Leo Again

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

They want any ban change based on scientific evidence which the minister, and separately, I, agree with

Would you say objectively that have been on the Sh&tier end of the stick when it comes to revcieving blood products?

Haemophilia society: 100 members infected with contiminated blood products, denied recognition, Given deadly disease and stigmatisation

Government and BTSB: in Denial it happened for 10 years, no one held responsible, tried to patch it up with fund from the National Lottery.

Yeah you could see why these men would have a gripe about blood products. Selfish old men looking after their own interests. Its not like anyone was looking out before. Sorry and a blue Medical Card doesnt really fix things when you have an elevated t-cell count

fran17

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Can I assume that to some degree your................. fascination...., with homosexuality is somewhat down to your religion?
If so then though you may be using some valid reasons and truths for your main topical points, at the back of it all is religiously tinged thinking which quite frankly, and I dont care if this offends, is based upon utter nonsense with zero validity.

You can assume but you would be wrong.God is not pleased,We have enemies of the faith in the kingdom.

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

If the scientific evidence is there to say it's OK after 1 year then why not reduce the ban to that?

I remember I was doing work experience in a hospital many years ago. I was asked to observe a patient giving Haemochromatosis (too much Iron) blood and told it was going to be destoryed. I objected saying couldnt we give it to someone with sickle cell anemia?. The doctor asked me would I take responsibility for it and what if it was given to my mother. I said I would not because I wasnt qualified and I couldnt predict the full effects.

Since then I learned my lesson and let other people in class jump in and make mistakes. I am very conservative about any "massive" leap forwards in science. Dont ever ask a gay person how they feel about giving blood ask Hep C or AID patient instead, or someone who is about to recieve it. Imagine going to your patients house at 10pm and having to tell them 25 years ago they were infected by a blood transfusion. Then have to say sorry, but we will monitor your health.

Your perspective is obscured. I know about 4 women and one man who have received it and no money would compensate them for their liver. Still no accountability from the government. This could potentially bring down the government.

skooterblue2

fran17 wrote: »

God is not pleased,We have enemies of the faith in the kingdom.

Dude..... was with you until now.... on your own there lone ranger

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I remember I was doing work experience in a hospital many years ago. I was asked to observe a patient giving Haemochromatosis (too much Iron) blood and told it was going to be destoryed. I objected saying couldnt we give it to someone with sickle cell anemia?. The doctor asked me would I take responsibility for it and what if it was given to my mother. I said I would not because I wasnt qualified and I couldnt predict the full effects.

Since then I learned my lesson and let other people in class jump in and make mistakes. I am very conservative about any "massive" leap forwards in science. Dont ever ask a gay person how they feel about giving blood ask Hep C or AID patient instead, or someone who is about to recieve it. Imagine going to your patients house at 10pm and having to tell them 25 years ago they were infected by a blood transfusion. Then have to say sorry, but we will monitor your health.

Your perspective is obscured. I know about 4 women and one man who have received it and no money would compensate them for their liver. Still no accountability from the government. This could potentially bring down the government.

Would you not say your perspective is more obscured? I agree with the position of HAI

PopePalpatine

fran17 wrote: »

You can assume but you would be wrong.God is not pleased,We have enemies of the faith in the kingdom.

Take it easy, Fr. McKevitt. Any chance you'll have a look at this?

Zab wrote: »

• Your statistics are not correct.
• You seem to have failed to realize that the SaBTO review (which is the review you are referring to) recommended changing to a 12 month deferrment, which was duly enacted, because the increased risk was deemed to be insignificant.
• The "500%" figure that you're using is cherry-picked from a 2003 UK study (actually 458%) and was the projected increased risk if the deferment was dropped altogether, not if it was changed to 12 months (estimateed as +66% in that study)
• The SaBTO review cites a later reanalysis accounting for modern testing techniques that estimated risk change associated with a 12 month deferment to be between -29.1%(full compliance) to +9.9%(increased non-compliance in line with prevalence) with an increased risk of +0.5% if compliance remained the same
• To use absolute figures, with the lifetime exclusion that was in place at the time, the study estimated 0.227 infections per million donations making it to the blood supply. With a 12 month deferment this was changed to 0.161 for full compliance, 0.228 for same compliance, and 0.249 for increased non-compliance in line with prevalence.
• Most of the above is dealt with in section 9 of the review, starting on page 45, if you're interested.
• You have also inferred that having a 12 month deferrment would increase the non-compliance of MSM individuals, but you have provided no valid basis for this whatsoever. In fact it would be easier to argue that the opposite is true, and individual compliance would increase due to added faith in the given rationale.

