@Smile18
Why is there such a bad understanding of statistics in some of the HV community?
My daughter was born on the 91st centile, but she was also born at 42+2 by EMCS after I had been given a lot of IV fluids. I was given a hugely hard time of it by my HV when my daughter went down to the 75th centile over the course of the first two months, but she was still gaining weight, just not enough to satisfy the HV. She was happy sleeping well at night (which the HV told me was because she was so underfed she was just too sleepy?!) and progressively more alert during the day, hitting all her milestones with plenty of wet and dirty nappies. After weaning, she remains around the 65th centile (though she is still pretty tall) and eats like a horse - just like my husband and MIL, who are tall and slim. My (new) HV is extremely happy with her.
My point is that my daughter was 9lb 8 but pretty late. This is not adjusted for at all in the lines on the charts, unlike those who are born even a week early. Why the dogma? When I tried to query this with my original HV and got upset at her repeated insistence that my daughter was failing to thrive (despite me having queried this with the GP, who was very happy with her) she told me I was likely mentally ill and told me that I was harming my baby by not waking her every 3 hours at night to feed her at 8 weeks. This really upset me. I do understand that there needs to be a process to pick up those babies who are not gaining sufficient weight due to underlying health concerns, but I am not sure that the rigidity with which some HVs apply it is helpful - quite the opposite, as many people on MN and in real life then say that there is little science in the weighing and plotting and to ignore HVs, which also carries its own risks.