4 ms·

The truly sad part is that regardless of the validity of the study, its methodology, or the results, the impact it will have in the political sphere or with the

by dc396 1y ago

The truly sad part is that regardless of the validity of the study, its methodology, or the results, the impact it will have in the political sphere or with the public will be negligible. It's maddening.

apothegm 1y ago
Nah, the truly sad part is that the study had to be done AGAIN when the original paper suggesting a link was withdrawn decades ago and other studies have disproven any link over and over and over again. That funding could have been used for something that actually advanced our knowledge. And instead it got sucked into the bottomless pit of trying to disprove something claimed by people who aren’t interested in proof.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  While I sympathize with the sentiment, I disagree with the details. I don’t think it’s wasted effort to reproduce results. There was a possibility they found a different outcome than what we expect, and then we’d have something new and interesting to learn about. As a made up example, maybe they’d find that autism turns out to be higher among the population groups more likely to have their kids vaccinated or something unexpected like that, and then we could try to figure out what caused that new observation. It’s shocking how often basic science turns up something wholly unexpected and new and weird and interesting. Edit: To be super clear, I don’t buy the antivax line for a second. Nor did I remotely believe there was a link between vaccines and autism. We know there isn’t. But science means sometimes you investigate what you’re pretty sure you know just to be certain.
  - myvoiceismypass 1y ago
    None of your imaginary hypothetical scenarios would remotely satisfy / be okay with the anti vaxx movement. It’s okay to say “Anti Science”.
  - conception 1y ago
    How many times do they have to be reproduced before we Say “oh maybe we’re done testing that one?” A dozen? A thousand?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
beej71 1y ago
We'll be lucky if the impact is negligible. It will probably reinforce the idea that vaccines case autism with those who believe it already.
rayiner 1y ago
Most people lack the ability to understand inferences drawn from mathematical analysis. It’s not just vaccines, it’s numeric or logical reasoning of all kinds. If you can’t explain why something is true in non-abstract terms, you can just forget it. And it’s true even for somewhat smarter than average people: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/msnbc-bloomberg-error-brian-williams-mara-gay-a9383741.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/msnbc-bloo.... I’ve become persuaded that for democracy to work successfully, you need to socialize people from birth so their gut feelings are directionally correct. And you need to cultivate trust in certain institutions, in particular public health, by targeting every segment of society on their own terms and jealously guarding the institution’s credibility. My dad worked on maternal health programs in Bangladesh. They’d build hospitals, but women in the villages wouldn’t use them. Turns out they didn’t trust the doctors, they trusted the village midwives and traditional healers. So my dad proposed to network with the midwives to establish reciprocal trust. This worked because it reflected how human trust networks operate. Public health in a developed country shouldn’t work any differently (and certainly shouldn’t work the way it does now in the U.S.).
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  The problem is that a massive orchestrated campaign to sow distrust of institutions can succeed well beyond what's needed to achieve their destruction. The actual truth and institutional trust are both far harder to establish than they are to destroy. I'm not sure how institutions survive in the presence of this asymmetry, alt-media's conscious effort to exploit it, and freedom of speech.
  - keysdev 1y ago
    >The problem is that a massive orchestrated campaign to sow distrust of institutions can succeed well beyond what's needed to achieve their destruction don't think that is needed. The institutions did by themselves. Especially the large ones private and public.
    - sorcerer-mar 1y ago
clickety_clack 1y ago
Strong vaccine supporter here, and I think studies like this are still worth doing. Healthy society has vocal skeptics that are occasionally correct. We also have authorities that are occasionally wrong. Scientists maintain trust in our most important systems by properly addressing claims through rigorous research rather than relying simply on authority. We’ve seen smoking and thalidomide (and I’m sure more relevant substances) scientifically ‘proven’ safe before causing massive harm. When anti-vaxx claims evolve (MMR, now aluminum), having solid population data helps counter misinformation with hard evidence. Active research helps us know which side the misinformation is actually on.
thegrim33 1y ago
To preface this, I'm not saying anything about vaccines, efficacy, safety, or my positions on them. But how can you expect to convince doubters when a claim like "no link between vaccines and autism" is made, and all you have to do is click your left mouse button twice to pull up the actual research, and see that what was actually studied was "did a certain amount of increase in aluminum content in vaccines create more negative health effects than the vaccines with the previous aluminum content?". That's what was studied here, that is the source for this article. Yes, these things are related, but intentionally removing that context and misrepresenting the actual result does not convince people to believe you, it just drives them further away. It's so easy for a reader to see for themselves that the claim that's being made in this case is not remotely what the source research is actually claiming. How does that increase trust?
- SubiculumCode 1y ago
  If it were the only study, sure. But it is not. Not by a hot mile.
- pdxandi 1y ago
  I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the article is misrepresenting the study. The research looked at over 1.2 million children and specifically examined whether increased exposure to aluminum containing vaccines was associated with autism or 49 other health conditions, and it found no evidence of a link. Since aluminum adjuvants are one of the most commonly cited concerns in vaccine skepticism, especially in claims about autism, the study directly addresses that idea. So while the article’s headline simplifies the finding by saying “no link between vaccines and autism,” it’s not inaccurate. It reflects the key takeaway, that within the vaccines that include aluminum, which are widely used in childhood immunizations, there is no indication of increased risk. That’s important and relevant. It’s fair to expect transparency, and I agree that people should be encouraged to read the actual research, but in this case it seems to me that the summary is consistent with what the study actually tested and found.
- lettergram 1y ago
  Agreed here, the description under the headline is important: > A new Danish study finds no association between aluminum in childhood vaccines and 50 different health conditions, including autism, asthma, and autoimmune diseases. The findings reaffirm the safety of Denmark’s childhood vaccination program. Breaking it down -- 1. The study was Denmark specific 2. The study inspected aluminum specifically 3. (Based on reading, it seems to) Reaffirm the findings that the vaccines are safe, conducted / funded by those who set the policy Here's the actual study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997 Note the main researcher is funded by Novo Nordisk: https://researchleaderprogramme.com/recipients/anders-hviid/ https://researchleaderprogramme.com/recipients/anders-hviid/ And is frequently trying to debunk criticisms of drugs, often with phrasing such as this. https://www.contagionlive.com/view/hpv-vaccination-does-not-increase-risk-of-syndromes-with-autonomic-dysfunction https://www.contagionlive.com/view/hpv-vaccination-does-not-... https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740704 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740704 and the list goes on...
hopelite 1y ago
That’s an odd thing to say, “regardless of the validity”? Why would or should it have any impact at all if it is not valid?
fsckboy 1y ago
>The truly sad part is that regardless of the validity of the study the truly sad part to me is that you could/would have written this before this study. I don't believe that you have evaluated the validity of this study yet, but you feel justified in telling us you've already made up your mind and you don't really believe in the follow through part of the scientific method, instead you're playing the tribe game
lettergram 1y ago
The study only covers aluminum: > no association between aluminum in childhood vaccines and 50 different health conditions It's right in the title, which was omitted on submission. The concerns the public have are not aluminum, so of course it wont. Should also point out the argument largely made is that the _quantity_ of vaccines, particularly in the US are part of the problem. Generally speaking, I'd welcome studies on what folks are actually saying. Having friends in both the avid vaccine advocates and the anti-vaccine crowd, I think both are just arguing past each other and not studying stuff rigorously enough to convince the other.