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

Would you not say your perspective is more obscured? I agree with the position of HAI

Who are the HAI again?

I would say knowing 5 victims (personally not professionally) and how man medical mistakes are made every eyar with blood? I would say this is one of the safest counteries in the world to live in and still medical malpractice occurs. We dont need this extra risk factor. How many phelobotomist take blood samples and label them afterwards? Remember that woman who falsely diagnoised with HIV last year? That wasnt one mistake that was two (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-wrongly-diagnosed-with-hiv-awarded-57000-30330801.html). The other person was andering around with HIV.

I would say based on education and experience and sitting around a family steeped in two generations of medicine serving the community in Ireland and Africa .... I could see how someone could say my vision was obscured... but hey I am open to correction. I wouldnt put my Medical reputation with my professional insurance on record by backing this.

Voters are Saps. They have goldfish memories and are swayed by what they want to hear or is politically correct. The Aids Virus is contantly changing and medicines have gotten better treating with combinations of Cocktails of meds. I wouldnt suggest relaxing restrictions on AIDS reseach or complacency. I could also see AIDS becoming more complex (once you understand its origins) in a few years.

Kurtosis

All medical practices carry inherent risk which is impossible to eliminate fully. That's the reality of health care.

skooterblue2

penguin88 wrote: »

All medical practices carry inherent risk which is impossible to eliminate fully. That's the reality of health care.

.... and that is exactly why we should be looking to rule out any unnecessary risks.

Kurtosis

skooterblue2 wrote: »

.... and that is exactly why we should be looking to rule out any unnecessary risks.

What about very small risks? And at what cost?

fran17

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Dude..... was with you until now.... on your own there lone ranger

It's a famous quote from history.My point is that this subject has nothing to do with religion but some will never cease to try and inject it into it.

skooterblue2

fran17 wrote: »

It's a famous quote from history.My point is that this subject has nothing to do with religion but some will never cease to try and inject it into it.

Apologies ... wasnt in quotation marks and didnt recognise it

Timberrrrrrrr

fran17 wrote: »

You can assume but you would be wrong.God is not pleased,We have enemies of the faith in the kingdom.

Aaaaaaaaaand finally his real motives shine through

skooterblue2

penguin88 wrote: »

What about very small risks? And at what cost?

depends if you are in that minority .... it might alter your perspective.... see the unlucky recipients of the swine flu vaccine a few years back. they now have unexlained narcolepesy ...... not avoidable but I believe without dipping into gay doners and encouraging previous doners we do have enough supply. this is more about Gay rights than it is about blood supply. I would never suggest we financially compensate healthy doners but a silver or gold pin just doesnt cut it. Blood doesnt come for free, it costs a lot of money and only someone who was behind the scenes would see this. To get this premium blood it needs massive manpower of skilled people. Medical equipment and materials, lost time. It takes nearly an hour to donate. between queuing, questioning and testing and donating and resting. Then there is post testing, storing and transport, labeling and records and archives ..... Machines have to be caliberated, daily, replaced and maintained.

Blood may be free but it is no way cheap.

efb

HAI haemophilics association of Ireland

Kurtosis

skooterblue2 wrote: »

depends if you are in that minority .... it might alter your perspective.... see the unlucky recipients of the swine flu vaccine a few years back. they now have unexlained narcolepesy ...... not avoidable but I believe without dipping into gay doners and encouraging previous doners we do have enough supply. this is more about Gay rights than it is about blood supply. I would never suggest we financially compensate healthy doners but a silver or gold pin just doesnt cut it. Blood doesnt come for free, it costs a lot of money and only someone who was behind the scenes would see this. To get this premium blood it needs massive manpower of skilled people. Medical equipment and materials, lost time. It takes nearly an hour to donate. between queuing, questioning and testing and donating and resting. Then there is post testing, storing and transport, labeling and records and archives ..... Machines have to be caliberated, daily, replaced and maintained.

Blood may be free but it is no way cheap.

Such decisions should be made from a societal perspective.

You suggested we should rule out any unnecessary risks, and I would disagree. What about very small risks, or risks that are very expensive to rule out?

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Who are the HAI again?

