(B continued)
Indeed, Tatz is not demanding a court case in which the judge allows both sides to speak, but for lawyers and witnesses against him to argue on his behalf. Otherwise they are insulting Tatz and the objective mind.
Tatz also ignores the ruthless demonization and censorship of those who opposed the official narrative before any true debate could even be had. Incredibly, he claims the persecuted minority, desperately seeking to present their evidence and be heard, are the ones rigging the game by not bringing evidence for the establishment!
Tatz put a bow tie on the mind-bending diatribe with a comment that should win an award for smug hypocrisy: “You start with a prejudice and the evidence is against you, you need to be humble enough to say that the evidence suggests that you're wrong.”
Tatz then launched into story mode, distracting and entertaining his audience to cover for the weakness of his position. He does this frequently and remarkably well. He makes a highly suspect assertion, and before the mind can crystallize its discomfort with the assertion, he tells a lengthy story that demonstrates his broad knowledge, disarming his audience with humor and interesting but irrelevant details, and illustrates a very basic point that has little to do with his original assertion. It sounds great, though! So his audience is lulled into accepting the whole package.
Having assuaged their discomfort and disguised the fact that he hasn't really said anything of actual substance in 27 minutes already, Tatz can now take more potshots at the “conspiracy theorists”. He hasn't debunked anything or provided any evidence in support of his own position – just a smug remark about ten thousand doctors to ten – but the listener might believe he's learned something, which he can confidently parrot to others. Rhetoric and storytelling delivered with confidence can be very persuasive.
After bloviating about correlation not being causation, Tatz says this: “If every child who gets autism had a measles vaccine the week before, that proves nothing at all. Why? Because every child who gets autism will have had a vaccine the week before, because all the kids are getting vaccines. So the fact that a child got a vaccine, then got autism, that is irrelevant! You need to show me that the children who did not get the vaccine didn't get it, and those who did, did get it.”
This is one of the most outrageous, deceitful, unscientific comments I have ever heard, and it should immediately discredit Akiva Tatz irrespective of everything else.
First of all, if every child gets a vaccine, and a week later many of them develop autism, what person in his right mind wouldn't at least have a strong suspicion that the shot had something to do with it? What person with anything remaining of his soul wouldn't demand an immediate halt to the vaccinations until the matter could be thoroughly and transparently studied?
Second of all, not all children get the measles vaccine, not even close (thank God). There are control groups readily available, though the establishment never had interest in truly studying the matter, for some reason that is surely honorable. They probably don't want to waste public funds and people's time on something so unnecessary, right?
But Akiva Tatz pretends a control group doesn't even exist. “All kids are getting vaccines.”
What happened to all the anti-vaxxers people like Tatz love to hate?
Thirdly, the fact that some children took the vaccine and didn't get autism does nothing to disprove a link between the shots and those who suffered from them. This should be self-understood, and even Tatz will acknowledge this later on. No drug will have the same effect on everyone who takes it, and even a vaccine that causes a specific adverse reaction will not cause it in everyone who receives it.
But when it comes to autism, Tatz ridicules the notion that the measles shot could have anything to do with it, because not everyone who received the shot became autistic a week later, only some children. As Asher Weiss would say, maybe it was the cholent.
As for showing him that children who didn't take the shot didn't get autism, there's a mountain of evidence suggesting just that. Not from the powers-that-be, of course – they've never troubled themselves to study this – but from brave doctors and scientists who haven't sold their souls, and were treated by the establishment in predictable fashion.
This compilation of evidence – real evidence – says it all, though Akiva Tatz and his ilk have already waved it away derisively, and therefore we can just move on.
Now, Tatz had a logistical problem. He knows he's pushing the envelope and that not all his listeners would be taken by his rhetorical devices. This is where he goes from being more than just a shill for the establishment into something even more sinister: an Erev Rav distorting the Torah to force his Jewish audience into line.
He presents the case of a vaccine for dengue fever that would supposedly save the lives of 10,000 children per million who get the disease (ignoring the fact that there might be other options), but the vaccine would kill 1000 children for every 10,000 it saved. Tatz said he asked Rabbi Zilberstein (who promoted the covid narrative as well) what the halacha would be, and the answer he received was that the governments must give the shots to everyone (in other words, force people).
