Leo Again

B_Wayne

fran17 wrote: »

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.

To be fair, only the staunchly opposed have actually expressed anything about conspiracies.

Ash.J.Williams

fran17 wrote: »

Now that we have all taken time to get over the fact that Leo Varadkar is only 36,this story caught my attention today.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0125/675441-blood-donations/

A 2011 UK statistical and epidemiological review of blood service policy concluded that the introduction of blood from sexually active gay men into the system could increase the risk of HIV contaminating the blood stock by up to 500%.Leo Varadkar,our gay minister for health,wishes to reduce our laws governing against this.Is this anything more than party pump politics?

FRAN...that's bullsh1t...i heard leo only this weekend saying that this was a scientific matter. If science proves that it's ok then he will support. Please get your facts straight before making thinly veiled homophobic threads.

B_Wayne

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

FRAN...that's bullsh1t...i heard leo only this weekend saying that this was a scientific matter. If science proves that it's ok then he will support. Please get your facts straight before making thinly veiled homophobic threads.

It's been pointed out a few times now but it appears to be ignored repeatedly by those who think themselves experts. :rolleyes:

skooterblue2

Zab wrote: »

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

Thanks but I actually disclosed the report before you with a link, but really there was no need.
Firstly the Article contain very very few quotes or statements. What it does contain is a few words and the rest is all filled in.

Journo with an Agenda.

It also said the Haemophila society had concerns. My intepretation of that was they were livid. Kind of reminds me of my Jewish friend, Ron, "Never again".

I do agree that it is completely unreasonable for a person to have to abstain for 5 years. I think they should just get on with their lives.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

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.

When exactly?

By suggesting that ignorance and prejudice may have informed policy in the 80s, when ignorance and prejudice were rampant?

I don't think you need a tin foil hat to think prejudice may have played a part in any policies set at a time when homosexual acts were illegal.

Equally I don't think its a stretch to think ignorance may have played a part in HIV related policy decisions at a time when we lacked any significant understanding of the disease, or knew how to treat it.


As for your last sentence, it's a bit rich from somebody who spends so much time talking about gay people.

Edit - just saw again your completely unnecessary reference to Leo's sexual orientation in your opening post. Yea, it's definitely not an issue for you :rolleyes:

Timberrrrrrrr

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Thanks but I actually disclosed the report before you with a link, but really there was no need.
Firstly the Article contain very very few quotes or statements. What it does contain is a few words and the rest is all filled in.

Journo with an Agenda.

It also said the Haemophila society had concerns. My intepretation of that was they were livid. Kind of reminds me of my Jewish friend, Ron, "Never again".

I do agree that it is completely unreasonable for a person to have to abstain for 5 years. I think they should just get on with their lives.

So it's just your opinion but you are claiming it as fact.

skooterblue2

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

FRAN...that's bullsh1t...i heard leo only this weekend saying that this was a scientific matter. If science proves that it's ok then he will support. Please get your facts straight before making thinly veiled homophobic threads.

Leo will tell you anything you are likely to believe. It is completely cutting edge stuff, which doesnt automatically we should be buying into it.

There are a lot less countries supporting and implementing it than are keeping their gay ban. These include Israel (and these boys are fairly excellent at medicine and protecting their population), Switzerland, Germany and France.....they are showing no signs of movement.

The_Captain

B_Wayne wrote: »

I have a background in computer science so have a decent grasp of stats, all research points to fluoride being safe with Irish levels.

Jesus, that's some extrapolation. I know computers so I feel I can comment with authority on the health effects of adding acid to drinking water

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Thanks but I actually disclosed the report before you with a link, but really there was no need.
Firstly the Article contain very very few quotes or statements. What it does contain is a few words and the rest is all filled in.

Journo with an Agenda.

It also said the Haemophila society had concerns. My intepretation of that was they were livid. Kind of reminds me of my Jewish friend, Ron, "Never again".

I do agree that it is completely unreasonable for a person to have to abstain for 5 years. I think they should just get on with their lives.

What agenda exactly, and are you saying he his taken anything of context?

