Leo Again

floggg · 10-02-2015 12:56AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Ask a doctor will this a 100% cure me? they will answer we it has been shown to work. Ask an engineer is this a garunteed reason they will always leave a space to back ut of. Please research the Vacinations cause Autism story. Remember the Doctor that backed that case? he was struck off. Remember the Doctors that vindicated Dr Michael Neary? They were struck off. You would want to be very sure of what you are talking about in a professional capacity (court/medical journal) in case you find yourself being reviewed by a professional body. 4-9 years of college down the drain, cannot get re-employed, cannot get medical insurance.... I would be very slow to back something new. My attitude is give it to Johnny over there first and see what happens to him and then decide.

I doubt anyone makes a major purchase without a review from a credible body.

Individual doctors aren't being asked to make this decision.

Unless I am gravely mistaken, Hospitals use the blood supplied to them, and the doctors and other medical staff who use it and blood products do not have any say, input or control over the blood/blood products provided to them.

There is no scope for any claims or malpractice claims against doctors arising from this decision.

It is a policy decision, not something they have any control over.

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 12:59AM

Nodin wrote: »

And who might be employed by this "credible body" to determine the safety/worthiness of a medical product?

Good question the HPVA (formerly the Irish Medicines Board), has many different functions. Some specialise in Vetinary medicine, some in human medicines and Medical devicesand there are other parts to the regulation body.

My former lecturer was an advisor to them. He is employed in a large hospital and responsible for purchasing medical devices as well. Usually who is ever associated with prescribing and validiating the medicine/medical device. Could be anyone from Doctor, Pharmacist medical engineers staticians and Vets depending on the product. The FDA are a more cautious organisation but the TUV are a more through on investigations and audits. My lecturer said he first thing he wanted to know about a product was not what it did but did it have acreditation and which organisation had already using it for 12 months. then he wanted to hear about the product itself. Just covering his own ass.

floggg · 10-02-2015 01:00AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I never said wealthy but in this day and age if you can take time off and have the means to visit your GP you are doing well. Many people are caught inbetween private health insurance and Medical cards with no cover. May homeless people have other priorities other than visiting their GP ..... so yes if you have medical cover and time to visit your GP regularily you are doing well. Many Dont

Sorry, relatively well off.

As far as I know a private STD screening costs 100 euro. Not exactly breaking the bank.

In any event, there is plenty of free testing available (including out of office hours).

Your reference to means is therefore rather bizarre (at best).

Care to tell us about MK-NAOMI, the origin of HIV/AIDS and Agenda 21?

Annasopra · 10-02-2015 01:11AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I never said wealthy but in this day and age if you can take time off and have the means to visit your GP you are doing well. Many people are caught inbetween private health insurance and Medical cards with no cover. May homeless people have other priorities other than visiting their GP ..... so yes if you have medical cover and time to visit your GP regularily you are doing well. Many Dont

Plenty of free testing out of hours so your assumptions dont hold up at all.

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 01:20AM

floggg wrote: »

Sorry, relatively well off.

Your reference to means is therefore rather bizarre (at best).

I think the operative word in the comment is relative. Relative to the poor souls on heroin, homeless, crippled with other mental health issues..... its relatively better off.

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 01:24AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Plenty of free testing out of hours so your assumptions dont hold up at all.

my comment were about the cost of GP visits (circa 50-70 euro a time) if not covered by health insurance or medical cards. No comment about testing. You do know what they say about assuming things?

Nodin · 10-02-2015 04:26AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I never said wealthy but in this day and age if you can take time off and have the means to visit your GP you are doing well. Many people are caught inbetween private health insurance and Medical cards with no cover. May homeless people have other priorities other than visiting their GP ..... so yes if you have medical cover and time to visit your GP regularily you are doing well. Many Dont

That confused bit of nonsense doesn't really make much sense. Again - what basis have you for your assertion about 300 gay men?

Good question the HPVA (formerly the Irish Medicines Board), has many different
functions. Some specialise in Vetinary medicine, some in human medicines and
Medical devicesand there are other parts to the regulation body.

