91–100 of 140 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how many people on HN believe stuff like this though. Not that many? I'm open to being wrong on that guess.
Rewind back to the '21 and Id say we were at-least 10% of HN.
You have personally contributed 5/84 = 6% of the comments on this article.
The people who dont believe in vaccines or that they cause autism dont really get science. Wasting hard work trying to convince them is useless. These people truly are idiots, at best a burden on society and at worse a threat to public health. Its one thing to have a skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry, its not ill founded but if their entire personality is based on denying science I dont think we should waste…
[flagged]
The people who dont believe in vaccines or that they cause autism dont really get science. Wasting hard work trying to convince them is useless. These people truly are idiots, at best a burden on society and at worse a threat to public health. Its one thing to have a skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry, its not ill founded but if their entire personality is based on denying science I dont think we should waste…
[flagged]
What if you step on a rusty nail confirmed tetanus toxoid positive? Do you think these same people will encourage you to get the vaccine? How about rabies?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Most people lack the ability to understand inferences drawn from mathematical analysis. It was never about that. The modern anti-vax movement has been traced back to Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 Lancet paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_MMR_autism_fraud But it's not like the anti-vaxxers ever fully understood the original paper, much less the follow-up papers disputing it. And in fairness to the anti…
> The modern anti-vax movement has been traced back to Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent 1998 Lancet paper As far as I can tell, the modern movement is fueled by personal anecdotes of family members / friends having young children present with autism after certain developmental milestones. The family goes, what went wrong? Well, we recently got them a bunch of shots, maybe it was that. Combined with the expanding vaccina…
You've got "post hoc ergo propter hoc" plus the naturalistic fallacy. Might as well label the vaccines as a needle full of capitalism juice.
I am an autism researcher. While we cannot say 'vaccines never cause autism' we can say with confidence 'Other potential causes of autism have much better theoretical foundations, empirical evidence, prevalence, and effect sizes. With limited research budgets, we have better research targets to pursue first before further investigating vaccines."
would you mind answering a couple questions? I'm very curiuous: Have autism rates increased recently (last few decades)? If so, what are the best theories for why?
This widening has multiple causes, not the least of which was an attempt to help parents of autistic children access parenting resources they otherwise couldn’t without a diagnosis in-hand.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_M...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I found this statement unbelievable. Furthermore, what exactly does "vaccine researcher" mean? They work in a clinical laboratory setting? What if you step on a rusty nail confirmed tetanus toxoid positive? Do you think these same people will encourage you to get the vaccine? How about rabies?
Flu, not so easy (and an ongoing topic of research)
What's unbelievable? That someone with a graduate degree in engineering who sends their kid to private school has a circle of friends that includes medical doctors and other researchers? Or that there are medical professionals that aren't insufferable authoritarians?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is a vaccine skeptic - in your opinion? What are you skeptical of?
- Adjuvants. As a materials researcher I think it's nuts we inject nanoscale alumina in our blood. - Regulatory structure. Why can't I sue a vaccine manufacturer? Limit awards, if you necessary, but if I cant sue I cant get discovery. - Effectiveness. The flu vaccine's effectiveness is statistical artifact. See healthy vaccine bias - Historical effectiveness. I had a civil engineer smugly point out that his professio…
This is a cute statement but really shouldn't be part of the basis for vaccine skepticism.
Hand washing is also one of the most significant medical practice advancements... That doesn't mean we stop there.
Sure, civil engineering did a lot for water borne illness and the like. And I'll even grant that building design and HVAC systems can reduce respiratory virus transmission. But it's not doing anything for measles, smallpox, polio, ebola, hepatitis, HIV, Yellow fever, etc etc. I mean come on.
And if I do have to go to a place with worse infrastructure, I'll take that typhoid vaccine please...
I just glanced through the study itself and not the article https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997 and have questions for anyone that is familiar with this sort of thing:
They did not do a non-vaccinated vs vaccinated people comparison. They looked at how many vaccinations each subject had and tabulated the total amount of aluminum they received (they have good records) in their vaccinations prior to age 2, and then looked for a correlation between higher amounts of aluminum adjutants and higher instances of all the conditions they reported on (the study does not focus on autism but many things, see figure 3 of the study)
There wasn’t a sizable aluminum free cohort because most children in Denmark got vaccinated for the data set they have to work with (figure 2). Wouldn’t you need a sizable cohort of non vaccinated children? (I don’t know where in the world you would find that cohort except in countries that don’t have good healthcare systems which implies they don’t have solid tracking of health outcomes in general, or maybe the USA in the last 5-10 years.)
The researchers discarded from their cohort 34,547 children for receiving too many vaccinations/too much aluminum (figure 1, right column) before age 2. Wouldn’t that data be relevant to look at?
So to my laymen’s mind it doesn’t seem like they in any way ruled out a link between vaccines and autism. At the very best, they saw no relationship with the amount of aluminum a child received before 2 and the rate of chronic disease (figure 1). The numbers correspond to “adjusted hazard ratio (95% CI) per 1mg increase in aluminum received……” and in the chart Asperger’s is listed at 1.13 (.89 - 1.44) so they do potentially see an increase for Asperger’s, but with the data they have the confidence interval is not small enough to be sure one way or the other.
But it does not seem to me that they proved what the article and submission title states. I would appreciate someone that is familiar with biomedical research that can elaborate on whether my conclusion is sound or faulty.
Also, as I understand it aluminum is one of about 5 or so adjuvants used in vaccines at the present time, so what about the other adjuvants?