6 ms·

The cited article contains phrasing that is designed to be misleading. It says for example, "Seven previous studies had already shown that vitamins increased th

The cited article contains phrasing that is designed to be misleading. It says for example, "Seven previous studies had already shown that vitamins increased the risk of cancer and heart disease and shortened lives. Still, in 2012, more than half of all Americans took some form of vitamin supplements. " This makes a direct comparison between people taking any vitamins at all to studies showing that very specific vitamins, under very specific and unusual circumstances such as megadosing and certain preexisting conditions, can cause problems. Well even water can cause problems when megadosed, and yet the fact that most people drink water daily is not relevant to that. Also, the author of this article, Paul Offit, is has serious credibility and corruption problems beyond writing articles designed to mislead people. He has previously claimed that it is perfectly safe for children to take "10,000 vaccines at once" (and originally he claimed 100,000 but reduced it when it was questioned). Even understanding the benefits of vaccines, there are trade offs with them and it is certainly not safe to take 10,000 at once. Offit holds a $1.5 million dollar research chair which is funded by Merck. He also sold the right to his future royalties of a vaccine he developed for $182 million, of which he received around $46 million for a rotavirus vaccine. This was interesting since he had previously pushed this vaccine during his job at the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which was a serious conflict of interest that ended up making him quite rich. Here is an interesting investigative report into Offit's conflicts of interest and hiding of financial relationships. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/25/cbsnews_investigates/main4296175.shtml?tag=mncol;lst;2 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/25/cbsnews_investigat...

scott_s 13y ago
it is certainly not safe to take 10,000 at once I think this claim needs justification. Just because it feels true is not enough.
- throwit1979 13y ago
  Justification: a typical vaccine volume is 0.5mL. Injecting 5L of any liquid into a child intramuscularly would cause severe health problems, to say the least.
  - beowulfey 13y ago
    That's not a good example because you can easily combine multiple vaccines into a single injection.
  - saalweachter 13y ago
    First, with the irrelevant aside: vaccines aren't made of pure viruses. They're mostly filler. Second, here is what I recall about Dr Offit's chain of reasoning. 1. You need some amount of virus particles to provoke the immune reaction, call it 1 million. (I'm too lazy to try to google the numbers myself.) 2. You need some amount of immune cells of the various types to carry out the immune reaction which results in immunity, call it 10 million. 3. You have a total of 1 trillion of these immune cells in your body. (Once again, I'm making up the exact numbers.) 4. So therefore, the capacity of the immune system is sufficient to deal with 1 trillion / 10 million = 100,000 vaccines at once. Third, and most importantly, of course 10,000 vaccines at once is hyperbole, but it's making a very important point. The question wasn't "Should we give our childrens 1 vaccine or 10,000 vaccines?", it was a debate about whether a three-vaccine (or was it seven?) combo "stressed" the immune system too much. Dr Offit's point wasn't "Nah, let's give them 10,000 vaccines!" It was that when you go from 1 vaccine to 7 vaccines, you're increasing the load on your immune system from 0.01% to 0.07% and we've all got better things to worry about than that.
- doktrin 13y ago
  The burden of proof in this case lies with anyone making the "10,000" claim the first place. You don't get to make wild and outlandish statements and expect them to be taken at face value until specifically debunked.
  - scott_s 13y ago
    The person who made the original claim does not post on HN, but the person who thinks that it is "certainly" unsafe does post here. Use of the word "certainly" implies that the answer is so obvious that we should all know the reasons why. Well, I don't. So I asked.
    - doktrin 13y ago
      Fair. After doing a little more research I now believe the 10,000 claim is not as outlandish as I once had thought, so your request for validation is justified.
carbocation 13y ago
It is safe to take many vaccines at once; in fact, this is the standard of care. Offit does not have credibility issues. His work on vaccines has probably saved millions of lives.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  I'm pretty sure if you injected 10,000 vaccines into someone all at once, their body would explode. But please, do keep defending the guy's ridiculous hyperbole.
  - carbocation 13y ago
    I'm interested to see the experimental evidence that you have to back up that statement. If you read my comment, you will see that I comment on taking simultaneous vaccines. For many vaccines, antigens for eliciting an antibody response to several diseases are combined into one formulation. 10,000 is probably 2-3 orders of magnitude greater than the number of different vaccines available on any market, so attacking or defending that number has no utility. And commenting as if that were my point detracts from the conversation. It's much more interesting to think about how his work likely saves hundreds of lives each day, and to contemplate what we can do in our own lives to have such a great impact at such a large scale.
    - enraged_camel 13y ago
      You misunderstand. Every vaccine contains several grams of fluid. 10,000 injected into your body all at once would kill you.
      - ghshephard 13y ago
        The useful part of the vaccine is on the order of micrograms. 10,000 * a single vaccine would be on the order of milligrams. The goal of a vaccine is to introduce molecular geometries that cause your body to react and form antibodies - you don't need a lot of liquid volume to accomplish that objective.
grandpa 13y ago
Using Paul Graham's disagreement hierarchy (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html), your first paragraph is DH2 (responding to tone), and the rest is DH1 (ad hominem). Do you have any arguments relating to the points being made?
- thenomad 13y ago
  Not seeing the tonal disagreement in P1 - that looks like a fairly legit dissection of the assumptions in an argument to me. What phrasing made you feel it was tonal?
- yock 13y ago
  The first paragraph correctly points out that the "seven previous studies" are not applicable to the general public, despite the fact that the article attempts to do so. That is not responding to tone, that is responding to content. The second paragraph rightfully questions the integrity of the author based on past deceptive statements made in a similar capacity. It also points out a legitimate conflict of interest. Neither of these are ad hominem.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- kefka 13y ago
  I take issue with 'ad hominem'. If a police officer is found to commit perjury or otherwise tamper with evidence on one case, We the people find just cause with all of their cases. The same goes for powerful people whom sit on drug panels in a company whilst holding a federal position requiring drugs. Because he held a dire conflict of interest, I do not see how we can trust him.
- chewychewymango 13y ago
  It's not ad hominem when raising questions about serious conflict of interest. Proper ad hominem is nearly a non-sequitor (e.g., he has a bad hair cut therefore we must question his judgement in all matters).
tptacek 13y ago
The source you've just cited is a 2008 antivax piece, one of several for which Sharyl Attkisson was excoriated by science journalists and medical experts.
- read 13y ago
  Still, isn't it strange a Nobel prize winner was unable to see his results were wrong? What force makes someone act like that? Here's Wikipedia's version of the vitamin C controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Molecular_medicine.2C_medical_research.2C_and_vitamin_C_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Molecular_medici...
  - ca98am79 13y ago
    ego
ffk 13y ago
Offit left out information on why he started to advocate vitamins in the first place. He was diagnosed with Bright's Disease. One cause of Bright's disease is a lack of Vitamin D. Taking vitamins was the right course of action in his specific case. He most likely wanted to share his success with others, which is probably why he started advocating vitamins. It's unfortunate that he pushed vitamins as a cure as far as he did. It would be interesting to learn why he took the stance he did from people who knew him personally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright's_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright's_disease Another good example of misleading information is the last sentence: "In 1994, Linus Pauling died of prostate cancer." He left out the part where he was 93 at the time of his death (1901-1994). Both the incidence and mortality rate for those over 80 are very high. http://www.medinfographics.com/cancer-statistics/prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-incidence-and-mortality-by-age/ http://www.medinfographics.com/cancer-statistics/prostate-ca... p.s. I do agree with the author in that I do believe taking Vitamins is largely unnecessary if you are eating a healthy diet w/lots of vegetables, legumes and fruit. :)
- carbocation 13y ago
  Just to clarify, (1) Bright's disease is a historical catch-all for essentially all renal diseases, and (2) the causal arrow points from kidney disease to hypovitaminosis D, not the other way around. Low vitamin D is a common consequence, not cause, of kidney disease.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    I agree (I am on the kidney transplant list in the uk) I take 1 Mg every other day of vitamin D plus Calcium and Bicarbonate of soda 3 times a day
JunkDNA 13y ago
The only place that Dr. Offit has a credibility problem is with those who choose to ignore the mountain of scientific evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