My
former lecturer was an advisor to them. He is employed in a large hospital and
responsible for purchasing medical devices as well. Usually who is ever
associated with prescribing and validiating the medicine/medical device. Could
be anyone from Doctor, Pharmacist medical engineers staticians and Vets
depending on the product. The FDA are a more cautious organisation but the TUV
are a more through on investigations and audits. My lecturer said he first thing
he wanted to know about a product was not what it did but did it have
acreditation and which organisation had already using it for 12 months. then he
wanted to hear about the product itself. Just covering his own ass.

But according to you Doctors would be putting their reputations on the line testifying as to the propriety of medical products.....why then do they work in that very field?

Annasopra · 10-02-2015 08:44AM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

my comment were about the cost of GP visits (circa 50-70 euro a time) if not covered by health insurance or medical cards. No comment about testing. You do know what they say about assuming things?

And a test can be accessed free!

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 11:32AM

Nodin wrote: »

But according to you Doctors would be putting their reputations on the line testifying as to the propriety of medical products.....why then do they work in that very field?

I am talking about radical advances. It takes 10 years for a concept (idea from a herbalist, biomedical engineer, biologist, Pharmacist) to go through research, development, Alpha testing, Beta Testing, Documentation, building a purpose factory and plant and marketing the product. At any time during that 10 years the product can fail and be consigned to the archives.... as a good idea but not suitable for the market .. yet or plain failure.

Remember the MS drug Tysabari? from Elan. I saw that years ago before it came on the market and I saw it failing and Elan putting more money into it (with no money being earned) maybe three times being rejected by the FDA. I knew they had a great product because anyone one else would have shelved it. Then when it worked it was a winner but could onlybe prescribed on its own, without any other MS drug. That is a success.

Remember Amgen had a plant all ready to go in Cork and the two drugs failed at the last minute? They had done the ground work in Cork and were awaiting results from the beta testing and both drugs failed. Guys had given up permanent pensionable jobs to go work for these people, some people never got back into the industry.

Hence if your reputation is being tied to product you would want to be very certain of the outcome. Everyone remembers Pasteur, Salk and Wakefield ..... no one remembers the guy who said Autism comes from Vaccines. Medicine is a high risk investment. One accident and/or a product recall and your renouned reputation is gone.

As for medicine we are at the end of understanding of most anatomical things, with the exception to the DNA identifiers and Neurology. We probably arent going to shave less than a fifth of a second of the 100 meters in the next 50 years. Genetic engineering isnt nearly as close as we think and what is coming out of the labs as a finished good isnt encouraging.

Short answer: Backing medical advances can make you very rich very quick on the down side everything you worked so hard to build up over a life time could be gone just as quick.

Kurtosis · 10-02-2015 12:54PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am talking about radical advances.

I don't think this change in policy could seriously be considered a "radical advance".

Hence if your reputation is being tied to product you would want to be very certain of the outcome. Everyone remembers Pasteur, Salk and Wakefield ..... no one remembers the guy who said Autism comes from Vaccines.

Actually, Andrew Wakefield was the doctor whose discredited research linked autism to vaccines.

mikhail · 10-02-2015 12:59PM

penguin88 wrote: »

Actually, Andrew Wakefield was the 'doctor' whose discredited 'research' linked autism to vaccines.

I like to use air-quotes a lot when talking about him (see changes above). Quite a few people are dead as a result of his bull**** study.

floggg · 10-02-2015 01:20PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am talking about radical advances. It takes 10 years for a concept (idea from a herbalist, biomedical engineer, biologist, Pharmacist) to go through research, development, Alpha testing, Beta Testing, Documentation, building a purpose factory and plant and marketing the product. At any time during that 10 years the product can fail and be consigned to the archives.... as a good idea but not suitable for the market .. yet or plain failure.

