So Michael D IS running again!

VinLieger

Just listened to Gemma's interview on drivetime last night, she is not living in the same reality as the rest of us

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You want to drag her daughter and her medical history into the campaign?

The public record shows that in private she rejects vaccines and refused to have her daughter vaccinated because she distrusted expert medical opinion. She put that out there on the public record, not me, not CorkFM, not any other politician.

Now SF, on her behalf, have released a vacuous ambiguous statement that appears to contradict her previous position on the issue but doesn't clarify that she actually had her daughter vaccinated.

She had put it out there, time for her to clarify it. Otherwise, she is just another typical hypocritical politician.

blanch152

Matt Barrett wrote: »

The election is hyped up beyond all reason. I smell a dragon PR campaign. If these people had any real civic interest they'd be running for an office with the power to do something. It's all waffle. If I were Higgins I'd leave them to it, or merely laugh them off in debates.

If someone running once for the office doesn't have any real civic interest, what does that make of someone who is running twice for the office? A super-cynical exploiter of publicity with zero civic interest?

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Well, she clearly agrees when she says this in her statement:

Yes, she is one of those saying to the plebs, you vaccinate your kids while I reap the benefits of herd immunity. The absolute opposite of doing your civic duty.

James Brown

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Nonsense, there was a lot more hype last time.

There was a fuss about who FG would nominate: Pat Cox, Mairead McGuinness, Avril Doyle and the winner, Gay Mitchell. It was no secret that Enda wanted Cox and did not get his way.

Labour picked Higgins ahead of Fergus Finlay and Kathleen O'Meara.

There was excitement about FF nominating Gaybo.

None of that news has happened this time since FG, FF and Labour are all backing Higgins.

By September last time, Norris had canvassed the Oireachteas, gotten a bunch of nominations, had 3 of them pull out, quit the race and then rejoined it via the CC route.

By the end of September, 4 candidates had secured council nominations.

This years election is a sideshow, since we all know Higgins will wipe the floor with all comers.

I see your 'nonsense' and raise you an 'IMO, it is'. We're talking created hype not legit interest.
Higgins is a walk in so the only point in taking part is creating a three dragon ring circus to drum up publicity in the hopes it'll get those not bothered, looking at it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

The public record shows that in private she rejects vaccines and refused to have her daughter vaccinated because she distrusted expert medical opinion. She put that out there on the public record, not me, not CorkFM, not any other politician.

Now SF, on her behalf, have released a vacuous ambiguous statement that appears to contradict her previous position on the issue but doesn't clarify that she actually had her daughter vaccinated.

She had put it out there, time for her to clarify it. Otherwise, she is just another typical hypocritical politician.

She has made a very definitive statement on her view of vaccines and only had to do it because there are people who treat everything a SF rep says with suspicion.

There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity to me (maybe you could point it out) in her public stance, which is all that matters really. I have no idea (and no expectation to know) how Michael D feels privately about many issues.

Shameful for those desperate for an 'angle of attack' on a not yet nominated candidate to try to involve her daughter.

jm08

VinLieger wrote: »

No the reasons there were question marks over it is due to the conspiracy theorist, anti-vax, fear mongers in regret not understanding that correlation does not equal causation and unfortunately Ni Riada and other representatives chose to listen to them simply because they were the loudest most belligerent voice in the room at the time instead of the the experts and massive weight of evidence proving regret were wrong,

So nothing got to do with these people or this documentary?

Late last year, various media outlets (including this publication) highlighted the cases of over 130 girls and their families who claimed that their daughters had become ill after having received the vaccine.
The parents and their daughters, many of whom are members of an advocacy group named REGRET (Reactions and Effects of Gardasil Resulting in Extreme Trauma), also had their efforts to find out what was the cause of their daughters’ illnesses chronicled in a documentary entitled Cervical Cancer Vaccine: Is it Safe?, which aired on Tv3 on 14 December.
On 3 December 2015, representatives appeared before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children. Their concerns and issues were raised in the D by TDs including Maureen O’Sullivan and Michael Moynihan.
“Our lives were never the same following the Gardasil HPV vaccination of our daughters, with years taken from them, their parents, siblings and grandparents,” REGRET spokesperson Anna Cannon told the committee in her opening address.

All just a conspiracy theory then?

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She has made a very definitive statement on her view of vaccines and only had to do it because there are people who treat everything a SF rep says with suspicion.

