Vaccines are Kind of Like the Emperor’s New Clothes

Vaccines are Kind of Like the Emperor’s New Clothes

Whether or not one supports the removal of religious exemptions to vaccination, the discussion about the issue should at least be accurate and honest. Sadly, agenda-driven hyperbole has hijacked the narrative in recent years, and oft-repeated mistruths have evolved to become widely-accepted dogma that may not be questioned. It is time to call out the “Emperor’s New Clothes” of our era and exposure these falsehoods one by one.

No major religion opposes vaccines.
False. Judaism prohibits current vaccine schedule for several reasons.1 The schedule is also a grave violation of the Seven Noahide Laws, a universal code for all humankind.2 The fact that it’s mandatory is an assault on the very concept of religion, i.e. that a human being is subordinate only to his/her Divine creator. In effect, there is no major world religion that does not support religious exemption.3 4

Vaccines are safe. The science is settled.
False. The Supreme Court ruled in 2011 that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe.” The CDC delineates serious side-effects for every single vaccine. These risks are also disclosed by vaccine makers in each vaccine insert.​

Vaccine policy is about keeping your child safe. 
False. Vaccine policy is about state enforcing its policy, and has nothing to do with keeping my child safe. My six-year-old child is not at risk of catching Hepatitis B, for example, yet she cannot attend school due to this draconian policy even if she has received all other vaccines except for Hep-B.

Vaccine policy is all about ensuring herd immunity.
False. Vaccine policy is about state enforcing its policy, and not about any herd. Proof: Hepatitis B and tetanus are not contagious through casual contact, yet it’s on the schedule. Moreover, a child who is infected with Hep-B can even attend school.

Recent measles outbreak is a wake-up call to eliminate religious exemption.
False and deliberately misleading. States are threatening to eliminate religious exemption for the entire schedule, not just for measles. The “measles outbreak” is just fear-mongering. If this were truly about concern over measles, they’d be attempting to eliminate religious exemption for the measles vaccine only, and they’d make sure there was a vaccine for measles independent of mumps, rubella, and varicella.

It’s safer to vaccinate your child than to leave her unvaccinated.
Not necessarily. Your child has zero chance of catching polio here in the United States where the last wild variety case was in 1979, and the last imported case was in 1993. However, children are injured each year by the polio vaccine. 22 deaths reported to VAERS (which only reflects a small percentage of actual injuries and deaths) since 2010, and hundreds of injuries. Same with measles and other shots.

Risk from vaccine is less than risk from actual disease.
Not necessarily. 1,200 Americans caught measles this past year with not one single fatality, but deaths and injuries due to MMR vaccine are reported each year by VAERS.5 96 deaths due to MMR vaccine since 2003 and one or two deaths from actual measles.​

Unvaccinated child poses risk to public so s/he may be banned from school.
False. Healthy unvaccinated child poses actual risk to no one. A child who is sick with contagious disease should be quarantined, whether s/he had been previously vaccinated or not. A healthy child presents no risk to anyone simply because s/he lacks immunity to a disease.​
Unvaccinated child is at a higher statistical risk of catching a contagious disease, and therefore may be banned from school to protect ‘herd immunity’.
False. Even if it is true that there is higher statistical risk for unvaccinated child to contract (and spread) disease, we may not ban anyone from school because of statistical risk, but only because of actual risk. Example: we may not ban a child from school just because he comes from an ethnic or religious background that has statistically-higher incidents of radicalization or offenders of school violence. There must be an actual and present risk, not statistical or theoretical.​
Most people who claim religious exemption are not religious, but just using it as a loophole.
Irrelevant. Religion is defined as an individual’s personal, moral, ethical, or philosophical beliefs. Everyone is entitled to religious beliefs, irrespective of whether that person openly identifies as “religious.” Moreover, the First Amendment is no mere “loophole.” It is sacrosanct and inviolable tenet of our nation’s constitution.  Anyone may cite it, just as anyone may cite the Fifth Amendment, or any other amendment. The state may not tamper with it. ​
Most people who cite religious exemption are not opposed to the vaccine due to specifically-religious reasons, but rather are apprehensive that it’s unsafe, which is not a religious reason but rather a health concern. No such exemption exists for unsubstantiated health concerns.
Inaccurate. Pikuach nefesh is a religious tenet in Judaism that transcends nearly all others. Doing something you fear is unsafe violates a religious prohibition. Even if a plethora of doctors vouch for its safety, if you have reservations due to your own or others’ adverse experiences⁠—and especially if your fears are confirmed by expert physicians who have cautioned against it, even if they are in the minority—then it is absolutely forbidden to expose your child to risk against your better conscience. This is a religious precept like any other. More importantly, Judaism recognizes valid religious grounds to decline any vaccine that you and your health care expert deem unnecessary.6
 
