3 ms·

So what you're saying is, that study I linked to was published by a bunch of crackpots, and there's actually no need to study the relationship between vaccines,

So what you're saying is, that study I linked to was published by a bunch of crackpots, and there's actually no need to study the relationship between vaccines, their ingredients, and autoimmune disorders. There's a lot of information available in that study I linked, you should check some of it. Careful, it might challenge your deeply held dogmatic beliefs, though.

jjoonathan 6y ago
You: "Look, I found a paper on google scholar that seems to support my opinion!" PhD: "It 10 minutes I can find a 10 papers that seem to support your opinion and 10 more that seem to contradict it. 2/3 of everything published is meaningless due to methodology mistakes and 99% of what remains has extremely narrow scope and implicit context. At best the paper you have found is a small piece of a big puzzle. To understand the big puzzle I'll have to take a class, read a textbook, read 3 annualreviews (or w/e the equivalent is in immunology), and conduct a literature survey of about a hundred papers. Then I can call my opinion somewhat informed." The authors of the paper you linked are not crackpots. Someone who thinks they can skip the long and arduous process of developing an informed opinion because they found a paper that says something is a crackpot. I don't know that you're a crackpot, but I need to see strong evidence that you aren't a crackpot before engaging in scholarly discourse in order to avoid the 5 minute / 5 hour problem. One sufficient piece of evidence would be if we met in a scholarly context. HN is not a scholarly context. Another sufficient piece of evidence would be a demonstrated familiarity with research techniques. Your inability to find the most basic regulatory filings in this field does not bode well on that front. I don't know that you're a crackpot, but you haven't passed my filters for not being a crackpot, and that's why I'm unwilling to engage in scientific discussion with you.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  None of what you're saying is relevant whatsoever. Since there are no studies to disprove the hypothesis, the hypothesis is valid. We're also not talking about some fringe medical condition, we're talking about autoimmune disorders, which should, as you might imagine, be one of the first and primary things considered when injecting things into people that affect the immune system. I would call this a "Glaring Omission" and probably not one of chance. You can't tell me nobody thought about this and considered it a valid question. You and I both know how controls for vaccines studies work in human populations. So if a condition is broadly related to vaccines or common ingredients (adjuvants), the control group very likely will have the same incidence as the test group. Since we can't rely on human studies to show cause and effect, we need to rely on animal studies. Unfortunately, unless there is clinical presentation of symptoms during the very brief study period, any longer term effects are going to go unnoticed. Nobody is going looking for 'autoimmune disorders' in vaccine clinical trials. It stands to reason that at some point some test subject should have presented autoimmunity during the clinical trials just due to normal population incidence, but in all the studies I've read, I haven't come across that. I do know of one autoimmune disorder definitely linked with vaccination, and that's GBS. Of course, they never caught GBS during clinical trials, that was done retrospectively. What I want to see is a study that definitely answers the question: "Under what conditions will this vaccine or any of it's components trigger an autoimmune condition." How many mg of Aluminum Hydroxide can I inject into a creature before it starts having any measurable long term or short term effects in any amount greater than the control. If it's 2x the amount in a single vaccine dose, well, we've got a serious problem then, don't we. There are so many variables in the actual real world that aren't covered under clinical trials. Things like contraindications and proper handling and storage of vaccines are almost never adhered to in your standard office settings. There's not studies to indicate that proper administration procedures are being broadly followed (AMA wouldn't allow that, now would they?). The fact of the matter is, you don't have the required studies to say with any level of certainty that any vaccine is free from inducing long-term chronic illness. Keep flaunting your credentials and trying to control the dialogue. The information is out there, we're going to keep asking these hard questions that you can't answer, and you're going to increasingly look like tools of the industry.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    > Since there are no studies to disprove the hypothesis, the hypothesis is valid. You have that totally backwards. Everything is invalid until proven valid, not the other way around.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't do flamewars and tedious tit-for-tats on HN. If a comment is egregious, flag it; otherwise, it's best to just let go, even if it means leaving something wrong on the internet. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 6y ago
Please stop doing flamewars on HN. Crossing into personal attack like that is particularly not ok and will get you banned here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jjoonathan 6y ago

