Leo Again

SpaceSasqwatch

bodice ripper wrote: »

Fran17, more interested in gay men than gay men are.

one of the funniests posts on boards.

Even funnier than watching fran17 come up with 'facts' to back up his/her bigotry.

Im kinda hoping the 17 is refering to the posters age and as a result he/she cant vote....

Flem31

penguin88 wrote: »

So now we've had:

He shouldn't have announced it so soon after coming out.
Things are moving very fast with the decision.
The media are reporting on it too frequently.

If you're so concerned about other priorities in the health service, why not post about them rather than bringing up such trivial (and mainly false) points? Or some substantive critiques of this policy.

Media are only reporting based on what they're told.

Re your other point, maybe he should concentrate on the Health Priorities he announced on the 23rd of this month, with
"25 health priorities provides us with a targeted plan against which we can measure progress"

Strange that blood donations is not in the top 25 priorities

http://health.gov.ie/blog/press-release/varadkar-lynch-publish-health-priorities-for-2015/

And you want critique, well one of the points is
Agree a plan for extending HIQA regulation to other health and social care sectors, commencing in 2015 with private healthcare providers

Would it not be a better idea to make HIQA an effective investigation group before extending its powers.
And while he does that, maybe he should streamline the double investigations. The HSE personnel who do inspections of care homes still do that job, and HIQA employed other people to do the same role........and we found out more about a care home via an undercover investigator than either of those two inspection teams

And I am looking forward to his proposals on
- reducing via legislation alcohol consumption and
- measures to increase the numbers taking out health insurance (double taxation imo)

Flem31

penguin88 wrote: »

Also, the trolley situation has been resolved (for now at least), numbers have been down in the 100's and 200's the last two weeks.

More false claims. Great to be having such an informed debate!

Two days ago the trolley count was 427 with an average over the last 10 days of 319.
Just correcting your false claims re 100s and 200s the last two weeks
lowest figure in the 10 days is 281.

Gotta hand to Liam Doran's crew and their mad obsession with statistics

http://www.inmo.ie/Trolley_Ward_Watch

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Ok back to topic then.You use the term "if" it is a genuine response from the IBTS,so implying you don't feel it is 100% genuine.What do you feel may be there alternative motives in this situation?

I said if because I don't know.

Given that ignorance and discrimination were rampant in the 80s when the policy was introduced (homosexual acts were illegal), I won't rule out the possibility that discrimination played some part, but I am happy to defer to medical experts either way.

If the report says ban for life, then I wont complain.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Unless its your family member or relative on the trolley.You must agree that this is a far greater issue that needs tackling?Like I've been saying all along Leo Varadkar is an honest guy so why he would be pushing the blood donation ban as a pressing matter is beyond me.I believe the man is under extraordinary pressure from lgbt lobbies to rectify,what they see as a wrong,in his opinion on gay adoption.

Whats the basis for you belief? Please cite relevant sources.

And nobody dispute that the trolleys issue is serious. But a minister has to deal with all matters as they arise, and if the pushed back the "non-urgent" issues until all urgent matters had been dealt with, the non-urgent issues would never be dealt with.

How much time do people actually think he will spend on this? The IBTS prepared the report, he will likely have his staff review and condense it, and then make a decision based on what they report.

It's hardly going to have him locked away in a room for days on end pondering the mater.

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

Media are only reporting based on what they're told.

Re your other point, maybe he should concentrate on the Health Priorities he announced on the 23rd of this month, with
"25 health priorities provides us with a targeted plan against which we can measure progress"

Strange that blood donations is not in the top 25 priorities

http://health.gov.ie/blog/press-release/varadkar-lynch-publish-health-priorities-for-2015/

And you want critique, well one of the points is
Agree a plan for extending HIQA regulation to other health and social care sectors, commencing in 2015 with private healthcare providers

Would it not be a better idea to make HIQA an effective investigation group before extending its powers.
And while he does that, maybe he should streamline the double investigations. The HSE personnel who do inspections of care homes still do that job, and HIQA employed other people to do the same role........and we found out more about a care home via an undercover investigator than either of those two inspection teams

And I am looking forward to his proposals on
- reducing via legislation alcohol consumption and
- measures to increase the numbers taking out health insurance (double taxation imo)

What is he not being told? Do tell us?

And should he refuse to address all other issues until the 25 have been ticked off?

Flem31

floggg wrote: »

What is he not being told? Do tell us?

And should he refuse to address all other issues until the 25 have been ticked off?

"What is he not being told? Do tell us?"
You asked the question, answer it yourself.


