Leo Again

Annasopra

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I cant go without sex for 5 days..... how are young 20 something guys supposed to last a year?

skooterblue2 wrote: »

you find me a gay guy in his prime..... who is willing to stay off sex for a year ............ bit like looking for an honest pound earned by Charlie Haughey.

Also this MSM 12 month deferral thing is far from accepted science..... the majority of the world dont accept it.

I've often gone over a year in the past without having anal sex. Please dont be really really really stupid and paint your own sex drive as some sort of evidence all gay men constantly have anal sex.

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

1) actually they are, they are figures that prove facts.
2) how do you propose we do a mass study and stress test it at the same time with live subjects.... (see outsourcing pharmaceutical to 3rd world nations) remember it takes only one vial in a fridge to cross contaminate a whole batch and it could be weeks before anyone could find out...... or years knowing the Blood Board

You cited no figures. You quoted a statement.

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I cant go without sex for 5 days..... how are young 20 something guys supposed to last a year?

Then they don't give blood.

Nobody is suggesting that gay men should or would put their sex lives on hold for donation process - just as they wouldn't in the case of straight men.

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

how is civil partnership more complex than getting infected with HIV/HEP C? If you dont like your partner you can legally seperate and later disolve the union and I am grand with that. If you dont like your partner you can run off leaving a "Dear John" and that is fine too. If you dont like your partner you can feed him rat poison and bury him out a hole in the backyard and say he ran off with the drama teacher, this is not advisable.

If you have HIV/Hep C you are probably going to die of complications from Pneuomia or Cirrhosis of the liver. You cannot get life insurance, a mortgage, have kids (safely) or look forward to retirement safe in the knowledge that there is medical insurance there to cover you. You will have problems passing a work medical exam. you cant go on holiday from either conditions and both are degenerative.

Do tell me how it is easier to get out of one of these diseases than it is to get shut of a some numpty you married or have a civil union with.

The paragraph you quotes should have said "from either a legal or political" perspective.

Either way, you completely ignored the context and substance of my post, either wilfully or because you were too eager to try paint me as insensitive to actually read my post.

I in no way down played the seriousness of any medical condition, but that was not what we were discussing.

However, this change does not raise any significant legal or political issues. It is (I understabd) a matter within the discretion of the minister, and will be decided on health grounds alone.

Therefore, the situation is in no way comparable to the introduction of civil partnership, which did raise significant legal and political issues - including family law, inheritance and taxation, (irish) immigration law, evidential and other court rules and procedures, social welfare, property law, religious issues, and a number Constitutional issues, as well as requiring full Oireachtas debate and scrutiny and facing opposition from certain sections of the public and possible legal challenge unless properly implemented.

So to draw and draw any conclusions on the implementation process for any recommendations contained in the report on blood donation from the CP legislation (as you tried to do) would be absurd and show a complete lack of understanding of the legal and evaluation processes arising in each.

fran17

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How are they endangering lives? Seriously your homophobia is starting to leak out again.

Ah now really,you seriously can't be playing the homophobia card here.You do know that because of its constant use it has lost all meaning don't you?

Timberrrrrrrr

fran17 wrote: »

Ah now really,you seriously can't be playing the homophobia card here.You do know that because of its constant use it has lost all meaning don't you?

A bit like people making sensationalist claims about "wanting to endanger lives" you mean?

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Ah now really,you seriously can't be playing the homophobia card here.You do know that because of its constant use it has lost all meaning don't you?

That's just something homophobes say when they want to convince themselves they've vern falsely accused.

skooterblue2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

A bit like people making sensationalist claims about "wanting to endanger lives" you mean?

Think we have had more than enough sensationalism at the last blood tribunal. This whole thing with the 1 year period of abstinance isnt going to wash with the General public.

This is coming across a civil rights issue (playing the homophobia card) than it is based on based on sound scientific practice. It comes across as a show of power rather than genuine concern to solving certain short falls with the B Negative blood group. Once again this adding an extra layer of red tape and complication to gain a handful of doners.

This is isnt going to wash with Positive Action, heard that last night. They arent accepting it as science. I dont accept it as best practice.

I read that report in the Irish times this Morning..... I dont know if anyone else read the same report as me but as Dr Murphy put it :

"Dr Murphy said the policy was not to expose vulnerable patients of rare blood groups to a greater risk."

"He said his job dictated he consider whether moving to a one-year ban would make blood safer for recipients, and he did not see how this could be."

"He said haemophiliacs and others who received regular supplies of blood were concerned with the possibility of other “emerging infections” which are unknown at the time of blood donation, but which may manifest themselves in time.
He said this had happened before in relation to the HIV virus.
He personally thought a possible way forward might be a prohibition on accepting blood from men who had had sex with men in the last five years.
But he said he recognised this could create difficulties in terms of a “credibility factor” with gay and bisexual men."

