Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds • Hacker News Board

Re: Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

#121

Post by brudgers » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 5:20 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #60

brudgers wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I don't understand the Anti-Vaccine crowd." While I don't agree with the factual basis on which they are making their decision, it is entirely rational given their belief. MMR are [edit] usually temporary and can typically be effectively treated by the medical systems of industrialized nations, whereas autism is permanent and generally untreatable. It is analogous to purchasing a large heavy vehicle (e.g. SUV) bas…

> MMR are [edit] usually temporary and can typically be effectively treated by the medical systems of industrialized nations, whereas autism is permanent and generally untreatable. Sure, but forgoing the MMR vaccine to prevent autism makes as much sense as forgoing baths to prevent brain tumours.

It is common for people to prefer no child to a child with substantial medical problems. Hence embryo selection, prenatal genetic testing, abortion, adoption etc. When one considers that it is common for parents to know someone with an autistic child, and increasingly rare for a parent to even hear of a child dying of MM or R, a prophylactic vaccine can seem not to justify the potential risk.

To put it another way, even if a person believed that there was only a 1% chance that there was a 1% increase in risk of Autism due to the vaccine, that would still be significantly more risk than death from measles. Although epidemiology is a science, vaccine sales are a business, and it is not unreasonable to weigh pharma's economic interests in vaccines that scale to the degree that MMR does. Pharma is not in general a philanthropic endeavor and a healthy skepticism regarding their products is not unreasonable.

Re: Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

#122

Post by brudgers » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 5:26 PM UTC

isleyaardvark wrote: post #119

brudgers wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While driving, it is rational and justified to believe that the vehicle's speed is 60mph when the speedometer reads "60mph." However, if the speedometer is miscalibrated your belief is incorrect.

It cannot be said that being anti-vaccine is a justified rational belief when it has an unjustified irrational basis. It is justified and rational to believe you're going 60mph when the speedometer says so because we all have experience with the reliability of speedometers, even though it's possible to be incorrect. To use a different analogy, imagine I believed carpet was lava and stepping on it would burn me and br…

We have experience with the undesirable side affects of various medicines as well eg. Thalidomide and Fen-phen and even MMR (per the CDC).

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#mmr

Re: Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

#123

Post by dkarl » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 6:03 PM UTC

philk wrote: post #3

The sad thing is even though the study has been thoroughly discredited[1], it continues to hang around and be cited by anti-vaccine activists. [1] Even sadder is that they cite Wakefield being exposed as a fraud as evidence of tampering by "Big Pharma".

Even sadder is that they cite Wakefield being exposed as a fraud as evidence of tampering by "Big Pharma".

As much as I'm convinced this guy is scum and perpetrated a cynical fraud for his own professional and monetary gain, I have to admit this is a fair accusation if you replace "Big Pharma" by the medical community as a whole. It was done with good intentions, but the way they treated the study (and Wakefield) proves that the science is subject to non-scientific considerations. Wakefield's study was accepted and published and didn't immediately cause a scandal, so there must be hundreds of published papers just as shoddy, many of them containing fraud perpetrated for an author's professional gain. Far from ending careers and discrediting ideas, the vast majority of those papers will continue to boost careers and promote their conclusions in some small way until the journals are dusty and forgotten.

Wakefield's study was singled out for special justice in order to manipulate the public debate on vaccines. It was done in the name of truth, will certainly save lives, and didn't inflict on Wakefield anything he didn't deserve. However, it was "tampering" with the normal process, it was done as propaganda, and it was also done for PR motivations, to compensate for the impression that the medical community was complicit in Wakefield's fraud by holding his science to such low standards. It isn't sad if people notice that. It's just sad that the medical community was forced to stage a show trial to put an end to Wakefield's deadly and self-serving BS.

Re: Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

#124

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 7:14 PM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #121

ceejayoz wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MMR are [edit] usually temporary and can typically be effectively treated by the medical systems of industrialized nations, whereas autism is permanent and generally untreatable. Sure, but forgoing the MMR vaccine to prevent autism makes as much sense as forgoing baths to prevent brain tumours.

