Correction: Last week, in mentioning the smear attack by Root & Branch leader Abdul Hadi Palazzi against Rabbi Antelman, we referred to his attack as taking place on Monday, Feb. 6th. That was a typing mistake; the date was Monday, March 6th, the day before we published the newsletter.

"Issues of World War III" Survey

"What needs to be done to protect against the possibility of biological (germ) warfare?" Nobody liked any of the choices we provided to last week's question, so every single answer was some kind of "other." Answers covered the whole range, including uncertainty on how to proceed, calling for pre-emptive attacks on enemy nations, suggesting that all the options were insufficient, and declaring that all the options were completely unnecessary. Here are some excerpted comments:

• "First, we don't know what bio weapons the enemy will use, and second, if we know who did it we should declare war on them…"
• "Perhaps one [stockpiling vaccines] is a good option but it isn't enough. Action demands it and surveillance…"
• "There has never been any demonstration that biological warfare presents any significant threat.…"
• "Destroy the [source] of the potential problem, the communists of the Soviet Union and Red China!"
• "Do nothing! There is no significant danger of this type."

Factual Background:
The scenario seems nightmarish: germs, disseminated through bombs, missiles, or suicide terrorists, spreading diseases rapidly through crowded urban areas, leaving potentially millions dead within days. The horror of this picture has dissolved opposition that otherwise would have blocked the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) from establishing a semi-secret agency, the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS); the government from stockpiling of hazardous vaccines and "treatments" at enormous taxpayer expense; and the current Bush Administration from proposing the deployment of military forces inside the United States to neutralize local police and impose martial law.

Certainly, Soviet Russia has led the world in bio-warfare research, investing enormous resources in developing deadly germs for mass-destruction combat; evidence also indicates they've maintained their bio-warfare program right to the present day, while publicly pretending to have disarmed. The United States, in turn, has also researched such possibilities, mainly to try to develop vaccines and other counter-measures. Both countries' research programs have been highly motivated to produce results, and bio-warfare research dates back almost to the end of World War II. So by now, there should be a mountain of data on the subject. What have scientists learned in six decades?

The ultimate bio-weapon, of course, would be a germ genetically modified to be more virulent and deadly than in nature. Genetic engineering has been routine for decades, to the point that the genetic code of any bacterium, mycoplasma, or virus can be completely rewritten at will. I myself genetically engineered retroviruses using standardized techniques in my UC Berkeley research days, over a decade ago. In other words, there's no limit to genetic modification. But does it work?

In a word, the answer is no. It is an interesting but inescapable fact that genetic engineering always makes germs weaker, less effective, less dangerous than they exist naturally (ignoring some artificial experimental results that couldn't work terribly well outside delicate laboratory conditions). Any tinkering with their genetic code consistently produces one of two results: (1) the germ is rendered defective, or (2) the germ quickly loses its genetic changes, reverting in short order to its natural state (these results, by the way, seem to apply to all cases of genetic engineering, including plants and animals). To put it in another way, G-d gave each germ an ideal genetic structure for survival, and any changes only interfere with that ability to survive and grow.

That is precisely the reason that no genetically-engineered germs have ever been successfully developed for warfare.

Which limits us to naturally occurring bacteria and viruses. And that's where another hard fact of biomedical reality sets in: The vast majority of germs are utterly harmless and cause no disease at all, not even in unhealthy people. The relatively few germs that cause any disease grab all the attention, but they are a tiny minority. Why would that be? It turns out that it's not in a germ's survival interests to be deadly. In fact, the more likely a germ is to kill its host, the less likely it'll last long enough to infect another host. A parasite doesn't do well when it bites the hand (the host victim) that feeds it. Germs live a better life, so to speak, by living amicably with their hosts.

So even those few microbes that can cause disease don't do so in most people. Bio-warfare scientists have long been frustrated by the mildness of virtually all microbes. They've tried to adapt the flu virus, yellow fever, dengue fever, various forms of encephalitis, hepatitis, cholera, typhoid, dysentery, and many other disease agents for warfare, but all of these leave many infected people perfectly healthy, and even among those who do become ill, the death rate may be as low as zero (I say "may be" because one can't accurately measure death rates by examining only those people who report disease symptoms; those are already the most unhealthy people, and such statistics ignore the much larger number of people who don't suffer the disease much at all — meaning most "death rate" numbers are statistically inflated, and even those official numbers acknowledge the death rate among untreated people may be close to zero).

A tiny handful of germs are reported to have higher death rates, including Ebola, tetanus, and anthrax, but even those leave many survivors according to the worst-case estimates — and anyway, their "death rates" are grossly exaggerated by limited statistical samples. Anthrax is actually far more common than previously thought, infecting potentially huge numbers of ranchers and meat-slaughtering workers every year yet producing virtually no deaths at all (contrary to official statistics, based on admittedly poor data). Ebola virus has likewise produced a legend far beyond the reality; it may not be able to spread from one person to another, and it certainly doesn't produce the "mass hemorrhaging" (bleeding) colorfully described in recent books and movies, which have departed far from the original medical observations of the 1970s. Ebola may not be particularly dangerous at all.

So what would happen if an enemy power rained clouds of viruses or bacterial spores on a modern American or European city? At most, some small fraction of people would become ill or notice some symptoms, and most or all of those would quickly recover. There would be almost no death, and certainly no crisis. In fact, it's entirely possible no one would even notice any epidemic had taken place! And that's in the case of no treatment and no vaccine — neither of which would probably help anyway. The body's own immunity will generally take care of any potential problem.

