"DR" Ciara Kelly

PAULWATSON · 29-08-2010 12:03pm #1

I see that Ciara Kelly is rabbiting on again today in the Sunday Independent.

Fresh from making a total sham over the swine flu debacle, she is back today suggesting that MANDATORY vaccinations should be introduced. All the usual cliches and emotional blackmail are used to full effect.

"What about the little guys", "By not getting your child vaccinated you are being reckless and putting others at risk" and blah, blah, blah.

Of course "Dr" Kelly fits the profile for such a campaign. She is female, middle aged, a "Dr" , a little cutie profile picture accompanies the piece. All the mothers will swoon and take the bait.

I tell you what Ciara, I called the medical establishments bluff on the swine flu, and I call your bluff on this.

Disgusting.

GradMed · 29-08-2010 12:13pm

Perhaps this may be more suited to the conspiracy theory forum, although a debate on mandatory vaccinations would be interesting.

tallaght01 · 29-08-2010 12:19pm

I think anyone who say they called the medical establishment's bluff on a significant influenza mutation needs to be in the CT forum alright.
:pac:

PAULWATSON · 29-08-2010 12:26pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think anyone who say they called the medical establishment's bluff on a significant influenza mutation needs to be in the CT forum alright.
:pac:

I merely stated a series of facts. I seen the swine flu outbreak as overhyped (subsequently proved to be the case). I did not get the vaccination and I did not contract the swine flu or any other flu.

Where is the conspiracy here???????

Dinner · 29-08-2010 12:30pm

Why did you put Dr. in quotation marks? Is there some debate about her qualifications or is it that you just disagree with her?

PAULWATSON · 29-08-2010 12:34pm

Dinner wrote: »

Why did you put Dr. in quotation marks? Is there some debate about her qualifications or is it that you just disagree with her?

The use of the Doctor title is commonly used as an "appeal to authority". I feel that she is not dealing with facts and merely relying on emotive arguments to emotionally blackmail the gullible.

Dinner · 29-08-2010 12:37pm

PAULWATSON wrote: »

The use of the Doctor title is commonly used as an "appeal to authority". I feel that she is not dealing with facts and merely relying on emotive arguments to emotionally blackmail the gullible.

But she is a doctor then? And so there isn't anything wrong or questionable with using the Dr. title. Just because you disagree with what she is saying isn't reason to attempt to plant some sort of doubt about her qualifications, which is what your use of quotation marks implies.

GradMed · 29-08-2010 12:41pm

PAULWATSON wrote: »

I merely stated a series of facts. I seen the swine flu outbreak as overhyped (subsequently proved to be the case). I did not get the vaccination and I did not contract the swine flu or any other flu.

Where is the conspiracy here???????

I'd argue you provided a series of opinions not facts.
Anyhoo, the reason I suggested the conspiracy theory forum was that you're suggesting deceptions involving both swine flu and vaccinations.

PAULWATSON · 29-08-2010 12:42pm

Dinner wrote: »

But she is a doctor then? And so there isn't anything wrong or questionable with using the Dr. title. Just because you disagree with what she is saying isn't reason to attempt to plant some sort of doubt about her qualifications, which is what your use of quotation marks implies.

In the past Doctors had a certain sense of respect and responsibility, Ms Kelly seems to be beyond all that. Titles do not impress me.

tallaght01 · 29-08-2010 12:44pm

PAULWATSON wrote: »

I merely stated a series of facts. I seen the swine flu outbreak as overhyped (subsequently proved to be the case). I did not get the vaccination and I did not contract the swine flu or any other flu.

Where is the conspiracy here???????

It was in it's mickey proven!

You need to A) read up on the history of influenza mutations and the huge problems they have almost inadvertently caused and

realise that the WHO have no authority over most of our swine flu responses.

I'm not going to engage with this rubbish, as I know the wall of text that awaits me

PAULWATSON · 29-08-2010 12:46pm

GradMed wrote: »

I'd argue you provided a series of opinions not facts.
Anyhoo, the reason I suggested the conspiracy theory forum was that you're suggesting deceptions involving both swine flu and vaccinations.

No I am STATING that the swine flu issue was massivly overhyped, do you disagree??

And I am also stating that "mandatory" vaccinations are a disgusting suggestion in what is supposedly a free society. Doctors should provide health care not propose a totalitarian agenda.

Do you disagree with either suggestion?

GradMed · 29-08-2010 12:54pm

PAULWATSON wrote: »

I tell you what Ciara, I called the medical establishments bluff on the swine flu, and I call your bluff on this.

