Can Misinformation During a Health Crisis Be Considered Criminal?

[jim mcnamara]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50682881

A leading Samoan critic of vaccinations who claims Vitamin C will cure measles was arrested in Samoa. There is a measles epidemic there, as of this post there have been 63 fatalities which were directly asttributed to measles infections, mostly in small children.

So, is this like the laws in some US cities against yelling 'Fire' in a jammed assembly - like a movie theater? When your opinion or sense of humor actively causes severe harm...

 

[fresh_42]

Maybe to protect him from the parents of these 63.

If Samoa made vaccination compulsory and he calls publically to break this law, then a charge with incitement against a government order seems logical. Compulsory would otherwise be meaningless.You cannot run around and call on people to commit homicide either. And this is ipso facto the same thing.

 

[phinds]

I agree w/ @fresh_42. Ignorance of science is no excuse for promoting death and that's what this guy is doing and that would be true even if they had not made vaccination compulsory.

 

[fresh_42]

Another article:

The Measles Epidemic in Samoa Is So Bad, Unvaccinated Homes Are Being Marked With Red

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-me...-unvaccinated-homes-are-being-marked-with-red

 

[Evo]

It's so hard for me to even wrap my head around how people can be so stupid, but I see it all of the time, some people are willing to readily accept false information over scientifically and medically proven information.

There was a vegan ranting online the other day that animals don't naturally contain vitamin B12, that they are fed supplements of B12 that artificially get into the meat. He said that the majority of doctors and scientists agree that veganism is the healthiest diet, and he learned this by doing research. I wanted to ask if his research was done on a vegan website.

 

[fresh_42]

It's so hard for me to even wrap my head around how people can be so stupid

I met a homeopath who wanted to cure her nephew's diabetes I with homeopathic means ...

I wonder whether those people refuse polio and tetanus vaccination, too?

 

[Evo]

I met a homeopath who wanted to cure her nephew's diabetes I with homeopathic means ...

I wonder whether those people refuse polio and tetanus vaccination, too?

Perhaps they get homeopathic vaccinations?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Hear about the homeopath who overdosed on his medication? He forgot to take it.

I have a problem prosecuting people for saying stupid things. I also have a problem when this is done to some clown on Facebook, and not celebrities.

I have no problem prosecuting people for practicing medicine without a license.

 

[WWGD]

It seems like Africa's Congo Kinshasa is also having a measles crisis , together with anti-vaxx ( mostly foreign) morons. It seems 1164 related deaths since September.

 

[Ibix]

Hear about the homeopath who overdosed on his medication? He forgot to take it.

To quote the comedian Andy Parsons: Homeopathic cold remedy! Side effects: none. Main effects: none...

 

[Evo]

I have no problem prosecuting people for practicing medicine without a license.

Well, he was giving medical advice to treat measles with Vitamin C and papaya and medical advice against vaccines. He was giving medical advice, he doesn't have a license.

 

[fresh_42]

have a problem prosecuting people for saying stupid things.

I don't. There are limits. The German lawyers drew the line when people are directly addressed to believe in such lies for political reasons. We call it "Volksverhetzung". It is mainly meant not to allow holocaust deniers. One of the lessons we had to learn from the Weimar republic, which had a far more liberal constitution. A constitution which led us directly into the known last century's catastrophe. Liberty ends at the point when it affects others'.

 

[256bits]

Well, he was giving medical advice to treat measles with Vitamin C and papaya and medical advice against vaccines. He was giving medical advice, he doesn't have a license.

That is a tricky subject - practicing medicine and medical advice - medical advice being in more of a grey area.

Isn't medical advice particular to the licensed physician/patient interaction.
If he said he was a doctor then that would be along the lines of malpractice if he was advising a particular person.

Magazines, your friends, websites, people mouthing off, would all have to be engaging in giving medical advice if t hey tell you to take vitamin C for your cold.
Because the "illness" is measles does that change the very loose definition of medical advice.

 

[fresh_42]

That is a tricky subject - practicing medicine and medical advice - medical advice being in more of a grey area.

It's not the medical advice in this case:

If Samoa made vaccination compulsory and he calls publically to break this law, then a charge with incitement against a government order seems logical.

You cannot run around and tell people to break laws. They do their best to protect everyone and around comes dumb joe and tells them not to take measures? This is a case of emergency, and there is no time to pamper morons.

