Yerachmiel Lopin’s ‘Frum Follies’ Marks 10 YEARS!

The Frum Follies blog (started October 6, 2009) combats sex abuse in the Orthodox Jewish world using investigative journalism and hard-hitting satire.

Over 1,345 articles and 18,000 comments later, he summarizes:

… Most of the leadership of the Haredi world still covers up abuse way more often than they address it. They almost always deter reporting to the police and child protective services even though that is the single most effective way of preventing the same person from abusing again. They also discourage civil suits which would help survivors get some help coping with the damage. The Modern Orthodox world is definitely better officially in their positions. Additionally, it is rare for survivors who pursue criminal cases to be intimidated by expulsions from schools and shuls. Yet they too have a long way to go.

… Ten years ago, Avi Shafran was spouting nonsense about how child sex abuse almost never happens in the frum world. Now, there are many more programs to educate kids and parents about preventing abuse. Schools, shuls, camps, and youth groups are adopting some policies to prevent abuse…

Check out the blog here.

Mazel Tov. And please don’t stop!

Here’s Why You Can No Longer Find Home Remedies Online

Google Is Burying Alternative Health Sites to Protect People from “Dangerous” Medical Advice

For their unorthodox views, some physicians are being treated as medical heretics. Google’s search engine algorithm has essentially ended traffic to their websites.

In Ray Bradbury’s classic novel Fahrenheit 451, firemen don’t put out fires; they create fires to burn books.

The totalitarians claim noble goals for book burning. They want to spare citizens unhappiness caused by having to sort through conflicting theories.

The real aim of censorship, in Bradbury’s dystopia, is to control the population. Captain Beatty explains to the protagonist fireman Montag, “You can’t build a house without nails and wood. If you don’t want a house built, hide the nails and wood.” The “house” Beatty is referring to is opinions in conflict with the “official” one.

If you don’t want a man unhappy politically, don’t give him two sides to a question to worry him; give him one. Better yet, give him none. Let him forget there is such a thing as war. If the government is inefficient, top-heavy, and tax-mad, better it be all those than that people worry over it.

When making decisions, we often face conflicting theories. Daily, we face choices about what to eat. Although the government issues ever-changing dietary guidelines, thankfully, the marketplace supports personal dietary decisions ranging from carnivore to vegan. We are free to choose our diet based on our evaluation of the available evidence and the needs of our bodies.

When we face health issues, decisions become tougher. There is an orthodox opinion, and there are always dissenting opinions. For example, the orthodoxy recommends statins to reduce high cholesterol. Others believe high cholesterol is not a health risk and that statins are harmful.

Nobel laureate in economics Vernon Smith was taking a prescribed statin and recently observed the impact it was having on him:

In the last week I had a very clear (now) experience of temporary memory loss. I did a little searching and found this article summarizing and documenting the evidence over many years.

Smith continues,

Such incidents have been widely reported, but the problem did not arise in any of the clinical trials, but neither were they designed to detect it.

Smith had to weigh the purported benefits against the side effects:

Statin effectiveness in reducing heart/stroke events needs to be weighed against this important negative. Since I am actively writing, this is a primal concern for me, and I have stopped taking it.

A free person understands that there is no one “best” pathway. Although experts have knowledge, a free person takes responsibility, makes a choice, and bears the consequences. We never know what the consequences would have been had we made a different choice.

Some people don’t like to take responsibility for health choices. They prefer to do what they’re told by the doctor.

“Do you understand now why books are hated and feared?” asks Ray Bradbury’s character Professor Faber in Fahrenheit 451. Faber responds to his own rhetorical question:

Because they reveal the pores on the face of life. The comfortable people want only wax moon faces, poreless, hairless, expressionless.

Bradbury is reminding us that life is messy. Often there is no comfortable one-size-fits-all solution to the challenges we face.

Despite the evidence against statins, the medical orthodoxy would like you to believe that those who question statins are being hoodwinked by fake news. The orthodoxy wants you to believe there is one size for all.

There are good reasons to be concerned that we are losing access to information with which to evaluate opposing sides of health issues.

Duke University’s Dr. Ann Marie Navar is the Associate Editor of JAMA Cardiology. In her article, “Fear-Based Medical Misinformation,” she rails against the “fake medical news and fearmongering [that] plague the cardiovascular world through relentless attacks on statins.”

She writes many patients remain concerned about statin safety. In one study, concerns about statin safety were the leading reason patients reported declining a statin, with more than one in three patients (37 percent) citing fears about adverse effects as their reason for not starting a statin after their physician recommended.