Actually the above is what you stated. A bluff is a form of deception and that is why I suggested the CT forum.
You are now saying

PAULWATSON wrote: »

No I am STATING that the swine flu issue was massivly overhyped, do you disagree??

And I am also stating that "mandatory" vaccinations are a disgusting suggestion in what is supposedly a free society. Doctors should provide health care not propose a totalitarian agenda.

Do you disagree with either suggestion?

If you began with this then I would not have suggested the CT forum.

resus · 29-08-2010 1:51pm

Some would argue that H1N1/09 pandemic was very well managed, and hence it did not become a problem in Ireland...

tallaght01 · 29-08-2010 1:59pm

resus wrote: »

Some would argue that H1N1/09 pandemic was very well managed, and hence it did not become a problem in Ireland...

To be fair, it was probably the least virulent influenza mutant that we've had in living memory. But we didn't know that. I was very much in the front line from a public health perspective, and involved i high level planning. And for the conspiracy nutters to say that the WHO was telling us what to do is just bizarre. The other implication that we were deliberately overhyping it is laughable. Our health authority wasn't paying overtime for it (just "time off in lieu" which we all now we will never get to take) and we were all reduced to jibbering wrecks by the end of it. I worked 30 days straight, or thereabouts, at one point.

I'd have loved if that poxy virus had never reared it's head.

PLus, people need to remember that the WHO were the ones who downplayed it initially, after the Mexicans reported a 7% fatality rate.

Cavehill Red · 29-08-2010 2:01pm

Anti-vaccine windowlicker pretends doctor has less authority than him and his tinfoil hat pals, claims saving lives is totalitarian.
Conspiracy theories

>

My name is URL · 29-08-2010 2:55pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

It was in it's mickey proven!

You need to A) read up on the history of influenza mutations and the huge problems they have almost inadvertently caused and realise that the WHO have no authority over most of our swine flu responses.

I'm not going to engage with this rubbish, as I know the wall of text that awaits me

They may not have any official authority but surely their word is treated with respect and seen as the voice of authority?

There's been a few questionable practices which have been brought to light over this vaccination scramble... the ghost writers that some pharma companies employed to write case studies, the conflicts of interest between WHO advisers and vaccine producers, etc.

I know it's only a tiny minority who've been involved in those cases, but has any example been made of them yet which might allay some people's concerns and put an end to skepticism about their motives?

bleg · 29-08-2010 2:59pm

PAULWATSON wrote: »

I merely stated a series of facts. I seen the swine flu outbreak as overhyped (subsequently proved to be the case). I did not get the vaccination and I did not contract the swine flu or any other flu.

Where is the conspiracy here???????

Yeah, it was the medical establishment who were hyping it up, not the scientific illiterate media:rolleyes:

tallaght01 · 29-08-2010 3:02pm

My name is URL wrote: »

They may not have any official authority but surely their word is treated with respect and seen as the voice of authority?

There's been a few questionable practices which have been brought to light over this vaccination scramble... the ghost writers that some pharma companies employed to write case studies, the conflicts of interest between WHO advisers and vaccine producers, etc.

I know it's only a tiny minority who've been involved in those cases, but has any example been made of them yet which might allay some people's concerns and put an end to skepticism about their motives?

All they did was give us in Oz some technical advice about the number of cases and the international system. We have a very well defined pandemic plan (as does Ireland) and our actions were based on the decision making structures within that plan. We had our own public health and infectious diseases people advising us. In fact, we dealt with the pandemic in a way that the WHO didn't suggest.

They gave technical advice to the pharma companies about making the vaccine. But we ran our decisions off the published evidence at the time, and I can say we wold deal with it the same way if it happened again tomorrow. You'll always have people with conflicts of interest. But that doesn't mean they will act out of selfishness, especially when we're dealing with a global pandemic.

The biggest driving force in the whole thing was politics. Something needed to be seen to be done, so stupid temperature sensors were wheeled out etc. But the politicians did their own thing by and large.

People really are fooling themselves if they think the WHO drove the response of most developed countries.

My name is URL · 29-08-2010 3:15pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

People really are fooling themselves if they think the WHO drove the response of most developed countries.

I do agree with you, but at the same time you can't really blame people for assuming that the WHO are an authoritative figure. They were referenced, quoted, referred to and held up as an authoritative figure by the mass media.

