Hacker News Reader

Comment by fil_a_del_fee_a | Hacker News Reader

This may be downvoted to hell, but stuff like this makes me question things like vaccinating children.

I am positive that hundreds of studies were conducted and "peer reviewed" to ensure that they were safe. And I am sure that the drug companies producing vaccines have 0 conflict of interest with the anti "fake-news" saying that "anti-vaxxers" are nuts. /s

View on HN

I think you're being too quick to throw out the baby with the bath water. We know there are epidemiological risks to foregoing vaccination, dating to well before peer review and drug manufacturer incentives were problematic.

If you're concerned about the incentives of vaccine manufacturers to produce safe products (which is a reasonable position), I think a better response in this case is to call for more transparency in research and manufacturing.

Why accept a known large risk in an attempt to reduce a risk that may not exist at all?

I don't know much about the science of vaccines so I won't address your point there. But I will say your comment is a good example of why I worry about the uptick in news of fraud and other bad practices in science, as well as the replication crisis is social psychology. These cases may be systemic or isolated or somewhere in the middle, but they erode public trust in good science. And with the 'post-truth' atmosphere of the politics, I fear a snowball effect.

From the HN guidelines:

Please don't bait other users by inviting them to downvote you or proclaim that you expect to get downvoted.

   but stuff like this makes me question things like vaccinating children.

Respectively, I suggest you question instead your understanding of how science works today (warts and all). This kind of thing is a problem, but it's not the same problem you seem to think it is.

Its not unreasonable. I really hope scientific authorities start realizing there is erosion of trust and they need to take extreme steps to fix it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com