Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 133 posts

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

#21

Post by ryanwaggoner »

hartror wrote: post #19
ryanwaggoner wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't just vote him down, folks...he's posting links and support for his position. Surely someone on HN is knowledgeable enough on this subject to respond with something more detailed than clicking a down arrow...

I down voted because none of those links add to the debate in a useful manner. See my reply.

I agree that some analysis for laypeople would be useful, but that's part of what I love about HN: an expert in this topic might come along soon and offer such an analysis. I think having a voice of dissent that offers something other than hyperbole and unsupported hand-waving is useful, and shouldn't be discouraged.

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

#22

Post by hartror »

jerf wrote: post #14
hartror wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the impression that the tide has turned in the battle, and we should start seeing an improvement in vaccination rates over the next few years. Pity there will be a large lag as children who weren't immunized grow up and continue to get sick from these preventable diseases.

There doesn't have to be a lag; if you have not gotten or spread the disease but get your immunization late, no concrete damage has occurred. It's not like the immunizations only work when you're two, they'll work anytime.

Absolutely, but once a child has left the normal cycle of immunization either the parents or the government need to make an effort to get them up to date. IMO this by and large won't happen without either policies in place or a large public interest campaign directed at it.

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

#23

Post by johngalt »

I don't understand the Anti-Vaccine crowd. I see no possible way for what they espouse to be morally responsible. Without vaccines the mortality rate of children to these diseases would be higher than the total rate of autism. This means that you would have more kids die than get autism even if every case of autism was directly caused by a vaccine.

This leaves us with two options for the beliefs of the anti-vaccination crowd.

1. They believe that a dead child is better than one with autism.

2. They are comfortable letting everyone else's children take the "risk" of getting a vaccine while they sit back and rely on herd immunity.

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

#24

Post by jdp23 »

jerf wrote: post #10

Poking around a bit, the British Medical Journal itself has a much more in-depth and interesting article on the web, which the CNN story is but a pale reflection of: http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

great link, definitely worth reading the full BMJ article.

Here's a quote from the senior clinician on the project, after the journalist presented information from one of the parents that conflicted with the data in the study: “Well I can’t really comment,” he said. “You really touch on an area which I don’t think should be debated like this. And I think these parents are wrong to discuss such details, where you could be put in a position of having a lot of medical details and then try to match it with this, because it is a confidential matter.”

no wonder why so many people are losing trust in science ...

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

#25

Post by davidj »

hartror wrote: post #18
davidj wrote: post #12

Vaccines do cause autism. Here is a peer reviewed paper in the journal of Toxicological and Environmental Chemistry, the abstract: Mitochondrial dysfunction, impaired oxidative-reduction activity, degeneration, and death in human neuronal and fetal cells induced by low-level exposure to thimerosal and other metal compounds Authors: D. A. Geiera; P. G. Kingb; M. R. Geierc Abstract Thimerosal (ethylmercurithiosalicylic…

May I suggest a couple of links to some in depth analysis of these studies by scientists in a form the layman can understand? Links about researchers stealing money from their university do not add to your cause as it has no bearing on whether or not a particular immunizations are more dangerous than the disease they prevent. Something along the lines of this but from the opposing viewpoint: http://sciencebasedpharma…

Basically the first paper states, from what I can understand, "Some people are born with a genetic defect in their cells, specifically in the mitochondria part of the cell. When these people are injected with Thimerosal, they get autism. Others don't." My proposed solution: Check to see if the kid has this genetic defect, and if so, don't inject them with mercury, inject them with the mercury free vaccine and they will be fine.

I'm not anti-vaccine at all, just anti-mercury in the vaccine. Also they did not remove Thimerosal from vaccines. In fact, the swine flu shot had Thimersal and if you remember, children and pregnant women were encourage to take it first. This caused a 700% increase in miscarriages. http://hubpages.com/hub/thirmerosal_in_vaccines

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

#26

Post by hartror »

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #21
hartror wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I down voted because none of those links add to the debate in a useful manner. See my reply.