As for the conflicts of interest, yes they exist most of the time. But this particular case of it is quite absurd given the severity of it and the urgency to get things done asap. I think there should be measures in place to take any conflicts of interest out of the equation in global emergencies, they should certainly be retrospectively investigated to ensure nothing untoward happened

tallaght01 · 29-08-2010 3:26pm

My name is URL wrote: »

I do agree with you, but at the same time you can't really blame people for assuming that the WHO are an authoritative figure. They were referenced, quoted, referred to and held up as an authoritative figure by the mass media.

As for the conflicts of interest, yes they exist most of the time. But this particular case of it is quite absurd given the severity of it and the urgency to get things done asap. I think there should be measures in place to take any conflicts of interest out of the equation in global emergencies, they should certainly be retrospectively investigated to ensure nothing untoward happened

But who would you use? There aren't a lot of experts in emerging virus pandemics in the world. Those people, by virtue of their skills, are consulted by drug companies all the time.

I hate the drug companies, but not everyone who's associated with them is a bad person.

bleg · 29-08-2010 4:21pm

tallaght01 wrote: »

But who would you use? There aren't a lot of experts in emerging virus pandemics in the world. Those people, by virtue of their skills, are consulted by drug companies all the time.

I hate the drug companies, but not everyone who's associated with them is a bad person.

It's a lot easier to peddle them as faceless corporate entities rather than as ordinary people like you and I just trying to make a living.

skregs · 29-08-2010 4:55pm

Mandatory vaccinations bombed the World Trade Centre

King Mob · 29-08-2010 5:07pm

Hey you guys remember when the Lizard people/the joos where planning to use swine flu to institute mandatory vaccinations all over the world and shoot anyone who refused?

Fun times....

My name is URL · 29-08-2010 5:14pm

Well people say that defending corrupt soldiers is unlike defending the forces as a whole, and does more damage than good to the collective reputations of those. I think something similar should apply here

You're all very witty with your 9/11 lizard rhetoric etc, but it's unnecessarily blasé to equate those things to any criticism that people may have about this subject. If you can't argue the points civilly then why bother at all? Last time I'll bother posting here tbh

2Scoops · 29-08-2010 5:21pm

The medical usefulness of vaccines is beyond doubt but the bigger issue to me is that mandatory vaccinations, just like mandatory organ donations, leave a bad taste in the mouth of some and may even reduce uptake! But regardless of whether it works or not, I think we've seen quite enough silly legislation in this country that erodes civil liberties and we don't need any more.

+1 for vaccinations.
-1 for mandatory vaccinations.

King Mob · 29-08-2010 5:27pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Well people say that defending corrupt soldiers is unlike defending the forces as a whole, and does more damage than good to the collective reputations of those. I think something similar should apply here

You're all very witty with your 9/11 lizard rhetoric etc, but it's unnecessarily blasé to equate those things to any criticism that people may have about this subject. If you can't argue the points civilly then why bother at all? Last time I'll bother posting here tbh

And faking outrage and offensive is a great way to avoid answering any points made against you.

PAULWATSON · 29-08-2010 5:48pm

My name is URL wrote: »

You're all very witty with your 9/11 lizard rhetoric etc, but it's unnecessarily blasé to equate those things to any criticism that people may have about this subject.

Just standard arugment used by these people, when they can't debate the issue stupid cliches are used to smear other reasonable posts.

iPlop · 29-08-2010 6:03pm

PAULWATSON wrote: »

Just standard arugment used by these people, when they can't debate the issue stupid cliches are used to smear other reasonable posts.

Comedian:rolleyes:

RobFowl · 29-08-2010 6:09pm

PAULWATSON wrote: »

Just standard arugment used by these people, when they can't debate the issue stupid cliches are used to smear other reasonable posts.

I'm very much in favour of vaccination but opposed to mandatory vaccination.

Now that's out of the way I think that article peddles an extreme view. Unfortunately newspapers tend to be more likely to publish views that are polarised and view issues in a black/white way. The Sindo in notorious for this.

It's unfortunate but balanced articles about issues which are far from clear cut are hard to find, especially in the mainstream press.

opinion guy · 29-08-2010 7:15pm

Spock wrote:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one

Yeah. So there.

Opinion Guy may not actually have any point and may simply be thanks-whoring.....

Dave! · 30-08-2010 12:07am

I'm not sure about mandatory vaccinations (as in, doctors knocking on doors and administering shots!), but some sort of coersive means might be a good idea. Like in the States, I believe some schools make it mandatory as a condition of being granted your place. So it is in effect compulsory for families living around that school.

In the interest of public health, if we can get rid of these diseases completely then many lives will be saved.

"DR" Ciara Kelly

Comments