Judaism requires vaccination, so Judaism can’t possibly recognize religious exemption. 
False and juvenile. Judaism isn’t monolithic; it has room for differing views. Even members of his own community or congregation are entitled to hold different views than his. In fact, he represents the tiny minority of rabbis, since no respected rabbinical imprimatur has ever been offered for the hepatitis-B vaccine, which is part of the mandatory schedule. To this date, no response from any noted rabbinic authority has ever been written in defense of this vaccine. Consequently, normative orthodox Judaism does not support current schedule in any way and most certainly exempts adherents on firm religious grounds.​
But a prominent Jewish doctor advocates for vaccines, as do most medical doctors. Doesn’t Judaism say that we must follow the majority view of physicians?
No. Judaism makes no such claim. Instead, Judaism advises to heed the opinion of the most expert physicians who have actual experience in diagnosing the disease in question. In this discussion, the disease in question isn’t measles (for example), but the condition of vaccine injury. Your prominent doctor friend has no experience in toxicology or in researching or diagnosing vaccine injury, so his opinion is completely irrelevant,7 as are the views of nearly all doctors who advocate for vaccine schedule.​
 
Nothing is changing to mandatory vaccine policy. The state granted religious exemption in the past, so it is entitled to withdraw it.
False. The state never “granted” religious exemption. Religious freedom is untouchable. The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant us this freedom either, but rather it prohibits state from tampering with it in any way. Religious freedom and personal bodily autonomy are inherent and God-given. The state has no right to interfere with them.​
 
Measles was eradicated but the unvaccinated population brought it back.

False. Measles was never eradicated. 86 cases in 2000 alone, the year it was declared eradicated!8 Measles will never be eradicated, since vaccine is only 93 percent effective and only provides temporary immunity. In fact, most teenagers have been found to lack immunity even after having two doses as a young child.​

Increase in unvaccinated population will bring back dreaded diseases like polio.​
Not necessarily. Polio was on the decline before vaccines were in use. Same with measles.

Whoever opposes the vaccine schedule is an ‘anti-vaxxer.’
False. There are plenty of parents who give some vaccinations but decline others for valid personal, religious or philosophical reasons. They cannot be called “anti-vaccine.” They are simply opposed to the mandatory schedule.

If you are writing this, you must be an ‘antivaxxer.’
False. You have no idea about my medical choices. Your assumption is simply a convenient means to evade these serious discussions via “guilt by association,” since you’re apparently too lazy or feeble-minded to critically examine my arguments. I am not opposed to vaccination. Instead, I am opposed to force-medicating people and to banning healthy children from school. Moreover, I object to group-think or “herd thinking,” such as you have demonstrated by your ad hominem rhetoric.​

Antivaxxers‘ are anti-science.
Wrong. People who choose not to vaccinate are not opposed to science, since science does not make moral judgments. It merely proves hypotheses based on empirical evidence. Even if scientists had indeed demonstrated that 95 percent vaccination rate ensures “herd immunity,” the decision to vaccinate is still a moral one. A religious Jew makes moral decisions based on Torah values, and “herd immunity” has no basis in Jewish law.​

It’s reckless to not take available precautions to avoid contagious disease, so people who don’t vaccinate are reckless.
False. When is it irresponsible to not make use of an available precaution to illness? Only if a) the preventative measure entails no risk of its own, and b) it entails no violation of one’s personal, ethical, moral, philosophical values. Conversely, if the precaution carries its own risks, or if it is at odds with one’s religious (etc) beliefs, then it’s not recklessness, but a matter of personal choice.​

Do you want to know what’s reckless? I’ll tell you: Banning 35,000 healthy children from school… that’s reckless! Trampling individual civil liberties, usurping bodily autonomy, violating religious freedoms… that is perilously reckless.​

If the state’s democratically-elected legislature voted to eliminate religious exemption, then it’s lawful. That’s democracy at work.
Fact: nowhere in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights does the word “democracy” appear. Our founding fathers rightfully feared democracy, which can well become a “dictatorship of the majority.” Hitler initially rose to power through democratic elections as well, as did Hamas. Our republic is based on immutable values enshrined in the Bill of Rights, not on whims of majority rule that may well be unlawful.

Benjamin Franklin observed: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb showing up to contest the vote.”​
We are armed with the truth. The truth will prevail.