It is difficult to take you seriously when you unrepentantly quote of context, and now admit to imputing certain reactions to the IHS based on nothing more than your own subjective and baseless interpretation of what was said by their CEO.

There is no basis for that conclusion.

Zab

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Thanks but I actually disclosed the report before you with a link, but really there was no need.
Firstly the Article contain very very few quotes or statements. What it does contain is a few words and the rest is all filled in.

Journo with an Agenda.

It also said the Haemophila society had concerns. My intepretation of that was they were livid. Kind of reminds me of my Jewish friend, Ron, "Never again".

I do agree that it is completely unreasonable for a person to have to abstain for 5 years. I think they should just get on with their lives.

You linked to a different article. The article contains many statements by Dr Murphy, although not many direct quotes. I see no reason to believe they've misrepresented him, and he will almost certainly make an issue of it if they have. Neither of the articles mention the Haemophilia Society at all. I take issue with you interpreting their non-mention as them being livid when, as previously mentioned in this thread, their chief executive Brian O’Mahony has already said that "If the deferral can be changed, based on scientific evidence, without increasing the risk to the safety of the blood supply, then it’s acceptable."

B_Wayne

The_Captain wrote: »

Jesus, that's some extrapolation. I know computers so I feel I can comment with authority on the health effects of adding acid to drinking water

Didn't gain that conclusion via computer science.(Incorrectly placed comma) I simply read the research.... Not one of peer reviewed studies that shows a danger at the levels in Irish water. The sites that claim otherwise regularly cite homemade studies or are studies at much higher ppm to Ireland's levels. Not difficult to inform self and I loath not being informed on topics.

floggg

I'd love an answer to this please

floggg wrote: »

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.

skooterblue2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So it's just your opinion but you are claiming it as fact.

"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 being Dr Murphy. That is a language people use. Concerned means Alarmed. See John Delaney book "Accidental Diplomat", get the real story on Government shennagins from a former civil servant at the DoFA.

If the Haemophiliacs are concerned I can only imagine what Positive Action are going to say.... oh wait they had their funding cut so 727 women plus the other 300 or so who have died previous to this will have no voice.

B_Wayne

Mind detailing how everything links into Agenda 21? Seems like a pretty important thing to explain to us if this is a part of the plot.

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

"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 being Dr Murphy. That is a language people use. Concerned means Alarmed. See John Delaney book "Accidental Diplomat", get the real story on Government shennagins from a former civil servant at the DoFA.

If the Haemophiliacs are concerned I can only imagine what Positive Action are going to say.... oh wait they had their funding cut so 727 women plus the other 300 or so who have died previous to this will have no voice.

Concerned and alarmed are two different things.

Neither are the same as livid.

And what exactly has a book from a Dept of Foreign Affairs official have to do with blood donation or your misuse of quotes?

Zab

skooterblue2 wrote: »

These include Israel (and these boys are fairly excellent at medicine and protecting their population),

Yeah, they're not showing any sign of movement at all.

Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper wrote:

The committee has not made its final recommendations, but it is expected to abolish the rule allowing gay men to donate blood only if they have abstained from sexual relations with men since 1977. A new restriction will require an abstention period of one to five years before donating blood - with the exact duration to be finalized.

skooterblue2

Zab wrote: »

You linked to a different article. The article contains many statements by Dr Murphy, although not many direct quotes. I see no reason to believe they've misrepresented him, and he will almost certainly make an issue of it if they have. Neither of the articles mention the Haemophilia Society at all. I take issue with you interpreting their non-mention as them being livid when, as previously mentioned in this thread, their chief executive Brian O’Mahony has already said that "If the deferral can be changed, based on scientific evidence, without increasing the risk to the safety of the blood supply, then it’s acceptable."

I have also linked to the previous one. I think "Patient groups" covers the haemophilia society. The IHA may have different opinions. Well I talked directly to two women yesterday who had Hep C.... and they were kind of agitiated about it and their language was "blue". Do you think a vunerable group like the Irish Haemophilia society has a right to be concerned?

