The pandemic has undoubtedly been the hottest news subject for the last year and a half and for almost that long, I have refrained from writing about it. Until now.

I am not a physician or epidemiologist. Even if I was, the data and facts are so complicated. And even if I could understand the literature, the obfuscation and censorship are so extreme that I would not trust my own conclusions. And that is precisely the issue I would like to address. 

I did cover the pandemic when it first broke. I wrote an article about the theory that the virus originated in the Wuhan Virology Institute. The theory seemed more than plausible since, well, the Wuhan lab was known to be working on a coronavirus and there was sufficient criticism of their safety procedures. Envisioning Chinese biting the heads off bats in the Wuhan wet market appealed to my lower instincts but it was clearly an insufficient explanation for the origins of a global pandemic. But the ensuing censorship was overwhelming. There were even scientific journals that gave highly technical explanations as to why the virus was naturally occurring and could not have been genetically modified.

But at the time I wondered, why would the scientists refute a claim that was not being made. Even before the claim that the virus was manufactured loomed suspicions of a virus grown in a lab. So the experts claimed the theory was debunked, the mainstream media ridiculed anyone who inquired, and the internet companies erased any online discussions.

Still, I wondered.

And then, I wrote an article about a company developing a UV light intubation treatment that had been referenced by President Trump in a press event.  Critics of the president responded that neither UV nor antiseptics were being used internally. I wrote an article about the device being developed by Aytu Biotech. The CEO of Aytu, posted an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal, confirming that his company’s social media and videos had indeed been censored immediately after the president’s remarks.

And then the Lancet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, published an article showing research and data discrediting hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID. An investigation by The Guardian revealed that the data had been fabricated by the US company Surgisphere,  a healthcare analytics company. The New England Journal of Medicine also retracted a paper based on the Surgisphere database. The retractions were given substantially less media coverage than the original bunk research. 

And then the publisher of Israel365 News made an editorial decision. Google analytics was showing a drastic drop in views for our site over a three-month period. We decided that our main goals of reporting the unfolding redemption and connecting pro-Israel Christians to the Holy Land were far too important to endanger the site reporting on a subject that was not really our purview. 

More than a year has passed and we are convinced that the drop in site views is entirely due to prejudicial algorithms. Our site supports right-wing causes and enthusiastically praised Trump for his pro-Israel agenda. It now seems clear that it is precisely those views that led us to be targeted by the internet companies and not only our reporting on the coronavirus. 

So after one year of intentionally avoiding the biggest issue of our era, I am no longer sure that sitting on the fence about the pandemic is valid. That is an editorial decision and is still being considered.

But I would like to make my personal position clear. As I stated above, I am not qualified to make a judgment about the vaccine. I do not advocate for the vaccine or against it. I believe every person should decide for themselves. My personal medical history is personal and I refuse to say whether or not I have been vaccinated. 

That being said, I am passionate about freedom of speech. I am shocked at the level of censorship but I am truly horrified at the people who call for even more censorship in the name of public safety. If there is misinformation being disseminated, the solution is more information. Censorship is the tool of authoritarians. It is the signpost that shows where fascism lies. 

And science is based on questions and answers. There are too many basic questions that are forbidden.  Where did the virus originate? Why are the vaccinated endangered by the unvaccinated? Why is a booster required every few months? Why is a booster of precisely the same vaccine needed for a new variant? Why must children, a demographic that is relatively untouched by the disease, being vaccinated? Where are the studies comparing natural immunities to the vaccine? Is the Pfizer vaccine really the best option?

There is only one vaccine in medical history that if you have had the disease and have natural antibodies and immunity, the vaccine is required. There is only one vaccine that after you get it, you are considered to be at risk from the unvaccinated. There is only one vaccine that requires a booster every five months. There is only one disease that the healthy are quarantined. There is only one pandemic for which an investigation into its origins is suppressed by the government. There is only one health issue that any opinion that is not identical to the government opinion is censored or removed from public discourse.

The pro-vaccine powers-that-be are puzzled by the people who reject the vaccine. What they fail to understand is that many people oppose coercion and propaganda. Heavier control of the dialogue and more mandates will only increase the opposition. Reason and logic based on a narrative that has been manipulated will never convince. It merely increases mistrust, the main source of opposition to the vaccine. Approximately 70% of black Americans refuse to be vaccinated precisely because as a demographic, they have ample historical reasons to mistrust the “establishment.”

I don’t “know” about the vaccine but I certainly have a lot of questions. At this point, I feel that dialogue, open, unrestricted, and non-coercive is the answer.

If you have read this far, I would like to express what has been my guiding principle. Though it may be a bit complicated, I think it is well worth the effort. If there were two unsourced opinions about a halacha (law) in the Talmud, preference was given to the more lenient position, the rule. It was understood that a person did not need a reason or a source to be strict in his own actions but a person would need a reason to be lenient. A person could take an oath to not eat chicken and for him, chicken would be as unkosher as pork. This would have no relevance for anyone else and could not be brought as halachic proof. Alternatively, if a God-fearing person said that a specific food was kosher, it is understood that he has sufficient cause to say this and would not just assume or mislead others. Unfortunately, as the halacha process progressed through the ages, this axion transformed into a preference for stringency even if there was no clear reason to be stringent.

I think this can be applied to the current situation. If a person wants to be strict with himself (i.e. vaccinate or wear a mask) he is perfectly entitled to do so. But until there is definitive proof that can establish this for others, the lenient positions are the default. Until masks can be proven definitively to effectively reduce the spread of the virus, the individual can choose to wear one but may not enforce it on others. Enforcing business closures as well. Regarding the vaccine, there may be a stronger case to enforce it but that has even greater dangers. The pandemic has been politicized and this is scary. Making medical procedures part of a political agenda and using “science” as “proof” for a political agenda has terrifying precedents.