 

[256bits]

It's not the medical advice in this case:

You cannot run around and tell people to break laws. They do their best to protect everyone and around comes dumb joe and tells them not to take measures? This is a case of emergency, and there is no time to pamper morons.

I had heard of the measles in Congo, but not Samoa until this post.

Civil disobedience and inciting others to do the same.
Never said it wasn't.
His individual rights of expressing his opinion blunted up against the collective rights of society.
He should face it he screwed up by being a cocky duffness.
It must be tough is these places when the naysayers try to get a hold on the population ( ie anti-vaxers moving in ), gives me a creepy feeling, like vultures circling overhead waiting ready for prey.

 

[fresh_42]

There was another obvious solution: give the man a jar of vitamin C ($2) and lock him up with a measles patient for two hours. Problem solved.

 

[Evo]

That is a tricky subject - practicing medicine and medical advice - medical advice being in more of a grey area.

Isn't medical advice particular to the licensed physician/patient interaction.
If he said he was a doctor then that would be along the lines of malpractice if he was advising a particular person.

Magazines, your friends, websites, people mouthing off, would all have to be engaging in giving medical advice if t hey tell you to take vitamin C for your cold.
Because the "illness" is measles does that change the very loose definition of medical advice.

According to the article

Mr Tamasese had spoken out against vaccines on Facebook, instead promoting using ineffective remedies such as papaya leaf extract to treat the deadly illness.
Before his arrest, he had described the government's mass vaccination programme as "the greatest crime against our people", and falsely claimed vitamin C could cure the infected children.

He wasn't impersonating a doctor but giving out false medical advice, apparently to a large enough audience and causing enough people to take his advice to be noticed by the authorities.

I was just putting it forth to V50, that I feel it's similarly bad, although you can practice medicine without a license and cause no harm, this guy IS causing harm.

It's why we do not allow people to give medical advice on PF. You do not know what even the most seemingly innocent advice can be harmful or deadly to people you do not know.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would argue that he is practicing medicine without a license. I am more comfortable prosecuting someone for that than for saying something that the government doesn't like (and yes, I know that in most of the world that's reason enough for prison or worse). For example, "Virodene doesn't cure AIDS" is a medical fact, but at one time contrary to the position of the RSA government.

 

[fresh_42]

I am more comfortable prosecuting someone for that than for saying something that the government doesn't like

This is not the case. They have a case of emergency, not a different political opinion. I wouldn't like people calling for homicide either, even if that is their opinion! And he does ipso facto exactly this! It makes a difference whether he says something stupid like this in a usual situation, but he actively attacks all efforts to stem the crisis. It is an act of sabotage! You get arrested for less on mainland.

He can do whatever he wants, but not risking other (!) peoples lives.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

I'm curious whether contemporary strains of measles are more harmful that the measles of the 1950's. When I was a kid, many children were expected to get measles and I did not disappoint.

 

[fresh_42]

I'm curious whether contemporary strains of measles are more harmful that the measles of the 1950's. When I was a kid, many children were expected to get measles and I did not disappoint.

Me, too, had it. But it wasn't funny. I had the MMR later on because of the other M. It's so easy and quick. I cannot understand people who deliberately become sick. The high fever alone is a strain.

 

[Evo]

My brother became seriously ill with the measles, had a fever so high he began to hallucinate and had to be taken to the hospital. I remember how scared my mother was.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Somebody should also arrest JFK's nephew.

 

[256bits]

My brother became seriously ill with the measles, had a fever so high he began to hallucinate and had to be taken to the hospital. I remember how scared my mother was.

As a kid, having had measles, as probably most did around the immediate area, ( including mumps, chicken pox, and who knows what else ) I do not recall any fatalities, as if as a kid I would recognize anything about the danger. ( Went to school with one kid got polio - right foot and arm weaker - but didn't stop him from sports )

 

[WWGD]

Somebody should also arrest JFK's nephew.

?? What did he say??

 

[phinds]

?? What did he say??

Google is your friend

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...e-leading-source-of-anti-vax-ads-on-facebook/

 

[Bandersnatch]

Also this, on the topic of Samoa outbreak specifically:
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2019/12/05/samoa-measles-outbreak-malielegaoi/

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm curious whether contemporary strains of measles are more harmful that the measles of the 1950's. When I was a kid, many children were expected to get measles and I did not disappoint.