Dr. Navar takes the position that concerns about safety are “fake medical news,” spread in part by ignorant patients via social media. Don’t worry, she counsels, reports are incorrect when they claim “that statins cause memory loss, cataracts, pancreatic dysfunction, Lou Gehrig disease, and cancer.”

Fake news? Dr. David Brownstein (no relation) disagrees:

The Physicians Desk Reference states that adverse reactions associated with Lipitor include cognitive impairment (memory loss, forgetfulness, amnesia, memory impairment, and confusion associated with statin use). Furthermore post-marketing studies have found Lipitor use associated with pancreatitis. Other researchers have reported a relationship between statin use and Lou Gehrig’s disease. Finally, peer-reviewed research has reported a relationship between statin use and cataracts. Statins being associated with serious adverse effects has nothing to do with fake news. These are facts.

To be sure, more physicians would agree with Dr. Navar than Dr. Brownstein, but should treatments be dictated by those on one side of the argument? After all, due to human variability, statins may both save some lives and impair or kill other people.

With some doctors questioning whether to prescribe statins for everyone, there is a large financial incentive to stifle debate.

Can you imagine a future government-controlled health care system, completely captured by the pharmaceutical industry, mandating statins for everyone? I can.

There are good reasons to be concerned that we are losing access to information with which to evaluate opposing sides of health issues, like the statin debate. Already Google is “burning” sites that question the medical orthodoxy about statins.

Mercola.com, operated by Dr. Joseph Mercola, is one of the most trafficked websites providing alternative views to medical orthodoxy. If I were researching statins, I would certainly read several of the numerous essays questioning statin use and the cholesterol theory of heart disease. Essays at Mercola.com usually provide references to medical studies. Personally, since Dr. Mercola sells supplements and I am a supplement skeptic, I read his essays—like I read all medical essays—with a grain of salt.

Dr. Kelly Brogan is a psychiatrist who has helped thousands of women find alternatives to psychotropic drugs prescribed to treat depression and anxiety. In her book, A Mind of Your Own: The Truth About Depression and How Women Can Heal Their Bodies to Reclaim Their Lives, Brogan reports that one of every seven women and 25 percent of women in their 40s and 50s are on such drugs. She explains,

Although I was trained to think that antidepressants are to the depressed (and to the anxious, panicked, OCD, IBS, PTSD, bulimic, anorexic, and so on) what eyeglasses are to the poor-sighted, I no longer buy into this bill of goods.

For their unorthodox views, Dr. Brogan, Dr. Mercola, and others like them are treated as medical heretics. Dr. Brogan and Dr. Mercola have documented (here and here) how a change in Google’s search engine algorithm has essentially ended traffic to their websites.

From time to time, Google updates algorithms determining how search results are displayed; there is nothing inherently nefarious in such actions. Google has achieved its market position by doing a better job than other search engines.

According to Dr. Mercola, before Google’s most recent June 19 algorithm update,

Google search results were based on crowdsource relevance. An article would ascend in rank based on the number of people who clicked on it.

After their June 19 algorithm update, Google is relying more on human “quality” raters. Google instructs raters that the lowest ratings should go to a “YMYL page with inaccurate potentially dangerous medical advice.” YMYL stands for “Your Money or Your Life.” Google says,

We have very high Page Quality rating standards for YMYL pages because low-quality YMYL pages could potentially negatively impact users’ happiness, health, financial stability, or safety.

Does that sound reasonable? If a site argues for treatments other than the medical orthodoxy then, by definition, the site can arouse readers’ cause for concern and, for some people, unhappiness. Do we really want Google to assume the role of Bradbury’s firemen?

Google wants to protect you from conflicting opinions. And if you don’t think that’s a problem, imagine sometime in the future when searching for information on monetary policy you only find results for Modern Monetary Theory.

Google thinks its intention to “do the right thing” is enough to prevent abuses; some Google employees would disagree.

Google is not eliminating access to alternative health pages; it is making it harder to find them. Typical health searches will still generate plenty of “facts,” just not conflicting facts. In Fahrenheit 451 Captain Beatty explains the government’s strategy: “Give the people contests they win by remembering the words to more popular songs or the names of state capitals or how much corn Iowa grew last year.”

Instead of “conflicting theory,” Captain Beatty explains the strategy is to “cram” the people “full of noncombustible data, chock them so damned full of ‘facts’ they feel stuffed, but absolutely ‘brilliant’ with information.”

Filled with “facts,” Captain Beatty explains, people will “feel they’re thinking, they’ll get a sense of motion without moving.” Beatty assures Montag that his fireman role is noble. Firemen are helping to keep the world happy.

