Vaccinations and nursery schools

[Louise1010]

This is my first post so forgive me if I do anything wrong!

I am just beginning to look at nursery schools for my 15 month old son, and I am a bit surprised that they don't seem to care whether or not he has been vaccinated. I expected it to be a requirement.

It seems incredible to me that I have to provide evidence of my cat's jabs to the cattery but when it comes to children anything goes.

Has anyone come across a nursery school in the UK that does require it?

I'd love to see some evidence, Mrs Geranium.

I find it very disappointing that when a few posters keep questioning the safety of vaccines, when they're asked "Have you got any evidence to suggest they're not safe?" they never have any. Why do you suppose that is?

'intravenous infusion or in the presence of advanced renal dysfunction'

Neither of which are the same as a vaccination jab or even a series of jabs.

You are looking at apples and calling them oranges.

Lots of evidence has been offered PigletJohn: but you are not interested. Lots of pubmed articles across a series of threads: in addition at least one very personal account of regression, about which nobody on the "pro-vaccine at all costs" side has yet managed to express a coherent view. There's no real interest, lots of research which you don't know about, but you all just sneer, get aggressive, use very inappropriate language like bonkers, tosh, cranks, bizarre. This sort of behaviour gives the lie to the claims that you are genuinely interested. It's plain you aren't, you just want to push an agenda.

Mrs Geranium
"Lots of evidence has been offered PigletJohn"

That's great.

Show me the one you think was the best-researched and fullest please, I promise to read it carefully.

for example that very patronising question at the end of your post

"Why do you think that is?"

Why on earth do you feel the need to address people like that? does it make you feel big or something? Or are you trying to belittle them in the eyes of lurkers?

You know very well there's been masses of evidence, lots of links, lots of very good and reasonable arguments. You really want to pretend there isn't, and to give the impression that only very stupid people think there's evidence. to be honest anybody looking through threads for pubmed articles and peer-reviewed work that supports concern over mass vaccination programmes will find plenty to interest them on these threads.

If you're really interested, and in fact really open to a more scientific approach, rather than just a faith-based system of "vaccines are great for everyone" then you could acknowledge that. Again, I say - I don't think you're really interested, it's just some kind of campaign to squish all questioning of vaccines.

Don't tell me to do it for you: you've been across all of these threads and you ignored the articles at the time and you could very well go back and look for them now. You will not, because you aren't interested.

Note again: you ignore the request to try to address the very cogent arguments surrounding personal reports of vaccine damage.

BM, wrt Bruffin's link and the mechanisms that are available to break down aluminium salts, I think you may assume that if the body can metabolise Al then it will. What would prevent it from doing so?

'Saying that something 'isn't considered a problem' doesn't mean much unless you explain why it isn't considered a problem. '
It isn't considered a problem because over 75 years of use (millions vaccinated) it hasn't caused a problem.

'the question of clear anecdotal evidence of vaccine damage'
That is an oxymoron.
Anecdotes are not clear evidence of anything.

This for exmple is not true "I would love to see some evidence" - PJ

No, you really would not. You'd hate it.

I find it very disappointing that when YOU ARE asked "Have you got any evidence to suggest they're not safe?" YOU don't show any.

I particularly asked for the one YOU think is best-researched and fullest, and I promised to read it carefully.

You don't find it disappointing at all. You're trying to find an excuse for not responding to the many, many pieces of evidence you've been presented with, by asking me to carry out the garguantuan task of reading dozens of peer-reviewed pieces of research and giving a private assessment of which is the best. You're trying to squirm out of it.

Anyone can see the links; anyone can see that despite that you just repeat like a mantra, "there's no evidence, there's no evidence" - and you're still pretending now.

Now THAT's disappointing.

You are being abusive. You know that. Please stop accusing me of lying.

You are also being evasive. You allege that there is lots of evidence. I have wasted my time looking at some of the links provided in the past, so I offered you the opportunity to show me the best evidence you have. And you show me nothing.

"I promise to read it carefully."

You see? You mean you're not reading them carefully already, though you claim to be so interested? Come on, this is just what I'm saying. Where's the genuine interest, as opposed to the point scoring?

I think you are finding this a bit uncomfortable, being challenged on your raison d'etre for being on this thread, which basically seems to be to squish all debate. You've admitted not reading the links carefully. Hence the sudden claims of abusiveness, when you don't seem worried when pro-vaccine campaigners use words like tosh, and cranks, and bonkers, and bizarrosphere. Would you like to condemn that now as abusive?

How does you not reading the links carefully fit with your claim to be interested in vaccines and vaccine damage?

You've been presented with lots of evidence - why, all of a sudden, does it have to be RE-presented to you by me? What difference does it make if it's me or the other posters?

don't be silly.

You claim there is lots of evidence. I ask you to show me just one piece of good evidence. And you show me nothing.

And it's pots and kettles to accuse me of being evasive.

Which one of these is true?

A. I am interested in vaccines
B. I am not reading the evidence of vaccines carefully

because they can't both be true.

Another lie by "MrsGeranium"

"You've admitted not reading the links carefully"

I ask you again - why, all of a sudden, does this evidence have to be presented to you all over again by me?

Why wasn't it good enough, or interesting enough, the first time? What makes it more interesting under MY nickname?

Please stop accusing me of lying.

"I particularly asked for the one YOU think is best-researched and fullest, and I promised to read it carefully. "

So you haven't read any of them carefully already.

Since you've joined under your new name just to stir up trouble, and since you are abusive and untruthful, and since you refuse to substantiate your claims, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

All you have to do is go back and look through the evidence, peer-reviewed, pubmed, offered by saintly, offered by bumbley and others. The very fact that you don't, you are completely, one hundred per cent dismissive, indicates that your interest is not genuine.

And you have STILL not responded in any coherent way to reports of vaccine damage experienced by people on these threads.

Since you've joined under your new name just to stir up trouble, and since you are abusive and untruthful, and since you refuse to substantiate your claims, you shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.

Mathanxiety: I think it might benefit some people to go back and look at the hostility, dismissiveness, agression, point-scoring, name-calling, and total lack of genuine interest in the issues covered by these threads which distinguish one particular group of posters. It's not those people who have concerns about mass vaccination programmes.