Hacker News Reader

Comment by oblib | Hacker News Reader

There were comments on a recent post here that drifted to children reacting to vaccines that surprised me with how many claimed with absolute certainty there was no link to autism.

I'll certainly acknowledge that most kids do not suffer such a reaction but not that it's impossible for some to, but those who were certain wouldn't do that.

Some of them were quite demanding about it. Almost insisting I admit I am wrong. I may well be, but I also know there's a lot we do no know about human biology. Just what we've learned about "gut bugs" in the past few years is pretty solid evidence of that. And it's also one of those cases where the more we've learned the more we realize there's even more we do not know.

To me, uncovering something that reveals how little we know, now that's exciting.

View on HN

One issue is that we're encouraged from every angle to make fun of those challenging the narrative; which is very effective in discouraging people from doing just that, especially after having taken part themselves.

> make fun of

While this exists there will be incentives to something other than truth.

It is possible but not reasonable to believe, let alone act on.

By analogy, there maybe such a thing as Russell's teapot. Indeed, no one can disprove it. But it is obviously unreasonable to believe in and unreasonable to send a probe looking for it. Just as it is unreasonable not to vaccinate kids.

Thus insisting that we hesitate to vaccinate but instead contemplate evidentialy unrelated autism, is advocating a dangerous policy on an unreasonable belief. Thus people have a very good reason to speak against such speculation since it is costing lives for no sensible reason.

"It is possible but not reasonable to believe, let alone act on."

It's not a matter of believing. It's about understanding you may not know everything there is to know.

I'm old enough to remember when a guy came back from Mexico and said "they have a plant there that, when rubbed on your skin, will prevent sunburn" and most everyone who was considered an authority said he was a "fool".

They could not have been more sure he was too. They were "100%" sure he was, so they didn't act on it.

I'm pretty sure most of them were using "Sunblock" just a few years later though.

Oddly enough, vaccines do seem to occasionally cause narcolepsy. So it's not unthinkable that vaccines could cause autism, but there's no particular reason to believe that. And it's likely that if they did, we'd see a similar story of "nobody ever thought of this until somebody noticed and it became blindingly obvious".

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...

> I'll certainly acknowledge that most kids do not suffer such a reaction but not that it's impossible for some to, but those who were certain wouldn't do that.

You're conflating a population level claim for an individual claim.

Also, consider that we have as much evidence that vaccines cause autism as we do the claim that vaccines cause lightning strikes around humans. Which is to say, all the data we have show no link whatsoever.

So I think the people were mostly right to argue with you on this point.

I read that same comment, had the same thoughts, and now like yours I expect my comment to be downvoted ;)

If we don’t know what causes autism, we are pretty sure it’s not genetic, and happens to show about the same age we give vaccinates... it seems very wrong to say it’s a ‘fact’ they aren’t related. Science isn’t about believing in things - it’s about questioning them. Although it’s doubly wrong to say they are related, because we have no direct evidence of that. But yea, we don’t have proof they aren’t.

I guess it’s irony that some people who say they “trust science” fall into a religion of consensus as much as they accuse like anti-vaxxers having a religion of ignorance. “Science is a liar sometimes”

> If we don’t know what causes autism, we are pretty sure it’s not genetic, and happens to show about the same age we give vaccinates... it seems very wrong to say it’s a ‘fact’ they aren’t related

Most of these claims are wrong. Just because we don't know what causes autism, doesn't mean we can't conclude what does not cause autism. Vaccines are definitely in the latter category.

Furthermore, there very likely is a genetic component. Autistic children are much more likely to have parents that work in scientific and technical fields, and two such parents compound the risk even further.

Finally, that two events happen at the same time does not entail any sort of causal or even correlative connection. Autism is currently a behavioural diagnosis. Babies don't have suffiently well defined behaviour to make such a diagnosis. The timing of diagnosis coinciding with vaccine delivery is pure coincidence.

"The timing of diagnosis coinciding with vaccine delivery is pure coincidence."

That is an assumption, not a "fact".

"Furthermore, there very likely is a genetic component."

That is another assumption, but let's assume further for just a moment...

If we do not fully understand the genetic component we cannot fully understand how that might be linked to triggering problems when children are vaccinated.

Again, what we don't know is far greater than what we do know. It costs us nothing to keep that in mind (except fake karma points).

> That is an assumption, not a "fact".

Yeah, no. At this point it's absolutely a fact.

> If we do not fully understand the genetic component we cannot fully understand how that might be linked to triggering problems when children are vaccinated

This is not correct. Full understanding is not needed to conclude here exists no causal relationship.

My whole post was that you can’t throw around absolutes while mocking people throwing around absolutes. Which is exactly what you are doing.

You can practice science. You can’t “believe” in it.

The only ‘facts’ here are that we don’t know what causes autism. It does not appear to be genetic as I understand it. It’s entirely possible that in some people it’s triggered during something that happens with the vaccine process. We just don’t know. It’s unlikely, it’s not a reason to withhold vaccines, but scientifically it’s not a fact to say vaccines definitely does or does not cause autism in some people.

I’m sure that last sentience makes you mad, which again, is very unscientific. Try taking the absolutes out, and question everything including the big things.

> My whole post was that you can’t throw around absolutes while mocking people throwing around absolutes. Which is exactly what you are doing.

No, I'm "mocking" people that "throw around" falsehoods.

> The only ‘facts’ here are that we don’t know what causes autism.

Incorrect. It's also a fact that it's not connected to vaccines.

> It’s entirely possible that in some people it’s triggered during something that happens with the vaccine process.

Nope, because then we'd see evidence of it. Which we don't, after hundreds of thousands of samples.

Furthermore, analysis from the other direction have demonstrated that most of the "rise" in autism is due to better diagnostics. So we have here no observation of any connection between autism and vaccines, and from the other side the diagnostic changes have mostly been accounted for. Where do you think an alleged connection to vaccines would hide?

Face it, vaccines do not cause autism. There is and never was any reason to connect the two, just like there is little reason to connect vaccines with lightning strikes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com