tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194560318121191084.post2406927225854377129..comments2023-08-16T05:51:48.555-05:00Comments on New-Think: Vaccines and Autism: New-Think RespondsJeff Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17340516058706152891noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8194560318121191084.post-23897576493053142752007-06-19T21:47:00.000-05:002007-06-19T21:47:00.000-05:00Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Here are a ...Thanks for your thoughtful responses. Here are a few further thoughts and clarifications from my perspective:<BR/><BR/>Regarding "I have a few comments...." and New-Think's response:<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that responsible parents should educate themselves about vaccinations along with a myriad of other things as they raise their children, just as you suggest. I'll admit that I didn't look at your reference links before writing last time. I have begun looking at them and agree you've presented both perspectives.<BR/><BR/>That the "day in court" is coming is good, I guess, although I'm not too confident in the legal system in instances like this. I hope the right conclusions are reached and it's not just the lawyers that win.<BR/><BR/>Coincidentally, ABC News had another piece on this subject last night. Readers might want to check both the piece and the related viewer comments for more info (abcnews.com do a search for "autism"). Seems there have been three government reviews of available research with the same conclusion that there is no link between vaccinations and autism. The responses to the piece naturally cover the spectrum. I'll have to admit that my previous response came from my gut since myself and everyone I knew had all the childhood vaccinations, my children and essentially every child I knew of that age had them. Most of the next generation is still having them and I've never personally met an autistic child nor do I personally know anyone that has one. I'll grant you that doesn't prove anything, but I think you can see why I responded the way I did. However, I certainly support parents researching this and any other thing they perceive as a risk to their children.<BR/><BR/>Regarding using material from aborted fetuses.........and the New-Think response: <BR/><BR/>I respectfully disagree with your paraphrase. I didn't say the example from 20 years ago proved anything. But, as you say, the claim is similar, so it naturally raises more than a bit of skepticism in my mind. As you noted sometimes people's responses get a little on the hysterical side. (It's just other people, not me.) Thanks for the extra links. I'll check them out.<BR/><BR/>Regarding "The post contained some seemingly propagandistic language" and New-Think's response:<BR/><BR/>Again, I respectfully disagree with your logical paraphrase. I didn't represent my arguments as logical proofs--more like editorial comments. However, I agree wholeheartedly that we have to be careful about what we put in our bodies or what procedures we subject ourselves to. I also agree we as a society have found out the hard way when the FDA, our doctors, or industry makes a mistake or misleads us. <BR/><BR/>Overall, I think New-Think has fairly presented its case on this subject. You can attribute my caution (and/or reaction) as an effect of having achieved "geezerdom". <BR/><BR/>Thanks again and have a good day!<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Geezer<BR/><BR/>PS: Just a thought on assessing risk before I sign off on this subject. Consider both the likelihood and the consequences of each scenario to compare risk. If you get similar results for two scenarios give more weight to consequence.Geezerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05055289325573009616noreply@blogger.com