Court orders anti-vaxxer to pay 100,000 euros after lost bet

[TheHuckster]

Story

TL;DR; version:

An anti-vaxxer goes the extra step to claim Measles doesn't even exist as a virus, and it's all psychosomatic. He offers 100,000 euros to anyone who proves him wrong. He receives a paper written by a doctor which does just that, but he considers the document to be insufficient. The doctor sends him to court, and they rule in favor of the doctor and orders the guy to pay up.

[fireheart17]

Ah I love the sweet smell of karma

One thing that's cropped up in recent weeks is the argument over whether homeopathic remedies actually work or not. One common complaint with that and with vaccines is that there has been (supposedly) no independently funded study into whether or not we actually need them.

My response to that has been "Some guy was able to crowdfund to have a potato salad party. Why aren't you able to crowdfund to hire a scientist, a lab and conduct your own damn studies?"

So far no takers.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Short answer:

The FDA's hurdles are enormous and no project is undertaken without massive financial support. That $55,000 from potato salad guy might not get you to testing. Tufts has the cost at roughly 2.5 million for one drug. Vasigel, essentially a chemical IUD for dudes is being largely crowd funded and that still takes for flippin ever. Multiple drug companies point to those roadblocks as reasons why their drugs cost so much. -End short answer

Homeopathic remedies, of which there are plenty of fluff, are also home to things like St. John's Wort which eventually gets found to actually be an anti-depressent. The industry makes big cash, but with no monopoly the companies that make them don't have the type of R&D budget to study and much that is tends to be superficial, marketing driven, or given back in price discounts. That almost always leaves it up to curious University types.

Those types of people could study those, or they could go after Pharma and they generally chose the latter because that's what Doctor's actually end up prescribing and therefore that makes it more helpful to a diagnostician. They are not incentivized to study homeopathy except by patrons that want a very specific answer and will scuttle knowledge of study if it doesn't say what they want.

I guess for me (having used both homeopathy and normal medicine), homeopathy is the land of snake oil, but it's also the land of a lot of remedies that are later vetted (specific use of Omega-3). It requires far more patient research, far more active engagement, and often worse results than Pharma. But at the same time, there are a lot of ailments out there that Dr.'s are shit at treating and lacking a better answer how to heal, they'll refer patients in that direction because help will exist, but none they can really prescribe and cover their ass if it blows up. That doesn't mean they don't realize it can help and many do.

[TheHuckster]

I guess for me (having used both homeopathy and normal medicine), homeopathy is the land of snake oil, but it's also the land of a lot of remedies that are later vetted (specific use of Omega-3). It requires far more patient research, far more active engagement, and often worse results than Pharma. But at the same time, there are a lot of ailments out there that Dr.'s are shit at treating and lacking a better answer how to heal, they'll refer patients in that direction because help will exist, but none they can really prescribe and cover their ass if it blows up. That doesn't mean they don't realize it can help and many do.

Certainly certain homeopathy remedies have some truth to it. Vitamin C and Zinc can boost your immune system, and there are other vitamins and minerals that are not only helpful to your body, but essential to be healthy.

But no matter how effective these remedies are, it's never going to be a replacement for far more effective vaccines, medical procedures, and clinical treatments. Boosting your immune system is great if you want to slightly reduce the duration and severity of a cold, but it's not going to eliminate the risk that comes with more dangerous illnesses like measles. They're called supplements for a reason.

It just boggles my mind how a parent can be so ignorant to, instead of following a trained doctor's orders to vaccinate their children, just give them supplements. And, of course, if the kid doesn't get measles, they'll use that confirmation bias as "proof" that it was effective. They call them supplements for a reason.

[Kaylyn]

Certainly certain homeopathy remedies have some truth to it. Vitamin C and Zinc can boost your immune system, and there are other vitamins and minerals that are not only helpful to your body, but essential to be healthy.

Except Vitamin C and zinc aren't homeopathic. They're active ingredients that do serve a purpose. Homeopathy is taking a substance that causes the same symptoms as what you're experiencing (example: caffeine for sleeplessness), diluting them to the point where there is literally none of the substance left in the solution, and then selling it as a remedy for the condition. Basically selling water or sugar pills as a remedy.