The important thing for you to remember, Montag, is we’re the Happiness Boys, the Dixie Duo, you and I and the others. We stand against the small tide of those who want to make everyone unhappy with conflicting theory and thought. We have our fingers in the dike. Hold steady. Don’t let the torrent of melancholy and drear philosophy drown our world. We depend on you. I don’t think you realize how important you are, to our happy world as it stands now.

The only way Google will maintain its dominance is to continue to meet the needs of consumers. Whether Google continues to “burn” websites is up to us. Google will continue to sort out unorthodox views as long as “we” the consumer continue to rely on Google’s search engine.

From FEE, here.

You May Have Missed These…

On Erev Shabbos, our 5 daily articles didn’t appear in the newsletter for technical reasons.

Here they are:

The Shanda of JEWISH Illegal Aliens in America…

By Stephen Steinlight on July 22, 2011

The old leftwing weekly The Forward, like every national Jewish paper and virtually every regional or local one, adheres to the Jewish Establishment’s line on immigration, advocating an unspecified incarnation of the radically subjective policy termed “comprehensive immigration reform,” denoted increasingly by the less menacing-sounding, more user-friendly appellation “immigration reform.” Virtually identical robotized editorials appear ad nauseam in the Jewish press demanding the passage of “immigration reform,” arguing on the basis of the worst eisegesis, out-of-context and mistranslated quotation torn from Hebrew scripture, as well as allusions to “Jewish social values” as though that abstraction meant precisely the same thing to everyone and carried hard, fast and immediate policy implications reflecting a universal Jewish consensus. These astounding illogical leaps and arrogant assumptions are matched by a suffocating ideological conformity.

But The Forward evidently retains sufficient independence to wander off the reservation occasionally and publish a story dealing with a problematic aspect of immigration unlikely to originate elsewhere in the Jewish media: in this case the fact that several thousand illegal aliens who are Jews currently reside in the United States. Not only is the subject problematic, but the story paints a distinctly unflattering picture of the Jewish Establishment. Not, to be sure, for its being zealous in the pursuit of a bad cause, but for its own brand of hypocrisy with regard to a parochial but revealing aspect of the issue. To its credit, it should also be noted that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) syndicated the story, giving it wide exposure. “Undocumented Jews Live in the Shadows of U.S. Society: Not the Usual Illegal Alien and Off the Communal Agenda,” by Nathan Guttman is a significant piece, and not solely or primarily for what would seem the most obvious reason: providing readers knowledge they didn’t previously possess.

More than a groundbreaking news story, Guttman has written a thinly-veiled editorial, a terse, surprisingly sharp moral critique of the Jewish Establishment as a whole and perforce the organization historically deemed most responsible for protecting Jewish immigrants, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). Guttman indirectly berates them – showing as opposed to telling is invariably the more effective means of skewering one’s targets – for the political indifference to their own. HIAS has abandoned wholesale its historical mission by refusing to take up their cause of Jewish illegal aliens publicly and making them part of its political advocacy on immigration. This refusal is particularly telling in light of the fact that HIAS vigorously promotes the interests of every other group that comprises America’s vast illegal population, making an exception only for Jews while embracing groups with the highest levels of anti-Semitism on earth.

Though Guttman is too much a partisan of “comprehensive immigration reform” to make the point, the policy is a disaster for America and emphatically not in the interest of Americans who are Jews, as I have argued on many occasions. One would think the morally adolescent, universalistic, post-American Jewish Establishment must surely recognize this at some level, but in its complacency and blind fidelity to political correctness it ignores it, preferring its not-so-naive “disinterested,” and therefore make-believe higher morality. Its callousness regarding the Jewish illegal aliens is a species of the self-destructive policy they mistake for virtue.

The story thus constitutes a very welcome change from the usual Jewish media approach to immigration-related issues. It is not unsympathetic to the Jewish illegal aliens. But arguing their case is not what Guttman is primarily about. Rather, his purpose is exposing the remarkable failure of empathy of Jewish advocates of “comprehensive immigration reform” for other Jews.

