Hacker News Reader

Comment by pandasun | Hacker News Reader

One of the issues with the vaccination debate (in my opinion anyway) is that there's no ability to have a decent discussion. Especially online on sites like Reddit and even here on HN, you either support vaccines or you are literally the worst person on the planet. It's a bit disappointing.

Edit: Ah there's the downvotes, new record, thanks for proving my point.

View on HN

This isn't what the article was about. Hence, the downvotes.

It's about vaccinations. You're acting as if the discussions on HN are always narrowed down to the EXACT topic. Which is never the case.

You clearly hadn't read the article before commenting.

Would it be proper to discuss BMW's production of planes in WW2 when an article about one of their electric cars is posted?

I noticed this to. Some vaccines are very risky, and there are really good reasons (backed by scientific evidence) to be concerned with risks. Just a while ago in Tahti, a family asked a nurse not to vaccinate their new born child. The nurse did it anyway, and the infant died within 3 minutes. A second family, minutes after, told the nurse also not to do it. The nurse did it anyway, and the second infant died. Apparently there were riots and the government had to come in a seize the vaccines (MMR).

I'm not antivax, I'm actually pro-vax but with caution. I am trying to sign up to take an experimental vaccine under trial II because I think it would help benefit society and I understand the risks. The previous vaccine put people in wheel chairs and I'm more then willing to take that risk to see if it is effective.

But you got people paying $39.99 for Internet and now all the sudden they think they can play Doctor on the Internet and have opinions about vaccines without any idea how they work or the real risks involved.

Whenever you're shooting up a human with something you need to be careful about what you're shooting them up with.

That doesn't say anything about vaccines.

> Some vaccines are very risky, and there are really good reasons (backed by scientific evidence) to be concerned with risks.

You know what be helpful? If you actually named these risky vaccines, so we can look at these good, scientifically backed reasons.

Before passing judgment or engaging in discussion, I have to ask do you have link to the Tahti case?

Thanks! :)

MMR isn't risky though. It doesn't kill people, especially not two children in a row. The chances of a reaction to MMR in that situation are astronomical. If that story is true, the common variables there are the nurse, equipment, location etc. Which points to a cause there, not the vaccine.

It's anecdotal crap, told in way that relates directly to other parents "told the nurse not do it" to help with the virality of the story. You can't draw an opinion on MMR from that, least not from all vaccinations.

> Just a while ago in Tahti, a family asked a nurse not to vaccinate their new born child. The nurse did it anyway, and the infant died within 3 minutes. A second family, minutes after, told the nurse also not to do it. The nurse did it anyway, and the second infant died. Apparently there were riots and the government had to come in a seize the vaccines (MMR).

This seems to be a distorted retelling of events that happened earlier this month. [0] It was in Samoa, not Tahiti; from all accounts I am find only the second child’s parents (two hours, not mere minutes, after the first) declined the vaccine, having heard about the first incident.

And there is little reason at this point to think this story about the MMR vaccine supports your point about risky vaccines; it is much more likely that it is about mishandling the vaccine at the particular facility. Because MMR is given all around the world, and cluster incidents like this happen at an extremely low rate (and are fairly consistently shown to be medical errors—such as injecting the wrong thing, e.g., by staff using something other than water as the diluent—and not problems with the vaccine itself.)

[0] https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/world/two-babies-die-in-samo...

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/10/health/samoa-mmr-baby-dea... for anyone who wants a link.

I actually went on a facebook group where they encouraged anti-vacination discussion. It quickly devolves into anecdotes from parents who describe things like their unvaccinated child not getting sick much, or how their first child was vaccinated and completely changed into a different child, but their second child is perfect without vaccines.

The science is pretty-fucking-clear on vaccinations that have been approved for use by the general public. There is no debate, there is no autism link, your kids won't die from a state-run vacination programme. Any "debate" is just conspiracy theories being bounced around by people who want to feel bigger than their doctor / nurse / scientists / other people.

> there's no ability to have a decent discussion

similarly with trying to get a decent discussion about flat Earth. Vaccines are effective and one of the most amazing tools for combatting infectious disease known to humanity. The science shows that modern vaccines are safe.

Given that, the lack of debate isn't surprising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com