scott_s 13y ago

it is certainly not safe to take 10,000 at once I think this claim needs justification. Just because it feels true is not enough.

throwit1979 13y ago
Justification: a typical vaccine volume is 0.5mL. Injecting 5L of any liquid into a child intramuscularly would cause severe health problems, to say the least.
- beowulfey 13y ago
  That's not a good example because you can easily combine multiple vaccines into a single injection.
- saalweachter 13y ago
  First, with the irrelevant aside: vaccines aren't made of pure viruses. They're mostly filler. Second, here is what I recall about Dr Offit's chain of reasoning. 1. You need some amount of virus particles to provoke the immune reaction, call it 1 million. (I'm too lazy to try to google the numbers myself.) 2. You need some amount of immune cells of the various types to carry out the immune reaction which results in immunity, call it 10 million. 3. You have a total of 1 trillion of these immune cells in your body. (Once again, I'm making up the exact numbers.) 4. So therefore, the capacity of the immune system is sufficient to deal with 1 trillion / 10 million = 100,000 vaccines at once. Third, and most importantly, of course 10,000 vaccines at once is hyperbole, but it's making a very important point. The question wasn't "Should we give our childrens 1 vaccine or 10,000 vaccines?", it was a debate about whether a three-vaccine (or was it seven?) combo "stressed" the immune system too much. Dr Offit's point wasn't "Nah, let's give them 10,000 vaccines!" It was that when you go from 1 vaccine to 7 vaccines, you're increasing the load on your immune system from 0.01% to 0.07% and we've all got better things to worry about than that.
doktrin 13y ago
The burden of proof in this case lies with anyone making the "10,000" claim the first place. You don't get to make wild and outlandish statements and expect them to be taken at face value until specifically debunked.
- scott_s 13y ago
  The person who made the original claim does not post on HN, but the person who thinks that it is "certainly" unsafe does post here. Use of the word "certainly" implies that the answer is so obvious that we should all know the reasons why. Well, I don't. So I asked.
  - doktrin 13y ago
    Fair. After doing a little more research I now believe the 10,000 claim is not as outlandish as I once had thought, so your request for validation is justified.

