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

61–70 of 133 posts

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

#61

Post by davidj »

nl wrote: post #56
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...

It's pretty clear this is a troll account (ie, one that exists to post controversial statements in order to cause grief). Here are some examples: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1782355 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1935416 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994504 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2041013 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2027532 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018434 http://new…

those posts are my honest replies. I don't invoke name calling and try to backup everything with sources. I do get downvoted a lot here, I do not have multiple accounts or use my account "as a troll account." My postings are sincere and I honestly have a dissenting viewpoint in general both online and offline. My friends often remark that I like debates. If you disagree with me, let me know. My philosophy in debating is that I either abandon my argument by learning new facts about what I was wrong about, or my argument stands. I live in the Portland Oregon area and if you would like to meet me for a beer I can attest to this. Thanks

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

#62

Post by ceejayoz »

Mz wrote: post #45
hartror wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow downvotes? I don't agree with most of this position but this viewpoint is while an anecdote and not based solidly in science is valid. Certainly a healthy balanced diet creates a healthier body and something everyone should implement whether they are managing a chronic illness or not. I don't agree with not vaccinating as a general rule, but I am not overly familiar with cystic fibrosis so I am not aware of what…

Could you describe why you chose not to vaccinate for anything? :-) Wildly inaccurate assumption. :-) My oldest son is fully vaccinated. I was diagnosed with CF in May 2001, just before I turned 36. My oldest son was diagnosed the following month, shortly after turning 14. (He was born the day after my 22nd birthday. My youngest was born on my 5th wedding anniversary. When I was married, I went around telling everyon…

Perhaps I'm misinformed, but my understanding is that CF is generally detectable early on - most CF kids born before the 20th century didn't last much longer than a year.

Is it possible yours is just an unusually mild case?

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

#63

Post by brc »

brudgers wrote: post #59
brc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a start, 'MMR' isn't a disease. It's an acronym for the vaccine which is Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Each of which is thought of as a benign disease, but can have bad consequences. Measles has a death rate of healthy adults of 3 in 1000. It is deadly for people with compromised immune systems, such as someone with AIDS. Mumps is less of a threat but can still lead to other complications such as testicular infecti…

I have corrected the grammatical error. It now says, "MMR are temporary." I was fully aware of what MMR stands for, and thank you for pointing out my lack of clarity. With a mortality rate of 3 in 1000 and an incidence of ~.2 cases per 1,000,000 per year in the US, one would predict a death from measles about every 5 years or so. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5331a3.htm Given claims in the media that 1 i…

Yes, but it is wrong to compare the current measles infection rate with MMR vaccines to the autism rate. If you remove Measles vaccination, the figures will return to much, much higher rates of infection in a short space of time. To use your prior analogy, it would be using crash statistics from an SUV-free highway to argue for or against the introduction of SUVs. You can't use the current measles infection rate to make valid arguments to removing vaccines. The correct comparison is the pre-vaccination measles infection and death rates, which are probably 20 times higher.

Besides, a 'claim in the media' of 1 in 150 isn't a strong enough number for this debate.

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

#64

Post by ceejayoz »

[deleted] wrote: post #50

[deleted]

> They have spent a lot more time thinking about the risks and consequences than most of the other people, for whom there is no direct and immediate concern.

This can be detrimental to rational examination of the facts.

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

#65

Post by Mz »

pharrington wrote: post #57
Mz wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Most scientific views boil down to "belief" -- by that I mean that most people are essentially taking the word of some expert or other without themselves genuinely understanding it and, also, the lovely drawings of the solar system, tectonic plates, etc that you find in scientific materials are basically made up fantasies. If you used any kind of meaningful scale for the solar sy…

Your "social proof" has a name, its called anecdotes. While occasionally reasonable in the small scale, it is absurd to believe local observations have any merit in the grand scale. "Most scientific views boil down to 'belief'" this almost sounds like your saying that nothing can truly be knowable. This is the path of nilism, not reason. Science has a rigorous process, peer review being part of it. One does not have…

Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life for introducing a new concept. It took many years for Einstein's theory to get sufficient proof as to be accepted. Einstein himself said something like "You cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it". I think it is reasonable to assume that our current medical assumptions are part of the problem when it comes to autism, which has reached "epidemic proportions" according to some articles.