by dc396 1y ago

apothegm 1y ago

Nah, the truly sad part is that the study had to be done AGAIN when the original paper suggesting a link was withdrawn decades ago and other studies have disproven any link over and over and over again. That funding could have been used for something that actually advanced our knowledge. And instead it got sucked into the bottomless pit of trying to disprove something claimed by people who aren’t interested in proof.

kstrauser 1y ago
While I sympathize with the sentiment, I disagree with the details. I don’t think it’s wasted effort to reproduce results. There was a possibility they found a different outcome than what we expect, and then we’d have something new and interesting to learn about. As a made up example, maybe they’d find that autism turns out to be higher among the population groups more likely to have their kids vaccinated or something unexpected like that, and then we could try to figure out what caused that new observation. It’s shocking how often basic science turns up something wholly unexpected and new and weird and interesting. Edit: To be super clear, I don’t buy the antivax line for a second. Nor did I remotely believe there was a link between vaccines and autism. We know there isn’t. But science means sometimes you investigate what you’re pretty sure you know just to be certain.
- myvoiceismypass 1y ago
  None of your imaginary hypothetical scenarios would remotely satisfy / be okay with the anti vaxx movement. It’s okay to say “Anti Science”.
- conception 1y ago
  How many times do they have to be reproduced before we Say “oh maybe we’re done testing that one?” A dozen? A thousand?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

beej71 1y ago

We'll be lucky if the impact is negligible. It will probably reinforce the idea that vaccines case autism with those who believe it already.

rayiner 1y ago

Most people lack the ability to understand inferences drawn from mathematical analysis. It’s not just vaccines, it’s numeric or logical reasoning of all kinds. If you can’t explain why something is true in non-abstract terms, you can just forget it. And it’s true even for somewhat smarter than average people: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/msnbc-bloomberg-error-brian-williams-mara-gay-a9383741.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/msnbc-bloo.... I’ve become persuaded that for democracy to work successfully, you need to socialize people from birth so their gut feelings are directionally correct. And you need to cultivate trust in certain institutions, in particular public health, by targeting every segment of society on their own terms and jealously guarding the institution’s credibility. My dad worked on maternal health programs in Bangladesh. They’d build hospitals, but women in the villages wouldn’t use them. Turns out they didn’t trust the doctors, they trusted the village midwives and traditional healers. So my dad proposed to network with the midwives to establish reciprocal trust. This worked because it reflected how human trust networks operate. Public health in a developed country shouldn’t work any differently (and certainly shouldn’t work the way it does now in the U.S.).

