Hmm. Compared to what measurement? Most viruses are actually not oncogenic.
From cancer causes, oncogenic viruses are thought to be responsible for about 12% of human cancers worldwide:
https://www.mdpi.com/2079-7737/14/7/797
From what I remember, most viruses are not oncogenic in nature, so I am unsure whether the statement made is correct.
E.g. EBV is strongly associated with several lymphomas.
There are other significant clinical associations for HPV, HBV, HCV, HTLV-1, HHV-8, and many others.
I'm a proponent of EHRs, but the key value is at patient-level, not population level where other approaches perform equally well.
"Since HPV vaccination was implemented in the Danish childhood vaccination programme in 2009, we have received 2,320 reports of suspected adverse reactions from HPV vaccines up to and including 2016. 1,023 of the reported adverse reactions have been categorised as serious. In the same period, 1,724,916 vaccine doses were sold. The reports related to HPV vaccination that we have classified as serious include reports of the condition Postural Orthostatic Tachycardi Syndrome (POTS), fainting, neurological symptoms and a number of diffuse symptoms, such as long-term headache, fatigue and stomach ache."
"The risk of cervical changes at an early stage was reduced by 73% among women born in 1993 and 1994, who had been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine compared with those who had not been vaccinated."
"The Danish Health Authority recommends that all girls are vaccinated against HPV at the age of 12. The Danish Health Authori- ty still estimates that the benefits of vaccination by far outweigh any possible adverse reactions from the vaccine."
https://laegemiddelstyrelsen.dk/en/sideeffects/side-effects-...
Those are basic bits of knowledge that apply to most vaccinations.
The problem is that the quacks diminish the positive effects, exaggerate the negatives and engage in a campaign of fear mongering that costs some people (and in some cases lots of people, see COVID) their lives. They are not only clueless, they are malicious.
From Gwyneth Paltrow, JFK Jr, all the way to Donald Trump and a whole raft of others the damage is immense. I have a close family member who now is fully convinced of the healing power of crystals and there isn't a thing you can do to reason with people that have fallen into a trap like that.
This has nothing to do with vaccines. There is a very good reason that misinformation is, and should remain legal. This simply allows the person or group who gets to define what is or is not misinformation to arbitrarily imprison anyone doing publishing they don’t like.
You really need to think through the implications and consequences of censorship laws before advocating for them.
Maybe I did?
It is possible that we just disagree on this. Clearly misinformation about medical stuff is so damaging that many places have found it necessary to have laws on the books. I'm just elevating this from a misdemeanor to an actual crime based on the outcomes.
That scientific consensus you are alluding to is not what you claim it was.
Finally, we're talking about celebrities without any qualification whatsoever spreading utter nonsense causing real harm, you can look at that in isolation and compare it to you making that statement out of an abundance of caution regarding something where there is no downside. The two simply are not equivalent. Free speech absolutists always pull the same trick, aiming to refuse an obvious wrong in order to defend their bastion while forgetting that there isn't a black-or-white at all, you can have some reasonable limits on what people can and can not do and in the age of 'influencers' with global reach the danger is much more prevalent than it used to be.
Free speech is a great good, but it is not the greatest good.
The dangers of medical misinformation, regardless of scale, do not negate the fact that criminalizing _what the state calls_ misinformation allows the state to arbitrarily imprison people publishing things, because it demands that the state be the arbiter of truth, something that does not have an objective legal method of determination. If it somehow did, promoting religion would of course be illegal as it is clear misinformation.
Also, consider for a moment the insane amount of harm the delusion that is religious belief has wrought. Should we be outlawing that, too? The suggestion that prayer is an effective treatment for ailments is a claim they have been making for millennia. Shall we somehow square your anti-misinformation law with religious freedom?
People should always be free to be wrong, because we often don’t know what is right until many decades or centuries or millennia later.
Also, you have already admitted there is a Ministry of Truth equivalent, as such a thing is necessary to prosecute people for telling lies.
Dishonest practices and claims to have special knowledge and skill in some field, typically medicine.
The legal definition does not require one to first be a licensed doctor.
And malpractice is definitely not covered by freedom of speech.
Not everybody lives in the USA.
My medical insurance will pay for several literally fake/quack treatments because of this crap. If you want to wage war against Quackery I better see you going after "big Chiropractor" first.
Your comparison of Sweden vs Austria has a problem: Covid did more damage in warmer climates. Thus this proves nothing about policy. Look to others more similar--Sweden didn't fare well.