4 ms·

Sadly, this will only put a small dent in the anti-vaccination cloaked as autism advocacy movement.

by ikitat 17y ago

prat 17y ago
There aren't as many pseudo doctors as there are pseudo scientists. This bit of pseudoscience is not as resilient as intelligent design. I think this dent will quickly kill the movement.
- scott_s 17y ago
  I doubt it. Evidence only sways people who have based their stance on rational reasoning.
  - isleyaardvark 17y ago
    Or as the saying goes, "It is impossible to reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place."
- lbrandy 17y ago
  I appreciate your optimism but I fear you haven't been following this very closely. This is not the first time this guy and his work has been completely tossed under a bus. The antivax people have known for a LONG TIME that this guy was being seriously discredited and chalked it up to "big pharma funded" witch hunting. See for yourself: http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/naked-intimidation-the-wakefield-inquisition-is-only-the-tip-of-the-autism-censorship-iceberg.html http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/naked-intimidation-the-wa... This won't go away until serious and preventable diseases start frequently killing children.
  - coolnewtoy 17y ago
    I think it will be more closely tied to progress made in identifying preventable root causes of autism and the diagnosis rates start coming down. I actually doubt the illnesses of other people's children will register as loudly as the autistic symptoms of antivax advocates' own children.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  I'd like to be as optimistic as you are about the latest follow-up on Wakefield's fraud, but see this research-citing blog post by a physician: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2962 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2962 "None of this mattered. Andrew Wakefield still enjoys a cult of personality among the anti-vaccine crowd that no revelation seems able to dislodge, even the revelation that at the time he was both in the pay of trial lawyers and working on his study, Andrew Wakefield was also applying for a patent for a rival measles vaccine. Indeed, the anti-vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism bestowed upon him last year its 'Galileo Award' as the 'persecuted' scientist supposedly fighting for truth, justice, and anti-vaccinationism against the pharma-funded or brainwashed minions of the 'Church of the Immaculate Vaccination.' In the meantime, MMR uptake rates in the U.K. have plummeted over the last decade, far below the level needed for herd immunity, to the point where, last year the Health Protection Agency declared measles to be once again endemic in the U.K., 14 years after the local transmission of measles had been halted." See also this subthread here on HN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1053644 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1053644 and its comments on the same blog post from Science-Based Medicine.
- jjs 17y ago
  > There aren't as many pseudo doctors as there are pseudo scientists. Are you sure about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine
w00pla 17y ago
The problem is not with vaccination - but the amount of vaccines (which is getting pretty ridiculous).
- KirinDave 17y ago
  Has anyone challenged you on this? 1. We space vaccines out "just to be safe." 2. We test vaccines exhaustively and have decades of field data about them. 3. Children receive vaccines only against diseases which are very dangerous to children and not impossible to get. But having a large catalogue of vaccines seems like a good thing! Vaccines are the cheapest way to fight disease: by priming your immune system so you can heal yourself. Quite frankly, they're more in the style of allopathic miracle than any goofy herb or berry that some quack says balances energies. Think about it: they teach your body how to fight off infections by giving your body an opportunity to practice. This is the future, dude. Vaccines are biological hacking at the personal level.
  - mbreese 17y ago
    I don't know... I'm a scientist and I think it might be getting to be a little much too. RE 1) We space vaccines out not "just to be safe", but to actually be safe. You don't want to use a cocktail of things that has been adequately tested. Also, you space them out so they can be more effective. Let's say that your body has X immune capacity to absorb the benefit from a vaccine. You don't want to throw 20 things at it. About 3 at a time is as much as you want to do. RE 3) Honestly, the only vaccine that I've questioned is the Chicken pox vaccine. My son got it, but when I was growing up getting the Chicken pox was just part of being a kid. I understand the rationale: if you don't get it until you're older it's pretty bad, there is the economic cost of a parent needing to be home, etc... but polio it isn't. (I know, you don't want your kid to be the 1% that has a severe case... like I said, my kid still got it).
    - sabat 17y ago
      But science (not intuitition) has shown that the immune system can handle many such "onslaughts" at once with only positive results. Many, many. the only vaccine that I've questioned is the Chicken pox vaccine. My son got it, but when I was growing up getting the Chicken pox was just part of being a kid. So if you got it then everyone should be at risk of getting it? It's not better if we can prevent it altogether by teaching the immune system to fight it off? Chicken Pox is not necessarily harmless; do a Google search for "shingles".