You: "Look, I found a paper on google scholar that seems to support my opinion!" PhD: "It 10 minutes I can find a 10 papers that seem to support your opinion and 10 more that seem to contradict it. 2/3 of everything published is meaningless due to methodology mistakes and 99% of what remains has extremely narrow scope and implicit context. At best the paper you have found is a small piece of a big puzzle. To understand the big puzzle I'll have to take a class, read a textbook, read 3 annualreviews (or w/e the equivalent is in immunology), and conduct a literature survey of about a hundred papers. Then I can call my opinion somewhat informed." The authors of the paper you linked are not crackpots. Someone who thinks they can skip the long and arduous process of developing an informed opinion because they found a paper that says something is a crackpot. I don't know that you're a crackpot, but I need to see strong evidence that you aren't a crackpot before engaging in scholarly discourse in order to avoid the 5 minute / 5 hour problem. One sufficient piece of evidence would be if we met in a scholarly context. HN is not a scholarly context. Another sufficient piece of evidence would be a demonstrated familiarity with research techniques. Your inability to find the most basic regulatory filings in this field does not bode well on that front. I don't know that you're a crackpot, but you haven't passed my filters for not being a crackpot, and that's why I'm unwilling to engage in scientific discussion with you.

linuxftw 6y ago
None of what you're saying is relevant whatsoever. Since there are no studies to disprove the hypothesis, the hypothesis is valid. We're also not talking about some fringe medical condition, we're talking about autoimmune disorders, which should, as you might imagine, be one of the first and primary things considered when injecting things into people that affect the immune system. I would call this a "Glaring Omission" and probably not one of chance. You can't tell me nobody thought about this and considered it a valid question. You and I both know how controls for vaccines studies work in human populations. So if a condition is broadly related to vaccines or common ingredients (adjuvants), the control group very likely will have the same incidence as the test group. Since we can't rely on human studies to show cause and effect, we need to rely on animal studies. Unfortunately, unless there is clinical presentation of symptoms during the very brief study period, any longer term effects are going to go unnoticed. Nobody is going looking for 'autoimmune disorders' in vaccine clinical trials. It stands to reason that at some point some test subject should have presented autoimmunity during the clinical trials just due to normal population incidence, but in all the studies I've read, I haven't come across that. I do know of one autoimmune disorder definitely linked with vaccination, and that's GBS. Of course, they never caught GBS during clinical trials, that was done retrospectively. What I want to see is a study that definitely answers the question: "Under what conditions will this vaccine or any of it's components trigger an autoimmune condition." How many mg of Aluminum Hydroxide can I inject into a creature before it starts having any measurable long term or short term effects in any amount greater than the control. If it's 2x the amount in a single vaccine dose, well, we've got a serious problem then, don't we. There are so many variables in the actual real world that aren't covered under clinical trials. Things like contraindications and proper handling and storage of vaccines are almost never adhered to in your standard office settings. There's not studies to indicate that proper administration procedures are being broadly followed (AMA wouldn't allow that, now would they?). The fact of the matter is, you don't have the required studies to say with any level of certainty that any vaccine is free from inducing long-term chronic illness. Keep flaunting your credentials and trying to control the dialogue. The information is out there, we're going to keep asking these hard questions that you can't answer, and you're going to increasingly look like tools of the industry.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > Since there are no studies to disprove the hypothesis, the hypothesis is valid. You have that totally backwards. Everything is invalid until proven valid, not the other way around.
dang 6y ago
Please don't do flamewars and tedious tit-for-tats on HN. If a comment is egregious, flag it; otherwise, it's best to just let go, even if it means leaving something wrong on the internet. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dang 6y ago

Please stop doing flamewars on HN. Crossing into personal attack like that is particularly not ok and will get you banned here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html