James Randi famously regularly demonstrated how worthless homeopathy is by downing an entire bottle of homeopathic sleep aids at the beginning of his talks and not even yawning throughout the rest of the presentation. Whereas actual herbal/supplemental remedies can and do cause toxicity when taken in that kind of dosage, Vitamin A being the most notable and common example that comes to my mind.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Yea, the Measles thing is definitely an outgrowth of the excess of not understanding something and then surrounding yourself with idiots or reacting against tone. Much of the loss of ground that occurred to the anti-vaxxer crowd was that the rhetoric for anti-vax was stupid, but the argument against pointed it out and it caused a lot of people to double down. Worse, it became Mothers against Doctors so you actually had this bs cloaked in feminist terms for a lot of people (hence a lot of them being liberal, not conservative.) The Doctor's were "ignoring" their studies and being condescending.

I'm not sure what else you could do, but how it got framed really helped f the whole thing up.

But as for ignoring a Doctor? I get that. Doctor's can be wrong. Doctor's frequently are when it's not the sniffles. Many Doctor's are not as studious as you might expect. Some spent that energy in school and in the intervening 20 years they've been practicing they may or may not have stayed current And many patients get impatient dolling out $150 per visit to different people for 3 dissimilar opinions. It's not an industry that coordinates care well if you have anything more long term or doesn't have simple mechanics like diabetes. So eventually you do have people who stop trusting the industry, even if that's not entirely wise. It's really a case where you're at the mercy of who you've had as a Doctor.

[Gravekeeper]

Except Vitamin C and zinc aren't homeopathic. They're active ingredients that do serve a purpose. Homeopathy is taking a substance that causes the same symptoms as what you're experiencing (example: caffeine for sleeplessness), diluting them to the point where there is literally none of the substance left in the solution, and then selling it as a remedy for the condition.

^ That.

St John's Wort, Omega 3, etc are not homoeopathic remedies. Homoeopathy is a specific and thoroughly discredited philosophy. It was criticized as complete bullshit from the moment of its inception. As in even people in the 1800s knew it wasn't scientifically plausible. There is no truth to homoeopathy. Zero. Zilch. Notta.

I think you guys are confusing it with holistic or naturopathic remedies. Which often rely on "natural" supplements before, in addition to or instead of regular medications. These are largely steeped in discredited bullshit as well but do have a "grain of truth" to them with stuff like St John's Wort, etc. The problem there is relying solely on these "remedies" and/or vastly overestimating their effectiveness compared to traditional medicine.

Homoeopathy however is pure, unadulterated snake oil.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Meh. I don't spend enough time with the labels honestly. I probably am talking about naturalistic medicine.

[Andara Bledin]

Homeopathic remedies, of which there are plenty of fluff, are also home to things like St. John's Wort which eventually gets found to actually be an anti-depressent.

Homeopathy is complete and utter bunk; anything that might actually work, is not homeopahty.

The odds of getting even a few molecules of the supposed cure after the dilution process is complete is so infinitesimal, you'd have more luck drinking untreated water. Any curative properties are entirely psychosomatic.

Not to mention that the theory is that if something taken prior to dilution would cause similar symptoms in a healthy person, then it would therefor treat those same symptoms in a sick one. How anyone can believe such a deeply flawed premise in this day and age is really beyond me.

You're likely thinking of naturopathy, which, while it includes shit like homeopathy, also includes herbalism, which is the thing that has a few actual remedies in amongst the hokum and superstition.

[s_stabeler]

It depends on the issue, actually. For instance, i got a nasty sunburn twice, and my mother got some "essential oils" (I can't remember which) which claimed to help with sunburn. What they did was soothe the burn (basically, they made it possible to wear clothes over the burn over the rest of the holiday. They did NOT, however, do anything about the burn itself, which healed over a couple of weeks.) so if you're using "natural" remedies for soothing aches and the like, they can be pretty effective- however, for anything that is an actual injury, sickness, or disease, I'd consult a doctor rather than try alternative medicine.

Another thing that I've noticed is that having a lavender diffuser in my room seems to have helped me with my sleep issues- but even if that had failed, I happen to like the smell of lavender anyway.