Why wasn't blood donations one of the 25 priorities

fran17

efb wrote: »

listen, more money is being spent on trolley issue that the blood issue, but a lot of those people on trollies need blood, get it???

You have honed in on this, spread mistruths, got your statistics completely wrong, and still won't let up!

Listen efb,you seem like a genuine guy from your postings but I will not be accused of lying by you or anybody else.
Apart from personal opinions on this topic there is nothing I have posted that is not based on facts and figures that came from credible and reliable sources.These include the ESRI,Wikipedia,UCD and the UK national statistics office.Interestingly though you do not have an issue with my statistics on the very small percentage who are effected by this ban,hmmm.I am very much aware that your lifestyle excludes you from donation leaving you with distrust and resentment of the system and I can sympathise with that,on its merits.
However the reason I "wont let up" is because this is a debate and I'm sure your aware that for it to work you need opposing points of views.If people just "let up" then this forum would cease to exist right now.I have quite valid reasons for my opinions and as long as they are based on truths I will continue to air them.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

I said if because I don't know.

Given that ignorance and discrimination were rampant in the 80s when the policy was introduced (homosexual acts were illegal), I won't rule out the possibility that discrimination played some part, but I am happy to defer to medical experts either way.

If the report says ban for life, then I wont complain.

That's fair enough then.But because of the vital work that the IBTS do I feel it would be best to desist in scaremongering on such an issue without basis for it.

efb

fran17 wrote: »

Listen efb,you seem like a genuine guy from your postings but I will not be accused of lying by you or anybody else.
Apart from personal opinions on this topic there is nothing I have posted that is not based on facts and figures that came from credible and reliable sources.These include the ESRI,Wikipedia,UCD and the UK national statistics office.Interestingly though you do not have an issue with my statistics on the very small percentage who are effected by this ban,hmmm.I am very much aware that your lifestyle excludes you from donation leaving you with distrust and resentment of the system and I can sympathise with that,on its merits.
However the reason I "wont let up" is because this is a debate and I'm sure your aware that for it to work you need opposing points of views.If people just "let up" then this forum would cease to exist right now.I have quite valid reasons for my opinions and as long as they are based on truths I will continue to air them.

500% -WRONG
TOP PRIORITY- WRONG
LEO PUSHING HIS AGENDA - WRONG

Timberrrrrrrr

fran17 wrote: »

Listen efb,you seem like a genuine guy from your postings but I will not be accused of lying by you or anybody else.
Apart from personal opinions on this topic there is nothing I have posted that is not based on facts and figures that came from credible and reliable sources.These include the ESRI,Wikipedia,UCD and the UK national statistics office.Interestingly though you do not have an issue with my statistics on the very small percentage who are effected by this ban,hmmm.I am very much aware that your lifestyle excludes you from donation leaving you with distrust and resentment of the system and I can sympathise with that,on its merits.
However the reason I "wont let up" is because this is a debate and I'm sure your aware that for it to work you need opposing points of views.If people just "let up" then this forum would cease to exist right now.I have quite valid reasons for my opinions and as long as they are based on truths I will continue to air them.

:rolleyes:

skooterblue2

fran17 wrote: »

That's fair enough then.But because of the vital work that the IBTS do I feel it would be best to desist in scaremongering on such an issue without basis for it.

Well I think the Haemophillia society have come out against the idea of people who have had regular anal sex for blood donations. It is not the right of a Gay person to give blood, it is the right of recipient to recieve the best blood products they deserve. People who argue against this have short memories of the 1980's and AIDS given to Haemophilliacs. Then there was the Blood Transfusions of Hepathitis C in the 1990's.

There is a massive deluslusion that Blood is a right and it is free. Blood given freely has to be taken, tested processed stored and transported making it very expensive. I wonder how much blood is lost through rejected samples? I am very much against financial renumeration for blood as it forces vunerable people to donate. It should be seen as a Public service. I think the best blood should be gotten from young people aged 18-26 who fit and not taking medication etc etc. And can physically afford to give blood because it does take time to recover. I think we are very lucky to live in a country that has a relatively small drug problem and healthy population.

efb

fran17 wrote: »

That's fair enough then.But because of the vital work that the IBTS do I feel it would be best to desist in scaremongering on such an issue without basis for it.