I would say knowing 5 victims (personally not professionally) and how man medical mistakes are made every eyar with blood? I would say this is one of the safest counteries in the world to live in and still medical malpractice occurs. We dont need this extra risk factor. How many phelobotomist take blood samples and label them afterwards? Remember that woman who falsely diagnoised with HIV last year? That wasnt one mistake that was two (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/woman-wrongly-diagnosed-with-hiv-awarded-57000-30330801.html). The other person was andering around with HIV.

I would say based on education and experience and sitting around a family steeped in two generations of medicine serving the community in Ireland and Africa .... I could see how someone could say my vision was obscured... but hey I am open to correction. I wouldnt put my Medical reputation with my professional insurance on record by backing this.

Voters are Saps. They have goldfish memories and are swayed by what they want to hear or is politically correct. The Aids Virus is contantly changing and medicines have gotten better treating with combinations of Cocktails of meds. I wouldnt suggest relaxing restrictions on AIDS reseach or complacency. I could also see AIDS becoming more complex (once you understand its origins) in a few years.

All your evidence thus far is anecdotal. The risks will be properly calculated and a decision based on that will,occur. I support this outcome

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

All your evidence thus far is anecdotal. The risks will be properly calculated and a decision based on that will,occur. I support this outcome

You have me there. would you like me to bring around my mother with her jaundiced face around to your house for inspection or my 4 neighbours? What is going to happen is Leo is going waltz in and parade this report and walk out again. He is going to wave this Pseudo-science about and strut around like a Peacock.

..... Meanwhile in reality the board who it rejected it last time are probably the same member who where there last time this issue was raised, are going to say I am not putting my name to this, I am not risking my reputation or insurance over this. Common sense will prevail.

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

You have me there. would you like me to bring around my mother with her jaundiced face around to your house for inspection or my 4 neighbours? What is going to happen is Leo is going waltz in and parade this report and walk out again. He is going to wave this Pseudo-science about and strut around like a Peacock.

..... Meanwhile in reality the board who it rejected it last time are probably the same member who where there last time this issue was raised, are going to say I am not putting my name to this, I am not risking my reputation or insurance over this. Common sense will prevail.

Medicine unlike the Pope is not infallible. Risks need to be weighed up carefully and not influenced by personal anecdotal evidence

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

HAI haemophilics association of Ireland

Never heard of them its always been the Irish Haemophilia Society ..... love to see that report though. Especially who put their names to it.

http://www.haemophilia.ie/uploaded/files/WFHTragicHistoryofAIDS.pdf

Timberrrrrrrr

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Never heard of them its always been the Irish Haemophilia Society ..... love to see that report though. Especially who put their names to it.

http://www.haemophilia.ie/uploaded/files/WFHTragicHistoryofAIDS.pdf

A 7 year old report on something that happened 30 years ago. As people keep pointing out and you continue to ignore, medicine/science changes constantly with new breakthroughs. What happened in the 80's would not happen now because of these breakthroughs.

shruikan2553

They should probably have tiers. The more blood they have of a certain type the more picky they can be. Risks should be kept to a minimum but even with the 500% thing (yes its wrong in this case but using it as a example) 105% of 20% and 500% of 0.0001% are hugely different.

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

Risks need to be weighed up carefully and not influenced by personal anecdotal evidence

Do you work in the insurance (underwriter/actuary/compliance officer)/medical(Nurse, doctor, medical researcher/engineer)/science field?

Once you put your name on a piece of paper like that you are saying it is Gospel. It affects your medical insurance. Remember the goon who said that Vaccinations cause Autism? Remember the story behind that. It is very easy for you to say these things because it is not YOUR profession or YOUR insurance policy. I have seen a few good men (and one woman) been dragged down attaching their name to things that were none of their business. I certainly wont name them here.

Bit like Generals ... all good for firing up the troops but when things go sour they are far from the battlefield.

skooterblue2

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They should probably have tiers. The more blood they have of a certain type the more picky they can be.

There are no Tiers in medical products..... there are no seconds ..... there is only one grade. Would you accept a second grade medical device? a hip (hint google the word protrusio)? why should anyone else ?

shruikan2553

skooterblue2 wrote: »

There are no Tiers in medical products..... there are no seconds ..... there is only one grade. Would you accept a second grade medical device? a hip (hint google the word protrusio)? why should anyone else ?