This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published at Rabbi’s Blog. Michoel Green is a Jewish rabbi.

References:

1 Deuteronomy 14:1 prohibits needle wounds if not for direct curative benefit for patient. Preventative benefit qualifies, but only if it prevents an actual risk of disease. It is dubious whether an STD like Hep-B or HPV poses any substantive risk to a young child, or to any orthodox Jewish child. Deuteronomy 4:15 prohibits exposing oneself to risk, even negligible risk, and even for the sake of a so-called herd. Avoda Zara 29b prohibits deriving benefit from human cadavers. Abortion is akin to murder, as per Genesis 9:6. It is forbidden to compensate a company for the abortions and live dissections of human beings that it committed by harvesting the fetal tissue for human cell lines in numerous vaccines. Purchasing vaccines that contain aborted fetal tissue is a violation of Leviticus 19:14, as it enables and encourages these companies to commit their heinous deeds.
2 Genesis 9:5 prohibits Noahides from self-inflicting wounds or exposing oneself to risk. Abortion is murder, as per ibid 9:6. A Noahide is prohibited from compensating a murderer. Rambam, Mishne Torah, Laws of Rotzeach 2:2. See Sheva Mitzvot HaShem by Rabbi Moshe Vainer, volume 1, page 58, regarding the precise prohibition of a Noahide of encouraging others to violate the Noahide Code.
3 The wording of this lie is particularly insidious, since it is deliberately deceptive: this discussion isn’t about the idea of vaccination in principle, but about forcing people to have all these specific vaccines. For example, one person’s religion might approve of the idea of vaccination in general, but might be opposed to a vaccine for an STD, or for diseases which no longer exist in the United States, like polio. Others might be opposed to vaccines under normal circumstances, but might agree to receive one during a time of outbreak. Yet others might have religious beliefs that preclude several vaccines due to aborted fetal DNA material extracted by live dissection, or because of excessive cruelty to animals, but might agree to general principle behind vaccination. So the statement “No religion opposes vaccination” is nothing more than a straw man meant to deflect and distract from the actual debate.
4 VAERS only reflects a small percentage of actual injuries and deaths.
5
Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orach Chaim 618:9.
8 CDC. Epidemiology and Prevention of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases: The Pink Book: Course Textbook – 13th Edition (2015), Appendix E.

Note: This commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers.  The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.

...

20 Responses to "Vaccines are Kind of Like the Emperor’s New Clothes"

  1. Christine   March 7, 2020 at 10:09 am

    Thank you for a well written article. So many false perceptions about those of us who are vaccine cautious.

    Reply
  2. Chari   March 7, 2020 at 10:23 am

    The biggest reason for religious exemption is as a follower of Christ, I stand for life. Vaccines used aborted baby parts in research and uses aborted baby cells in the vaccines. Watch Stanley Plotkin’s shocking and grievous testimony on YouTube. Read Deep Roots at Home Vaccine Guide as well as many others who have given horrific information regarding aborted babys and vaccines.

    Reply
    • Chris   March 8, 2020 at 3:19 pm

      I agree with you Chari! I watched some, but read the whole deposition between Plotkin and the lawyer Aaron Siri…Mr. Siri did a brilliant job of exposing Plotkin!

      Reply
  3. Chari   March 7, 2020 at 10:25 am

    Also, thank you so much for writing this much needed article. I pray God uses it to bring awareness and open the eyes of many. Blessings!

    Reply
  4. Donald Shickle   March 7, 2020 at 10:28 am

    One of the best arguments regarding forced medical procedures I have yet read

    Reply
  5. Laura P   March 7, 2020 at 10:36 am

    “No major religion opposes vaccines.”

    I don’t engage this argument because it’s irrelevant. The framers of our Constitution did NOT stipulate that religious beliefs only applied to certain organized, state-approved religions.Constitutionally, religious freedom pertains as much to individual beliefs as it does to organized religion. This precept was upheld, among other cases, in Arkansas’ McCarthy v. Boozman.

    Reply
  6. Laura P   March 7, 2020 at 10:37 am

    “No major religion opposes vaccines.”

    I don’t engage this argument because it’s irrelevant. The framers of our Constitution did NOT stipulate that religious beliefs only applied to specific institutionalized, state-approved religions.Constitutionally, religious freedom pertains as much to individual beliefs as it does to organized religion. This precept was upheld, among other cases, in Arkansas’ McCarthy v. Boozman.

    Reply
  7. Lynn Klein   March 7, 2020 at 10:39 am

    Michoel, I wish to thank you for your carefully elucidated article on what constitutes freedom of choice, and the cloudy way most people view vaccines and the government policies surrounding them.