Remember the MS drug Tysabari? from Elan. I saw that years ago before it came on the market and I saw it failing and Elan putting more money into it (with no money being earned) maybe three times being rejected by the FDA. I knew they had a great product because anyone one else would have shelved it. Then when it worked it was a winner but could onlybe prescribed on its own, without any other MS drug. That is a success.

Remember Amgen had a plant all ready to go in Cork and the two drugs failed at the last minute? They had done the ground work in Cork and were awaiting results from the beta testing and both drugs failed. Guys had given up permanent pensionable jobs to go work for these people, some people never got back into the industry.

Hence if your reputation is being tied to product you would want to be very certain of the outcome. Everyone remembers Pasteur, Salk and Wakefield ..... no one remembers the guy who said Autism comes from Vaccines. Medicine is a high risk investment. One accident and/or a product recall and your renouned reputation is gone.

As for medicine we are at the end of understanding of most anatomical things, with the exception to the DNA identifiers and Neurology. We probably arent going to shave less than a fifth of a second of the 100 meters in the next 50 years. Genetic engineering isnt nearly as close as we think and what is coming out of the labs as a finished good isnt encouraging.

Short answer: Backing medical advances can make you very rich very quick on the down side everything you worked so hard to build up over a life time could be gone just as quick.

Again, how does this explain risk to doctors from this decision?

The decision is one for the minister to make. Doctors will have no say or control over the blood that they receive, and have no duty of care to personally test it or monitor the supply.

The only person whose reputation is on the line is Leo's, and there is little risk to him if he makes the decision based on all available evidence and after consulting appropriate experts and taking their views on board.

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 01:23PM

mikhail wrote: »

I like to use air-quotes a lot when talking about him (see changes above). Quite a few people are dead as a result of his bull**** study.

I actually had wanted to explore the area of the link between Vaccines and Autism in the light of gulf war Vets before I read the background. It was all just a get rich quick scheme by him. After I read the study (if you can call it that), it was fraught with problems. The sample was tiny, just 11 kids and there was a pending law suit against the pharma companies afterwards.

But it filtered into modern Urban legend and it is still a bone of contention even though they have removed the mercury from the MMR vaccine.

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 01:35PM

penguin88 wrote: »

I don't think this change in policy could seriously be considered a "radical advance".

Actually, Andrew Wakefield was the doctor whose discredited research linked autism to vaccines.

Yes it would, viewed in the context of the 1980's and the HIV rising numbers in the Gay population. You probably werent even born then or have never heard the stories of what it was like. The Ebola crisis was nothing compared to what was going on back then. HIV/AIDS treatments and public health information have comesuch a long way but they havent come close to finding a way to eradicate it or or even to contain it like TB, Leprosy and small pox.

There is no way Dr. Andrew Wakefield came up with that concept on his own. You will find it was lawyer friend convinved him to back the reseach and endorse it. The solicitor just saw big Pharma making loads of money and felt it was right to test the water.

floggg · 10-02-2015 01:37PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Yes it would, viewed in the context of the 1980's and the HIV rising numbers in the Gay population. You probably werent even born then or have never heard the stories of what it was like. The Ebola crisis was nothing compared to what was going on back then. HIV/AIDS treatments and public health information have comesuch a long way but they havent come close to finding a way to eradicate it or or even to contain it like TB, Leprosy and small pox.

There is no way Dr. Andrew Wakefield came up with that concept on his own. You will find it was lawyer friend convinved him to back the reseach and endorse it. The solicitor just saw big Pharma making loads of money and felt it was right to test the water.

Tell us, how did AIDS Start again? And why are you refusing to explain your own statements?

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 01:52PM

floggg wrote: »

Again, how does this explain risk to doctors from this decision?

The decision is one for the minister to make. Doctors will have no say or control over the blood that they receive, and have no duty of care to personally test it or monitor the supply.

The only person whose reputation is on the line is Leo's, and there is little risk to him if he makes the decision based on all available evidence and after consulting appropriate experts and taking their views on board.

