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

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

#71

Post by brudgers » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 4:43 AM UTC

brc wrote: post #63

brudgers wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

I'm not debating the merits of MMR vaccines or arguing against vaccination. I'm not even making a statistical argument.

All I'm saying is that the decision of people who forgo vaccination is often a justified rational belief, even if it is incorrect. Keep in mind that most parents know a child with autism and very few know a child who died from MM or R.

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

#72

Post by Mz » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 4:50 AM UTC

ugh wrote: post #70

Mz wrote: post #47

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 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).

A) I don't think I'm picking the middle. I'm saying most things aren't as simple as black or white arguments would like to make them be.

B) No, an MD is not a scientist. I have a website, have had it for a few years. Very few people of any sort have expressed any interest in it whatsoever. I'm not holding my breathe. I don't expect it to catch on.

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

#73

Post by callmeed » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 4:50 AM UTC

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 have a friend with an autistic son and she is firmly convinced it was caused by his vaccine(s) (according to her, no symptoms prior). Her younger son is perfectly healthy but never vaccinated.

I get that you don't agree with anti-vax people but it can't be too hard to see where those directly affected are coming from—can it?

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

#74

Post by shadowpwner » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 4:57 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #48

ryanwaggoner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are the HN users you're talking about? Promoting using GPA for hiring? That doesn't sound like the anti-higher-education HN I know and love/tolerate :)

Fair enough, a lot of people in general obviously do that though. I guess my point is that I see people posting stuff here all the time that's contradicted by science, but people only call it out on socially acceptable issues. For example, if I had a dollar for every time I saw someone on HN criticizing the methodology of a study they haven't actually read then I wouldn't be doing a startup right now. And yet these p…

If you don't mind, can you cite an example?

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

#75

Post by hartror » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 5:03 AM UTC

callmeed wrote: post #73

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 have a friend with an autistic son and she is firmly convinced it was caused by his vaccine(s) (according to her, no symptoms prior). Her younger son is perfectly healthy but never vaccinated. I get that you don't agree with anti-vax people but it can't be too hard to see where those directly affected are coming from—can it?

Absolutely, there is even a lovely latin term for it post hoc ergo propter hoc.

http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html

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

#76

Post by neworbit » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 5:10 AM UTC

callmeed wrote: post #73

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 have a friend with an autistic son and she is firmly convinced it was caused by his vaccine(s) (according to her, no symptoms prior). Her younger son is perfectly healthy but never vaccinated. I get that you don't agree with anti-vax people but it can't be too hard to see where those directly affected are coming from—can it?

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.

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

#77

Post by neworbit » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 5:16 AM UTC

_gtvz wrote: post #69

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.

Seems like the summary of the research is that there is a BLATANTLY FRAUDULENT argument on one side.

Erroneous consensus or agreement to disagree is NOT superior to objective truth.

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

#78

Post by neworbit » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 5:19 AM UTC

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…

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

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

#79

Post by callmeed » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 5:29 AM UTC

neworbit wrote: post #76

callmeed wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a friend with an autistic son and she is firmly convinced it was caused by his vaccine(s) (according to her, no symptoms prior). Her younger son is perfectly healthy but never vaccinated. I get that you don't agree with anti-vax people but it can't be too hard to see where those directly affected are coming from—can it?

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.

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

#80

Post by hartror » Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 5:50 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #52

pharrington wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason people are so hostile about this is because the anti-vaccination belief is objectively wrong and literally fatal. It is directly analogous to believing AIDS isn't spread by HIV.

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…

Sorry but "Most scientific views boil down to "belief"" is patently untrue. All scientific theories are not beliefs but rational explanations that fit the facts. If a new fact appears that contravenes the theory, the theory is thrown out. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories for example, some of which weren't thrown out till early last century).

As a physics undergrad I was never asked to take an expert at his word. Everything we learnt we tested in the lab, sure I didn't built an electron scanning microscope, but I used one and it fitted with the science.

The science I was presented with was given as a derivation of science I already knew, which was based on things we learn in high school etc etc. There is no taking the word of someone in science, hence the peer review process.