Hacker News Reader

Comment by mike_hearn | Hacker News Reader

It would only have that net effect if "I don't believe any vaccine is safe" is a universalist principle, and not a statement about the state of today's medical infrastructure. But it's clear from what he says that he believes vaccines could be safe in principle and he wouldn't have an issue with that, they just aren't today for various reasons.

In practice, this is always what so-called anti-vaxxers believe. None of them actually oppose the concept of vaccines out of some kind of ideological principle. It's always specific concerns about actual, specific vaccines that exist in the real world.

View on HN

> In practice, this is always what so-called anti-vaxxers believe. None of them actually oppose the concept of vaccines out of some kind of ideological principle. It's always specific concerns about actual, specific vaccines that exist in the real world.

That's being extremely generous, many people with anti-vax beliefs have not arrived there through careful, rational consideration of anything specific.

> many people with anti-vax beliefs have not arrived there through careful, rational consideration of anything specific.

To be fair, same can be said of pro vax people. Blind belief into what science have become is perhaps more dangerous than blind disbelief.

The risk analysis is no better or worse than it is for other loosely/weakly understood technology such as flying.

It amounts to noticing that few if any of the people you know or are acquainted with through two or three removals from personal contact, have suffered or died as a result of using said technology, and basing your own confidence solely on this privileged form of hearsay.

It sounds like something that should not work, but actually does a pretty good job as a high-pass filter for safety.

But if those specific concerns about specific vaccines end up being "every single vaccine has concerns and there is no mechanism by which we can assuage these concerns" then the material effect is the exact same as if there is a general ideological opposition to all vaccination.

"Vaccines could be safe if we can demonstrate that the moon is made of cheese" is the same as "vaccines are all unsafe."

He hasn't said there is no mechanism. If he believed that he wouldn't be doing the things he's currently doing.

The problem is that anti-vaxx concerns are based on unfounded beliefs (especially in conspiracy), misunderstandings, or out-right misinformation some of which RFK Jr. himself has helped sow over the past twenty years. This "I'm not anti-vaxx, I'm pro vaxx-safety" is merely a guise.

Wondering how you know on what all anti vax beliefs are based?

And additionally, would you think it is a good idea to generalise here?

I don't know on what all (every single one) anti-vaxx beliefs are based, which is why I generalized based on my experiences with the beliefs I've encountered. I can't readily form an opinion on a belief I haven't encountered, can I? All of the common anti-vaxx talking points fit the criteria I listed above, and I know this from my experiences reviewing and researching them. So yes, it is a good idea to generalize for the sake of conveying my experiences here, though I'm not going to prejudge any new anti-vaxx views I haven't previously encountered.

> I don't know on what all (every single one) anti-vaxx beliefs are based

If you would dare to explore, you would find it's based on scientific approach, where trials and statistics matter.

From what I have explored, those beliefs are based on misinformation or misunderstandings drawn from scientific research. In contrast, the vaccine orthodoxy is drawn from a strong body of evidence "where trials and statistics matter". If you are going to assert otherwise, then please provide specific examples.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com