5 ms·

I can't believe the fascists on HN that would be fine with shunning, punishing, or even suing the un-vaccinated. There are risks to being vaccinated, and risks

I can't believe the fascists on HN that would be fine with shunning, punishing, or even suing the un-vaccinated. There are risks to being vaccinated, and risks to not being vaccinated. That (from the article) : --- "The last result is a bit of an anomaly in that it implies that exposure to TCVs from birth to 1 month and birth to 7 months actually protects against ASD. The authors quite rightly comment on this result thusly: "In the covariate adjusted models, we found that an increase in ethylmercury exposure in 2 of the 4 exposure time periods evaluated was associated with decreased risk of each of the 3 ASD outcomes. We are not aware of a biological mechanism that would lead to this result." --- Should tell you that this cannot be said to be a completely conclusive study.

evgen 16y ago
This is the sort of moronic ignorance that should be shamed. The anomaly noticed by the researchers is one that does not have a known biological explanation but that does not mean that exposure to a small amount of mercury in infancy does not actually protect against ASD. It just means that the study confirms previous studies that found no risk from these vaccines and suggests that there might actually be an irony-laden protection provided by these vaccines. This study is, to date, the most complete and conclusive study available. It shows that vaccines, and particularly those that used ethylmercury as a perservative, do not cause autism or autism-spectrum disorders, just like EVERY OTHER FUCKING STUDY OUT THERE!
- patrickgzill 16y ago
  Do you deny that there are risks to being vaccinated?
  - nostrademons 16y ago
    Do you deny that there are risks to not being vaccinated, and that the risks of not being vaccinated are many times greater than the risks of being vaccinated?
  - pyre 16y ago
    I thought that the main topic here was about whether or not vaccines cause autism. It seems petty to try and point to other risks/side-effects of vaccines when the main point of the discussion has been disproven. i.e.: Person 1: Vaccines cause autism! Person 2: No they don't! Here's proof! Person 1: Well...it's still not 100% safe, so *there*! I win! The risks of being vaccinated are less than the risks of not being vaccinated. I have acquaintances who refuse to vaccinate their kids and you really can't argue much with them (though thankfully, they are not the type to be preachy about it). If someone wants to look it up, there is apparently some book about the problems with vaccines, but (from my experience) the logic goes something like: * Vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are people that receive vaccines that still get the illness. * Vaccines can give you the illness you are trying to prevent. * There are various other side-effects associated with vaccines. * [I added this one, though I've never heard anyone use it, and I still vaccinate my daughter] The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product. * [the really crazies like this one too] The 'man' is putting things in vaccines to make poison us and/or make the 'lower classes' sterile as part of some sort of population-control method (See chem-trails and various other 'theories').
    - patrickgzill 16y ago
      I appreciate your reasoned response, though I was not trying to take a side on vaccines and ASD; just addressing the idea that vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them. Riding a motorcycle is demonstrably more risky than driving a car, yet I don't see people suggesting we shun bikers. I have many older relatives in their 70s and 80s, some are taking e.g. flu vaccines and some do not; and as children, some received the standard vaccinations and some had chickenpox, measles, mumps, etc. At this point, being familiar with their medical histories, (though not a doctor), I am not sure that I see a pattern of better health between the 2 groups. Frankly choice of diet and amount of regular exercise seem to be a far better predictor of who is in the best shape. Example: my mother and her closest sister are 11 months in age apart, 81 and 80. One exercises with walking and swimming 3x a week, watches food portions and needs only a mild sleeping pill for medication - still drives and has an active social life; the other has had 2 heart attacks, is overweight by 50+ lbs (and yoyo dieted while younger) and has been on 2-3 heart meds for over 15 years.
patrickgzill 16y ago
It has been very interesting over the course of the afternoon to watch the score the parent post (about "fascists on HN") by me has been getting. I have seen it rated as high as 4 and as low as -1 (as of this moment it gets a 0, which is a downvote from 1 person). Would seem to indicate that there is a lot of disagreement over the POV I posted.
- lotharbot 16y ago
  I agree with much of your previous post. However, I chose to downvote because you expressed yourself in a way that invites hostility and discourages reasoned exchange of ideas. Both the use of the derogatory term "fascist" and the implied assumption of unworthiness from "I can't believe" gave me the impression that you weren't interested in engaging those who expressed alternate views, only in insulting them. Had you instead stated "there are risks to being vaccinated as well as to being unvaccinated. We should not punish or shun those who have decided the first set of risks outweigh the second" I'd have upvoted you instead. The ideas are the same, but the expression invites discussion. EDIT: compare to your response to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702199 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702199 . Downvotes are the price you pay for "expressing a strong opinion on another person's POV in that fashion."

