Anti-vaxxer ordered to pay winner of "measles aren't real" bet


That’s a fairly significant difference.

EDIT: I see it’s been corrected underfoot.


Indeed, Christ what as asshole!


Now if only someone could isolate the source of stupid…

We know for certain that it is a congenital, sexually transmitted disease…


People won. Wacko nil.


The blog post the OP linked to is a new blogging of an old event from 2011.

The blog post even used spell check to mess up the city name it’s Regensburg not Ravensburg the picture on the blog post is even a shopped image from the article, not even close to 7 degrees of separation.

I guess I can excuse the error, seeing as the BBC Time, and even the Daily Mail messed up the city name.

1 Like

I’d like to know where this “biologist” got his diploma, because sure as hell he wouldn’t have passed the exams.


Is it? It appears to be a case -from- 2011 and just recently a decision was made final, in 2015.

I’m not sure how to address the rest of your points, perhaps they are best addressed at that sites comment section?


I don’t know about “stupid.”

But this guy has raised willful ignorance to an art form.


I know a college-level biology teacher who doesn’t believe in ‘germ theory,’ but they also have some more general sanity problems.


Should I feel bad that I was able to successfully guess which person in the photo was the anti-vaxxer?


The trial was this week in Ravensburg (That’s where the jigsaw puzzles are from)


So had this anti-vaxxer offered up some detailed legal contract spelling out the precise terms for the payout, or can you be legally held responsible for any statements of the form “I will pay X amount of money to anyone who can do Y” that you make on a website?


Wat. That’s like an astronomer not believing in heliocentricity. Is this a bible-“college” or what?


I don’t know about Germany, but here in the United States, if you state that you will do X if someone did Y, as long as the X or Y are legal, it’s possible to form a valid contract. There are usually dollar limits to the amount you can claim if the contract is oral, but in this case, it was in writing.


No, to my knowledge the college doesn’t believe her nonsense, just her. And her explanation isn’t to deny that germs exist, but that they are symptoms of the ailment. So like, if you have a cold, you sneeze, have a runny nose, produce germs. And you have the cold because of poor diet/exercise. It’s kind of a pair of crazy things - she thinks getting sick is a moral/personal failing - only bad/unhealthy people get sick. Hence, illness can’t be caused by germs because that would have nothing to do with your morality. So instead, they’re a symptom, and thus proof that you’ve failed in some way. (if you’d tried harder, you wouldn’t have the germs). I wasn’t kidding about the insanity.


I enjoy the idea of a wingnut getting hosed in court, but my lawyer brain doubts that the decision sets a good precedent. Of course they probably think about things a little differently in Germany, but in the US it would be very questionable whether an enforceable contract was formed.

A similar problem arose in the “Pepsi Points” case - a kid tried to “accept” Pepsi’s “offer” of a Harrier jet to anyone who redeemed 700k points. Just look up Leonard v PepsiCo. Tl;dr - putative offers are subject to an analysis of whether a reasonable person would understand a statement as a binding offer. In the wingnut’s defense, I’d argue that a reasonable person would understand this guy was making a dramatic statement in furtherance of promoting his medical opinions - not actually putting real money.

Obviously a question upon which reasonable people might disagree, including the judges.


But are you certain that this applies equally to a case where you tell a particular person “I will pay X if you do Y” and to a case where you make a general public statement “I will pay X to anyone who can do Y”, regardless of whether it was intended in a serious way or just a sort of rhetorical tactic? Do you know of any specific cases like this?

Or maybe it could be understood as one of the numerous challenge awards, just with somewhat lower-hanging fruit.

1 Like

My reading of the post and the linked article is that the statement was public, rather than to a specific person. The doctor just “saw profit” as well as lunacy in the statement.