Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alex3917 | Hacker News Reader

"The fact that the scientific community at large suspected or outright rejected the bogus study from the beginning sure is inconvenient, isn't it?"

No, because this is why the anti-vaccine movement started. Had they actually debunked the research in an open and transparent way instead of 'suspecting' it then vaccination rates would probably be a whole lot higher today.

"I'm baffled at people who seem to think the entire industry is committing fraud instead of just the very small number of people have supported Wakefield's paper."

Well, there is the fact that the pharmaceutical industry now tops not only the defense industry, but all other industries in the total amount of fraud payments for actions against the federal government under the False Claims Act.

http://www.citizen.org/hrg1924

View on HN

"No, because this is why the anti-vaccine movement started."

No. The anti-vaccine movement started because idiot parents who don't understand the scientific process wanted someone to blame for their misfortune, and because the general public remains afraid of science, preferring to hang on to their woo-woo theories and religions.

"Had they actually debunked the research in an open and transparent way instead of 'suspecting' it then vaccination rates would probably be a whole lot higher today."

The methods used in the study were immediately called into question in a public manner. Formal and robust 'debunkings' take time and have been done numerous times.

"Well, there is the fact that the pharmaceutical industry now tops not only the defense industry, but all other industries in the total amount of fraud payments for actions against the federal government under the False Claims Act."

Yes, because individual cases of fraudsters (such as Wakefield), and massive amounts of individual cases of fraud being uncovered clearly indicate that the entire industry is capable of coordinating a massive smear campaign. And not only can they apparently orchestrate a massive smear campaign across the entire industry, but they can keep it running for years. Puh-leeeaze.

Sooner or later you loons are going to have to come to terms with the facts: Wakefield lied and is a piece of scum, and you are endangering lives by continuing to blindly follow his disproved and disgraced paper.

"Wakefield lied and is a piece of scum, and you are endangering lives by continuing to blindly follow his disproved and disgraced paper."

The fact that you are accusing me of supporting Wakefield shows your level of intellectual honesty here.

A quick trip through your commenting history reveals that you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of "anti-vaxers". That is as good as "supports Wakefield" to me. It certainly demonstrates the same ignorance and causes the same harm.

"A quick trip through your commenting history reveals that you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of 'anti-vaxers'."

Not only have I never supported any anti-vaccination group, the first thing that comes up when you search for alex3917 + vaccine is:

"I don't believe nor have I ever believed that vaccines cause autism. What I do believe is that the systemic design of the CDC makes it impossible to trust what they say for various reasons." (397 days ago)

Followed by:

"I've seen a lot of evidence since then saying the autism-vaccine link isn't true, but I've seen zero evidence saying that the cover up that RFK wrote about didn't actually occur." (448 days ago)

"The anti-vaccine crowd was also in the wrong for putting excessive weight on this study in the first place, but this apologism for the scientific establishment is completely unwarranted." (6 days ago)

But feel free to make up whatever you like.

What I said:

"you frequently troll vaccine fraud related articles in support of "anti-vaxers"."

An example of you doing so:

"Most doctors get their information about medical issues by reading the marketing pamphlets from drug companies. If you actually read the relevant journal articles then you'd be significantly more knowledgeable about any given topic than the average doctor."

I don't have to make up a thing.

Unless Jenny McCarthy gets published in peer-reviewed medical journals, I don't see how that quote supports anti-vaxers.

Because it was in support of the notion popularly supported by anti-vaxers that parents should make medical decisions after "educating" themselves, instead of heeding the advice of trained medical professionals. Check the context yourself if you don't believe me.

Of course when he was prompted to provide sources, he was unable to provide any that actually lent credence to his dubious statement. He's a purposeful troll at best.

"Of course when he was prompted to provide sources, he was unable to provide any that actually lent credence to his dubious statement."

I already gave you a perfectly good example, but I'll give you another one:

"Conclusions — Increasing promotion of CCBs has mirrored trends in physician prescribing. An association between advertising and prescribing patterns could explain why CCBs have supplanted better-substantiated therapies for hypertension."

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/99/15/2055

That fails to indicate that doctors don't read peer-reviewed journals, and it fails to indicate that uneducated parents can make better informed decisions than doctors.

We've been over this already.

"That fails to indicate that doctors don't read peer-reviewed journals, and it fails to indicate that uneducated parents can make better informed decisions than doctors."

Probably because I never said that doctors don't ever read journals, I just said that they got their information from marketing literature-- a claim which I've now backed up with 5+ sources.

Secondly, I never claimed that an uneducated person could make better decisions than doctors, my only claim was that someone following the recommendations of the academic research would on average get better treatment than they would from a doctor. And again, I've backed up this claim with multiple sources.

"it was in support of the notion popularly supported by anti-vaxers that parents should make medical decisions after "educating" themselves, instead of heeding the advice of trained medical professionals."

I, for one, entirely believe that parents should make medical decisions after educating themselves, instead of blindly heeding the advice of trained medical professionals.

I am also very, very strongly pro vaccinations.

I also refused to give my children specific vaccinations when they were very young, preferring instead to wait until their systems were more developed.

The responsibility for the health of my children belongs to me, and I take that responsibility very seriously.

Just a note, anti-vaccine sentiment has been around forever.

Even Benjamin Franklin encountered it while he was still alive; in his autobiography he writes of his view:

"In 1736 I lost one of my sons, a fine boy of four years old, by the small-pox, taken in the common way. I long regretted bitterly, and still regret that I had not given it to him by inoculation. This I mention for the sake of parents who omit that operation, on the supposition that they should never forgive themselves if a child died under it; my example showing that the regret may be the same either way, and that, therefore, the safer should be chosen."

A minor technical point, but in your quote, Benjamin Franklin is not referring to a vaccine. He is talking about variolation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variolation

He refers to the year 1736.

Edward Jenner's first test of his vaccine occurred on On 14 May 1796, when Jenner inoculated James Phipps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jenner

Reply on news.ycombinator.com