Better example would be organs, Im not to sure if you cant get a hip quickly you'll die. If my options were a liver from someone who drank a little vs no liver at all I think I'll take the liver.

It's not second grade, just higher risk. There is probably nothing wrong with the blood.

skooterblue2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A 7 year old report on something that happened 30 years ago. As people keep pointing out and you continue to ignore, medicine/science changes constantly with new breakthroughs. What happened in the 80's would not happen now because of these breakthroughs.

yes it is a historical report. It reflected what happened on the day so we dont make the same mistake again. Break throughs? that is a massive word. No it doesnt. Break throughs insinuate massive leaps forward. Cloning and growing spare parts for our bodies is years off. Cure for parkinsons .... 45 years off. This is not the early 20th Century. there have been few sucessful patents for new medicines recently hence all the pharmaceuticals companices are scaling back in first world countries because of development costs. Amgen the biggest in the world (yes bigger than Pfizer) had two massive failures 6 years ago. One reason (but not the only one) why doctors prescribe generics. We will probably see three break throughs in medicine in our lifetime. "New things every day" that is something they feed to patient to keep them alive. It takes 10 years from concept to delivery of pharmaceutical or medical device.

What has happened before will happen again. Ever wonder how patient files end up in Landfills? Ever wonder where Cadavers come from ....? Ever wonder where medical Field trials take place and how many are needed to pass a product for the compliance bodies? Give you hint Irish orphanages in 1950's. Dont say it will never happen again. It always does

skooterblue2

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Better example would be organs, Im not to sure if you cant get a hip quickly you'll die. If my options were a liver from someone who drank a little vs no liver at all I think I'll take the liver.

It's not second grade, just higher risk. There is probably nothing wrong with the blood.

not a fair comparison ..... drinking a little ? you mean a half shot liver? then you would be better off sticking making the liver you have work. The effort for a new liver plus surgery and staying off drink and all the surpressant you would have to take and the low energy....... then there is the risk of rejection. you would be hard pressed to find a doctor to do this.

Something with your body isnt the same as dodgy TV from the dodgy electrical store. The word "probably" won't hold up in court. You cant return a Kidney like a TV and everything back to normal. A new hip isnt like a new engine block. You cant take it out and swop it round again and if you cant do it for those then you cant do it for Blood going through each organ about once every two minutes..... yeah the heart is a busy organ and so is everything else. replacements dont work as well as original parts.

Zab

skooterblue2 wrote: »

still takes 3 months to get a true positive... testing is far from perfect.

That's for an antibody test. The newer nucleic acid-based test reduces the window period to under two weeks. The IBTS test all donor blood using this newer method in their NAT laboratory. You can read about what they test there on page 37 of their annual report.

shruikan2553

skooterblue2 wrote: »

not a fair comparison ..... drinking a little ? you mean a half shot liver? then you would be better off sticking making the liver you have work. The effort for a new liver plus surgery and staying off drink and all the surpressant you would have to take and the low energy....... then there is the risk of rejection. you would be hard pressed to find a doctor to do this.

Something with your body isnt the same as dodgy TV from the dodgy electrical store. The word "probably" won't hold up in court. You cant return a Kidney like a TV and everything back to normal. A new hip isnt like a new engine block. You cant take it out and swop it round again and if you cant do it for those then you cant do it for Blood going through each organ about once every two minutes..... yeah the heart is a busy organ and so is everything else. replacements dont work as well as original parts.

You do know that they test the blood to make sure it is fine first right? Of course this can fail but it is still tested. There is always a risk from even people who appear to be perfect candidates. The blood is still blood, there's nothing second grade about it.

If a doctor has to choose between me dying or using blood from a gay man who had anal sex more than 12 months ago and the tests were clear I think I'll go for the gay blood.

skooterblue2

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You do know that they test the blood to make sure it is fine first right? Of course this can fail but it is still tested. There is always a risk from even people who appear to be perfect candidates. The blood is still blood, there's nothing second grade about it.

If a doctor has to choose between me dying or using blood from a gay man who had anal sex more than 12 months ago and the tests were clear I think I'll go for the gay blood.

That is exactly what I said... there is no room for error where blood is concerned. That is also making an unfair comparison there is no need to introduce that risk factor into the process there are plenty of healthy people that can give blood. One of the ideas I had like the kidney doner card ..... To get on the list your whole family have to register on the doner program. Should you enter hospital 5 elligible associates should have to give blood or you have 5 units built up already.