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
The problem is that a massive orchestrated campaign to sow distrust of institutions can succeed well beyond what's needed to achieve their destruction. The actual truth and institutional trust are both far harder to establish than they are to destroy. I'm not sure how institutions survive in the presence of this asymmetry, alt-media's conscious effort to exploit it, and freedom of speech.
- keysdev 1y ago
  >The problem is that a massive orchestrated campaign to sow distrust of institutions can succeed well beyond what's needed to achieve their destruction don't think that is needed. The institutions did by themselves. Especially the large ones private and public.
  - sorcerer-mar 1y ago

clickety_clack 1y ago

Strong vaccine supporter here, and I think studies like this are still worth doing. Healthy society has vocal skeptics that are occasionally correct. We also have authorities that are occasionally wrong. Scientists maintain trust in our most important systems by properly addressing claims through rigorous research rather than relying simply on authority. We’ve seen smoking and thalidomide (and I’m sure more relevant substances) scientifically ‘proven’ safe before causing massive harm. When anti-vaxx claims evolve (MMR, now aluminum), having solid population data helps counter misinformation with hard evidence. Active research helps us know which side the misinformation is actually on.

thegrim33 1y ago

To preface this, I'm not saying anything about vaccines, efficacy, safety, or my positions on them. But how can you expect to convince doubters when a claim like "no link between vaccines and autism" is made, and all you have to do is click your left mouse button twice to pull up the actual research, and see that what was actually studied was "did a certain amount of increase in aluminum content in vaccines create more negative health effects than the vaccines with the previous aluminum content?". That's what was studied here, that is the source for this article. Yes, these things are related, but intentionally removing that context and misrepresenting the actual result does not convince people to believe you, it just drives them further away. It's so easy for a reader to see for themselves that the claim that's being made in this case is not remotely what the source research is actually claiming. How does that increase trust?

SubiculumCode 1y ago
If it were the only study, sure. But it is not. Not by a hot mile.
pdxandi 1y ago
I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think the article is misrepresenting the study. The research looked at over 1.2 million children and specifically examined whether increased exposure to aluminum containing vaccines was associated with autism or 49 other health conditions, and it found no evidence of a link. Since aluminum adjuvants are one of the most commonly cited concerns in vaccine skepticism, especially in claims about autism, the study directly addresses that idea. So while the article’s headline simplifies the finding by saying “no link between vaccines and autism,” it’s not inaccurate. It reflects the key takeaway, that within the vaccines that include aluminum, which are widely used in childhood immunizations, there is no indication of increased risk. That’s important and relevant. It’s fair to expect transparency, and I agree that people should be encouraged to read the actual research, but in this case it seems to me that the summary is consistent with what the study actually tested and found.
lettergram 1y ago
Agreed here, the description under the headline is important: > A new Danish study finds no association between aluminum in childhood vaccines and 50 different health conditions, including autism, asthma, and autoimmune diseases. The findings reaffirm the safety of Denmark’s childhood vaccination program. Breaking it down -- 1. The study was Denmark specific 2. The study inspected aluminum specifically 3. (Based on reading, it seems to) Reaffirm the findings that the vaccines are safe, conducted / funded by those who set the policy Here's the actual study: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997 Note the main researcher is funded by Novo Nordisk: https://researchleaderprogramme.com/recipients/anders-hviid/ https://researchleaderprogramme.com/recipients/anders-hviid/ And is frequently trying to debunk criticisms of drugs, often with phrasing such as this. https://www.contagionlive.com/view/hpv-vaccination-does-not-increase-risk-of-syndromes-with-autonomic-dysfunction https://www.contagionlive.com/view/hpv-vaccination-does-not-... https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740704 https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/740704 and the list goes on...

hopelite 1y ago

That’s an odd thing to say, “regardless of the validity”? Why would or should it have any impact at all if it is not valid?

fsckboy 1y ago

>The truly sad part is that regardless of the validity of the study the truly sad part to me is that you could/would have written this before this study. I don't believe that you have evaluated the validity of this study yet, but you feel justified in telling us you've already made up your mind and you don't really believe in the follow through part of the scientific method, instead you're playing the tribe game

lettergram 1y ago

The study only covers aluminum: > no association between aluminum in childhood vaccines and 50 different health conditions It's right in the title, which was omitted on submission. The concerns the public have are not aluminum, so of course it wont. Should also point out the argument largely made is that the _quantity_ of vaccines, particularly in the US are part of the problem. Generally speaking, I'd welcome studies on what folks are actually saying. Having friends in both the avid vaccine advocates and the anti-vaccine crowd, I think both are just arguing past each other and not studying stuff rigorously enough to convince the other.