It is common for people to prefer no child to a child with substantial medical problems. Hence embryo selection, prenatal genetic testing, abortion, adoption etc. When one considers that it is common for parents to know someone with an autistic child, and increasingly rare for a parent to even hear of a child dying of MM or R, a prophylactic vaccine can seem not to justify the potential risk. To put it another way, e…

Vaccines are generally not very profitable, to the point where the various industrialized nations are having to subsidize production to keep supply up.

Healthy skepticism is certainly good and reasonable, but what we're seeing is unhealthy skepticism. The science is in and overwhelming, but antivaxxers consistently latch on to debunked, unreliable, or outright loony evidence to support the increasingly discredited claims.

Re: Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

#125

Post by RP_Joe » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 10:32 PM UTC

RP_Joe wrote: post #92

neworbit wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incorrect. The H1N1 vaccine given to children and pregnant women explicitly did not have Thimerosal due to exactly this sort of concern.

Read the inserts. There on the net. It contains Themerosal.

"Thimerosal, a mercury derivative, is not used in the manufacturing process for the single dose presentations; therefore these products contain no preservative. The multi-dose presentation contains thimerosal, added as a preservative; each 0.5 mL dose contains 24.5 mcg of mercury. " From: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines....

Re: Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

#126

Post by Mz » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 11:29 PM UTC

hartror wrote: post #109

Mz wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, I don't have the time to write at length this morning and by the time I get off work this discussion will basically be dead. So, in brief: Physics is very different from medicine. If you drop an apple to test gravity (per second per second measures, etc), the apple does not make a zillion and one choices that impact how it falls. But when you try to figure out what does and does not impact human health…

Physics and medicine both rely on rationalism and the scientific method. The difference between what you are talking about and what I am talking about it the difference between objective and subjective proof. Your social proof easily falls into the post hoc fallacy[1]. While I will happily admit medical science doesn't get it right all the time at least the onus is there to prove the safety and efficacy of the drug.…

It is not possible to completely remove social machinations (and other human shortcomings) from any human endeavor, not even the scientific method. Currently, science dismisses the idea that vaccines play any role in autism while not really having a solid explanation for what supposedly does cause it. I am always enormously skeptical of any claims that "we are absolutely certain X is not it and not even a factor though we have no clue whatsoever what is going on". To me, that smacks of social bias of the worst kind.

Let's just say I have less faith in the objectivity of the scientific community than you have and an alternate method for judging what looked like sound advice has, so far, gotten me better results than anything condoned by conventional medicine ever did. Should it fail me, I will reconsider my options. My judgment of these things is rooted in a 10 year track record of steady forward progress against supposedly impossible odds, not celebrity endorsements of things you and I apparently would both agree are hooey.

Peace.

Re: Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

#127

Post by Mz » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 11:38 PM UTC

eitally wrote: post #116

Mz wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I put a great deal of effort into trying to understand why people do not believe me. I am well aware that many don't because they are basically incredulous -- what I am saying flies in the face of everything they know to be true. It is not only hard to believe, it is very upsetting to believe because it calls into question the trustworthiness of their doctor, which is very threatening when you have a deadly medical c…

Anecdotally, most people -- whether they have CF or not -- would be well served to make significant dietary and lifestyle changes. Having a life threatening disease just provides more incentive for this to take precedence over many people's personal mantra of immediate gratification and lack of serious introspection. This doesn't really have any bearing on the efficacy of vaccines, though. Perhaps certain lifestyle c…

I don't rule out current scientific literature. I just keep in mind that it has its own biases and that view informs my interpretation and use of it.

For example, I am not aware of any studies concerning making dietary changes to control inflammation in people with CF. However, I am aware of many drug studies that show that controlling inflammation in people with CF does reduce incidence of infection. Those studies are generally conducted by drug companies, whose agenda is to develop products to sell (in this case, drugs). The detail that reducing inflammation in people with CF also reduces infection is useful information to me. The fact that they only seem to study which drugs can be useful in this regard while apparently completely ignoring diet and lifestyle is something I view as inherent bias in the source.

I am not a drug company with an agenda to develop a product and/or find a good reason to sell high doses of an existing product to very ill people. I am an individual who was once extremely ill and wanted to suffer less. (I had no goal of "getting well" initially. I just wanted to take less medication and be less miserable.) So I parse out which pieces of such studies are useful neutral information and which pieces smack of bias and agenda. "Reduce inflammation to reduce infection" is valuable information. "Take boatloads of our drugs (such high doses they have to run liver tests and closely monitor you)" smacks of agenda and bias and, frankly, callous disregard for my welfare in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Peace.