Sadly, this will only put a small dent in the anti-vaccination cloaked as autism advocacy movement.

by ikitat 17y ago

Sadly, this will only put a small dent in the anti-vaccination cloaked as autism advocacy movement.

prat 17y ago

There aren't as many pseudo doctors as there are pseudo scientists. This bit of pseudoscience is not as resilient as intelligent design. I think this dent will quickly kill the movement.

scott_s 17y ago
I doubt it. Evidence only sways people who have based their stance on rational reasoning.
- isleyaardvark 17y ago
  Or as the saying goes, "It is impossible to reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place."
lbrandy 17y ago
I appreciate your optimism but I fear you haven't been following this very closely. This is not the first time this guy and his work has been completely tossed under a bus. The antivax people have known for a LONG TIME that this guy was being seriously discredited and chalked it up to "big pharma funded" witch hunting. See for yourself: http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/naked-intimidation-the-wakefield-inquisition-is-only-the-tip-of-the-autism-censorship-iceberg.html http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/naked-intimidation-the-wa... This won't go away until serious and preventable diseases start frequently killing children.
- coolnewtoy 17y ago
  I think it will be more closely tied to progress made in identifying preventable root causes of autism and the diagnosis rates start coming down. I actually doubt the illnesses of other people's children will register as loudly as the autistic symptoms of antivax advocates' own children.
tokenadult 17y ago
I'd like to be as optimistic as you are about the latest follow-up on Wakefield's fraud, but see this research-citing blog post by a physician: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2962 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2962 "None of this mattered. Andrew Wakefield still enjoys a cult of personality among the anti-vaccine crowd that no revelation seems able to dislodge, even the revelation that at the time he was both in the pay of trial lawyers and working on his study, Andrew Wakefield was also applying for a patent for a rival measles vaccine. Indeed, the anti-vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism bestowed upon him last year its 'Galileo Award' as the 'persecuted' scientist supposedly fighting for truth, justice, and anti-vaccinationism against the pharma-funded or brainwashed minions of the 'Church of the Immaculate Vaccination.' In the meantime, MMR uptake rates in the U.K. have plummeted over the last decade, far below the level needed for herd immunity, to the point where, last year the Health Protection Agency declared measles to be once again endemic in the U.K., 14 years after the local transmission of measles had been halted." See also this subthread here on HN http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1053644 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1053644 and its comments on the same blog post from Science-Based Medicine.
jjs 17y ago
> There aren't as many pseudo doctors as there are pseudo scientists. Are you sure about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine

w00pla 17y ago

The problem is not with vaccination - but the amount of vaccines (which is getting pretty ridiculous).

KirinDave 17y ago
Has anyone challenged you on this? 1. We space vaccines out "just to be safe." 2. We test vaccines exhaustively and have decades of field data about them. 3. Children receive vaccines only against diseases which are very dangerous to children and not impossible to get. But having a large catalogue of vaccines seems like a good thing! Vaccines are the cheapest way to fight disease: by priming your immune system so you can heal yourself. Quite frankly, they're more in the style of allopathic miracle than any goofy herb or berry that some quack says balances energies. Think about it: they teach your body how to fight off infections by giving your body an opportunity to practice. This is the future, dude. Vaccines are biological hacking at the personal level.
- mbreese 17y ago
  I don't know... I'm a scientist and I think it might be getting to be a little much too. RE 1) We space vaccines out not "just to be safe", but to actually be safe. You don't want to use a cocktail of things that has been adequately tested. Also, you space them out so they can be more effective. Let's say that your body has X immune capacity to absorb the benefit from a vaccine. You don't want to throw 20 things at it. About 3 at a time is as much as you want to do. RE 3) Honestly, the only vaccine that I've questioned is the Chicken pox vaccine. My son got it, but when I was growing up getting the Chicken pox was just part of being a kid. I understand the rationale: if you don't get it until you're older it's pretty bad, there is the economic cost of a parent needing to be home, etc... but polio it isn't. (I know, you don't want your kid to be the 1% that has a severe case... like I said, my kid still got it).
  - sabat 17y ago
    But science (not intuitition) has shown that the immune system can handle many such "onslaughts" at once with only positive results. Many, many. the only vaccine that I've questioned is the Chicken pox vaccine. My son got it, but when I was growing up getting the Chicken pox was just part of being a kid. So if you got it then everyone should be at risk of getting it? It's not better if we can prevent it altogether by teaching the immune system to fight it off? Chicken Pox is not necessarily harmless; do a Google search for "shingles".