You know I didnt want to bring this factor into the arguement. But it seems Dr Murphy is on the same line of thinking as me. What if NAOMI went live again? What if we had a new HIV like disease..... See how fast HIV spread in the 1980's. This is for people who dont buy into the childrens story about the Green Monkeys. This is for the People who know about Agenda 21.

I feel Dr Murphy is being put under a lot of pressure, from Lobby groups and people with agendas. The man has grave concerns about it. As for internationally it stacks as UK, Sweden, Canada and Australia for it and the rest of the world is against it or have a life time ban.

Timberrrrrrrr

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Think we have had more than enough sensationalism at the last blood tribunal. This whole thing with the 1 year period of abstinance isnt going to wash with the General public.

This is coming across a civil rights issue (playing the homophobia card) than it is based on based on sound scientific practice. It comes across as a show of power rather than genuine concern to solving certain short falls with the B Negative blood group. Once again this adding an extra layer of red tape and complication to gain a handful of doners.

This is isnt going to wash with Positive Action, heard that last night. They arent accepting it as science. I dont accept it as best practice.

I read that report in the Irish times this Morning..... I dont know if anyone else read the same report as me but as Dr Murphy put it :

"Dr Murphy said the policy was not to expose vulnerable patients of rare blood groups to a greater risk."

"He said his job dictated he consider whether moving to a one-year ban would make blood safer for recipients, and he did not see how this could be."

"He said haemophiliacs and others who received regular supplies of blood were concerned with the possibility of other “emerging infections” which are unknown at the time of blood donation, but which may manifest themselves in time.
He said this had happened before in relation to the HIV virus.
He personally thought a possible way forward might be a prohibition on accepting blood from men who had had sex with men in the last five years.
But he said he recognised this could create difficulties in terms of a “credibility factor” with gay and bisexual men."

You know I didnt want to bring this factor into the arguement. But it seems Dr Murphy is on the same line of thinking as me. What if NAOMI went live again? What if we had a new HIV like disease..... See how fast HIV spread in the 1980's. This is for people who dont buy into the childrens story about the Green Monkeys. This is for the People who know about Agenda 21.

I feel Dr Murphy is being put under a lot of pressure, from Lobby groups and people with agendas. The man has grave concerns about it. As for internationally it stacks as UK, Sweden, Canada and Australia for it and the rest of the world is against it or have a life time ban.

There goes your last shred of credibility :rolleyes:

skooterblue2

Another of the counteries that is in favour of it is South Africa. Now South Africa dont have the best record on HIV control. South Africa is the only country I know of in living memory that has gone from First world to Third world in the space of a fw short years. The only historical comparible would be the fall of the Egyptian Empire. I guess I am rascist if I stated 70% of West Africa has HIV and it is not declining. The only difference is that massive cocktails of drugs are handed out with a few ones for medical trials are thrown in for good measure.

Kurtosis

skooterblue2 wrote: »

"Dr Murphy said the policy was not to expose vulnerable patients of rare blood groups to a greater risk."

The policy being referred to in that sentence is that blood is imported from other jurisdictions when it is needed urgently for a person with a rare blood group and the IBTS has insufficient supply. I do not know if it was intentional or not but you are quoting selectively.

skooterblue2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There goes your last shred of credibility :rolleyes:

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

what is you exact problem with Agenda 21? Can you not see it around you? Can you not see flouridisation? Can you not see Irish Water integrating Private wells into the public supply? the banning of water harvesting?

Agenda 21 will not happen today or tomorrow ...... it is happening every day bit by bit.

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

what is you exact problem with Agenda 21? Can you not see it around you? Can you not see flouridisation? Can you not see Irish Water integrating Private wells into the public supply? the banning of water harvesting?

Agenda 21 will not happen today or tomorrow ...... it is happening every day bit by bit.

What exactly is the impact or relevance of Agenda 21 in this context?

B_Wayne

Agenda 21, fluoride poisoning and do you also think vaccines are poisoning us? Yep, credibility destroyed.

skooterblue2

floggg wrote: »

What exactly is the impact or relevance of Agenda 21 in this context?

What if a new Virus Emerged? What if NAOMI went live again? Where are the Origins of AIDS?

Also Just read this:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/a-doctor-writes-is-it-time-to-reverse-lifetime-ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood-1.2087421

"It will be a major surprise if Ireland does not follow international best practice and relax its lifetime ban on gay men donating blood."

Where did you get best international practice from? I would be looking more towards German, Israel, Switzerland, France. Israel are very protective of their Population...... often heard one of my Jewish friends say "Never again". Also China have made no secret of their interest to expand their population now that single child families plan are gone.

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Think we have had more than enough sensationalism at the last blood tribunal. This whole thing with the 1 year period of abstinance isnt going to wash with the General public.