I agree that some analysis for laypeople would be useful, but that's part of what I love about HN: an expert in this topic might come along soon and offer such an analysis. I think having a voice of dissent that offers something other than hyperbole and unsupported hand-waving is useful, and shouldn't be discouraged.

Right I will come right out and say what I implied in my full reply to the "dissenter". What they posted is hyperbol and unsupported hand-waving.

None of what they posted is useful in making a decision one way or another on the subject.

I can't understand the title of the study they posted let alone the contents and I have never heard of the journal which maybe is the preeminent publication of its field or a dirty rag which the publisher's mate "peer reviews". I have no way of knowing from the comment and posting the abstract provides nothing.

The second one is a blog of an Autism organisation in New York that doesn't link to anything that I can use to gauge its authority.

And the third is talking about a single scientist in the opposing side of the debate (there is only one person refuting these claims? Really?) who was caught with his hand in the till. Hardly proof or otherwise on the debate at hand.

So I stand by my downvote.

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

#27

Post by Mz »

johngalt wrote: post #23

I don't understand the Anti-Vaccine crowd. I see no possible way for what they espouse to be morally responsible. Without vaccines the mortality rate of children to these diseases would be higher than the total rate of autism. This means that you would have more kids die than get autism even if every case of autism was directly caused by a vaccine. This leaves us with two options for the beliefs of the anti-vaccinati…

Those aren't the only two options. But I mostly avoid discussions like this on HN because the atmosphere here is pretty openly judgmental and hostile (a la your remark) so I don't see any real good coming out of trying to discuss it. It doesn't help that anyone here who is anti-vax tends to post in these threads in a manner that just promotes the view that we are all extremist nutcases, unfamiliar with basic logic, etc. So posting the type of remark you have just posted (in a forum that is already pretty biased on the topic) is highly unlikely to get you a real explanation of a third option. Thus you get your own "confirmation bias" stuff going on.

Peace.

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

#29

Post by johngalt »

Mz wrote: post #27
johngalt wrote: post #23

I don't understand the Anti-Vaccine crowd. I see no possible way for what they espouse to be morally responsible. Without vaccines the mortality rate of children to these diseases would be higher than the total rate of autism. This means that you would have more kids die than get autism even if every case of autism was directly caused by a vaccine. This leaves us with two options for the beliefs of the anti-vaccinati…

Those aren't the only two options. But I mostly avoid discussions like this on HN because the atmosphere here is pretty openly judgmental and hostile (a la your remark) so I don't see any real good coming out of trying to discuss it. It doesn't help that anyone here who is anti-vax tends to post in these threads in a manner that just promotes the view that we are all extremist nutcases, unfamiliar with basic logic, e…

I'm not hostile to opposing viewpoints. Truthfully I don't understand.

Now you've mentioned it I'm trying to think of a third option would be something along the lines of "Vaccines could be applied differently than they are today". I haven't seen any evidence that supports that theory, but primarily I'm focused on people the refuse to vaccinate their kids at all. Not the ones that advocate different methods of vaccination.

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

#30

Post by hartror »

davidj wrote: post #25
hartror wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I suggest a couple of links to some in depth analysis of these studies by scientists in a form the layman can understand? Links about researchers stealing money from their university do not add to your cause as it has no bearing on whether or not a particular immunizations are more dangerous than the disease they prevent. Something along the lines of this but from the opposing viewpoint: http://sciencebasedpharma…

Basically the first paper states, from what I can understand, "Some people are born with a genetic defect in their cells, specifically in the mitochondria part of the cell. When these people are injected with Thimerosal, they get autism. Others don't." My proposed solution: Check to see if the kid has this genetic defect, and if so, don't inject them with mercury, inject them with the mercury free vaccine and they wi…

Some of the H1N1 vaccines contained Thimerosal none of them intended for pregnant women or children.

Also the figure of 700% increase in miscarriages alone doesn't actually prove anything on its own, a virulent disease was also abroad at the time. A detailed study of the medical histories of the women who had miscarriages during 08/09/10 would be needed to establish what the cause of the increase was (and I hope is being done?).

Post reply on HN