I am not suggesting a path of nihilism. I am only suggesting that I recognize that the reasons I do things and the thinking I use to make such decisions doesn't look very "logical" to quite a lot of people. This is highly likely to be true for people arguing from the "scientific" position. Yet, we are all human, even scientists, and thus even they have their biases, shortcomings, etc. I made the choice I made not due to anecdotal evidence but due to a track record of success: These people were helping me get concrete results in terms of a health problem for which "science" would like to write me off and consign me to a slow, torturous death as my only due in life. These same people had strong negative views of vaccines. I went with the folks who were getting me positive results. My other choice is to go along with conventional treatments for my condition. Everyone who does that gets gradually sicker and sicker until they die, usually at a young age. Science claims it is not killing them, it is their genes that is killing them.

To me, that position lacks logic -- but the overwhelming belief is that it is true, so that makes me a lone nutcase. And it is usually a hopelessly lost cause to attempt to point this out when everyone "just knows" they are right, science and doctors are on their side, and I am "objectively" wrong, nevermind the results I am getting. Those results can be easily dismissed as "anecdotal". I didn't get well to impress anyone or make any kind of point. I only did this to get my life back (and give my kids a life of their own). So it is mostly not worth arguing about. Those folks who do not believe me cannot be convinced. The fact that it is a done deal weighs nothing in their minds.

Peace.

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

#66

Post by MichaelSalib »

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…

I see no possible way for what they espouse to be morally responsible.

It is very simple: they don't understand much about science. If you are ignorant of science, then it is easy to believe that autism symptoms that develop in your child after they get a vaccine are caused by the vaccine. The obvious flaws in this claim just won't appear to you just like bugs are often invisible to the developers that write them. Unless you've spent a fair bit of time thinking through causation claims and how they've been wrong, you won't have the practice to get this sort of analysis right, especially on such an emotionally fraught topic.

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

#67

Post by [deleted] »

nl wrote: post #56
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...

It's pretty clear this is a troll account (ie, one that exists to post controversial statements in order to cause grief). Here are some examples: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1782355 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1935416 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1994504 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2041013 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2027532 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2018434 http://new…

[deleted]

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

#68

Post by Mz »

ceejayoz wrote: post #62
Mz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you describe why you chose not to vaccinate for anything? :-) Wildly inaccurate assumption. :-) My oldest son is fully vaccinated. I was diagnosed with CF in May 2001, just before I turned 36. My oldest son was diagnosed the following month, shortly after turning 14. (He was born the day after my 22nd birthday. My youngest was born on my 5th wedding anniversary. When I was married, I went around telling everyon…

Perhaps I'm misinformed, but my understanding is that CF is generally detectable early on - most CF kids born before the 20th century didn't last much longer than a year. Is it possible yours is just an unusually mild case?

Yes I have a "mild case". Though "mild" is a political hot button in the CF community and the phrase "mild CF" can get you lynched in some crowds. The PC term is "atypical CF". Just as they first recognized "classic Kanner's syndrome" as the only form of autism and now recognize a variety of less severe issues as part of "autism spectrum disorder", they also now recognize less severe forms of CF. That certainly contributes to how long I have lived but it does nothing to explain how I came back from death's door.

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

#69

Post by _gtvz »

These conversations never go well.

They are valid arguments to either side and nothing is conculsive. I think it is best to do your own research from medical journals/studies etc and do what you think is best for your children.

I think that is one thing everyone here has in common, we all want to do what is best for our children.

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

#70

Post by ugh »

Mz wrote: post #47
ugh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not really presenting any evidence, especially evidence particular to vaccines and autism. It doesn’t matter how nice and great the alternative health board is if they can’t muster satisfactory evidence. I would also think that if what you say is indeed true, many scientists would be very interested in your case.

You are not really presenting any evidence, especially evidence particular to vaccines and autism. It doesn’t matter how nice and great the alternative health board is if they can’t muster satisfactory evidence. I was not offering to give evidence particular to vaccines and autism. I don't even believe that vaccines directly and solely cause autism. (I do believe they are a contributing factor but I think it's more c…

Some debates cannot be solved by looking at the positions of both sides and picking the middle (though that sure would be nice and simple) and a MD is not a scientist (doing basic research probably won’t make her or him money, it’s not an effective use of her or his time).
Post reply on HN