Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Could we please have a vaccination place please..PLEASE...PLEASE...

85 replies

pagwatch · 29/04/2009 15:56

....so that all the people who want to be rude about me, be sarcastic about autism, suggest holding down my DD and jabbing her against my wishes, call me deluded or a liar can form their own club and have meetings AND I CAN HIDE IT.

Other sections are created because they are sensitive and this is now a regular and often nasty subject.

I know I can hide thread but that is always so hard once I have seen them ( and soemtimes people want advice or experiences) but it is just getting so vile now..

Please? Pretty plaese?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
justaboutspringtime · 09/05/2009 09:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

MNHQ
HelenMumsnet · 06/05/2009 14:17

Hello.

Sorry it's taken us a while but...

Lovely new Vaccinations topic ready for you here

Original poster
pagwatch · 02/05/2009 11:34

Allbuggiedout
I am not really sure that I understand what you mean tbh

I think the discussion is an important one to be had and i think many parents want as much info as possible when they are thinking about vaccination.That is why I think the discussion topicx should be on MN.

The fact that bigotted twats will join the discussion is not really an arguemnt for censoring the discussion in my book - however hard I find it at times. I think MN usually self censors really well and people posting offensive comments in sensitive areas usually get shouted at by the rest of the people on the thread. unfortunately this subject appears to be one where three or four people at a time will keep the tone lowered.

Having a special area means I can not have it in active convos but find it when I feel up to having a look. It just allows me to dip in or out.

OP posts:
ruty · 02/05/2009 11:00

sorry unfair to say most. Many.

ruty · 02/05/2009 10:58

Most people seem to veer from absolute panic about their own child to total complacency once they feel their child is not at risk. I know it is easy to do, but I wish they could just observe their own motivations a little bit more.

saintlydamemrsturnip · 02/05/2009 10:42

I find it very amusing that no-one medical ha ever queried ds1's regression. It's in his diagnosis letter- along with the trigger- a virus. Had it been a vaccine virus I would have been told I just hadn't noticed.

ruty · 02/05/2009 10:28

saintly

Can't believe how many people, with no personal experience of autism or of regression whatsoever, find fit to tell those who do have personal experience they just wanted someone to blame/hadn't noticed their child was autistic before/had only been diagnosed because diagnosis is more accurate these days. That I would really like to see absent in future threads.

kittywise · 02/05/2009 09:33

I don't tend to tell people what happened to my son, they don't really want to know, as you say, it frightens them.

saintlydamemrsturnip · 02/05/2009 08:41

I think a discussion on pros and cons of vaccination is fine.

I think the 'so what?' that happens when people share their stories of regression is not fine.

It was that which really irritated me about my optician. She wasn't remotely interested in what happened to my son or what that meant to him or us. She just wanted his story to reassure her that it wasn't going to happen to her son. I can't describe how shitty that makes you feel.

CoteDAzur · 02/05/2009 08:03

Oops.

CoteDAzur · 02/05/2009 08:03

Although I understand why pagwatch and others in her position would want to hide the Vaccination topic, I think their contribution is vital and hope they will continue to educate share their knowledge and experience.

Many on MN (myself included) knew nothing about possible adverse effects of vaccinations before reading their posts.

CoteDAzur · 02/05/2009 08:03

Although I understand why pagwatch and others in her position would want to hide the Vaccination topic, I think their contribution is vital and hope they will continue to educate share their knowledge and experience.

Many on MN (myself included) knew nothing about possible adverse effects of vaccinations before reading their posts.

CoteDAzur · 02/05/2009 08:03

Although I understand why pagwatch and others in her position would want to hide the Vaccination topic, I think their contribution is vital and hope they will continue to educate share their knowledge and experience.

Many on MN (myself included) knew nothing about possible adverse effects of vaccinations before reading their posts.

stuffitlllama · 02/05/2009 02:36

by somebody else

stuffitlllama · 02/05/2009 02:08

well the discussion was started with somebody else, if you have a look, and they had point of view which many felt was unreasonable

i think it's fair to expect to be able to have a public discussion without ugliness, or at least to hope for it

abo that comment was a little bit

it sounds like "don't tell us your story if you don't want us to be horrid about it"

you can't possibly have meant it that way, I'm sure you didn't, nobody would

AllBuggiedOut · 01/05/2009 22:35

I can understand why you would want that, Pagwatch. But don't understand why you would have a public discussion if you don't want the people who are inevitably going to react like that, to join in.

gussymooloo · 01/05/2009 21:50

I havent read that yet!

gussymooloo · 01/05/2009 21:49

Yeah i can see what your saying, makes some heavy duty reading.. thanks for you help.

ruty · 01/05/2009 21:48

I would really like you to write a book saintly. I think so many people would buy it.

saintlydamemrsturnip · 01/05/2009 21:47

I think chen and de stefano also (iirc) suggested that parents just hadn't noticed their children were autistic and so imagined the regression as well - to which I say .

saintlydamemrsturnip · 01/05/2009 21:45

Chen and deStefano were asking things like 'was the rate of ASD different in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations' though which is entirely the wrong way of looking at the question. It treats autism as one thing (it's not) and suggests that Wakefield and others think that the rise in autism is due to MMR (they don't). They (iirc) misunderstood that Wakefield was talking about a small subgroup of the autism population.

Original poster
pagwatch · 01/05/2009 21:42

Allbuggiedout.

I have no problem - no problem at all with the views of "pro-vaccinators".
I am actually not anti-vaccine.

People can disagree with a link between MMR and ASD - a perfectly valid and reasonable view in my opinion.
I just sometimes want to avoid the vitriol and the abuse.If you read the thread you will find a great deal of abuse, sarcasm as well as some pretty sad 'jokes' and some comments about my DD being jabbed against my will. Not terribly nice really.
Although I did call one woman a twat in response ( but i think it was justified )
one thing that interests me though0 - I have always believed that those who are the most aggresive, the most abusive and the most vitriolic are usually feeling defensive about something.

I just want to be able sometimes to log on without having someone call me a liar and comment that my sons difficulties are a minority and therefore unimportant. Just sometimes.

OP posts:
ruty · 01/05/2009 21:41

[I'm glad you do though]

ruty · 01/05/2009 21:40

Saintly. I honestly don't know how the fuck you do it.

AllBuggiedOut · 01/05/2009 21:30

Ta. Don't suppose I will enjoy it