigate when the treatment itself is פיקוח נפש.  However, based on תפארת ישראל, if the disease poses a true threat to life which is demonstrably greater than the fatalities caused by the vaccine, a valid argument could be made to permit vaccination.  Realistically, this will never happen.  None of the common viruses come anywhere close to פיקוח נפש.  The very beginning of the “pandemic”, in the oldest age group, might have qualified.  But the recent variants do not.  The other challenge is determining an accurate risk of the vaccine.  Everyone agrees the government reporting system is a disaster.  We could possibly rely on the Harvard study and multiply the VAERS results by 100.  But in general, the medical establishment will not provide an accurate mortality rate of the vaccine, or the disease.    

But perhaps one day things will change, and doctors will be able to report and collect accurate data.  In fact, a new invention recently came out which has the capability to assist experts with large scale data collection and analyzation.  They call it a computer.  Someone at CDC should check it out.  If that ever happens, we could assess which cases are deemed פיקוח נפש.  To summarize, you first must determine whether there is an immediate and direct threat [סכנה לפנינו].  A patient with an active infection is a good example.  But when you are looking at a healthy population, there is no direct risk, even during an outbreak.  Each category requires a different ratio.  Those who are infected are פיקוח נפש if the mortality rate reaches 1/1,000.  But for those who are not currently infected, the risk of death must be at least 20/1,000 to be viewed as פיקוח נפש.

The fundamental question is, what is the proper course of action when we are faced with conflicting expert advice?  The establishment pushes vaccines, testing, masks, and lockdowns, but independent scientists oppose all the above.  Both sides claim to be following the science, and that their approach will save lives, and the opposing guidance will lead to death and destruction.  Only one of them can be right.  How do we know who is correct?  The following practical advice will ensure you get it right every time: 

1.  Read the science.  It is usually easy to discern real science from ‘tobacco’ science.  When Fauci denounced HCQ, it was clear to anyone who read his studies that they were blatantly fraudulent.  With Semmelweis, the only science that existed supported his theory.  Nobody else was willing to try it, let alone produce opposing results.  Very often, that is the case.  One side has piles of literature supporting their view, while the other has no source at all, as CDC has admitted in countless cases. 

2.  If it is not readily obvious from reading the literature which side is telling the truth, request a debate.  The experts on one side will be happy to attend any debate, any time, any place.  But the experts on the opposing side will never show up, no matter how much you pay them.  There’s your answer.  No need for an actual debate.

3.  But if both sides are sincere, honestly trying to understand the truth, an open debate is inevitable, and the truth is guaranteed to come out.  The science will speak for itself:

השמים מספרים כבוד א-ל ומעשה ידיו מגיד הרקיע [תהלים יט:ב]

The heavens declare the glory of G-d, and His handiwork is proclaimed by the firmament.  [Psalms 19:2]