Guttman telegraphs his message about this peculiarly Jewish psychologically problematic self-effacing or, perhaps more accurately, noblesse-oblige moral selectivity in the italicized words that conclude his title: “and Off the Communal Agenda.” The critique is all the more damning because of the reticent tone; the story’s compelling human-interest narratives; the comparison between the humane behavior of the those engaged in the charitable home visitation to the sick of the inward-looking, politically uninvolved ultra-Orthodox Satmar sect as opposed to the disregard shown by the well-heeled politically “compassionate” mainstream Establishment; and, finally, his rhetorical device of allowing the hypocrites to condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

There is also much in Guttman’s piece that is tacitly damning. For the Jewish Establishment figures he interviews — Gideon Aronoff, President and CEO of HIAS, and Melanie Nezer, HIAS’s senior director for American policy and advocacy — the story of the Jewish illegal aliens is of course not news. They have known about it all along and have consciously chosen to bury it. Aronoff, the Jewish Establishment’s “point man” on immigration, is evidently keen that this story is not regarded or allowed to emerge as an “issue.” Their various evasions, sometimes virtually incoherent, and senseless rationales are essential components of the indictment.

It is essential to bear in mind that Aronoff’s organization would never, could never, contemplate adopting so indifferent, nonchalant and disengaged an attitude when discussing Hispanic illegal aliens or the Somali refugees, whose highly-questionable resettlement in communities in the heartland suggests indifference at the highest levels to the strong Jihadist presence among that exists among them. The Somali resettlement is an important part of HIAS’s for-profit business; it is government contract work and not charity.

Even more shocking is its collaboration and joint ventures with U.S. Muslim Brotherhood legacy organizations. In a forthcoming piece, we will detail HIAS’s links, and those of Jewish fellow travelers, to such infamous organizations as the Muslim Public Affairs Committee and the Islamic Society of North America, groups whose agenda include proven material support to HAMAS’s annihilationist campaign against Israel, promoting the Islamization of America, and spreading Islamist Jew-hatred. The relationship HIAS has formed with these organizations is aimed at mainstreaming Muslim Brotherhood legacy organizations and increasing Muslim immigration to America.

Collaborating with those bent on destroying Israel and ridding the world of Jews and seeking to augment their numbers in the United States speaks volumes about the intellectual credibility and political and moral judgment of the Jewish Establishment’s “point man” on immigration. HIAS is not working on behalf of Jewish values or interests at all: it is a radical leftist organization disguised in Jewish trappings. As previously noted, in addition to heading HIAS, Aronoff is the current Chair of the National Immigration Forum, an organization whose meetings I attended during my years in the Jewish Establishment. I can personally attest to the extreme views of the representatives of its member organizations, their collective loathing for America, and their common espousal of the most aggressive forms of racial/ethnic identity politics. I do not use the term “anti-American” lightly given the abuse to which it is subject, but no term better describes the National Immigration Forum. Aronoff’s leadership of that body provides further evidence he is a doctrinaire leftist disguised in Jewish trappings.

The sole person working for the Jewish Establishment whom Guttman interviews that comes across as sympathetic is Angela Task, a social worker with the Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty, who counsels Israeli illegal aliens who come to her office in Brooklyn for help and is not primarily a political actor.

Who are these Jewish illegal aliens and how many are there? Guttman tells us that not enough is known about this underground world to posit a more precise guesstimate than stipulating it totals “some thousands,” but he offers a clearer view of its sociological makeup. While all those he discusses come from Israel, they belong to three separate and distinct groups:

  • Opportunistic Russians with some Jewish blood who settled in Israel unenthusiastically during the mass exodus from the former Soviet Union but wished to come to America in the first place and then entered illegally and remained, many for decades, seeking the material advantages that drives most others;
  • Ultra-Orthodox Jews who desire to live in the American enclaves of their respective sects and remain, and, as they used to say in the ads for Hebrew National hot dogs “they obey a higher authority;”
  • Young Israelis in their twenties, most of whom recently completed military service and traveled to South America, a favorite destination for many (along with South East Asia). After spending some months there they head to the U.S. to work illegally to pay for their globe-trotting before returning home. Few members of this group plan to remain for long in the U.S., but those that try quickly discover that the poor economy offers few opportunities and they are also unprepared for the what one characterizes as the “unhelpful” attitude of the Israeli expatriate community and adds, “that the broader American Jewish community is ‘very closed.”

It would appear that far from having been persuaded by the ceaseless harangues from the pulpit by the leftist rabbinate to “love the stranger,” these prosaic, law-abiding American Jews are no more thrilled by illegal immigration from Israel than they are from Mexico or Guatemala. If, to cite Guttman’s opening, many American Jews are reportedly “ashamed” of illegal aliens who are Jewish, so are many Americans of Hispanic heritage of Hispanic illegal aliens who have stigmatized the larger Hispanic community.

