German Court Orders Measles Sceptic To Pay 100,000 Euros

[Flagg]

BBC

A German biologist who offered €100,000 (£71,350; $106,300) to anyone who could prove that measles is a virus has been ordered by a court to pay up.

Stefan Lanka, who believes the illness is psychosomatic, made the pledge four years ago on his website.

The reward was later claimed by German doctor David Barden, who gathered evidence from various medical studies. Mr Lanka dismissed the findings.

But the court in the town of Ravensburg ruled that the proof was sufficient.

Reacting to the verdict by the court in the southern town, Mr Lanka said he would appeal.

"It is a psychosomatic illness," he told regional paper Suedkurier. "People become ill after traumatic separations."

A recent outbreak of measles in Germany has sparked a debate about whether vaccinations against the disease should be compulsory.

An 18-month-old boy in Berlin died last month of the disease.

The World Health Organization said it was "taken aback" by the 22,000 cases reported across Europe since 2014, urging to step up vaccinations.

Measles is a highly contagious infectious disease characterised by a high fever, a rash and generally feeling unwell.

The most severe cases can be fatal.

I love this story. Just the simple act of welching on a bet immediately makes this dumb murderous (maybe not legally, but I've no doubt he has blood on his hands) "Biologist" (if he got his degree in Germany whoever gave it to him should be shut down) lose all credibility to any reasonable person who may have otherwise been open to at least listening to him.

But the really funny part? I'll bet 100,000 simoleans that he didn't read a single paper Doctor Barden sent him.

But enough with the fun and games, I think the asshole should be stripped of his degree if that's in any way possible. Innocent people, mostly children who cannot be vaccinated for one legitimate medical reason or another, are being infected and in some cases dying because of ignorant rich assholes with the media access to spread their bullshit. Everything from celebrities, quacks like the above and even politicians (I'm looking at you Michelle Bachman) spread this shit around and in a lot of cases well meaning first time parents will not get their kid vaccinated simply because they've had the ever loving shit scared out of them by these charlatans.

And in America, at least, you can't shut them up because there will always be some assholes in the media who either buy into their shit or just want to gin up controversy and therefore ratings. And the FCC is more concerned with nipples and naughty language than stuff that is actually harmful to the public so it's not like they will revoke a stations license over something like that and even if they did there are plenty of cable shows for the whackos to choose from (FOX NEWS) and the FCC cannot do shit about it.

If I had my way we'd outright ban advising people not to vaccinate their children in public, but that pesky 1st Amendment that allows NAMBLA, The KKK, and The Westborough Baptist Church to exist stands in the way. Maybe in a few decades enlightened Supreme Court justices will extend some restrictions on speech to include hate groups and medical advice given by people who are not Nurses, Doctors, etc.

[Batman]

Measles. Something that has been proven to be a virus twelvety million ways from sunday decades ago.
Um-if it is psychosomatic, how exactly does it spread through mere physical exposure to an infected individual? *Jedi handwave* You now have measles!

[Grumman]

But enough with the fun and games, I think the asshole should be stripped of his degree if that's in any way possible.

He does not deserve his degree, but only because a biologist who does not understand that viruses and venoms are real things clearly has a substantial void in his understanding of the discipline, not because he's an antivaxxer.

Innocent people, mostly children who cannot be vaccinated for one legitimate medical reason or another, are being infected and in some cases dying because of ignorant rich assholes with the media access to spread their bullshit. Everything from celebrities, quacks like the above and even politicians (I'm looking at you Michelle Bachman) spread this shit around and in a lot of cases well meaning first time parents will not get their kid vaccinated simply because they've had the ever loving shit scared out of them by these charlatans.

And in America, at least, you can't shut them up because there will always be some assholes in the media who either buy into their shit or just want to gin up controversy and therefore ratings. And the FCC is more concerned with nipples and naughty language than stuff that is actually harmful to the public so it's not like they will revoke a stations license over something like that and even if they did there are plenty of cable shows for the whackos to choose from (FOX NEWS) and the FCC cannot do shit about it.

If I had my way we'd outright ban advising people not to vaccinate their children in public, but that pesky 1st Amendment that allows NAMBLA, The KKK, and The Westborough Baptist Church to exist stands in the way. Maybe in a few decades enlightened Supreme Court justices will extend some restrictions on speech to include hate groups and medical advice given by people who are not Nurses, Doctors, etc.