This is coming across a civil rights issue (playing the homophobia card) than it is based on based on sound scientific practice. It comes across as a show of power rather than genuine concern to solving certain short falls with the B Negative blood group. Once again this adding an extra layer of red tape and complication to gain a handful of doners.

This is isnt going to wash with Positive Action, heard that last night. They arent accepting it as science. I dont accept it as best practice.

I read that report in the Irish times this Morning..... I dont know if anyone else read the same report as me but as Dr Murphy put it :

"Dr Murphy said the policy was not to expose vulnerable patients of rare blood groups to a greater risk."

"He said his job dictated he consider whether moving to a one-year ban would make blood safer for recipients, and he did not see how this could be."

"He said haemophiliacs and others who received regular supplies of blood were concerned with the possibility of other “emerging infections” which are unknown at the time of blood donation, but which may manifest themselves in time.
He said this had happened before in relation to the HIV virus.
He personally thought a possible way forward might be a prohibition on accepting blood from men who had had sex with men in the last five years.
But he said he recognised this could create difficulties in terms of a “credibility factor” with gay and bisexual men."

You know I didnt want to bring this factor into the arguement. But it seems Dr Murphy is on the same line of thinking as me. What if NAOMI went live again? What if we had a new HIV like disease..... See how fast HIV spread in the 1980's. This is for people who dont buy into the childrens story about the Green Monkeys. This is for the People who know about Agenda 21.

I feel Dr Murphy is being put under a lot of pressure, from Lobby groups and people with agendas. The man has grave concerns about it. As for internationally it stacks as UK, Sweden, Canada and Australia for it and the rest of the world is against it or have a life time ban.

I also note you have quoted out of context.

I also think the presumption that new diseases are more likely to emerge in gay men needs some explanation and evidential supprt before it can be accepted as something which should influence policy in this area. If however there is a sound medical basis for this (rather than anecdotal evidence from HIV) I will accept it.

Equally I will accept the 5 year rule or the life time ban if the studies show that it is justified by the risks, and that any risks associated with a 1 or 5 year rule (as applicable) would be outside the acceptable risk ranges applied in order scenarios.

Unless and until that analysis is presented and considered I don't see how anybody can judge it - and I haven't seen you provide any risk figures for any category to date in order to ground your opposition.

skooterblue2

B_Wayne wrote: »

Agenda 21, fluoride poisoning and do you also think vaccines are poisoning us? Yep, credibility destroyed.

Well I have supplied Agenda 21. It was real thing at Rio conference. You just have to read between the lines.

Flouridisation? Definitely sinister. I am sure you know where flouride comes from?
There is no need for it..... a simple fliteration system would suffice and be cheaper in each home.

Vaccinations? I have never voiced an opinion on vaccinations but since you asked I think they have saved many children painful deaths. I also see the correlation between Autism and vaccinations but not as a cause and effect rather as an imporvement of detection and less infant mortality. question answered?

Now Wayne .. do you have a background in science....engineering or statisical reasoning... and would you like to share?

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

What if a new Virus Emerged? What if NAOMI went live again? Where are the Origins of AIDS?

Also Just read this:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/a-doctor-writes-is-it-time-to-reverse-lifetime-ban-on-gay-men-donating-blood-1.2087421

"It will be a major surprise if Ireland does not follow international best practice and relax its lifetime ban on gay men donating blood."

Where did you get best international practice from? I would be looking more towards German, Israel, Switzerland, France. Israel are very protective of their Population...... often heard one of my Jewish friends say "Never again". Also China have made no secret of their interest to expand their population now that single child families plan are gone.

I read it. It doesn't add Really add much either way.

Could you please spell out for us what you think Agenda 21's role and relevance is here, just so there is no confusion.

Equally please also spell out what what your concerns are with NAOMI and what you believe the origins of HIV/AIDS to be.

Just so we are clear on what it is you are saying and we are meant to respond to, and so that we don't falsely attribute beliefs to you.

Zab

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I feel Dr Murphy is being put under a lot of pressure, from Lobby groups and people with agendas. The man has grave concerns about it.

People should read the article themselves, as I don't agree with your take on it at all. For instance

He said the science now indicated clearly that a lifetime ban was no longer necessary or realistic. Given the massive stigma it brought about, it should be dropped.

B_Wayne

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well I have supplied Agenda 21. It was real thing at Rio conference. You just have to read between the lines.

Flouridisation? Definitely sinister. I am sure you know where flouride comes from?
There is no need for it..... a simple fliteration system would suffice and be cheaper in each home.

Vaccinations? I have never voiced an opinion on vaccinations but since you asked I think they have saved many children painful deaths. I also see the correlation between Autism and vaccinations but not as a cause and effect rather as an imporvement of detection and less infant mortality. question answered?