carbocation 13y ago

It is safe to take many vaccines at once; in fact, this is the standard of care. Offit does not have credibility issues. His work on vaccines has probably saved millions of lives.

enraged_camel 13y ago
I'm pretty sure if you injected 10,000 vaccines into someone all at once, their body would explode. But please, do keep defending the guy's ridiculous hyperbole.
- carbocation 13y ago
  I'm interested to see the experimental evidence that you have to back up that statement. If you read my comment, you will see that I comment on taking simultaneous vaccines. For many vaccines, antigens for eliciting an antibody response to several diseases are combined into one formulation. 10,000 is probably 2-3 orders of magnitude greater than the number of different vaccines available on any market, so attacking or defending that number has no utility. And commenting as if that were my point detracts from the conversation. It's much more interesting to think about how his work likely saves hundreds of lives each day, and to contemplate what we can do in our own lives to have such a great impact at such a large scale.
  - enraged_camel 13y ago
    You misunderstand. Every vaccine contains several grams of fluid. 10,000 injected into your body all at once would kill you.
    - ghshephard 13y ago
      The useful part of the vaccine is on the order of micrograms. 10,000 * a single vaccine would be on the order of milligrams. The goal of a vaccine is to introduce molecular geometries that cause your body to react and form antibodies - you don't need a lot of liquid volume to accomplish that objective.

grandpa 13y ago

Using Paul Graham's disagreement hierarchy (http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html), your first paragraph is DH2 (responding to tone), and the rest is DH1 (ad hominem). Do you have any arguments relating to the points being made?

thenomad 13y ago
Not seeing the tonal disagreement in P1 - that looks like a fairly legit dissection of the assumptions in an argument to me. What phrasing made you feel it was tonal?
yock 13y ago
The first paragraph correctly points out that the "seven previous studies" are not applicable to the general public, despite the fact that the article attempts to do so. That is not responding to tone, that is responding to content. The second paragraph rightfully questions the integrity of the author based on past deceptive statements made in a similar capacity. It also points out a legitimate conflict of interest. Neither of these are ad hominem.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
kefka 13y ago
I take issue with 'ad hominem'. If a police officer is found to commit perjury or otherwise tamper with evidence on one case, We the people find just cause with all of their cases. The same goes for powerful people whom sit on drug panels in a company whilst holding a federal position requiring drugs. Because he held a dire conflict of interest, I do not see how we can trust him.
chewychewymango 13y ago
It's not ad hominem when raising questions about serious conflict of interest. Proper ad hominem is nearly a non-sequitor (e.g., he has a bad hair cut therefore we must question his judgement in all matters).

tptacek 13y ago

The source you've just cited is a 2008 antivax piece, one of several for which Sharyl Attkisson was excoriated by science journalists and medical experts.

read 13y ago
Still, isn't it strange a Nobel prize winner was unable to see his results were wrong? What force makes someone act like that? Here's Wikipedia's version of the vitamin C controversy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Molecular_medicine.2C_medical_research.2C_and_vitamin_C_advocacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling#Molecular_medici...
- ca98am79 13y ago
  ego

ffk 13y ago

Offit left out information on why he started to advocate vitamins in the first place. He was diagnosed with Bright's Disease. One cause of Bright's disease is a lack of Vitamin D. Taking vitamins was the right course of action in his specific case. He most likely wanted to share his success with others, which is probably why he started advocating vitamins. It's unfortunate that he pushed vitamins as a cure as far as he did. It would be interesting to learn why he took the stance he did from people who knew him personally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright's_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bright's_disease Another good example of misleading information is the last sentence: "In 1994, Linus Pauling died of prostate cancer." He left out the part where he was 93 at the time of his death (1901-1994). Both the incidence and mortality rate for those over 80 are very high. http://www.medinfographics.com/cancer-statistics/prostate-cancer/prostate-cancer-incidence-and-mortality-by-age/ http://www.medinfographics.com/cancer-statistics/prostate-ca... p.s. I do agree with the author in that I do believe taking Vitamins is largely unnecessary if you are eating a healthy diet w/lots of vegetables, legumes and fruit. :)

carbocation 13y ago
Just to clarify, (1) Bright's disease is a historical catch-all for essentially all renal diseases, and (2) the causal arrow points from kidney disease to hypovitaminosis D, not the other way around. Low vitamin D is a common consequence, not cause, of kidney disease.
- walshemj 13y ago
  I agree (I am on the kidney transplant list in the uk) I take 1 Mg every other day of vitamin D plus Calcium and Bicarbonate of soda 3 times a day

JunkDNA 13y ago

The only place that Dr. Offit has a credibility problem is with those who choose to ignore the mountain of scientific evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of vaccines.