    My daughter lives in California, has 2 children, is a trained chiropractor, and does not agree with the schedule of vaccines. She has had difficulty finding a pediatrician who would allow her to have limited vaccine and a more spread out vaccine administration schedule. Thankfully she did find one, and it has benefited her boys.

    Your careful explanation of the myths and false beliefs is much appreciated. May I share it with others?

    Reply
  8. CC Collins   March 7, 2020 at 10:39 am

    WOW- and thank you. So well done.

    Reply
  9. Susan   March 7, 2020 at 11:39 am

    I live in Maine and recently voted on whether the bill mandating vaccinations without exemption should be overturned. The woman at the desk told me, “Only one question on the ballet, for or against vaccines”! I objected, “No, it is for or against informed consent. I am always for the right to choose.” The propaganda in Maine to defeat this vote was overwhelming on all sides. Even Maine Public radio gave my adult daughter the idea that this vote concerned endangering all children with exposure to a deadly disease.

    Reply
  10. Joel Robertson   March 7, 2020 at 12:17 pm

    I found a few things you might want to update in the otherwise excellent article:

    The links to the footnotes don’t seem to work.

    It looks like there is a typo in the last sentence under “Risk from vaccine is less than risk from actual disease.” Is the number 596?

    Also, under “Judaism requires vaccination, so Judaism can’t possibly recognize religious exemption,” who is the “he” being referenced?

    Thanks!

    Reply
  11. Barbara Crow   March 7, 2020 at 2:51 pm

    It is a slippery slope if laws are passed that require everyone to be vaccinated. I was recently refused as a patient by a doctor because I would not agree to be vaccinated.
    Back in the 1970’s I read an article, published in a national magazine, about coming vaccines and the danger they posed to the public. The article stated that the public would eventually be controlled by vaccines containing tranquilizers.
    Our government would not do that, right? Remember the black men in Alabama and other places who were intentionally given Syphilis?
    We need to advocate for freedom of choice if we want to keep our rights.

    Reply
    • Bill Bradford   March 8, 2020 at 10:46 am

      WTF?….”vaccines containing tranquilizers”? That’s bordering on pure pseudoscience. Vaxxes & “tranquilizers” are 2 completely different things. Any dose of a “tranquilizer” that could be given in a single vaccination would quickly wear off and become ineffective, if it “worked” at all!….

      Reply
  12. JL   March 7, 2020 at 4:49 pm

    Be very careful legislators!!
    Taking away vaccine choice for children today. Losing vaccine choice for adults tomorrow. No vaccines – no Medicare or Social Security for you!!
    It’s coming!!!

    Reply
  13. Carolyn   March 8, 2020 at 1:18 pm

    Great use of the story/analogy — Emperors New Clothes!! It’s so true!! Hoping people will start waking up and recognizing this truth.
    As a side note and mere personal preference, I’d like to see (and will wait to post on FB until…) another version of this article is written which collectively represents/summates ALL citizens’ foundations for resisting vaccines rather than posting this one which utilizes arguments primarily from Judaism (very good!! but I just think a broader approach will have a much greater impact on stimulating the public to think…).

    Reply
  14. Dianne Gill   March 8, 2020 at 1:33 pm

    Love this article. So much truth. I wish more people would take the time to understand the issues parents face when children can not receive a vaccine, when a parent feels the risk is not worth the shot, when they don’t choose the HPV & Flu vax bc of it’s severe side effects and death, when we oppose government mandating outdated vaccines…. I could go on about vaccine toxins and all the other disgusting things pharma use in vaccine ingredients, the fraudulent Pharma studies, the corruption & the strong arming between Big Pharma and government and the $$$ that’s used to sell our children.

    Reply
  15. Chris   March 8, 2020 at 3:15 pm

    I may be sending a copy of this our FORMER pediatrician, who writes on their website, that parents who don’t vaccinate their children are selfish!

    Reply
  16. Bob   March 10, 2020 at 8:53 pm

    I would another one to the list….the lie that vaccinated people cannot get disease or spread it….as disease has broken out in groups where everyone had the vaccine for the disease outbreak.

    Reply
  17. Heather Muller   March 12, 2020 at 4:41 pm

    I love this. Thank you for responding to the accusations so succinctly. The truth will prevail.

    Reply
  18. Jo   March 31, 2020 at 10:56 am

    BEWARE the (false) “Noahide Laws”. There is no such thing. They’re a dangerous fabrication and require death to “idolaters”.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.