I have not read any comments by people who have stated that they are qualified to practice law in Germany, As to the significance of the decision, I’m happy that common sense and modern medical practice and science have prevailed for now. I’ve seen enough “woo” medicine to last a lifetime. I also note that it was the MD who answered the challenge, not Enders.
1 Like
It was a joke. All human life is congenital and sexually transmitted.
Or I made the wrong assumption on the intent of that poster!
2 Likes
Isn’t it reasonable to try? You lose a bit of time and a little money, you win e100k. A fair risk/reward, I’d say.
The court apparently agrees with me.
2 Likes
And fatal in 100% of cases.
5 Likes
In the Pepsi case, it was an over-the-top bit in an advertisement showing a kid flying the harrier jet to school. Given the difficulty of acquiring one, transferring it to a minor with no strings attached, and actually learning to fly it, that was a little difficult to believe.
A written statement of “I’ll give [specified amount of money] to a person who [does specified thing]”, while advocating that the thing to be done is completely impossible to do, is a bit more reasonable to believe.
What I’d really like to see is a proper english translation of the full original post. Google translate is sadly not quite up to the task.
3 Likes
His defense: “No. . . I said a virus that causes weasels!”
4 Likes
There’s no such thing as weasels, they’re just dyed stoats.
5 Likes
If someone’s shooting their mouth off in a bar, or has made a hyperbolic fiction for the purpose of selling product (otherwise known as advertising) I’d agree. But, from the article:
Lanka was so enamored with his theory that he made a public offering via his website to pay €100k to anyone who could prove the disease was caused by a virus.
My reading is that the guy published the challenge to support his whacky idea in just the same way that James Randi put up his million dollar challenge to prove that psychic powers exist. This was probably hyperbolic in the sense that the guy didn’t put the money in escrow or have any intention of accepting any proof let alone paying up, but he was doing it to make himself look serious and lend credence to his dangerous ideas so that people would pay him for whatever quackery he’s selling, making it less hyperbolic and more out-and-out bad faith.
If a guy pulls a gun on you that on close examination says “Replica” on the side, you can laugh him off or punch him in the face (or even shoot him with your gun that says “Desert Eagle” on the side, in some locales, I’m sure), equally justifiably. Your mugger may not have been “serious” on one level, but by threatening you he deserves everything that’s coming to him.
Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you like with no consequences. The charlatan was lying and he’s now suffering the legal consequence of that lie.
10 Likes
I wouldn’t say so. But, personally, I would feel badly for asking other people how I should feel.
1 Like
You can’t tell the difference? You can weasily recognize them, they’re stoatally different.
I’m sorry it’s the mandatory joke please don’t hate me
13 Likes
Glad it was someone other than me this time. 
4 Likes
My first year biology lecturer ensured his class knew that they could pass all his exams and still not believe in evolution.
What would have been perfect was to isolate and show him a measles virus, and get him to agree to exposure. He should be fine with it, since it’s just a harmless specimen, and he shouldn’t contract measles as a result…
Come on, man! Take it! It’s ok, take it!
3 Likes
Whaaaat? Oh, I’m so tempted to ask where? and who?
1 Like
But since he believes weaselsmeasles are psychosomatic, your belief that the specimen isn’t harmless might convince his brain enough to cause him to develop symptoms!
3 Likes
But as long as he believes his version enough, your belief won’t sway him to believe your version and he won’t develop the symptoms.
…also, is he vaccinated?
2 Likes
That’s the trick, though… he’s not claiming that he’s immune to measles because he “knows” it’s psychosomatic, he just claims it means that the virus doesn’t cause the disease.
It’d probably end up like just about any well-controlled test of psychic abilities does, where the psychic pronounces the negative result as flawed because the disbelief of the testers changed the outcome.
2 Likes
Yes, it absolutely applies… otherwise radio contests could just say, “Nawww, we didn’t actually mean it!”
If you say something that a reasonable person can expect to act on, you better believe the courts will hold you to it. Otherwise, contract law makes no sense. Then anyone could back down from a promise.
I have a blog. If I wrote, “I’ll give you a bajillion dollars if you can get a date with Carrie Fisher dressed as Princess Leia,” the courts would not take that as a promise a reasonable person could expect. If, on the other hand, (especially since I run a chemistry blog) I wrote that I’ll give $3,000 dollars to the person who can definitively prove that Porco’s total synthesis of hexacyclinol was bunkum, then yeah- I’d be on the hook for that. It has all the elements of a valid contract.
6 Likes
Antivaxx craziness notwithstanding, I feel bad for anyone who looks like Jack Nicholson after way too many cheeseburgers.
