Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.

I found this intriguing:
The Cost of Vaccine Misinformation

Even though this essay is related to the crap, lies, bull****, misinfo related to vaccines, the argument has wider implications beyond infectious diseases and vaccines.

I am sure we can all come up with examples online where info is distributed that is contradicted by the scientific evidence. Who is liable is that info is relied upon to make decisions?

 

You would think the Author.

But with things like FB a lot of information has become second and third hand and because its on the internet it must be correct? As to who should bare the responsibility for that, l still say the Aurthor

 

I would think that in practical terms (as there is no reliable way of guaging the accuracy of online information) the responsibility sits squarely on the shoulders of the person relying on the information?

'Information from the internet covers a huge spectrum in terms of reliability. What are the markers of 'more' reliable information and what are the markers of 'less' reliable information?

If there was a recognised system for assessing the reliability of online info. then responsibility should initially be upon the shoulders of the person relying upon the information but they would be able to use the assessed level of reliability of the information in mitigation and to redirect responsibility.

Then again I like the 'a big boy did it and ran away' defence. I also like the "look the other way" defence, frequently encountered upon entering round-abouts when you have priority and someone else enters the round-about before with their head turned so that they are not looking at you. I think I am getting off the point.

Bill

 

Here is a specific scenario that came to mind when I read that article:

Is Severs disease due to impacts on the growth plate from heel striking or is is due to the pull of the achilles tendon on the growth plate? There is NO evidence either way and I have asked two people who did their PhD on severs which one they thought it was and neither of them at any clue which one it was. In light of that my standard treatment for severs has been a cushioned heal raise to cover both bases.

Several times now I have seen on barefoot running forums parents asking for advice on their kids severs disease and the universal advice in response is that heel striking is the problem and that they should be forefoot striking! How the f...k do they know that? No one else knows that!

That advice would be good if heel impacts are the problem and the advice would be disastrous if the pull of the achilles tendon is the problem.

Should those who post that sort of bad advice not be held legally accountable for it if things went wrong?

 

Here is another spin on this from one of my favourite blogger, Skeptical Raptor:
Regulating misrepresentation–can FTC restrict anti-vaccine “facts”?

 

Without a doubt. Shoot the messenger applies IMHO.

Chris

 

I presume we have all heard the expression "buyer beware"?
We have all assumed that the information provided on the www is truthful and accurate, in spite of the dangers of this folly. So in my view, the person seeking the information is liable. If the information is from a reliable source (eg Podiatry Arena, or abstracts from scientific journals) then the Author and the Autoriser should be responsible.

 

In a multi-billion dollar industry, it's fairly easy to quell dissent for the majority. I'm content with my decision not to vaccinate my daughter. Other than flu like symptoms on Day 364 of her life for a few hours, she's never been sick. Fear mongering and bad information exists on both sides of the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHn7zWLK0Eg