A bet against science

Cyia · Mar 20, 2015

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-vaccine-denier-20150320-column.html

So there's this guy named Stefan Lanka who has a habit of refusing to believe viruses are real - like he literally thinks they're psychosomatic. So a few years ago, he put up 100,000 Euros, payable to anyone who could provide proof that measles actually exists.

Another guy figures it's fairly simple to prove the existence of something that's been classified and studied for years upon years, so he compiled some data on the existence of measles. citing medical journals as his source.

Lanka basically plugs his ears and closes his eyes, pretending he can't see any evidence, but the doctor who presented the evidence took it a step further.

When Lanka rejected the evidence, Bardens sued. Last week a German court found Bardens' evidence persuasive and ordered Lanka to pay. He says he'll appeal.

I don't know where the case will go, but it seems like any blow to the anti-vac movement is a good thing.

clintl · Mar 20, 2015

That's hilarious. Good for Bardens and for the German court.

calieber · Mar 20, 2015

I can't imagine how to prove something to someone who is ideologically committed to rejecting all the evidence for it. What new evidence could one present for the existence of measles that is different from the currently existing evidence?

Sedjet · Mar 20, 2015

Infect him with it?

frimble3 · Mar 20, 2015

calieber said:
I can't imagine how to prove something to someone who is ideologically committed to rejecting all the evidence for it. What new evidence could one present for the existence of measles that is different from the currently existing evidence?

Once he's made a public offer of money for proof, and someone provides the proof, which a court deems acceptable, he has to pay up, or he's no more than a common cheat. His 'ideology' doesn't come into it. If he didn't want to pay the money, he shouldn't have offered it. If he had ridiculous hoops to jump through, he should have explained them clearly.

This may be a 'blow for the anti-vac movement', but, even better, it's bad for smug rich guys making promises they have no intention of keeping.

CassandraW · Mar 20, 2015

Belinda Rees said:
Infect him with it?

That's my vote.

blacbird · Mar 21, 2015

This is reminiscent of the not-enough-well-known incident back int he late 19th century, in which a prominent Flat-Earther in England challenged scientists to prove that the Earth was spherical. A large amount of money was offered as a wager. Famed evolutionary biologist Alfred Russel Wallace took up the challenge, over the objection of many other scientists, including Charles Darwin. The bet was to be settled by surveyors measuring the surface of a long straight canal. Glory be, Wallace turned out to be correct. The Flat-Earther promptly reneged on the bet.

It produced a bit of a scandal; the Flat Earther later wound up in prison for fraud. This episode is related in the wonderful book Flat Earth, by British historian Christine Garwood. It's available, free, on-line, should anyone want an entertaining read on a really weird historical topic.

c aw

cornflake · Mar 21, 2015

I don't think the anti-vax crowd would be affected one way or the other really. They get that measles exists - they just think vaccines are "poisons," "unproven to work," and "risky" because they may have side effects.

They also tend to be fairly well-educated themselves, just apparently prone to believing whatever nonsense they find on google or hear from someone on the playground.

It's like the reverse of that ad that was running a while back, paid for by the HFCS lobby, or whatever. It had a mother at a birthday party turning down some fruit punch thing because it had HFCS, only to be snidely challenged by the mother offering it, who went on a little rant about it's just sugar. When the refuser couldn't explain why she didn't want HFCS, the other one mocked her, basically, then she was all 'well, guess you're right!'

LittlePinto · Mar 21, 2015

I'm a sucrose fan myself. Two for the price of one!

Alessandra Kelley · Mar 21, 2015

cornflake said:
I don't think the anti-vax crowd would be affected one way or the other really. They get that measles exists - they just think vaccines are "poisons," "unproven to work," and "risky" because they may have side effects.

They also tend to be fairly well-educated themselves, just apparently prone to believing whatever nonsense they find on google or hear from someone on the playground.

It's like the reverse of that ad that was running a while back, paid for by the HFCS lobby, or whatever. It had a mother at a birthday party turning down some fruit punch thing because it had HFCS, only to be snidely challenged by the mother offering it, who went on a little rant about it's just sugar. When the refuser couldn't explain why she didn't want HFCS, the other one mocked her, basically, then she was all 'well, guess you're right!'

I don't like HFCS because our children's dentist, a researcher associated with major universities, hates it more than sugar. He told us it is tied to cirrhosis of the liver and other hideous disorders. "Children should not need liver transplants" is how he put it.

Two seconds of Googling finds reputable research supporting this: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100322204628.htm

regdog · Mar 21, 2015

Belinda Rees said:
Infect him with it?

CassandraW said:
That's my vote.

Mine too

A bet against science

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny

clintl

Represent.

calieber

Couth barbarian

Sedjet

Lurker Extraordinaire

frimble3

Heckuva good sport

CassandraW

blacbird

cornflake

practical experience, FTW

LittlePinto

Perpetually confused

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

regdog

The Scavengers