One commonality among the heterogeneous Israelis is that all enter on legal visas and then overstay them, disappearing into America like 40-45% of all other illegal aliens. Other common characteristics and experiences are not only shared by the Israeli illegals (most of all for the older Russians) but by the more typical illegal aliens from Mexico and central America: poor language skills, lack of employment opportunities aggravated not only by the present deep recession but the language issue previously cited and outmoded or non-existent skill sets, and their being preyed upon by unethical immigration lawyers who promise everything and deliver nothing.

The Forward’s piece is not without a modicum of comic relief, though the humor is unconscious. We learn the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv has begun an ad campaign, complete with a menacing video clip, to deter young Israelis from entering the U.S. illegally. The video includes testimonies by young Israeli illegal aliens caught by law enforcement who describe what it is like to spend time in a U.S. prison before being deported.

Of course no one should enter the U.S. in violation of our laws; take scarce jobs from Americans suffering the worst unemployment since the Great Depression; enjoy public benefits gratis; then commit the ancillary crimes required to remain undetected, including identity theft, the use of false driver’s licenses, lying to law enforcement and employers; and contributing to the wholesale violation of the rule of law and the outrageous devaluation of American sovereignty.

No one is suggesting that Israelis get a pass, and if the ad campaign acts as a deterrent, fine and well. But does the minuscule percentage of illegal aliens who are Israeli justify the need for a campaign of deterrence? One cannot help but wonder whether the State Department conducts such campaigns and produces similar videos for Mexican and Central American audiences. What about the many Muslim countries not on the risible absurd “terror watch list” whose regimes are putatively “friendly” but whose populations hate America, like virtually all the mass murderers of 9/11 who came from our “good friend” Saudi Arabia? If not, and one suspects that’s the case, this Israeli campaign amounts to a bad joke that leaves one wondering about the mindset of the people at State.

Continue reading…

From The Center for Immigration Studies, here.

Gedolim Oppressing the Orphan (TRUE STORY by Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn Shlita)

A true story of how gedolim dealt improperly with a pedophile

I recently met with some rabbis who have had extensive experience dealing with abuse issues in the frum community. The following is one of the stories that they told me regarding rabbinic incompetence dealing with abuse. The incompetent rabbis that were described are not community or shul rabbis but are genuine gedolim They had sufficient funds and access to experts who would have informed them that they should have called the police. However, they relied on their own judgment and a disaster resulted. This is the story – with identifying details removed.

There was a promising bochur. He was intelligent and diligent in his studies and handsome. He also had good midos and came from a distinguished family. He had only one problem – he was a pedophile. He had abused over a hundred children by the time he was 24 years old. When this was brought to the attention of seniors rabbis at the major yeshiva where he studied, they came up with what they thought was a brilliant solution to his problem. They arranged and encouraged a match with an orphan girl. It was the perfect match they thought. She got a real catch and he would now be able to manage his sexual appetite with his wife – rather than with little children. They picked an orphan because she would not be able to do serious background checking and would have to rely on the advice of these gedolim.  Of course she wasn’t told about his problem – after all, that would be lashon harah. Since they “knew” that the problem would be solved by marriage there obviously wasn’t any reason to mention to her that this young man had destroyed the life of 100 children. They also didn’t bother checking with a psychologist with expertise with pedophiles – after all, what does a psychologist know?

Of course, the young lady was ecstatic that gedolim had taken such a personal interest in her and she was overwhelmed with gratitude that the great men had devoted time and energy for her – a nobody but with a lot of emunas chachomim. It was just like the Artscroll stories that she read every Shabbos about great tzadikim. The marriage seemed to be in fact the solution to the problem. The young couple was very happy They eventually had several children. Unfortunately, however, the young man still had his perverted lusts which did not go away with marriage. This was something that anybody with even a minimum knowledge of pedophiles would have predicted.

Periodically there were rumors of his activity but his wife didn’t understand why she was treated coldly by the neighbors. The senior rabbis suggested that they move to Brooklyn where they would be able to start life fresh. The wife still didn’t know her husband’s problem – but the new neighbors did not know either because the rabbis knew that if they informed anybody the young couple would not get a chance for a new life.  Unfortunately, the change of neighborhood did not help his condition.  This time however she found out the hard way – by a visit from the police who were investigating charges against him for abusing children. As you may imagine she was traumatized. Not only was her husband a destroyer of children, but she had been betrayed by gedolim. In addition, she feared for the safety of her own children. But what could she do – she had no family or friends and she had no money to pay for advice or a divorce.

Fortunately, the rabbi who told me about this tragedy found out about this horror story and successfully raised money for the divorce. He even got one of the gedolim to write a letter to aid in fundraising because that gadol humbly acknowledged that he had made a serious mistake!