According to a livescience article;

"Measles is solid as a rock. The measles virus that causes disease today is the same virus that caused disease in 1934," Schaffner said.​

​

Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.​

The mortality rates seem to be consistent in both the D.R. Congo[ref] and Samoa[ref], where 90% of the fatalities are in children up to the age of 5.

From the same reference, Samoa's infected children between the age of 1 and 5 have a 1 in 50 chance of dying.
Children between the age of 5 and 10 have a 1 in 450 chance of dying.

If such numbers are consistent with the 50's and 60's, I can imagine that very few school aged children would have known someone who actually died.

From the following; "In 1962, immediately preceding the licensure of the first measles vaccines in the United States, when measles was a nearly universal disease, Alexander Langmuir described the medical importance of measles to the country and put forth the challenge of measles eradication. Although most patients recovered without permanent sequelae, the high number of cases each year made measles a significant cause of serious morbidity and mortality Langmuir showed that >90% of Americans were infected with the measles virus by age 15 years." [ref]

So society was self inoculating. And I'm guessing mothers of toddlers knew to keep those kids isolated.

Going through the mortality rates for infants over time is really amazing. That's nearly a 30 fold decrease in mortality in the past 120 years. I'm guessing 99% of that is due to vaccines.

"Infants" here means anyone between zero and 1 year of age.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Some points about about the Rubeola virus:
There are multiple strains, but the current vaccine (in the MMR shot) seems to be effective against them all.

https://www.who.int/biologicals/vaccines/measles/en/Diet and envrionment are players in surviving a measles episode. Ex: Vitamin A deficient children are more likely to die from a measles infection.

Measles erases the the body's immunological memory (secondary immune response) such that any infection secondary to measles has a greatly increased chance of doing fatal damage. In other words, a measles episode "undoes" previous vaccinations, and any immunity derived from other earlier infections.

So, infections secondary to measles are more likely to be deleterious as a result.

And as @OmCheeto points out clearly:

Medical intervention for severe measles infections improves outcomes markedly. Which is also why measles mortality in remote areas with limited medical facilities is much higher than in developed regions.

 

[DEvens]

It's so hard for me to even wrap my head around how people can be so stupid, but I see it all of the time, some people are willing to readily accept false information over scientifically and medically proven information.

The problem is, each package of text that comes to you is not labeled in a way that reliably allows you to determine the truth or falsehood. If somebody comes to you and says something along the lines of "the health risks of activity A are X" it's very hard to evaluate this reliably. It may be a challenge even for senior researchers in a subject directly related to the claim.

And even when it's not hard for that researcher, it's a challenge to explain it in a fashion that Joe and Jane in the Street can understand.

And it's also the case that governments tend to lie. A lot. Point at a politician who hasn't lied a lot. You won't get tired doing this pointing because there are not many. It seems to be what they do.

So there is a definite degree of justified lack of trust in authority figures.

It's just not possible to do a lot of research on all the subjects we are required to make decisions about. So, it is highly likely that each of us is following a liar in at least a few things.

The political thing to do is to set up systems that reward people for trying to do the right thing, and not for lying their asses off. And when we discover that some politician has lied his ass off, to at least vote him out.

 

[WWGD]

The problem is, each package of text that comes to you is not labeled in a way that reliably allows you to determine the truth or falsehood. If somebody comes to you and says something along the lines of "the health risks of activity A are X" it's very hard to evaluate this reliably. It may be a challenge even for senior researchers in a subject directly related to the claim.

And even when it's not hard for that researcher, it's a challenge to explain it in a fashion that Joe and Jane in the Street can understand.

And it's also the case that governments tend to lie. A lot. Point at a politician who hasn't lied a lot. You won't get tired doing this pointing because there are not many. It seems to be what they do.

So there is a definite degree of justified lack of trust in authority figures.

It's just not possible to do a lot of research on all the subjects we are required to make decisions about. So, it is highly likely that each of us is following a liar in at least a few things.

The political thing to do is to set up systems that reward people for trying to do the right thing, and not for lying their asses off. And when we discover that some politician has lied his ass off, to at least vote him out.

But many politicians lie because their respective constituencies don't want to hear the hard truths and be challenged. If everyone was willing to hear them, politicians would do so and get (re) elected.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't. There are limits. The German lawyers drew the line when people are directly addressed to believe in such lies for political reasons. We call it "Volksverhetzung". It is mainly meant not to allow holocaust deniers. One of the lessons we had to learn from the Weimar republic, which had a far more liberal constitution. A constitution which led us directly into the known last century's catastrophe. Liberty ends at the point when it affects others'.