Some Doctor in Authority will have to sign new codes of practices. Doctors have their own representive bodies. They might be small but if doctors bodies refuse to adopt the practices that could be problematic. Speaking of public representation has anyone noticed how Siptu have been so quite on the Water Charges recently.

Kurtosis · 10-02-2015 01:59PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Yes it would, viewed in the context of the 1980's and the HIV rising numbers in the Gay population. You probably werent even born then or have never heard the stories of what it was like. The Ebola crisis was nothing compared to what was going on back then. HIV/AIDS treatments and public health information have comesuch a long way but they havent come close to finding a way to eradicate it or or even to contain it like TB, Leprosy and small pox.

No it wouldn't, viewed in the context of the 2010's (i.e. the present day), as you even say yourself int he same paragraph, there have been major advances in HIV/AIDS treatment and public health information as well as screening and testing. I also don't appreciate the condescension.

As for rising HIV numbers in the Gay population, this is pretty irrelevant. The numbers one should be looking at are diagnoses of HIV in men who have ever had sex with men but not in the last 12 months.

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 02:35PM

penguin88 wrote: »

No it wouldn't, viewed in the context of the 2010's (i.e. the present day), as you even say yourself int he same paragraph, there have been major advances in HIV/AIDS treatment and public health information as well as screening and testing. I also don't appreciate the condescension.

As for rising HIV numbers in the Gay population, this is pretty irrelevant. The numbers one should be looking at are diagnoses of HIV in men who have ever had sex with men but not in the last 12 months.

It is not just Gay men who are not suitable to donate...... its a range of people (visiting sub Sahara africa, intravenous Drugs, and others). This is what has kept the Irish Blood Transfusion Service blood of the highest quality.

Then there is the cost of destruction of contaminated blood. Not all donations are suitable. hypothetically if there is a lack of fibrinogen in the blood would you accept the sample? That is not valid sample. That has to be destroyed. Nothing wrong with it, just doesnt meet the requirements. So people with a lack of fibrinogen must accept that they arent valid doner through no fault of thier own. I have never heard one of them say "I feel discriminated against".

I also said that the HIV numbers are growing in the gay community. There has been a steady growth over the last 10 years. Its just not a suitable pool to draw from (x33 times most likely).

There is also the cost of destuction. I have no idea how much a unit is to transport to France and be incinerated but a litre and a half container of sharps is €80. Blood is a much more volatile liquid to transport and smells awful if it burst. Free blood doesnt come cheap.

efb · 10-02-2015 02:42PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

It is not just Gay men who are not suitable to donate...... its a range of people (visiting sub Sahara africa, intravenous Drugs, and others). This is what has kept the Irish Blood Transfusion Service blood of the highest quality.

Then there is the cost of destruction of contaminated blood. Not all donations are suitable. hypothetically if there is a lack of fibrinogen in the blood would you accept the sample? That is not valid sample. That has to be destroyed. Nothing wrong with it, just doesnt meet the requirements. So people with a lack of fibrinogen must accept that they arent valid doner through no fault of thier own. I have never heard one of them say "I feel discriminated against".

I also said that the HIV numbers are growing in the gay community. There has been a steady growth over the last 10 years. Its just not a suitable pool to draw from (x33 times most likely).

There is also the cost of destuction. I have no idea how much a unit is to transport to France and be incinerated but a litre and a half container of sharps is €80. Blood is a much more volatile liquid to transport and smells awful if it burst. Free blood doesnt come cheap.

Why do they buy blood off countries that don't have the ban in place? This means this blood is ALREADY in the Irish system

efb · 10-02-2015 02:43PM

Are the Irish MSM more of a risk for the IBTS than the Spanish MSM???

Kurtosis · 10-02-2015 02:45PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

It is not just Gay men who are not suitable to donate...... its a range of people (visiting sub Sahara africa, intravenous Drugs, and others). This is what has kept the Irish Blood Transfusion Service blood of the highest quality.

Wait, what about all the blood scandals you keep bringing up?

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I also said that the HIV numbers are growing in the gay community. There has been a steady growth over the last 10 years. Its just not a suitable pool to draw from (x33 times most likely).