Have you ever given blood?

efb

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.

remember this fran?

skooterblue2

Flem31 wrote: »

And I am looking forward to his proposals on
- reducing via legislation alcohol consumption and
- measures to increase the numbers taking out health insurance (double taxation imo)

ohhhh that isnt going to go down well with the VFI and Diageo

please pick any two other topic that wont affect the coffers and the big donators as much

Timberrrrrrrr

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well I think the Haemophillia society have come out against the idea of people who have had regular anal sex for blood donations. It is not the right of a Gay person to give blood, it is the right of recipient to recieve the best blood products they deserve. People who argue against this have short memories of the 1980's and AIDS given to Haemophilliacs. Then there was the Blood Transfusions of Hepathitis C in the 1990's.

There is a massive deluslusion that Blood is a right and it is free. Blood given freely has to be taken, tested processed stored and transported making it very expensive. I wonder how much blood is lost through rejected samples? I am very much against financial renumeration for blood as it forces vunerable people to donate. It should be seen as a Public service. I think the best blood should be gotten from young people aged 18-26 who fit and not taking medication etc etc. And can physically afford to give blood because it does take time to recover. I think we are very lucky to live in a country that has a relatively small drug problem and healthy population.

Absolute bolloxollogy


I am 44 I have donated blood for over 20 years, I can "physically afford" to give blood" and have never needed more than 5 minute sit down with a cup of tea and a newspaper before leaving the donor clinic. I wonder if you have ever even donated if that's what you think?

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

Have you ever given blood?

I would say he has and so have I until I was unable to. I cant give blood because of a medical treatment. I dis agree with it on Ethical grounds but undertand on medical grounds why it is done. These are rules laid down by the ITSB and I have to abide by them. If I decide which rules I can and cannot follow that leaves the door open for medical malpractice for every practitioner

skooterblue2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Absolute bolloxollogy


I am 44 I have donated blood for over 20 years, I can "physically afford" to give blood" and have never needed more than 5 minute sit down with a cup of tea and a newspaper before leaving the donor clinic. I wonder if you have ever even donated if that's what you think?

Well congratulations, the Last time I donated blood I was wrecked after it. Not all of us are that fit and some of us are tied to office Jobs. I actually have a silver pin for donations, courtsey of the IBTS service. I used to donate at College and every quarter. I was suggesting people 18- 26 are much less likely to be on medications and have a higher red blood cell count than someone who is older. Personally I find my GP is always trying to shove unnecessary medications on me without going to the root of the problem.

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I would say he has and so have I until I was unable to. I cant give blood because of a medical treatment. I dis agree with it on Ethical grounds but undertand on medical grounds why it is done. These are rules laid down by the ITSB and I have to abide by them. If I decide which rules I can and cannot follow that leaves the door open for medical malpractice for every practitioner

It can be reviewed as medical practices regularly are.

Even with the 12 month abstention, I cannot donate (healthy sex life) , so I am not looking to change the rules for me, so lets drop that one

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well congratulations, the Last time I donated blood I was wrecked after it. Not all of us are that fit and some of us are tied to office Jobs. I actually have a silver pin for donations, courtsey of the IBTS service. I used to donate at College and every quarter. I was suggesting people 18- 26 are much less likely to be on medications and have a higher red blood cell count than someone who is older. Personally I find my GP is always trying to shove unnecessary medications on me without going to the root of the problem.

So you do question medical practices too?

efb

fran17 wrote: »

Listen efb,you seem like a genuine guy from your postings but I will not be accused of lying by you or anybody else.
Apart from personal opinions on this topic there is nothing I have posted that is not based on facts and figures that came from credible and reliable sources.These include the ESRI,Wikipedia,UCD and the UK national statistics office.Interestingly though you do not have an issue with my statistics on the very small percentage who are effected by this ban,hmmm.I am very much aware that your lifestyle excludes you from donation leaving you with distrust and resentment of the system and I can sympathise with that,on its merits.
However the reason I "wont let up" is because this is a debate and I'm sure your aware that for it to work you need opposing points of views.If people just "let up" then this forum would cease to exist right now.I have quite valid reasons for my opinions and as long as they are based on truths I will continue to air them.

I never said you lied

Timberrrrrrrr

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Well congratulations, the Last time I donated blood I was wrecked after it. Not all of us are that fit and some of us are tied to office Jobs. I actually have a silver pin for donations, courtsey of the IBTS service. I used to donate at College and every quarter. I was suggesting people 18- 26 are much less likely to be on medications and have a higher red blood cell count than someone who is older. Personally I find my GP is always trying to shove unnecessary medications on me without going to the root of the problem.

Erm


I have an office job, and no offence but 18 - 26 year olds are more likely to be on medication (unsubscribed of course ). If you feel your GP is pushing drugs onto you then it may be time to get a new GP.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

That's fair enough then.But because of the vital work that the IBTS do I feel it would be best to desist in scaremongering on such an issue without basis for it.