The difficulty is in identifying the point at which it affects others. Advising people to break the law is close, but in the US it has to be an imminent risk, called incitement.

Otherwise, this functionally becomes banning some typical forms of speaking out against the government or social problems.

I recognize *Germany's unique historical example, but I don't think it is optimal as a universal approach to the limit of freedom of speech.

*Let me be specific about that: Germany is unique because Naziism is not a hypothetical threat. It is a real group that existed in Germany and there are still people alive today that belonged to that group. Banning the group itself and speech associated with it makes sense. A parallel in the US could be banning Confederate speech, but I can't see a universal application as being reasonable.

 

[fresh_42]

I recognize Germany's unique historical example, but I don't think it is optimal as a universal approach to the limit of freedom of speech.

It is not that this paragraph is invoked a lot. Courts have to judge on case by case, and freedom of speech is usually the winner. Only if your intention is unconstitutional, i.e. meant to replace the constitution by non political means (e.g. riots), only then you'll have a problem.

Arresting hundreds of peaceful protesters (US, e.g. Dakota pipeline, Jane Fonda, Arnold Abbott) is far worse!

 

[WWGD]

The difficulty is in identifying the point at which it affects others. Advising people to break the law is close, but in the US it has to be an imminent risk, called incitement.

Otherwise, this functionally becomes banning some typical forms of speaking out against the government or social problems.

I recognize Germany's unique historical example, but I don't think it is optimal as a universal approach to the limit of freedom of speech.
[/QUOT

It is not that this paragraph is invoked a lot. Courts have to judge on case by case, and freedom of speech is usually the winner. Only if your intention is unconstitutional, i.e. meant to replace the constitution by non political means (e.g. riots), only then you'll have a problem.

Arresting hundreds of peaceful protesters (US, e.g. Dakota pipeline, Jane Fonda, Arnold Abbott) is far worse!

B

But I don't believe they were arrested for expressing unpopular speech , but because of the means they used to do it.

 

[fresh_42]

Abbott was arrested for publicly feeding homeless people. Fonda for her unpopular opinion. Both are too old to protest by illegal means.

 

[WWGD]

Abbott was arrested for publicly feeding homeless people. Fonda for her unpopular opinion. Both are too old to protest by illegal means.

Are you referring to Fonda's opinion on Vietnam? Edit: Or a single case like Abbott, or tou believe this is a pattern?

 

[fresh_42]

Are you referring to Fonda's opinion on Vietnam?

No, the late arrests. I think it was GW but I'm not sure. And Abbott is a chief in Ft Lauderdale of age 80 something. I think we are fine with this little inconvenience that forbids public inciting.

 

[WWGD]

No, the late arrests. I think it was GW but I'm not sure. And Abbott is a chief in Ft Lauderdale of age 80 something. I think we are fine with this little inconvenience that forbids public inciting.

At any rate, I don't see anyone endorsing it here. Maybe you can start a thread on comparisons, but how about making a systematic case instead of citing 2 examples. I don't know enough to comment in more detail. And, yes, hypocrisy is present wherever people are, so not sure on what your point is.

 

[fresh_42]

My point was only, that we do not really have an article against free speech. A court even allowed a personal insult of a certain politician recently. My point is, that the limit is, when people incite masses to break the law, or in our case the constitution. Sabotage is a reason to arrest someone, and that's what happened on Samoa in my opinion: a public call to commit attempted homicide.

 

[WWGD]

On that note, despite many criticisms, both Germany and the US deserve praise in openly airing their wrongdoings , addressing them and taking measures to correct them. Good luck if you dare , in most countries, to openly criticize the local governent, the country's history, or just openly depict the country in a poor light. You may have to worry not only about legal implications but about your personal safety.
Edit: To all of those who criticize the lack of speech in the US, most of the West, I say, go elsewhere and make open, public criticism s. Then tell me how that worked out for you.

 

[fresh_42]

To all of those who criticize the lack of speech in the US, most of the West, I say, go elsewhere and make open, public criticism s. Then tell me how that worked out for you.

... and you can see currently in some "democracies", or historically on the Weimar Republic in Germany, how this right can slowly be taken away from you, piece by piece. That's why I shiver if people come around with implicite all quantifiers: (all) politicians lie, (all) news are fake, (the) government doesn't tell us and so on. We have seen this all before in our country. And believe me: you do not want to end up there!