It would make more sense to just make the MMR vaccination mandatory until measles is driven to extinction, with no exemptions for "I don' wanna!" or "My imaginary friend doesn't like it!"

[Joun_Lord]

It would make more sense to just make the MMR vaccination mandatory until measles is driven to extinction, with no exemptions for "I don' wanna!" or "My imaginary friend doesn't like it!"

But....but my religious freedom and freedom to endanger my chilluns! That government shouldn't be allowed to tell me how to raise my kid, like what insane shit I feel his head with, make him a him even if he's biologically or mentally a her, snip his wang and his sisters clit, have prayer as the only medical care I'm willing to give, and endanger his life and the lives of others by not vaccinating him.

Seriously though, good luck making vaccines mandatory. I don't even think its mandatory in the considerably more enlightened and more willing to allow government intrusions (compared to proud patriotic government hating but Constitution loving Muricans) Eurocommieland. In the UK there was a crapton of measles cases popping up relatively recently and I'm sure there was more on the continent.

People will fight tooth and nail to completely fuck over their kids because some imaginary assbag or some balloon titted bimbo said so. People will do what they are already doing and continue to divorce themselves from society, homeschooling kids if not completely removing them from civilization to be free of "taint". Europe has the problem of Roma people (though their choice of living apart from society isn't just because they want to abuse their kids but from centuries of fucked up abuse that continues today) while the US has the problem of religiously motivated fuckknobs and anti-government wackjobs like Sovereign Citizens (total fucking wackjobs, look them up if you don't know them). Canada has.......well probably nothing, Canada is pretty perfect other then some of its guns laws and Justin Bieber.

The only thing society could do is take away these kids from their parents to put into the overworked and at times pretty horrific adoption/orphanage system and jail the parents in already crowded and definitely horrifying jails. Both would possibly make things even worse for society.

Clearly we need to build vaccine drones that go around and shoot people with vaccine darts to make sure we get them. If we can bomb some dude in a Turban in the middle of a sandy nowhere we can get Christian Wackjobs's kids in some cabin in the middle of a forested nowhere.

Not really but something seriously needs done to prevent these outbreaks to get worse.

Also, for those of you who haven't read about it check out Melanie's Marvelous Measles on google if you want your daily dose of RAGE!!!!!

[PainRack]

Singapore made the MMR mandatory a Few years ago in response to declining vaccination rates. despite the online disagreement, it got through pretty fine..

[AniThyng]

Singapore made the MMR mandatory a Few years ago in response to declining vaccination rates. despite the online disagreement, it got through pretty fine..

Well yeah but then again Singapore is not exactly "free speech is supreme, my rights trump society's rights"-land, is it?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Jesus, I didn't realise the number of measles cases was that high...22,000 across Europe since 2014.

At any rate, this biologist shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a lab, a hospital, or small children.

[Thanas]

A bit more background on Dr. Lanka:

He is indeed a biologist. But he failed academically in that nobody would fund his research. That is when he went crazy and went from "ordinary scientist" to "rabid anti-vaxxer". He also got mixed up in some sect-like pseudoscience, so he is now spouting this shit. I have little doubt that this is nothing but a real-life troll - the guy got his PhD for researching a virus. He full knows how a Virus works.

And that is the worst - he is exploiting the ignorance of his followers while knowing full well that what he is spouting is BS.

[Zaune]

But....but my religious freedom and freedom to endanger my chilluns! That government shouldn't be allowed to tell me how to raise my kid, like what insane shit I feel his head with, make him a him even if he's biologically or mentally a her, snip his wang and his sisters clit, have prayer as the only medical care I'm willing to give, and endanger his life and the lives of others by not vaccinating him.

That said, do you really want to live in a world where the government can force you and/or your kids to undergo a particular medical procedure "for your own good", whether you want it or not? I really don't want to combine that precedent with prevailing public opinion about the unemployed in this country.

[Lost Soal]

But....but my religious freedom and freedom to endanger my chilluns! That government shouldn't be allowed to tell me how to raise my kid, like what insane shit I feel his head with, make him a him even if he's biologically or mentally a her, snip his wang and his sisters clit, have prayer as the only medical care I'm willing to give, and endanger his life and the lives of others by not vaccinating him.