Like I said previously I always step back and let someone else volunteer first. they are so much better qualified than me if it goes wrong. If you dont remember the history of the blood clotting factor in question. there was a more expensive French testing kit but it cost more and an American Senators brother owned the company providing the American Tests.

These citizens were traded ... you can be damn sure they wont take it the second time.

skooterblue2

floggg wrote: »

Concerned and alarmed are two different things.

Neither are the same as livid.

And what exactly has a book from a Dept of Foreign Affairs official have to do with blood donation or your misuse of quotes?

Well the book will illustrate what I am talking about.

Political language is just that. No politican ever said he was "freaking out" he just had grave concerns. Cant see patients groups backing it and they wont trade their members like Unions do

skooterblue2

wait until I see it happening first.....

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I have also linked to the previous one. I think "Patient groups" covers the haemophilia society. The IHA may have different opinions. Well I talked directly to two women yesterday who had Hep C.... and they were kind of agitiated about it and their language was "blue". Do you think a vunerable group like the Irish Haemophilia society has a right to be concerned?

Like I said previously I always step back and let someone else volunteer first. they are so much better qualified than me if it goes wrong. If you dont remember the history of the blood clotting factor in question. there was a more expensive French testing kit but it cost more and an American Senators brother owned the company providing the American Tests.

These citizens were traded ... you can be damn sure they wont take it the second time.

They have a right to be concerned, but that's doesn't mean we should set policy on the basis of the subjective concerns of any one interested group.

We should set it based on an objective review of all available evidence and after allowing all interested groups to input as considered appropriate.

Also, without in any way of dismissing their right to express concerns or minimising their experiences, "two women" isn't representative - it's anecdotal.

sbsquarepants

penguin88 wrote: »

Have you ever given blood? There are already a number questions on the form which refer to things you have done in the last 12 months, none of which it is possible to police.

I give platelets - I always have an immature little giggle when the nurse asks have I handled monkeys or their bodily fuids!
She probably thinks it's nerves and has me mentally pegged as someone who **** monkeys at the weekend.:D

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well the book will illustrate what I am talking about.

Political language is just that. No politican ever said he was "freaking out" he just had grave concerns. Cant see patients groups backing it and they wont trade their members like Unions do

If you require me to read a whole book to understand you, then that should make you ask yourself some questions about your arguments or how you put them forward.

In any event:

• the IHA CEO you quoted is not a politician
• politicians frequently use terms such as "alarming" or "alarmed by" - see https://www.google.ie/search?%7Bgoogle:acceptedSuggestion%7Doq=dail+alarmed+by+new+proposals&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=dail+alarmed+by+new+proposals&gws_rd=ssl#q=dail+alarmed+by+new+proposals&tbs=ctr:countryIE&cr=countryIE. In fact politicians are more likely than most other groups to artifically inflate fears.
• the book you referred to is by a Dept of Foreign Affairs official - diplomacy is an art form of its own, and is not reflective of how language and rhetoric is used in domestic politics

If he was alarmed, he would say so. It is not in his member's interests that he down play concerns. if anything, overstating them will get him further.

And he has already said he will support it if it is supported by evidence, so it is certainly conceivable that he will support if if the evidence is favorable to such a move.

Zab

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I have also linked to the previous one. I think "Patient groups" covers the haemophilia society. The IHA may have different opinions. Well I talked directly to two women yesterday who had Hep C.... and they were kind of agitiated about it and their language was "blue". Do you think a vunerable group like the Irish Haemophilia society has a right to be concerned?

The article (which efb linked, not you) does not contain the phrase "patient groups" either. Are you saying that we should just trust you that the IHS is "livid" when their chief executive has said that they would find it acceptable? Who are the IHA? You're implying that there are two different groups here, which I guess is possible but regardless all my quotes are referring to the IHS.

skooterblue2

"We judge society by how we treat the most vunerable" havent a clue who said it but seem to apply to the haemophilac group.

I think gay men can go and make massive contributions to society without donating blood, that we are managing fine without.
If these two women said it I garuntee constituency clinics will be full by the end of the week.

