5 ms·

They also had horrific infant mortality rate and ridiculous risk of death during childbirth, for both mother and child. There isn't as much clear cut answers a

by shabda 11y ago

They also had horrific infant mortality rate and ridiculous risk of death during childbirth, for both mother and child. There isn't as much clear cut answers about parenting as we would like, but there is much evidence backed science which tells us what to do. Your "Just ignore it." comment is pretty close to what the anti-vaxxers argue.

mod 11y ago
"Horrific" enough to have our population approach the carrying capacity of the planet, though I guess that doesn't take the danger away on an individual level. That said, I think "just ignore it" is the proper thing to do in this case.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Anti-vaxxers argue against something that's proven all over and pretty much obvious if you had biology classes in high school[0]. OTOH, "nutrition science" is some small core of facts and good studies, covered by layers and layers of lies, bullshit, misperceptions, bad statistics and normal people acting like idiots. It's not worth the time. [0] - then again, many if not most anti-vaxxers are only showing their lack of trust in the medical establishment, for which I do not blame them in the least, because of all the shenanigans doctors, scientists, pharma corps and politicians keep doing. And yes, "nutrition science" is a big part of that, too. <insert my standard rant about people who lie being responsible for all the blood that will be shed when society dissolves and civilization collapses />
- OrwellianChild 11y ago
  You're going to like the NYT article[1,2] about the state of nutritional research... It speaks directly to your point _and_ rayiner's, in that the definitive research is limited, and the mass-media interpretation of said research is overblown. [1] NYT Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/upshot/surprising-honey-study-shows-woes-of-nutrition-research.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/upshot/surprising-honey-st... [2] HN Submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453401
rayiner 11y ago
I'm pretty sure all of that drop in infant and maternal mortality rate was due to "real science" (antibiotics, surgical techniques, heroic efforts to save pre-term babies), and not the "pop science" that bombards parents-to-be. There is little scientific evidence that stuff leads to materially (not just measurably) better outcomes.
- djtriptych 11y ago
  That means the advice reduces to "Pay attention to the real science, and ignore the pop science". Unfortunately that asks too much of a general audience (presupposes the ability to differentiate, which we know even PhDs occasionally have trouble with).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The real science is the stuff the powers that be will take care of for you. Just say "yes" when the doctor asks to vaccinate your kid or rush her to the NICU.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      That's IMO the core of the anti-vaxx issue. The real reason is not rejection of the real science (even if it manifests this way) - it's the lack of trust in the way "powers that be will take care of (...) you" will be good for you. Politicians, pharma companies and all those scientists publishing bullshit for career/grant money fucked that up.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        It's really hard to argue with the track-record of those politicians, pharma companies, and bought scientists. Infant mortality rate is one-third of what it was even in 1970. And that didn't happen from "empowered parents" making decisions based on advice they read on the internet. It was the medical industrial complex--including those companies selling NICU equipment for a few hundred grand per bed--saved all those lives.

by shabda 11y ago

mod 11y ago

"Horrific" enough to have our population approach the carrying capacity of the planet, though I guess that doesn't take the danger away on an individual level. That said, I think "just ignore it" is the proper thing to do in this case.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Anti-vaxxers argue against something that's proven all over and pretty much obvious if you had biology classes in high school[0]. OTOH, "nutrition science" is some small core of facts and good studies, covered by layers and layers of lies, bullshit, misperceptions, bad statistics and normal people acting like idiots. It's not worth the time. [0] - then again, many if not most anti-vaxxers are only showing their lack of trust in the medical establishment, for which I do not blame them in the least, because of all the shenanigans doctors, scientists, pharma corps and politicians keep doing. And yes, "nutrition science" is a big part of that, too. <insert my standard rant about people who lie being responsible for all the blood that will be shed when society dissolves and civilization collapses />

OrwellianChild 11y ago
You're going to like the NYT article[1,2] about the state of nutritional research... It speaks directly to your point _and_ rayiner's, in that the definitive research is limited, and the mass-media interpretation of said research is overblown. [1] NYT Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/upshot/surprising-honey-study-shows-woes-of-nutrition-research.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/upshot/surprising-honey-st... [2] HN Submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453401 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10453401

rayiner 11y ago

I'm pretty sure all of that drop in infant and maternal mortality rate was due to "real science" (antibiotics, surgical techniques, heroic efforts to save pre-term babies), and not the "pop science" that bombards parents-to-be. There is little scientific evidence that stuff leads to materially (not just measurably) better outcomes.

djtriptych 11y ago
That means the advice reduces to "Pay attention to the real science, and ignore the pop science". Unfortunately that asks too much of a general audience (presupposes the ability to differentiate, which we know even PhDs occasionally have trouble with).
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 11y ago
  The real science is the stuff the powers that be will take care of for you. Just say "yes" when the doctor asks to vaccinate your kid or rush her to the NICU.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    That's IMO the core of the anti-vaxx issue. The real reason is not rejection of the real science (even if it manifests this way) - it's the lack of trust in the way "powers that be will take care of (...) you" will be good for you. Politicians, pharma companies and all those scientists publishing bullshit for career/grant money fucked that up.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      It's really hard to argue with the track-record of those politicians, pharma companies, and bought scientists. Infant mortality rate is one-third of what it was even in 1970. And that didn't happen from "empowered parents" making decisions based on advice they read on the internet. It was the medical industrial complex--including those companies selling NICU equipment for a few hundred grand per bed--saved all those lives.