Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this nurse was exaggerating the truth...

319 replies

Likeaheadlesschicken · 15/09/2011 13:33

I have just been to take my DD (13 months) for her injections. I very politely requested to have the 12 month boosters on a separate visit to the MMR. The nurse then told me that every other child in the country has their's together. AIBU to think this isnt the case???

In the end she agreed but after trying to make me feel silly and very PFB-ish. I definately don't want to turn this into a MMR/vaccinations debate, I just feel that it should be "my baby my choice" on how things are done (obviously working within the constraints of the NHS) and that it simply isn't true that ALL children have their injections together.

OP posts:
silverfrog · 17/09/2011 21:07

ooh get you - emails from HQ Wink

no such thing for me - maybe there has to be a tipping point of, say, half a dozen posts deleted or something, before you get to know why?

I think it shows that they only deleted because it was reported, iyswim - not because they necessarily thought it was worth deletion. they are a bit trigger happy with the deletions these days - it seems a though a post is deleted if it is reported, rahter than if it merits deletion.

PfftTheMagicDraco · 17/09/2011 21:22

My children had their injections on separate appointments.

They don't want you to, as they worry that you won't come back, and that it takes more time.

I didn't want to be putting 7, or 9, or however many in at once. So I can back each time and spaced them out.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 22:07

Bumbleymummy 'What childhood diseases were close to eradication and are suddenly making a comeback?'

Here's an article that describes it quite well, (and it's not the DM):

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jun/13/vaccines-health

Blueberties · 17/09/2011 22:11

The Guardian has gone all establishment. It's as though it's forgotten what journalism is. It's as though it considers "investigative" journalism to be sneering at individuals on behalf of the establishment.

Blueberties · 17/09/2011 22:13

Wow that was before I even read the the headline. V Stalinist! So much for standing up for the little people.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 22:14

Oh please - lets bring down the Guardian Now?

Blueberties · 17/09/2011 22:20

Bring it down? sorry don't understand that

I did first notice it maybe eight years ago? Or maybe it was 1997 when it happened and I just didn't notice. It suddenly changed from questioning the official line to sneering at those who do.

The first reports I read questioning MMR were in the Guardian, reports of children developing asthma, arthritis etc afterwards.

That was before they fell in love with nanny corporatism.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 22:27

'Bring it down' - well of course, I mean discredit it for being 'establishment' and 'stalinist' (can you be both in non-Stalinist Russia?)

Blueberties · 17/09/2011 22:31

Well it's just my opinion - is there a problem with expressing an opinion? It's pretty Stalinist to want to force everybody to vaccinate their children even if they have a philosophical or religious reason not to, incredibly so. It's horrific. What are you going to do, vaccinate at gunpoint?

At least there wouldn't be a control group then. Maybe that's the idea behind it - no one to say well we didn't vaccinate and we're not dead and we don't have fifty million autoimmune diseases either.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 22:37

Oh no, as I say I cited that article in answer to Bumbleymummy's question. Many apologies, I do not consider it worthwhile, or even desirable to make vaccination compulsory. (that's not the main point of that article).

Vaccination at gunpoint? No, I think that's a bit paranoid isn't it? Especially in the UK. I quoted that article purely in answer to Bumbley's question.

I already said I said I didn't believe in compulsory vaccination - maybe you should read the whole thread?

Blueberties · 17/09/2011 22:41

Yes I realise that's why you quoted it, my assessment was based on the article itself. Forced vaccination is a hideous idea but it fits it with the general Guardian approach these days. I wouldn't trust the figures in it tbh. I actually can't bear to read the article but if you would extract the figures and their sources I would read that. I understand though if you don't want to.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 22:44

Still not why I quoted the article though blueberties

Forced vaccination was a subject tackled at the end of the article - and one I don't agree with. As I said - I quoted it in answer to Bumbley's question.

I don't agree with forced vaccination - wasn't the point of the article - but you can go on about that if you want.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 22:46

If you can't bear to read the article - why comment on it? If you can't bear to arm yourself with all the facts...

Blueberties · 17/09/2011 23:01

"armed with the facts"?

But that's not facts, it's opinion. Like I said, if you want to extract the facts and post them that would be great, I'd be really interested. Or maybe there's another link where the figures aren't associated with the demand for forced vaccination - they might have more credibility then?

YY I said I didn't read the article, only the headline, and my opinion is based on that. This is the headline and strap:

Immunity: when it's smart to go with the herd
With once rare infectious diseases making a worrying comeback, we must stop permitting parents' 'philosophical exemptions'

So you know, it's pretty fair comment really. You don't need to read the article to understnad what it's going to say unless the headline is a lie.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 23:05

If someone comments on a whole article, and then only admits they headline, then that is prejudice. It is not fair comment.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 23:06

sorry that's 'only admits they read the headline'

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 23:13

btw, I really don't understand your 'we're not dead and we don't have 50 million auto immune disease either' statement? Could you explain?

Blueberties · 17/09/2011 23:14

Er.. I said right at the top that I only read the headline and strap. Didn't claim anything else. The headline and strap recommend forced vaccination. I never commented on the article. How could I have, I didn't read it, because it was recommending forced vaccination.

But I did say (twice) that I'd love to see the facts if you'd care to post them or to offer a different link. I really think their credibility is undermined by them being in an article which calls for forced vaccination.

But still, you know, obviously if you want to show those facts not recommending forced vaccination, great, happy to "arm myself" with them, not a problem at all.

(If you are takling about my general opinion of the Guardian's love in with corporate nannyism is obviously based on a lot of reading over the years though, of course. )

Blueberties · 17/09/2011 23:16

Wrt to the other question: that was hyperbole aboput the 50 million autoimmune disease but what I meant was: at the moment you do have unvaccinated people who can stand up and give their experiences of disease and health. Quite often unvaccinated populations can report less auot-immune disease in terms of asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, allergy and so on. But forced vaccination would remove such a "control cohort" - such as it is.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 23:19

You commented on - and I quote - 'forced vaccination at gunpoint'. on basis of just reading a headline and strap?

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 23:20

Do you have figures to back that statement up?

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 23:24

I mean, it's quite simple, don't make comments on something you admit you haven't read.

Blueberties · 17/09/2011 23:32

But I read the headline and strap which called for forced vaccination and commented on that Hmm

I didn't comment on "forced vaccination at gunpoint" Hmm

I asked - "What are you going to do, vaccinate at gunpoint?"

So listen sweetie if you want to give me the figures unattached to a call for forced vaccination I would definitely afford them more credibility.

Figures on what, I haven't said anything that might prompt figures. I said quite often unvaccinated populations report less auto immune disease etc etc I paraphrase myself. I mean, for example, the population of home educated children in the US. I don't expect you to believe it; I'm saying that if there was forced vaccination, such a population wouldn't even exist and we'd have no knowledge of the unvaccinated experience at all. I'm not sure what you want figures on, and I don't really want to play a game of "you show me yours first" Smile because it's Saturday night and I highly doubt you want to ferret around disease notification and public health websites dredging up the figures in that article.

But if you do, at some point, I'm very happy to read them.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 23:39

'sweetie' - take that patronising tone elsewhere.

If you think there is any semantic difference between ' forced vac at gunpoint' and 'what are you going to do, vac at gunpoint?' - then we are on very different levels of language.

Figures on - well, the 50 million auto-immune you quoted? I will not engage in a forced vac conversation with you, however hard you try, because forced vac was not the point of that link.

KouklaMoo · 17/09/2011 23:40

Although I am a sweetie x