Why? It's simple math. We are injecting children with something we know will kill 1000 of them, but it's one tenth of the deaths we presume will occur otherwise.
This is outrageous. If a person is dangerously ill, and there is a risky treatment that has a 90% chance of saving him, but a 10% chance of shortening his life, it's a serious question whether we are allowed to administer the treatment. Every case must be carefully studied individually, for no two are exactly alike. Rav Moshe Feinstein in fact has many responsa that deal with such questions.
However, there are no grounds for injecting perfectly healthy children with something that we know will kill some of them for the speculative benefit of protecting them from an illness they might contract later on, and which can be deadly. We do not actively murder some children to save others.
That is not Judaism.
That's Molech.
Tatz says it's understandable that some parents could live with their child dying from an act of God, but not because of something they did. It's “a psychological issue. But it's not halachically valid.”
With one little anecdote, Akiva Tatz has just obligated every Jewish child to receive every vaccine the establishment decides will kill fewer people than whatever illness it is supposed to prevent. Parents do not have a choice in the matter (certainly the poor children do not). If they have a problem with it, they should see a psychologist. Everyone must play this macabre game of Russian Roulette, for the good of society. Some children will have to be sacrificed on the altar of science to save others from the angry gods of disease. The Torah demands it.
The priests of Molech would play music to drown out the screams of the children. Doing what's good for society should be a happy occasion, after all. The children being sacrificed for the greater good should really have been more considerate.
Nearly thirty minutes into this malarkey, Tatz finally makes reference to an actual Torah source – barely. “The Ramban, who was a doctor, said what heals one kills another.”
Well, duh. But the Ramban, who was a doctor, did not advocate giving potentially deadly treatments indiscriminately, let alone to perfectly healthy people who had no need for a doctor in the first place. The knowledge that what heals one person kills another is not a license to heal more people than you kill, or to invade the bodies of healthy people at all, but a warning to make sure that what you are giving the individual before you will heal him and not kill him.
Proper medical care is not determined by mathematical models and Molech-like “public health policies” but by treating each human being as a unique case and an irreplaceable life that cannot be actively harmed to save another. Hashem has many ways of removing a plague from society (and many reasons for bringing one in the first place). Appeasing the Angel of Death with 1000 sacrifices to spare 10,000 is not one of them.
Akiva Tatz was wise not to begin his lecture with this assertion. The audience needed to be primed before something so morally repugnant could be presented as reasonable and halachic.
Around the thirty-minute mark he says the following in reference to governments and drug companies:
“Just because those people have done nefarious activities in the past does not mean that they're doing them now. They may be, they may not be. And therefore we are basing ourselves on the evidence.”
So if Mengele and his proteges become your health officials, don't be naive, but don't turn into some conspiracy theorist. That wouldn't be objective! It's all about the evidence, and the scientific community has established safeguards against bad science. They have your back.
With a clever forking of the tongue, Tatz then downplays published scientific evidence. As he explained, a study showing wonderful results for a particular drug will be published, but this might have been a statistical anomaly. In fact, there might be nineteen other studies showing the exact opposite, but these didn't get published, “because no one wants to publish studies that don't show any results.” Hence, if you see a published study that favors a particular treatment (hydroxychloroquine maybe?), unless you're aware of all the other studies that weren't published, “this finding is irrelevant.”
Do you think his takeaway was to take all those overhyped studies favoring vaccines with a grain of salt? Don't be ridiculous. The point of this little lesson was to discourage people outside the exclusive “expert” club from thinking they can have an informed opinion – especially rabbis, and particularly rabbis who might discourage people from taking a vaccine.
The appropriate response from a rabbi when asked such questions, according to Tatz, is “Ask your doctor.” Rabbis can respond to “halachic questions” that pertain to risk, but not “medical questions”.
Of course, rabbis who believe vaccines are too risky, or that healthy people have no business running to doctors for medical treatments, are stepping out of their lane.
Tatz marginalizes the role of rabbis to such an extent that they are essentially beholden to establishment doctors, and apparently cannot even second-guess their medical opinions. This is a complete break from Jewish law and tradition, as I discussed in a two-part article called Trusting Doctors in Halachic Responsa (see here and here).
(continued)
No comments:
Post a Comment