In recent years, public discourse surrounding vaccines has become particularly charged and polarized. While some people categorically oppose vaccines, another group—myself included—expresses opposition to coercion, emphasizing scientific skepticism, critical thinking, and a demand for data and transparency. However, society tends to lump both groups under the same category: “anti-vaxxers.” This labeling is not only inaccurate but also harmful, as it leads to misunderstandings, demonization of legitimate opinions, and damage to public debate. In this article, I will examine the differences between these two positions, the errors in this faulty labeling, and the costs society pays as a result, including the return of “Bibi the Idol” as a political side effect of some of our votes for Omets.
The Differences Between Opposition to Vaccines and Opposition to Coercion
Opposition to vaccines is a position that rejects the use of vaccines on principle, often based on scientifically unfounded claims, such as belief in unproven alternatives. In contrast, opposition to coercion does not reject vaccines themselves but rather the way they are imposed on the public. This is a position that asks questions: Are the data presented to us complete and transparent? Are decisions made purely on scientific grounds, or are there political and economic influences at play? Are individual rights preserved in the process?
Those who oppose coercion encourage skepticism—not blind distrust, but a fundamental scientific tool that demands evidence and tests assumptions. They support critical thinking, where every claim is scrutinized deeply and not accepted as self-evident. They demand transparency—full disclosure of safety data, side effects, and studies—so the public can make informed decisions. This is not a rejection of science but a call for science to uphold its highest standards.
In contrast, opposition to vaccines often relies on emotion or misinformation, and less on rational engagement with data. The fundamental difference is that there is no necessary overlap between the two positions: one can support vaccines as a public health tool and oppose their imposition, just as one can support free speech without agreeing with every opinion expressed.
The Errors in Faulty Labeling
Society, the media, and sometimes policymakers tend to conflate these two positions under the label “anti-vaxxers.” This is a twofold error: first, it erases nuance, simplifying a complex debate into a binary of “for” or “against.” Second, it attaches a negative label—associated with conspiracy theories and public danger—to those raising legitimate questions.
This error stems, in part, from the human need to categorize the world into clear boxes. During crises, like the COVID-19 pandemic, the pressure for quick decisions heightens this tendency. However, the result is that those expressing skepticism or demanding transparency are perceived as threatening the collective, even if their intent is to strengthen public trust in the system. For example, when people questioned the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines or the confidentiality agreements between governments and pharmaceutical companies, many were labeled “science deniers,” despite their queries being rooted in real opacity.
This mislabeling also ignores the history of skepticism as a driver of progress. Cases like the thalidomide scandal in the 1950s and 1960s, which caused severe birth defects, demonstrate that questions and criticism of drugs or medical interventions are not inherently “anti-scientific.” Sometimes, they prevent disasters.
The Societal Costs
This mislabeling comes at a steep price. First, it erodes public trust. When legitimate questions are dismissed or silenced, and when transparency advocates are vilified, the public loses faith in health and government systems. Second, the labeling leads to demonization and social division. Those opposing coercion find themselves excluded from discourse, sometimes even losing jobs or social standing, as seen in cases of vaccine mandates in certain workplaces. This division not only weakens social solidarity but also hinders future cooperation during crises.
Third, the labeling harms science itself. When criticism is seen as a threat rather than part of the scientific process, science becomes a rigid dogma instead of a living, dynamic tool. Historically, scientific progress often stemmed from skepticism: Galileo, Copernicus, and others were considered “opponents” of prevailing views in their time but ultimately transformed our understanding of the world.
There is also a personal cost. People like me, who advocate for critical thinking and transparency, find ourselves silenced or attacked, sometimes even by friends and family. The feeling is one of alienation, as if demanding open discussion has become a crime.
Beyond the loss of trust, social division, and damage to science, there’s another soul-crushing cost: the political fallout of the November 2022 elections. Some 37,000 of us—like me, and perhaps you—voted for Omets, a party that fought for individual freedom and transparency. Our votes, a mere 0.7%, were enough to push Meretz, with 150,696 votes (3.16%), below the 3.25% electoral threshold. The result? The “left” votes were discarded, and Netanyahu—“Bibi the Idol”—returned to power, while the far-right sang victory songs.
We, who championed transparency and critical thinking without opposing vaccines, and some of us are now boiling with rage over this outcome. We’re truly broken by the disgusting hypocrisy of those now pointing accusatory fingers at us, as if we’re the ones who enthroned Netanyahu. Those self-righteous souls have forgotten how, during the pandemic, when we were banned from entering cafes or earning a living simply because we refused coercion, it was music to their ears—pleasant, cultured, “for public health.” They sat there with their coffee, reveling in our exclusion, supporting policies that trampled us, and now they have the audacity to cry over election results? They’re the ones who pushed us to the edge, turned us into public enemies, and then feign surprise that we voted for those who spoke for us. I’m not complaining about the situation but about the two-faced arrogance of those who danced on our blood and now play innocent.
How Can We Fix This?
To address this problem, a change in approach is needed. First, the media and policymakers must recognize nuance and stop conflating different positions under a single label. Second, full transparency is required—publishing raw data, open discussions on policy, and acknowledging that questions are not a threat but part of the process. Third, society must relearn the value of skepticism as a tool to strengthen trust, not something to suppress.
The difference between opposition to vaccines and opposition to coercion is fundamental, but society’s faulty labeling obscures it. This error not only distorts public discourse but also exacts a heavy toll: loss of trust, social division, and damage to science and individuals. As someone who believes in critical thinking and transparency, I call on society to stop the simplistic labeling and start listening. Only an open, data-driven dialogue can move us forward, leaving no one behind.