That said, do you really want to live in a world where the government can force you and/or your kids to undergo a particular medical procedure "for your own good", whether you want it or not? I really don't want to combine that precedent with prevailing public opinion about the unemployed in this country.

Would that be reversable sterilisation inflicted at birth until you can prove your ready and able to support a child? Worked with someone whohad that opinion

[Beowulf]

That said, do you really want to live in a world where the government can force you and/or your kids to undergo a particular medical procedure "for your own good", whether you want it or not? I really don't want to combine that precedent with prevailing public opinion about the unemployed in this country.

Would that be reversable sterilisation inflicted at birth until you can prove your ready and able to support a child? Worked with someone whohad that opinion

Currently technologically infeasible.

[Flagg]

That said, do you really want to live in a world where the government can force you and/or your kids to undergo a particular medical procedure "for your own good", whether you want it or not? I really don't want to combine that precedent with prevailing public opinion about the unemployed in this country.

Would that be reversable sterilisation inflicted at birth until you can prove your ready and able to support a child? Worked with someone whohad that opinion

Currently technologically infeasible.

But when/ if in the future it's not, it isn't a horrible idea in theory. The problems arise when you factor in things like race, wealth, status, and good old human nature. It makes things like genocide, the rich paying off unscrupulous doctors to desterilize their kid, even if they are mentally unfit to raise children or even too dangerous to be around them, along with dozens, possibly hundreds of other, less severe, but very serious social and human rights problems we have and haven't even considered yet far too easy to perpetrate.

[Flagg]

But....but my religious freedom and freedom to endanger my chilluns! That government shouldn't be allowed to tell me how to raise my kid, like what insane shit I feel his head with, make him a him even if he's biologically or mentally a her, snip his wang and his sisters clit, have prayer as the only medical care I'm willing to give, and endanger his life and the lives of others by not vaccinating him.

That said, do you really want to live in a world where the government can force you and/or your kids to undergo a particular medical procedure "for your own good", whether you want it or not? I really don't want to combine that precedent with prevailing public opinion about the unemployed in this country.

If it's strictly confined to vaccinations of children and/ or adults who have no valid medical reason not to receive them? You're goddamned right I do. And the Government has precedent on their side. Typhoid Mary being on the top of the list. But we're just talking about giving a child a little shot that will protect them and society from deadly diseases nearly wiped out until the anti-vaccination movement came bubbling up from the sewer, not isolating someone on an island for decades.
I hate to break it to you, but public safety trumps individual liberty every time. Or do you whine about speed limits and mandatory seatbelts, as well?

[Zaune]

Yes, but it won't necessarily be confined to mandatory vaccinations, will it? Lost Soal's example would be bad enough, but we've got the current government proposing to only pay out enough unemployment insurance to support three kids, and if you've got any more than that then it's your own problem if they go hungry. It wouldn't be a huge step from that to start introducing mandatory sterilisation on pain of getting kicked off welfare entirely. And then there's that UKIP guy who was talking about compulsory abortions for foetuses with serious disabilities lest they become "a burden on the state"...

You see why I'm uncomfortable with any precedent that undermines the right to refuse medical treatment "just this once because it's important"?

[K. A. Pital]

Have mandatory vaccinations led to horrible things in Asia? No. Case closed.

[Flagg]

Yes, but it won't necessarily be confined to mandatory vaccinations, will it? Lost Soal's example would be bad enough, but we've got the current government proposing to only pay out enough unemployment insurance to support three kids, and if you've got any more than that then it's your own problem if they go hungry. It wouldn't be a huge step from that to start introducing mandatory sterilisation on pain of getting kicked off welfare entirely. And then there's that UKIP guy who was talking about compulsory abortions for foetuses with serious disabilities lest they become "a burden on the state"...

Stop being an hysterical jackass. Stupid and/ or ignorant parents who refuse to vaccinate their children are a serious public health issue and as I've said before, public safety trumps individual liberty and no slippery slope fallacy can change that.

And what about the rights of the immune compromised children? Should they be forced out of school and back into fucking plastic bubbles, stuck in their homes with no personal contact all because dumbasses trust the word of bad actress and unfunny "comedienne" Jenny McCarthy over those of every Physician who deserves to keep their medical license?