 

[WWGD]

... and you can see currently in some "democracies", or historically on the Weimar Republic in Germany, how this right can slowly be taken away from you, piece by piece. That's why I shiver if people come around with implicite all quantifiers: (all) politicians lie, (all) news are fake, (the) government doesn't tell us and so on. We have seen this all before in our country. And believe me: you do not want to end up there!

Agreed. Blaming politicians is lazy and should stop. Politicians are a product of their respective societies. If telling the truth got them reelected, they would do so all the time. But they lie because most of the public don't want to hear uncomfortable truths. And, yes, free speech is needed to know and understand what are the problems and how to best solve them. Most people will go to great lengths to avoid addressing issues and will instead blame politicians or, worse, "The other". Edit: I was once asked what the major issues were, that threatened survival. FWIW , I said the inability to air disagreements openly andconstructively.

 

[WWGD]

I think part of the problem, issue with free speech is that the more you progress and overcome major survival issues you tend to want to (over-) sanitize your life and society and control, eliminate all risks and dangers, free speech you dislike being one of those unpleadantnesses we seek to avoid. We end up detached from reality by wanting to avoid all the unpleasantness if we overdo it.

 

[russ_watters]

Fonda [was arrested for] for her unpopular opinion. Both are too old to protest by illegal means.

This simply isn't true. People don't get arrested for unpopular/anti-government speech in the US, they get arrested for things like trespassing or disorderly conduct (e.g., blocking traffic).

Abbott was arrested for publicly feeding homeless people.

Which has nothing to do with speech.

 

[fresh_42]

This simply isn't true. People don't get arrested for unpopular/anti-government speech in the US, they get arrested for things like trespassing or disorderly conduct (e.g., blocking traffic).

... which is what Turkey and Russia says, too. You may call it disorderly conduct, I call it oppression.

 

[russ_watters]

... which is what Turkey and Russia says, too. You may call it disorderly conduct, I call it oppression.

Quite frankly, you aren't entitled to that. You aren't entitled to claim "I don't believe it" as evidence that reality isn't what it appears to be at face value.

I don't know what triggered this, but it's bizarre. Maybe it was in pointing out that Germany's written into law restriction on freedom of speech is more restrictive than the USA's. I was trying to be deferential when I said I understood its practical value. I have no basis for claiming an oppressive motive, and I wouldn't dream of it. Nor do or should you.

As connected to the topic of the thread, though, it appears to me that your view on freedom of speech is that it should be allowed as long as it pleases you; you don't appear to have or be interested in following an objective standard: Anti-vax is bad so it should be oppressed. Anti-pipeline is good so it should be allowed. That's not how freedom of speech is supposed to work. That is the basis of oppression! And maybe that's the risk of the Nazi example; it opens the door to such value judgments.

 

[WWGD]

... which is what Turkey and Russia says, too. You may call it disorderly conduct, I call it oppression.

Formal fallacy. If a murderer , e.g., claims something does that by itself make it bad?

 

[russ_watters]

Formal fallacy. If a murderer , e.g., claims something does that by itself make it bad?

IMO, it's a false equivalence fallacy. Even if they were applied for the same reason (for which there is zero evidence), a "hooliganism" conviction in Russia sends people to jail for years, whereas a "disorderly conduct" citation in the US is roughly equal to a speeding ticket.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't know what triggered this

It just hurts me watching. If people get into trouble for doing the right thing. And by in my eyes not adequate means. Our law enforcement is trained to descelate, and our restriction of free speech overviewed by courts, not the police.

 

[russ_watters]

It just hurts me watching. If people get into trouble for doing the right thing.

Fair enough. I respectfully submit that your emotional pain is not a rational/objective basis for a freedom of speech standard.

I try to be deferential to people in different circumstances to me making judgements/taking actions based on those different circumstances. That's why I tend to say I'm ok with Germany's Naziism ban, even though it is a fundamental violation of the very idea of freedom of speech. But maybe that's a mistake, because what I see here is exactly the risk of such speech bans: Once you ban one, it explicitly opens the door to additional value judgement based speech bans. I thought that Naziism was a reasonable one-off that wouldn't be repeated, but evidently I was being naive; once you open that door, then any opinion is fair game for government judgement/suppression (and you evidently believe that not only are the doors open, but the walls have been knocked down). So Germany can of course do what it wants, but that's a hard line I hope the US never crosses.