I have to put in writing that I am taking responsibility for the risk that my baby might die from not vaccination

[StarlightMcKenzie]

The exact words the nurse spoke!?

I'll put something in writing if that is what they want but not that.

Apparently they have a duty to inform the HV of the risks that I am taking and have I heard the recent news oday of all the babies dying?

I'm bloody cross with this nurse tbh.

Then report me Elaine. I m quite relaxed about that.

I think coming on a thread like this and being sneery is cuntish.
So I am only calling people cunts for goading and sneering.
It's is a bit 'if the cap fits' really.

Saintly, I've never commented on anyone's individual experiences, I think there is some projection going on.

Pagwatch, no, I won't report it. I'd rather leave it, especially since youve posted previously about the importance of keeping things polite and repsectful. its up to jo to report it if she feels the need. After all the damage has been done already! I never noticed any sneering and even so, personal attacks and abusive langauge are pretty unpleasant even if you are very relaxed about them.

I hope the posts stay. Pagwatch once told me that I weakened my own position by being rude, and I believe she was right. Sometimes she engages, today she wants to stand on the sidelines, cheering on one side and insulting the other. I have every possible sympathy for her home life, but no sympathy whatsoever for her view that this entitles her, or others in similar positions, to spread unsubstantiated smears without being challenged. She says this means I'm a cunt. [shrugs]

Why would pagwatch need 'sympathy' for her home life?

Sort of comment which demonstrates the gap really. : gives up:

Noone has goaded you leonie. Interesting that you cry that you've been goaded here as well. Asking you to substantiate your pretty outrageous comments regarding vaccinations is not goading.

I do admit having had mocked you in the past for making very silly and illogical statements which is admittedly not ok or nice. But as pagwatch herself succinctly put it 'if the cap fits'....

Saintly, given that pagwatch has called jo both a cunt and a wanker, as well as thick, I don't think you can really judge her for using the word 'sympathy'. I'd say thats pretty good going considering

One word: disingenuous.

I think pagwatch has been provoked, cleverly and easy to miss by those who lack the emotional intelligence to remember there's a real child at the end of all this playing with words.

Some of us don't inhabit the world where vaccine damage never occurs.

I am interested in your views on the urabe debacle - particularly the link I posted earlier. Was it you who said previously that was an example of vaccine safety checks working? (Just maybe not as well in the UK compared to Canada, the Philippines, Japan, anywhere else).

Oh the you in the previous post not you leonie. Obviously.

Real children are also killed and damaged by vaccine preventable diseases. I've never questioned pagwatchs account of what happened to her ds, she herself has questioned whether her ds was actually damaged by a vaccine or whether it was coincidence. I'd only say that the scientific evidence suggests very much the latter rather than the former.

Still no excuse for abusive language IMO, despite leonie's encouragement (I suspect the irony has missed her).

Leonie, I think you'll find that encouraging other posters to attack and use abusive language towards another poster is actually called bullying.

Don't worry, I won't report it. I prefer these posts to be left as I feel that they are very revealing

The 'scientific evidence' says nothing at all about Pagwatch's son, as it is population level evidence. For an individual child it is individual clinical evidence that is important. Luckily some of my friends have had doctors sensible enough to look at clinical evidence. But I seem to remember that discussion went on for 30 pages before.

Nothing about urabe strain then. :loses interest:

Thats good Elaine. I agree with you.

These threads are indeed very revealing.
There are posters who turn up for all sorts of reasons. Personal experience, a professional interest - maybe they just catch the eye in active convos.
Those contributors bring their views and that is valid and interesting, sometimes it is supportive or informative.

Then there is another class of poster. One who does a silent shout of joy that they have a thread which allows them, with no empathy or compassion, to arrive and bait. They don't care that they may be talking to people who had followed the vaccination programme until they had a dreadful experience. That they may be caring for a profoundly disabled child. They know that is who they are baiting because they have been there before - posted snide goading posts before - it is just a crass excercise in prodding and insulting for as long as the thread lasts.

Yes, I can admit my posting rates quite high on an uncouth scale. But generally, as a poster on MN, I am polite and fair minded. I just have no patience with the emotionally thuggish.

I have just become immensely bored of the moral compass that allows people to taunt and goad simply to pass a presumeably bored hour and then feign indignation when I say cunt. Pathetic.

Of course clinicians at the individual level should look at the individual saintly. And there are some rare cases of vaccine damage which may very well get overlooked.

Pagwatch, I found that post quite passive aggressive. If you wish to make a point to any one poster, then please say it. You clearly dont have a problem with doing so.

It's not passive aggressive. It is explaining where my personal line is on these threads.
Turn up and express your opinion by all means. But turning up simply to shit stir makes me personally view those comments with contempt.
I don't have a problem with any particular poster. I have a problem with shit stirrers.

Just to add, the concept of clinicians evaluating the individual experience was exactly the reason why my advice to starlight was to geis specialist advice, it is entiirely possible that in stsrlights case, She is supported in her decision by a medical professional, even if is purely based on the precautionary principle.

I didn't criticise her decision, I know nothing about her reasons so wouldn't presume to criticise her decision (and she never asked) but I do think that if you decide not to vaccinate you should seek out specialist professional advice to fully understand the risks involved and what the latest research says (and not just rely on google).

Of course clinicians at the individual level should look at the individual saintly. And there are some rare cases of vaccine damage which may very well get overlooked.

Wow. That's further than we've got in the previous 6 months.

Well, I don't like shit stirrers any more than you pagwatch and I've seen them on both sides

I've never said differently saintly.