"They have a right to be concerned, but that's doesn't mean we should set policy on the basis of the subjective concerns of any one interested group. "

how about the Irish Cancer society, Irish Patients association, Irish Kidney association , Irish Heart foundation, Arthritis Patients (could need two pints of blood for a C.H.A.). Word of warning..... dont ever call the Cancer society a one interest group. They kind of have a lot friends they helped down through the years. How many people do you know who have died from Cancer and had family helped by them.... Statistic 1 in 3 people will have cancer in their life time. Blood is a much bigger interest subject than a few sick men needing a clotting agent......it affects us all.

skooterblue2

I dont know anything about the Irish Haemophiliacs Association, I never heard of them in my life. ..... that is efb baby.

I always refer in my comment to the IHS.

“We always need to bear in mind that when it comes to blood transfusion it’s the person that’s receiving the blood who takes the risk, not the person donating it. So this decision will be made in consultation with others and it will be made on a scientific grounds.”

I also see Leo is loosening up the all the blood on the one one day..... he just wants to include people who have spent significant time in the UK and NI. I am not going to comment on that now. I wonder why he want to do it all in one day?

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

"We judge society by how we treat the most vunerable" havent a clue who said it but seem to apply to the haemophilac group.

I think gay men can go and make massive contributions to society without donating blood, that we are managing fine without.
If these two women said it I garuntee constituency clinics will be full by the end of the week.

"They have a right to be concerned, but that's doesn't mean we should set policy on the basis of the subjective concerns of any one interested group. "

how about the Irish Cancer society, Irish Patients association, Irish Kidney association , Irish Heart foundation, Arthritis Patients (could need two pints of blood for a C.H.A.). Word of warning..... dont ever call the Cancer society a one interest group. They kind of have a lot friends they helped down through the years. How many people do you know who have died from Cancer and had family helped by them.... Statistic 1 in 3 people will have cancer in their life time. Blood is a much bigger interest subject than a few sick men needing a clotting agent......it affects us all.

We have yet to establish that this move would cause undue harm to any group, or that the resulting risk would be any higher than in other groups permitted to donate.

If that is established, then I doubt there will be any change, nor should there be. It has not yet been established though.

Please link to statements of opposition by each of the groups referred to - or is that something else we should take your guarantee on, and defer to your superior mind reading skills?

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I dont know anything about the Irish Haemophiliacs Association, I never heard of them in my life. ..... that is efb baby.

I always refer in my comment to the IHS.

“We always need to bear in mind that when it comes to blood transfusion it’s the person that’s receiving the blood who takes the risk, not the person donating it. So this decision will be made in consultation with others and it will be made on a scientific grounds.”

I also see Leo is loosening up the all the blood on the one one day..... he just wants to include people who have spent significant time in the UK and NI. I am not going to comment on that now. I wonder why he want to do it all in one day?

I sure the review covered all the restrictions but I probably have too much fluoride to ever qualify

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I dont know anything about the Irish Haemophiliacs Association, I never heard of them in my life. ..... that is efb baby.

I always refer in my comment to the IHS.

“We always need to bear in mind that when it comes to blood transfusion it’s the person that’s receiving the blood who takes the risk, not the person donating it. So this decision will be made in consultation with others and it will be made on a scientific grounds.”

I also see Leo is loosening up the all the blood on the one one day..... he just wants to include people who have spent significant time in the UK and NI. I am not going to comment on that now. I wonder why he want to do it all in one day?

Please do comment.

Or did you use up all your outrage about increased risks already railing against donations by MSM?

floggg

I honestly want an answer to this, as I'd like to understand your argument.

floggg wrote: »

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 dont know anything about the Irish Haemophiliacs Association, I never heard of them in my life. ..... that is efb baby.

I always refer in my comment to the IHS.

Okay. So efb accidentally said IHA instead of IHS and 300 posts on you're still harping on about it? Let's just agree to leave the IHA out of it.

You haven't answered my question, so I'll quote it again.

Are you saying that we should just trust you that the IHS is "livid" when their chief executive has said that they would find it acceptable?