There are also tons of cases where stupid parents allow their stupid children to stop Chemotherapy or Radiation for their perfectly survivable (with Chemotherapy and Radiation) cancer only for a Judge to step in and order that treatment be resumed. Which is another precedent where if a caretaker is monumentally stupid a hospital can ask a judge to step in and allow the trained professionals, not the 12 year old or anyone who would listen to and allow a 12 year old to stop life saving treatment. Which is of course much different from a 12 year old and their parent(s) decision to stop life prolonging treatment for a terminal case.

You see why I'm uncomfortable with any precedent that undermines the right to refuse medical treatment "just this once because it's important"?

No, because 1) It's a slippery slope fallacy and 2) IMO the precedent has already been set.

Now put out your hair and get those scalp burns looked at.

[Jaepheth]

It would make more sense to just make the MMR vaccination mandatory until measles is driven to extinction, with no exemptions for "I don' wanna!" or "My imaginary friend doesn't like it!"

But....but my religious freedom and freedom to endanger my chilluns! That government shouldn't be allowed to tell me how to raise my kid, like what insane shit I feel his head with, make him a him even if he's biologically or mentally a her, snip his wang and his sisters clit, have prayer as the only medical care I'm willing to give, and endanger his life and the lives of others by not vaccinating him.

Seriously though, good luck making vaccines mandatory. I don't even think its mandatory in the considerably more enlightened and more willing to allow government intrusions (compared to proud patriotic government hating but Constitution loving Muricans) Eurocommieland. In the UK there was a crapton of measles cases popping up relatively recently and I'm sure there was more on the continent.

People will fight tooth and nail to completely fuck over their kids because some imaginary assbag or some balloon titted bimbo said so. People will do what they are already doing and continue to divorce themselves from society, homeschooling kids if not completely removing them from civilization to be free of "taint". Europe has the problem of Roma people (though their choice of living apart from society isn't just because they want to abuse their kids but from centuries of fucked up abuse that continues today) while the US has the problem of religiously motivated fuckknobs and anti-government wackjobs like Sovereign Citizens (total fucking wackjobs, look them up if you don't know them). Canada has.......well probably nothing, Canada is pretty perfect other then some of its guns laws and Justin Bieber.

The only thing society could do is take away these kids from their parents to put into the overworked and at times pretty horrific adoption/orphanage system and jail the parents in already crowded and definitely horrifying jails. Both would possibly make things even worse for society.

Clearly we need to build vaccine drones that go around and shoot people with vaccine darts to make sure we get them. If we can bomb some dude in a Turban in the middle of a sandy nowhere we can get Christian Wackjobs's kids in some cabin in the middle of a forested nowhere.

Not really but something seriously needs done to prevent these outbreaks to get worse.

Also, for those of you who haven't read about it check out Melanie's Marvelous Measles on google if you want your daily dose of RAGE!!!!!

As I posted in a previous thread; the Supreme Court, in 1905, ruled that mandating a vaccine with no exceptions was within the government's rights.

[Joun_Lord]

But....but my religious freedom and freedom to endanger my chilluns! That government shouldn't be allowed to tell me how to raise my kid, like what insane shit I feel his head with, make him a him even if he's biologically or mentally a her, snip his wang and his sisters clit, have prayer as the only medical care I'm willing to give, and endanger his life and the lives of others by not vaccinating him.

That said, do you really want to live in a world where the government can force you and/or your kids to undergo a particular medical procedure "for your own good", whether you want it or not? I really don't want to combine that precedent with prevailing public opinion about the unemployed in this country.

When it is a proven benefit to the person and society at large, then yep.

I'm pretty weary of the government both as a former gun owner (former because I couldn't find the time or money to make it the range and my nephews and nieces are running in and out of my place too much for me to feel comfortable having guns even in a safe, kids will find a way to break that) and as someone who has had family members sterilized and locked up on bullshit charges but I honestly believe vaccines are one of the good things the US gubmint has done.

There is a considerable difference between ending disease that killed millions and crippled millions more and forced sterilization of poor people and the disabled (which motherfuckers still advocate for). Vaccines are the opposite of harm, vaccines save lives and ensure people who would be rendered sterile by some of the fucked up diseases that used to run rampant (and may again in the near future, thanks Obama..........I mean Jenny McCarthy!).