[AccountingDrone]

But as for ignoring a Doctor? I get that. Doctor's can be wrong. Doctor's frequently are when it's not the sniffles. Many Doctor's are not as studious as you might expect. Some spent that energy in school and in the intervening 20 years they've been practicing they may or may not have stayed current And many patients get impatient dolling out $150 per visit to different people for 3 dissimilar opinions. It's not an industry that coordinates care well if you have anything more long term or doesn't have simple mechanics like diabetes. So eventually you do have people who stop trusting the industry, even if that's not entirely wise. It's really a case where you're at the mercy of who you've had as a Doctor.

Diabetes is *not* simple ... there are multiple forms of diabetes, and multiple ways that your body can be going wrong - each patient is different. I don't even bother with an endo any further, my PCP is diabetic and has been following all the studies he can and is better than my previous endos. With most endos dealing with diabetics they want you to cookie cutter into one of a few profiles and as long as your a1c is roughly in zone they are happy - Doc C has me losing weight, my a1c is not only in zone but we are able to decrease my insulin as my weight is leaving.

As to simple mechanics - one med tweaks how my blood cells handle moving glucose around, one makes my pancreas work more efficiently, one tweaks how my liver is functioning and one now lets my body process the glucose out in my urine without cycling it back into the bloodstream. We have gone way freaking past the days when you just poured more insulin in to cope with the glucose.

[TheHuckster]

I think you guys are confusing it with holistic or naturopathic remedies. Which often rely on "natural" supplements before, in addition to or instead of regular medications. These are largely steeped in discredited bullshit as well but do have a "grain of truth" to them with stuff like St John's Wort, etc. The problem there is relying solely on these "remedies" and/or vastly overestimating their effectiveness compared to traditional medicine.

I stand corrected. That's what I'm thinking of. Though, there are still a lot of holistic healers who believe these kinds of products are alternatives to prescribed medications, even though while they might promote health as a supplement, could not replace clinical medication, especially for dangerous illnesses and conditions.

[fireheart17]

Short answer:

The FDA's hurdles are enormous and no project is undertaken without massive financial support. That $55,000 from potato salad guy might not get you to testing. Tufts has the cost at roughly 2.5 million for one drug. Vasigel, essentially a chemical IUD for dudes is being largely crowd funded and that still takes for flippin ever. Multiple drug companies point to those roadblocks as reasons why their drugs cost so much. -End short answer

Yeah, but you don't expect an anti-vaxxer to take those points into account right? Since after all, the FDA/TGA are "Big Pharma Shills"


(TGA=Therapeutic Goods Association, basically the group you need to get approval from to market your products as actually being medicinal in Australia. In theory, vitamins and homeopathic crap (genuine homeopathic crap, not natural remedies) are meant to be regulated too (natural remedies are already enforced) but in practice, they aren't until someone complains.)

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Well if you get right down to it, there is a debate that could certainly be had as to whether the procedures we force drug companies to adhere though are too safe.

That is, perhaps the cost would go down and more people would be served if trials required less animal testing and citizens were allowed to actually take on the risk of trials especially in the case of nichey diseases that don't really have great cures.

Absolutely more people would get hurt, but we currently consign people to die or poor health with these diseases anyway while waiting for elongated trials to occur. Perhaps a rational person would say, "yes I will risk death on the off chance that drug X will do what they're hoping it will."

Currently we deny them that option until some pretty severe testing has already taken place in multiple species of animal. I'm not positing a correct answer here, I'm just saying its sometimes taken for granted how much red tape we allow on the process.

[Gravekeeper]

Currently we deny them that option until some pretty severe testing has already taken place in multiple species of animal. I'm not positing a correct answer here, I'm just saying its sometimes taken for granted how much red tape we allow on the process.

Considering the amount of sheer unbridled fuckery American drug companies partake in even trying to get around the existing system? You should be thankful there's as much red tape as there is. That red tape is there for a reason. >.>

Oh, and for the record animal testing is not required, its just the most optimal method of testing without possibly killing people left right and center. Most drugs to treat serious illnesses also have serious and possibly life threatening or life long side effects themselves.

Its not the possibility that we're consigning people to die in agony. Its the possibility of consigning them to die in even more agony and with a false sense of hope.