There doesn't seem to be any ambiguity to me (maybe you could point it out) in her public stance, which is all that matters really. I have no idea (and no expectation to know) how Michael D feels privately about many issues.

Shameful for those desperate for an 'angle of attack' on a not yet nominated candidate to try to involve her daughter.

Shameful that she involved her daughter in a public discussion about vaccines and created this issue.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

So nothing got to do with these people or this documentary?




All just a conspiracy theory then?

REGRET have been debunked time and again. They make Wakefield look like a competent scientist.

batgoat

blanch152 wrote: »

REGRET have been debunked time and again. They make Wakefield look like a competent scientist.

They also have some odd citations on their site including an aids denier with no medical qualifications.

blackwhite

Have we really reached the stage where some SF acolytes are going to bat for anti-vaxx lobby groups rather than admit that a SF representative might have been wrong ?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Shameful that she involved her daughter in a public discussion about vaccines and created this issue.

That is her business frankly and right to do in an interview.

You are trying to pry her daughters medical information to use it as a stick to beat the mother, when the mother has clearly outlined her opinion and stance on the matter.

batgoat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is her business frankly and right to do in an interview.

You are trying to pry her daughters medical information to use it as a stick to beat the mother, when the mother has clearly outlined her opinion and stance on the matter.

And as a public representative, she was expressing a view that puts other teenager's lives in danger. I have very little time for politicians like that. We have an opportunity to entirely eliminate things such as cervical cancer and she actively worked against that.

FrancieBrady

batgoat wrote: »

And as a public representative, she was expressing a view that puts other teenager's lives in danger. I have very little time for politicians like that. We have an opportunity to entirely eliminate things such as cervical cancer and she actively worked against that.

As a parent myself, I remember the scare stories and they did reach a fairly intense level for a while (such is the social media world we live in) if that hadn't happened then uptake would not have fallen and the HSE would not have to have run an awareness campaign, as the articles state.

Discussing concerns is not 'actively working against' anything, stop exaggerating. :rolleyes:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As a parent myself, I remember the scare stories and they did reach a fairly intense level for a while (such is the social media world we live in) if that hadn't happened then uptake would not have fallen and the HSE would not have to have run an awareness campaign, as the articles state.

Discussing concerns is not 'actively working against' anything, stop exaggerating. :rolleyes:

Deflection from the main issue.

Once again, Sinn Fein close ranks whenever one of theirs is challenged. The woman has to come clean. Given the remarks back then, there are already serious questions about her judgement. If she is a CJH type, "do what I say not what I do", she is unfit for public life.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Deflection from the main issue.

Once again, Sinn Fein close ranks whenever one of theirs is challenged. The woman has to come clean. Given the remarks back then, there are already serious questions about her judgement. If she is a CJH type, "do what I say not what I do", she is unfit for public life.

classic. Woman goes on air to discuss intense concerns being aired publicly.
Now depicted as an active anti vaxxer. Despite having more than adequately clarified for the sensationalists among us who have nothing else to throw at her.

I won't be voting for Liadh for the reasons stated earlier, but in the words of somebody famous, 'is this all you got' Blanch?

Capt'n Midnight

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It wasn't doable - he only resigned from FF's governing body, the Ard Comhairle, in January that year. Pretending in October that you don't remember being on the central committee that runs Fianna Fail the previous January is simply not credible.

But he only joined FF in 1981


Candidate profiles (including Micheál Martin, Sean Gallagher) from the 1984 Ogra Fianna Fail Conference Clár

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

classic. Woman goes on air to discuss intense concerns being aired publicly.
Now depicted as an active anti vaxxer. Despite having more than adequately clarified for the sensationalists among us who have nothing else to throw at her.

I won't be voting for Liadh for the reasons stated earlier, but in the words of somebody famous, 'is this all you got' Blanch?

Liadh Ni Riain, in her own words, said that she did not vaccinate her daughter. She is now telling the rest of us that vaccines are fine.

If you don't have a problem with that, you are living in a surreal world.

marieholmfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is her business frankly and right to do in an interview.

You are trying to pry her daughters medical information to use it as a stick to beat the mother, when the mother has clearly outlined her opinion and stance on the matter.

So she is entitled to her opinion and she shouldn't be President. She has poor judgment and isn't interesting enough to make up for that unlike say Kevin Sharkey. (Gemma would be very interesting but her judgment is so bad that I am on the fence about her).

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Liadh Ni Riain, in her own words, said that she did not vaccinate her daughter. She is now telling the rest of us that vaccines are fine.