Now Wayne .. do you have a background in science....engineering or statisical reasoning... and would you like to share?

I have a background in computer science so have a decent grasp of stats, all research points to fluoride being safe with Irish levels. So nope,nothing sinister there. While Agenda 21 is real,conspiracies of population control through killing off sections of society is nothing more than a conspiracy. The academic community would find your hypothesis laughable too. Reading between the lines is one thing but going Alex Jones with it.... Claiming to be an authority but coming out with this nonsense is odd.

efb

Lol fluoride!

skooterblue2

floggg wrote: »

I also note you have quoted out of context.

I also think the presumption that new diseases are more likely to emerge in gay men needs some explanation and evidential supprt before it can be accepted as something which should influence policy in this area. If however there is a sound medical basis for this (rather than anecdotal evidence from HIV) I will accept it.

Equally I will accept the 5 year rule or the life time ban if the studies show that it is justified by the risks, and that any risks associated with a 1 or 5 year rule (as applicable) would be outside the acceptable risk ranges applied in order scenarios.

Unless and until that analysis is presented and considered I don't see how anybody can judge it - and I haven't seen you provide any risk figures for any category to date in order to ground your opposition.

No quotes out of context. All quotes as per the Irish times. Take it up with them.
WEll there wasnt a whole lot of time to debate it in the 1980's when there was a "plague" going on. No seems to remember Vincent Hanley from Clonmel... there isnt even a plaque or a street named after him. I read the stories from the 80's lead coffins and limed graves.

Actually I am still waiting for you to present your credentials..... At best it will only be 2% increase in blood donations (FDA). Seems like the wrong way to go about it. I bet if you spent half the money on regulating this new sector on convincing former Doners to donate it would net twice the yield.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

That's just something homophobes say when they want to convince themselves they've vern falsely accused.

And round and round it goes.More delusions of oppression.The church,society,politics,law and now the IBTS.Your quickly running out of people to rage Against floggg....

Kurtosis

skooterblue2 wrote: »

No quotes out of context. All quotes as per the Irish times. Take it up with them.

Yes you were quoting out of context, as I already pointed out.

Actually I am still waiting for you to present your credentials..... At best it will only be 2% increase in blood donations (FDA). Seems like the wrong way to go about it. I bet if you spent half the money on regulating this new sector on convincing former Doners to donate it would net twice the yield.

What money are you referring to?

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

And round and round it goes.More delusions of oppression.The church,society,politics,law and now the IBTS.Your quickly running out of people to rage Against floggg....

I never referred to the IBTS ad homophobic. I am trusting them to make the correct decision based on all available medical and other evidence.

skooterblue2

penguin88 wrote: »

What money are you referring to?

the money spent on software, employing staff, Its going to have to be twice as regulated as non gay Irish Males. Regulation, QC and testing doesnt come cheap.

Zab

skooterblue2 wrote: »

the money spent on software, employing staff, Its going to have to be twice as regulated as non gay Irish Males. Regulation, QC and testing doesnt come cheap.

Now that's utter bollocks. Why would the testing regime, staff or software change at all?

We're over 500 posts in and you don't seem to understand this topic at all.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

I never referred to the IBTS ad homophobic. I am trusting them to make the correct decision based on all available medical and other evidence.

Not in words,however you have very much questioned there "motives" for the restriction on gay men.If you took off your tinfoil hat every now and again you might see that the only time people comment on anybodys sexuality is when someone goes out of there way to broadcast it.

Kurtosis

skooterblue2 wrote: »

the money spent on software, employing staff, Its going to have to be twice as regulated as non gay Irish Males. Regulation, QC and testing doesnt come cheap.

But these are costs that exist currently. What extra costs will this change in policy incur?

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

No quotes out of context. All quotes as per the Irish times. Take it up with them.
WEll there wasnt a whole lot of time to debate it in the 1980's when there was a "plague" going on. No seems to remember Vincent Hanley from Clonmel... there isnt even a plaque or a street named after him. I read the stories from the 80's lead coffins and limed graves.

Actually I am still waiting for you to present your credentials..... At best it will only be 2% increase in blood donations (FDA). Seems like the wrong way to go about it. I bet if you spent half the money on regulating this new sector on convincing former Doners to donate it would net twice the yield.

As was pointed out by another poster, the comments you quoted were made with reference to the importation of blood.

The issue is not with the Irish Times and how you have used them.

And I already said I don't have medical credentials. I have not claimed or presented myself as having an knowledge in that area.

We may not have had time to debate it in the 80s, but we do now. So let's have that discussion on the basis of the facts and evidence - rather than the emotional appeals you have based your argument on.

While each story is tragic, an objective view of the facts is required here

What new regulation would be required exactly of the rules were relaxed? Please do explain why it could not operate on the same basis as it does presently, save for the wider eligibilty criteria.