And as I also said, this isn't the pool being drawn from. The pool being drawn from is men who have ever had sex with men, but not in the last 12 months.

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 03:03PM

penguin88 wrote: »

Wait, what about all the blood scandals you keep bringing up?

And as I also said, this isn't the pool being drawn from. The pool being drawn from is men who have ever had sex with men, but not in the last 12 months.

ALL the blood scandals? There were two. The first was the clotting factor brought in from the United States. This would have been very hard to prevent as we did not have the technology to process the blood here at the time. Not an Irish blood products. American blood regulation is much more laxed then here. The second was the Hepatitis C scandal. Two scandals but could have been a lot worse.

How many people do you know who contracted Hepatitis C through contaminated blood products? Kind of colours your slant on things. As for the MSM blood being brought in from abroad I am not crazy about it and I think there are plenty of suitable doners here but to make them aware, this is the real problem.

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 03:05PM

efb wrote: »

Are the Irish MSM more of a risk for the IBTS than the Spanish MSM???

Good question..... I dont know. What do you think? Maybe you should ask a blood recipient?

Flem31 · 10-02-2015 03:40PM

efb wrote: »

Why do they buy blood off countries that don't have the ban in place? This means this blood is ALREADY in the Irish system

Can you please provide a link for this.

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 03:47PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Can you please provide a link for this.

No that is gospel but it is not for general donations only the two rare blood groups. It was in the Irish times and was confirmed by the IBTS Director. Not keen on it but it is true

floggg · 10-02-2015 06:17PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Some Doctor in Authority will have to sign new codes of practices. Doctors have their own representive bodies. They might be small but if doctors bodies refuse to adopt the practices that could be problematic. Speaking of public representation has anyone noticed how Siptu have been so quite on the Water Charges recently.

What codes of practice and how might this arise as an issue?

What control or over sight has a doctor got over the blood used? Are the responsible for sourcing it? Are they in any way aware of where or how it was sourced from?

Are the required to apply any tests or checks themselves before using it? In what circumstances will they send blood back and for what reasons?

Zab · 10-02-2015 06:19PM

Look, skooter, the IBTS should be looking to allow the maximum amount of donors while keeping the risk to the blood supply at an acceptable level. Previously this meant deferring MSM donors but advances in testing methodology and technology means that the lifetime deferment is no longer required. This has been demonstrated in a number of studies and has been changed already in a number of countries, with more changes in the pipeline.

You haven't made a decent argument against this. Apart from your cost of destruction argument, everything has been either emotional arguments based on past events under different conditions or bizarre arguments that doctors won't take the risk of recommending it even though they've done exactly that in other countries (are our doctors more cowardly than theirs?).

Nodin · 10-02-2015 06:28PM

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I am talking.............just as quick.

Yet its a multi-billion dollar industry and viewed as a good investment.

If you're only referring to radical advances, why are you bringing it up in this thread?

Where's your evidence re the 300 well off gay men?

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 06:55PM

floggg wrote: »

What codes of practice and how might this arise as an issue?

What control or over sight has a doctor got over the blood used? Are the responsible for sourcing it? Are they in any way aware of where or how it was sourced from?

Are the required to apply any tests or checks themselves before using it? In what circumstances will they send blood back and for what reasons?

Every organisation has SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) these are audited for accreditation. (ISO 9000, HPVA, TUV, etc etc). The Doctor has no control just to trust that the blood is labeled correctly and the accompanying paperwork is in order. If the Paperwork came from another country showing laboratory of origin, then yes it would. They are required to visually inspect it but Doctors rarely administer blood transfusions it is normally nurses.

They could refuse blood as individual doctors for damaged packaging or a mismatch in paperwork.

skooterblue2 · 10-02-2015 07:01PM

efb wrote: »

Why do they buy blood off countries that don't have the ban in place? This means this blood is ALREADY in the Irish system

Three words : Supply and Demand

Leo Again

Comments