And I acknowledge such violations of individuals rights can lead to further violations. I've said as much about some gun bans, they will use them as a foot in the door to create far wider reaching bans. But like gun bans there needs to be some individual rights sacrificed for the greater good (for the greater good) and your own good. For the greater good we have automatic weapons relatively hard to come by and there are incredibly few instances of abuse of such weapons (probably because they are so expensive) though they can still be bought by people with the cash and ability to jump through enough hoops. However we have yet to ban super deadly baby skull seeking black extended banana clip assault weapons because many feel that goes to far into taking away individual rights with little gain. Just the same we are for the most part good with vaccinations but forced sterilization (unless you are a libertarian or Republican or a neo-Nazi fuck, inb4 why did I repeat myself 3 times) is considered for the most part going to far. Mostly.

Such sentiments can change of course but until they do I see no reason to stop vaccinating our kids and making our auto Uzis worth 10s of thousands of dollars.

[Grumman]

That said, do you really want to live in a world where the government can force you and/or your kids to undergo a particular medical procedure "for your own good", whether you want it or not? I really don't want to combine that precedent with prevailing public opinion about the unemployed in this country.

I want people to undergo this medical procedure for everybody else's own good. I want it to be mandatory for the same reason funding the fire department should be mandatory - because even if you don't give a shit about your own house burning down, fire does not respect lines on a map. Plus, I like the idea of driving another disease to extinction. When you exterminate an entire species it stays dead, which means creating a world where no child will ever need a measles vaccination.

[salm]

Yes, but it won't necessarily be confined to mandatory vaccinations, will it? Lost Soal's example would be bad enough, but we've got the current government proposing to only pay out enough unemployment insurance to support three kids, and if you've got any more than that then it's your own problem if they go hungry. It wouldn't be a huge step from that to start introducing mandatory sterilisation on pain of getting kicked off welfare entirely. And then there's that UKIP guy who was talking about compulsory abortions for foetuses with serious disabilities lest they become "a burden on the state"...

You see why I'm uncomfortable with any precedent that undermines the right to refuse medical treatment "just this once because it's important"?

I don´t know how it is in the UK but I think a lot of countries allready live in such a world. I mean, parents can be forced to have their kids get certain life saving treatments such as blood transfusion, even though some religions forbid such treatments.

[JediToren]

The eradication of smallpox required mandatory vaccinations in many countries, often over the protests of libertarians, religious groups, and the anti-vaxxers of the day. At one point, a nomadic Christian group in an African country was given an ultimatum of get the shot or be deported. They got the shot.

The real trouble with the "FREEDOM!" crowd is that they forget about the importance of being a good neighbor. When you live in a neighborhood with other people you can't get away with blasting heavy metal at 3am on a Monday, even if it's on your own property. The same goes for letting your yard and house go our having a rusted out old car in your lawn; It wrecks everyone else's property values. You have to be a good neighbor. If you live out in the boonies you can do those things.

Individual liberty must be balanced against the costs it imposes on others. If you want the freedom to say no to vaccines, then others must pay for that freedom with their lives, their fertility, and their physical ability. That is the inescapable conclusion of freedom from vaccination.

That being said, mandatory vaccination can be counter productive and shouldn't be seen as an automatic solution. I'm not sure what will solve the current wave of anti vaccination hysteria and get rid of these diseases again, other than a major outbreak/bio terrorist attack. The anti vaccination crowd is still in the minority. Unfortunately, it only takes a minority for a community to lose herd immunity.

[Elheru Aran]

Vaccines are one thing. They are a minor procedure; go to the doctor's office, get a jab, maybe feel a tad lousy for a few days afterwards but otherwise you're done. I am fine with mandating vaccines as a matter of public safety as that's easy enough to prove. Anything else, would be more difficult to prove the necessity of, quite rightfully.

[Edi]

Vaccines are one thing. They are a minor procedure; go to the doctor's office, get a jab, maybe feel a tad lousy for a few days afterwards but otherwise you're done. I am fine with mandating vaccines as a matter of public safety as that's easy enough to prove. Anything else, would be more difficult to prove the necessity of, quite rightfully.