If you don't have a problem with that, you are living in a surreal world.

I don't have a problem with people discussing their concerns, not in light of what she has said to quell the sensationalists. She did not 'actively' propose not vaccinating, that I can see.

Do you know if Michael D's children are vaccinated? Exactly, you don't, and you have no business knowing either.

All you need to know is what her stance is on the issue and we know that. Fold up the tent and try again and don't disgustingly try and involve her children in the campaign. :rolleyes:

marieholmfan

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Do you know if Michael D's children are vaccinated? Exactly, you don't, and you have no business knowing either.
:

His youngest kid is like 45 so there were fewer vaccinations and you couldn't go to school without them.

FrancieBrady

marieholmfan wrote: »

His youngest kid is like 45 so there were fewer vaccinations and you couldn't go to school without them.

Wasn't really my point.

If the HSE were doing their job, they wouldn't have had to do an 'awareness campaign', wouldn't you think?

There was a fairly intensive period of scare stories. A woman is now paying the price (vilification) for being concerned about a lack of info about the effects of a chemical she was allowing to be put into her daughter.
The anti Shinners do know how to scrape barrels.

Hurrache

Awareness Campaigns are part of their scope.

FrancieBrady

Hurrache wrote: »

Awareness Campaigns are part of their scope.

Discussing people's concerns in public is part of the scope of a good public representative too.And if she did any different to that I have yet to see it. She is being routinely called an anti-vaxxer here on this thread. Is that justifiable?

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The anti Shinners do know how to scrape barrels.

Not that you care, not being a Shinner yourself or supporting their candidate.

batgoat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wasn't really my point.

If the HSE were doing their job, they wouldn't have had to do an 'awareness campaign', wouldn't you think?

There was a fairly intensive period of scare stories. A woman is now paying the price (vilification) for being concerned about a lack of info about the effects of a chemical she was allowing to be put into her daughter.
The anti Shinners do know how to scrape barrels.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Discussing people's concerns in public is part of the scope of a good public representative too.And if she did any different to that I have yet to see it. She is being routinely called an anti-vaxxer here on this thread. Is that justifiable?

The need for the awareness campaign was because of fear mongering which was orchestrated by groups such as Regret and politicians who used it for political point scoring. So no, not god help her. She scare mongered and endangered lives as a direct result.

FrancieBrady

batgoat wrote: »

The need for the awareness campaign was fear mongering which was orchestrated by groups such as Regret and politicians who used it for political point scoring. So no, not god help her. She scare mongered and endangered lives as a direct result.

So nobody was concerned? Anyone with a concern was an 'anti vaxxer' with an interest only in scaremongering?

Ridiculous. As ridiculous as suggesting the HSE has a blemish free record on properly informing the public.

batgoat

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So nobody was concerned? Anyone with a concern was an 'anti vaxxer' with an interest only in scaremongering?

Ridiculous. As ridiculous as suggesting the HSE has a blemish free record on properly informing the public.

Eh, at the time it was clear that it was fear mongering if one had the time to look into the background of groups like regret. Which a politician does. Numerous expert groups across the globe versus a group called regret(Their research included Garry Null, aids denier and radio host)... The HSE were not the only supporters of the vaccines and it was proven to be safe at the time. So justify away but the reality is, cervical cancer is potentially eradicated in Australia thanks to the high uptake.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/04/australia-could-become-first-country-to-eradicate-cervical-cancer

So I've got feck all time for those who scare mongered on it....

FrancieBrady

batgoat wrote: »

Eh, at the time it was clear that it was fear mongering if one had the time to look into the background of groups like regret. Which a politician does. Numerous expert groups across the globe versus a group called regret(Their research included Garry Null, aids denier and radio host)... The HSE were not the only supporters of the vaccines and it was proven to be safe at the time. So justify away but the reality is, cervical cancer is potentially eradicated in Australia thanks to the high uptake.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/04/australia-could-become-first-country-to-eradicate-cervical-cancer

So I've got feck all time for those who scare mongered on it....

Other than publicly discussing her concerns (concerns numerous people had) I can find nothing that shows she was or is an 'anti vaxxer' Yet it is okay to call her one here and to try and out her daughters medical history.
Was she or is she now, an 'anti-vaxxer'?

VinLieger

jm08 wrote: »

So nothing got to do with these people or this documentary?

All just a conspiracy theory then?

Yep it is as countless medical studies have proven, you seem to fall into the same logical falacy, try to understand correlation does not equal causation