4 ms·
There's a reason you'll never see that. The problem is that there's no scientific evidence for the causation for the same reason that there's no scientific evi
by dschobel 17y ago
There's a reason you'll never see that.
The problem is that there's no scientific evidence for the causation for the same reason that there's no scientific evidence that smoking causing various cancers as in either case it would be unconscionable to conduct a trial to see if it truly is possible to induce autism with a vaccine or induce cancer via smoking.
That's why the strongest statements you'll ever see from health organizations (who usually care about things like scientific rigor) is that there is "no known link".
Which obviously is totally uncompelling to a lay person and taken advantage of by the conspiracy theorists much like the tobacco companies continued to use the "no scientific evidence" line until the landmark settlement of 1998.
So no, there continues to be no evidence that vaccines cause autism. And people still remain unconvinced until they hear something stronger.
- ivankirigin 17y agoYou're obviously correct. You are also 3 sigma out in your understanding of the issue. The response to bad science should be in the same dumbed down language that the bad science used.
- dschobel 17y agoI disagree. You can see the repercussions from that in things like the Global Warming stories where everyone at HN collectively cringes when terms like "scientific consensus" are tossed about. There's no short-cut to good science and dumbing it down fundamentally diminishes it. Honest people still care about facts and science.
- ivankirigin 17y agoGlobal warming is a perfect example. There are way too many people that point to a cold day and say: see?! The message should be: there are huge changes going on right now, on a huge scale, beyond today's temperature. The debate is also often linked to a proposed solution, which is a big mistake. Cap & Trade or a carbon tax are two of dozens of potential solutions. ThatSmugFucksPrius™ is not a solution, but way too often involved in the messaging. Do you think there would be a big global warming debate if the proposed response was $200B a year in research? I don't. That is chump change with a bunch of positive externalities.
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoSorry, but if the US decided to spend $200B per year on climate change research, which is decidedly not chump change, "debate" hardly describes the furor that would erupt.
- ivankirigin 17y agoIt depends on how you wrap it. You don't even need to mention climate change. It's a "technology push for job creation" What it isn't is an obvious friction imposed on the entire market. People don't like that. We spent 10X this number of bank bailouts and such. That didn't piss normal people off because the messaging was that it was needed to fix the economy. Obama should do this as a followup to 2010 being a year to push job creation. The rest of the initiative could be to lower certain taxes and regulations, which is generally free. Then the messaging could be "Obama backs $200B job creation effort".
- ryanwaggoner 17y agoWe spent 10X this number of bank bailouts and such. That didn't piss normal people off because the messaging was that it was needed to fix the economy. I think you're out of touch. Virtually 100% of the Republicans I know were completely opposed to the bank bailouts, and a huge portion of the liberals I know were as well. Almost every poll I saw showed that the majority of Americans opposed bailing out Wall Street and the auto industry.
- ZeroGravitas 17y agoHold on, there's plenty of evidence for a link between smoking and cancer. They looked at lots of people over time and the ones that smoked got more cancer. They didn't have to force cigarettes onto anyone. I'm sure similar data has been assembled for vaccines and autism to show a lack of correlation. They've not just handwaved it away.