evgen 16y ago

This is the sort of moronic ignorance that should be shamed. The anomaly noticed by the researchers is one that does not have a known biological explanation but that does not mean that exposure to a small amount of mercury in infancy does not actually protect against ASD. It just means that the study confirms previous studies that found no risk from these vaccines and suggests that there might actually be an irony-laden protection provided by these vaccines. This study is, to date, the most complete and conclusive study available. It shows that vaccines, and particularly those that used ethylmercury as a perservative, do not cause autism or autism-spectrum disorders, just like EVERY OTHER FUCKING STUDY OUT THERE!

patrickgzill 16y ago
Do you deny that there are risks to being vaccinated?
- nostrademons 16y ago
  Do you deny that there are risks to not being vaccinated, and that the risks of not being vaccinated are many times greater than the risks of being vaccinated?
- pyre 16y ago
  I thought that the main topic here was about whether or not vaccines cause autism. It seems petty to try and point to other risks/side-effects of vaccines when the main point of the discussion has been disproven. i.e.: Person 1: Vaccines cause autism! Person 2: No they don't! Here's proof! Person 1: Well...it's still not 100% safe, so *there*! I win! The risks of being vaccinated are less than the risks of not being vaccinated. I have acquaintances who refuse to vaccinate their kids and you really can't argue much with them (though thankfully, they are not the type to be preachy about it). If someone wants to look it up, there is apparently some book about the problems with vaccines, but (from my experience) the logic goes something like: * Vaccines aren't 100% effective. There are people that receive vaccines that still get the illness. * Vaccines can give you the illness you are trying to prevent. * There are various other side-effects associated with vaccines. * [I added this one, though I've never heard anyone use it, and I still vaccinate my daughter] The companies that make the vaccines are immune to prosecution, so they don't have an incentive to produce a quality product. * [the really crazies like this one too] The 'man' is putting things in vaccines to make poison us and/or make the 'lower classes' sterile as part of some sort of population-control method (See chem-trails and various other 'theories').
  - patrickgzill 16y ago
    I appreciate your reasoned response, though I was not trying to take a side on vaccines and ASD; just addressing the idea that vaccination is a personal risk you take with yourself or your children, and you weigh the risks and are responsible for (not taking | taking) them. Riding a motorcycle is demonstrably more risky than driving a car, yet I don't see people suggesting we shun bikers. I have many older relatives in their 70s and 80s, some are taking e.g. flu vaccines and some do not; and as children, some received the standard vaccinations and some had chickenpox, measles, mumps, etc. At this point, being familiar with their medical histories, (though not a doctor), I am not sure that I see a pattern of better health between the 2 groups. Frankly choice of diet and amount of regular exercise seem to be a far better predictor of who is in the best shape. Example: my mother and her closest sister are 11 months in age apart, 81 and 80. One exercises with walking and swimming 3x a week, watches food portions and needs only a mild sleeping pill for medication - still drives and has an active social life; the other has had 2 heart attacks, is overweight by 50+ lbs (and yoyo dieted while younger) and has been on 2-3 heart meds for over 15 years.

patrickgzill 16y ago

It has been very interesting over the course of the afternoon to watch the score the parent post (about "fascists on HN") by me has been getting. I have seen it rated as high as 4 and as low as -1 (as of this moment it gets a 0, which is a downvote from 1 person). Would seem to indicate that there is a lot of disagreement over the POV I posted.

lotharbot 16y ago
I agree with much of your previous post. However, I chose to downvote because you expressed yourself in a way that invites hostility and discourages reasoned exchange of ideas. Both the use of the derogatory term "fascist" and the implied assumption of unworthiness from "I can't believe" gave me the impression that you weren't interested in engaging those who expressed alternate views, only in insulting them. Had you instead stated "there are risks to being vaccinated as well as to being unvaccinated. We should not punish or shun those who have decided the first set of risks outweigh the second" I'd have upvoted you instead. The ideas are the same, but the expression invites discussion. EDIT: compare to your response to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702199 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702199 . Downvotes are the price you pay for "expressing a strong opinion on another person's POV in that fashion."