I have been scaremongering?

Pot. Kettle. Black

Please do point out where I have been scaremongering.

Ghost Buster

fran17 wrote: »

Listen efb,you seem like a genuine guy from your postings but I will not be accused of lying by you or anybody else.
Apart from personal opinions on this topic there is nothing I have posted that is not based on facts and figures that came from credible and reliable sources.These include the ESRI,Wikipedia,UCD and the UK national statistics office.Interestingly though you do not have an issue with my statistics on the very small percentage who are effected by this ban,hmmm.I am very much aware that your lifestyle excludes you from donation leaving you with distrust and resentment of the system and I can sympathise with that,on its merits.
However the reason I "wont let up" is because this is a debate and I'm sure your aware
that for it to work you need opposing points of views.If people just "let up" then this forum would cease to exist right now.I have quite valid reasons for my opinions and as long as they are based on truths I will continue to air them.

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.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Listen efb,you seem like a genuine guy from your postings but I will not be accused of lying by you or anybody else.
Apart from personal opinions on this topic there is nothing I have posted that is not based on facts and figures that came from credible and reliable sources.These include the ESRI,Wikipedia,UCD and the UK national statistics office.Interestingly though you do not have an issue with my statistics on the very small percentage who are effected by this ban,hmmm.I am very much aware that your lifestyle excludes you from donation leaving you with distrust and resentment of the system and I can sympathise with that,on its merits.
However the reason I "wont let up" is because this is a debate and I'm sure your aware that for it to work you need opposing points of views.If people just "let up" then this forum would cease to exist right now.I have quite valid reasons for my opinions and as long as they are based on truths I will continue to air them.

What exactly is efb's lifestyle, and how are you in a position to know anything about it.

skooterblue2

efb wrote: »

So you do question medial practices too?

I have never questioned a medial practice ....... because I dont know what one is. However I have been subject of Medical malpractice before and I think all medical practices are open to review for the furthing science but imperical thinking and history should not be forgotten as well.

The Solution to the blood supply should not be found by the easiest answer but by asking questions why people who previously Donated no longer donated.
I dont think people should be financially rewarded for donating, as this attracts people who are vunerable who should not be donating. People use all kinds of excuses..... I dont have the time, I dont know when where how?, the benefits of blood donation (public service and free blood should you need it) any others people are free to add.

efb

floggg wrote: »

What exactly is efb's lifestyle, and how are you in a position to know anything about it.

I think (s)he means that I have anal intercourse with other men. lifestyle might be easier to say without thinking about the evil fornication...

efb

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I have never questioned a medial practice ....... because I dont know what one is. However I have been subject of Medical malpractice before and I think all medical practices are open to review for the furthing science but imperical thinking and history should not be forgotten as well.

The Solution to the blood supply should not be found by the easiest answer but by asking questions why people who previously Donated no longer donated.
I dont think people should be financially rewarded for donating, as this attracts people who are vunerable who should not be donating. People use all kinds of excuses..... I dont have the time, I dont know when where how?, the benefits of blood donation (public service and free blood should you need it) any others people are free to add.

you are not charged for blood in Ireland

skooterblue2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Erm


I have an office job, and no offence but 18 - 26 year olds are more likely to be on medication (unsubscribed of course ). If you feel your GP is pushing drugs onto you then it may be time to get a new GP.

Well then an idividual aged 19-26 shouldnt donate then but all the colleges I have been at have had massive blood drives and they even had one at a computer firm I worked for.

My GP situation is in hand and more than capable of finding a suitable one. Personally I find that they spend more time counting money and covering eachothers backs than practicing medicine

floggg

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I have never questioned a medial practice ....... because I dont know what one is. However I have been subject of Medical malpractice before and I think all medical practices are open to review for the furthing science but imperical thinking and history should not be forgotten as well.

The Solution to the blood supply should not be found by the easiest answer but by asking questions why people who previously Donated no longer donated.
I dont think people should be financially rewarded for donating, as this attracts people who are vunerable who should not be donating. People use all kinds of excuses..... I dont have the time, I dont know when where how?, the benefits of blood donation (public service and free blood should you need it) any others people are free to add.

And people will continue to use thise excuses.

Personally I am not too pushed by the ban (I hope to never qualify if the relax the rules to permit those who havent had sex within the last year to donate), it would seem to me it's in everybody's interest to make sure as many people can donate as possible (subject to the requirement to avoid unnecessary risks).

But hey, as you say nobody has a right to give blood, and it's no skin off my nose if they don't.