Relevant Torah Principles:
1) While the Torah authorizes doctors to heal (assuming they use honest science and proper methods), it does not permit them to frighten patients or peddle pessimism. The Lubavitcher Rebbe would become quite upset with doctors who — to save their own skin from malpractice lawsuits, etc. — would give patients the gloomiest possible prognosis (an unfortunate standard practice these days by the medical industry). As the Rebbe forcefully emphasized, their job is to help the patient heal, not to scare the patient. This becomes all the more serious when considering the subliminal effect of negative mental attitudes on health; a pessimistic doctor actually endangers his patients.

2) The Torah also teaches that rulers who abuse their power for corrupt or evil purposes lose their eternal life (i.e., their World to Come). The Rambam (Maimonides), in his Mishneh Torah, specifically names gentile kings in this regard, indicating that this principle applies as much to gentiles as to Jews. This applies to political and administrative leaders who manipulate the public's fear to push their hidden agendas.

Analysis:
While exposure to virulent germs may cause a tiny number of deaths, for the most part, bio-warfare could never produce a real epidemic. It doesn't work, despite the best efforts of thousands of top scientists for decades. And it never will, given the reality of the fundamental principles of biology.

That means emergency measures to deal with biological warfare are never justified. They only cause dangerous levels of apprehension and fear, and could fuel a panic that would do far more damage than any germ ever could. It is not only unnecessary to stockpile vaccines and special drugs, to operate undercover surveillance programs, or to suspend the normal rule of law, it's downright hazardous — and thus forbidden by Torah.

Public Health agencies such as the CDC are mainly responsible for the bio-warfare scare, which they exploit to advance their Marxist objectives. Those agencies must be abolished and their advocates investigated and prosecuted, before they can cause an artificial disaster by fanning the flames of pointless hysteria.

And now for this week's survey question:

Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav/Serbian leader, has just died. Which side should America have taken in the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s? (1) The Serbians should have been our allies. (2) The Bosnians and Kosovans deserved our support. (3) Both sides were bad. (4) Other

Only one answer per e-mail address will be accepted; only e-mail addresses on our subscription list are eligible. Please send your input by Tuesday, March 21st, 2006, 12pm PST.

THE HALL OF SHAME…
Have Some Chabad Shluchim Betrayed Their Rebbe?

This week's example:
Rabbi Sholom Ber Hecht, Nat'l. Committee for the Furtherance of Jewish Education, Brooklyn, NY

Rabbi Hecht was presented our PLO-defunding Proclamation last July 14th. His response was, shall we say, dumbfounding: "It's against the [Lubavitcher] Rebbe's principles for Jews and gentiles to work together." With that, he abruptly refused to sign.

Against the Rebbe's principles? The same Rebbe who championed the campaign to recruit all gentiles out of their existing religions to become Hasidic Gentiles, to mobilize them to help bring Moshiach and the Final Redemption? The same Rebbe who forcefully taught that the transformation of gentiles is the main work of our generation, and who said that every gentile, like every Jew, is an emissary of G-d to bring the Redemption?

Which planet is Rabbi Hecht from? Or perhaps he's referring to some other "Rebbe" from some other place…?

Unfortunately, the reality is that Hecht is a leader in an organization that lives almost entirely by his fundraising, and he and most members of that group have been "refuseniks" who won't sign the Proclamation. His "National Committee" runs a men's yeshiva and various programs for Jewish youth, but Hecht and several of his fellow family members at the Committee, despite being nominal Lubavitchers, are more committed to their pocketbooks and their lifestyles than to saving lives or fulfilling the Rebbe's mission.

When the Redemption does come soon, Hecht will find himself in a most shameful, disgraceful position. But by then, it'll be too late.

…AND THE HALL OF FAME
Some Chabad Shluchim Are Helping the JAHG-USA Campaign

This week's examples:
Rabbi Yosef Yitzchok Jacobson, Chovivei Torah, Brooklyn, NY; and
Rabbi Israel Levinson, Oholei Torah, Brooklyn, NY

Rabbi Yossie Jacobson was shown the Proclamation on August 15th, and he signed immediately. He works as a supervisor/teacher (mashpia) at the high school division of the Lubavitch Yeshiva system.

Rabbi Levinson endorsed the PLO-defunding Proclamation on July 12th, when it was presented to him. He teaches as the Oholei Torah Yeshiva, a parallel system to the Lubavitch Yeshiva.

As Jewish religious educators, Rabbis Jacobson and Levinson put Rabbi Hecht to shame. They all work in the same field, so the only difference between them is the fundraising. Fortunately, Rabbis Jacobson and Levinson largely don't have to worry about raising money, so they can be more honest about their Torah obligations — and ours.

For a complete listing of all rabbis who have received our proclamation, the up-to-date status of their responses, and how you can get help the campaign, visit ATTAC Report at http://www.attacreport.com/plo/.

This week's edition of our sister site, ATTAC Report, presents:

• The story of the violent attacks on independent churches by the PLO — on Russian orders
• How a wave of infiltrators is subverting conservative clergy, and the surprise they're planning for unsuspecting religious followers
• Six more profiles of support organizations in the North American terror network

Send your letter to the editor to newsletter@noahide.com.

Be sure to visit our Web site, Noahide.com.