Re: Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

#128

Post by hartror » Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 1:16 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #126

hartror wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physics and medicine both rely on rationalism and the scientific method. The difference between what you are talking about and what I am talking about it the difference between objective and subjective proof. Your social proof easily falls into the post hoc fallacy[1]. While I will happily admit medical science doesn't get it right all the time at least the onus is there to prove the safety and efficacy of the drug.…

It is not possible to completely remove social machinations (and other human shortcomings) from any human endeavor, not even the scientific method. Currently, science dismisses the idea that vaccines play any role in autism while not really having a solid explanation for what supposedly does cause it. I am always enormously skeptical of any claims that "we are absolutely certain X is not it and not even a factor thou…

It is easy to class out what could have an effect when it is something easily as monitored and controlled like vaccinations. Changes in vaccination rates have had no influence over autism diagnosis rates. So while common sense tells you therefore the two aren't linked due to the lack of correlation there have also been comprehensive statistical studies to back the hypothesis that there is no link.

Why we don't have a solid answer to a cause of autism is because it is likely to be a combination of factors, both genetic and environmental (and likely not a single combination of those). There are plenty of other modern environmental factors that are suspects and but the alt-medicine lobby seems to be leveraging this disproven hypothesis for they own ends. Alt-medicine is big business, for example I know a couple of people making "fuck you" money doing it.

I agree that the human element is always a factor in studies which is why scientists go to great lengths to remove them such as double blind studies for example where both the tester and subject don't know which group the subject belongs to (test or control).

Re: Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

#129

Post by sh4na » Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 4:01 AM UTC

callmeed wrote: post #79

neworbit wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good friend of mine has a older son who wears glasses and a younger son with perfect vision. Must be the buildup of ZOMG VACCINATION EVILZ that ruined his eyes, right? I know, you're not saying that, no one is, but it seems about as silly.

Not quite as silly. My point is that when you combine (a) a known increase in autism cases that isn't fully explained, (b) lying researchers, (c) media hysteria, and (d) personally having to deal with the condition, it's understandable why some might take that side— even if it's based on a fallacious argument.

I'd love to know what their explanation is then when the healthy child catches polio and is crippled for life, or catches measles and dies from the complications, which are both things that have a much higher likelihood of happening to an unvaccinated child then autism, especially when everyone is going on the anti-vaccine craze. Maybe their child will thank them when he becomes sterile in adulthood by having measles, or she will miscarriage and become sterile by having rubella. Well, love is definitely the wrong word here, of course. Not quite sure what the right word is.

I might sound a bit harsh, but I was vaccinated against polio and that was the only thing that saved me from becoming a cripple for life when the stupid bug insisted on infecting me when I was 5 years old - the vaccine didn't quite take, but it took enough to dampen the bug's spirit, but I still had to spend 8 years on physiotherapy and I still suffer the effects from it to this day - all because someone shared a spoon between me and another child one afternoon. These people are the new Darwin Award winners, only they're doing it to their children. It's a shame.

Re: Retracted autism/vaccine study an 'elaborate fraud,' British journal finds

#130

Post by originalgeek » Fri, Jan 07, 2011, 9:22 AM UTC

hartror wrote: post #110

originalgeek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From 2007: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.881 : (5) Considerable progress has been made in reducing mercury exposures from childhood vaccines, yet 8 years after the July 1999 statement, thimerosal remains in several nonroutinely administered childhood vaccines and many pediatric and adult influenza vaccines. (6) There is no law or regulation to prohibit the reintroduction of thimerosal into any produc…

So pretty much what you are saying is backing up what I have said. If thimerosal and other mercury based were responsible for autism then we should see a drop in diagnosis rates relative to the decrease in the use of thimerosal. As there has been none there is no like, causal or otherwise. But please keep going, this is almost as fun as playing Battlefield . . .

Let me translate for you. It says there was no law forbidding the use of Thimerosal, and also it says plainly that Congress found in 2007 that some vaccines still contained it. Thus, your statement that it was "eliminated in 2001" is false.