You do need to take into account those people for whom vaccines are legitimately life threateningly dangerous. Most of them either have an allergy to one of the components (often eggs, as some compounds in vaccines are egg-based) or they get a severe reaction otherwise. An Australian friend of mine has five children who are unvaccinated after her eldest ended up in the ICU twice and nearly died and her second-born once due to allergic reactions to common vaccines. She quite understandably refused to run the risk with the rest of her kids, since that stuff is often genetic.

Which just makes it that much more important for everyone who does not have legitimate problems like these to get the shots, because herd immunity then protects the few who can't get them.

[Elheru Aran]

Vaccines are one thing. They are a minor procedure; go to the doctor's office, get a jab, maybe feel a tad lousy for a few days afterwards but otherwise you're done. I am fine with mandating vaccines as a matter of public safety as that's easy enough to prove. Anything else, would be more difficult to prove the necessity of, quite rightfully.

You do need to take into account those people for whom vaccines are legitimately life threateningly dangerous. Most of them either have an allergy to one of the components (often eggs, as some compounds in vaccines are egg-based) or they get a severe reaction otherwise. An Australian friend of mine has five children who are unvaccinated after her eldest ended up in the ICU twice and nearly died and her second-born once due to allergic reactions to common vaccines. She quite understandably refused to run the risk with the rest of her kids, since that stuff is often genetic.

Which just makes it that much more important for everyone who does not have legitimate problems like these to get the shots, because herd immunity then protects the few who can't get them.

In that situation, once the issue is determined, have a doctor's note for whenever the vaccines thing comes up. They can be the legit exception to the rule. Unfortunate if they *do* get something vaccine-preventable, but what can you do until they come up with an alternate version of the vaccine?

[Simon_Jester]

Yes, but it won't necessarily be confined to mandatory vaccinations, will it? Lost Soal's example would be bad enough, but we've got the current government proposing to only pay out enough unemployment insurance to support three kids, and if you've got any more than that then it's your own problem if they go hungry. It wouldn't be a huge step from that to start introducing mandatory sterilisation on pain of getting kicked off welfare entirely. And then there's that UKIP guy who was talking about compulsory abortions for foetuses with serious disabilities lest they become "a burden on the state"...

You see why I'm uncomfortable with any precedent that undermines the right to refuse medical treatment "just this once because it's important"?

The appropriate legal standard for use by the courts is whether the treatment inflicts harm on the person receiving the treatment.

Vaccines do NOT inflict harm; they inflict antiharm. They actively make it less likely that you will suffer harm.

Whereas sterilization inflicts harm- being made unable to have children is considered harm in tort law. An involuntary abortion inflicts harm- again, this is established in tort law. Surgery inflicts harm in general- there is always, always a risk of dying on the operating table.

While it is reasonable to require patient consent for a treatment that could realistically cause harm, when a harmless treatment is needed for public safety, that's different.

You see why I'm uncomfortable with any precedent that undermines the right to refuse medical treatment "just this once because it's important"?

No, because 1) It's a slippery slope fallacy and 2) IMO the precedent has already been set.

Now put out your hair and get those scalp burns looked at.

To be fair, it's a class of legal slippery slope that we've slid down before- mandatory sterilizations and abortions of 'defectives' in the name of 'public health measures' are a thing that has actually happened in real life.

Vaccines are one thing. They are a minor procedure; go to the doctor's office, get a jab, maybe feel a tad lousy for a few days afterwards but otherwise you're done. I am fine with mandating vaccines as a matter of public safety as that's easy enough to prove. Anything else, would be more difficult to prove the necessity of, quite rightfully.

You do need to take into account those people for whom vaccines are legitimately life threateningly dangerous. Most of them either have an allergy to one of the components (often eggs, as some compounds in vaccines are egg-based) or they get a severe reaction otherwise. An Australian friend of mine has five children who are unvaccinated after her eldest ended up in the ICU twice and nearly died and her second-born once due to allergic reactions to common vaccines. She quite understandably refused to run the risk with the rest of her kids, since that stuff is often genetic.

Which just makes it that much more important for everyone who does not have legitimate problems like these to get the shots, because herd immunity then protects the few who can't get them.

Also, if vaccines are state-mandated, then genetic or allergen testing for people who might have allergies to the vaccine components should be state-mandated and state funded.