So Michael D IS running again!

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What makes you think she had no concerns about the availability of info though?
There clearly was. Why would the HSE have run an Awareness Campaign if the info is getting through satisfactorily?

There is zero evidence that she is an anti vaxxer. Like any decent parent she would not allow her daughter be vaccinated (nor would I, frankly) without the relevant info and a mind at ease. And the scare stories and case studies of those suffering after effects were all over the place at the time.

You live in a perfect world obviously, where the right info is at hand. Not everyone does though.

Like any decent parent she ignored all expert medical advice...............huh?..............decent parent?.............seriously?..........she put her daughter in harm's way.................there are a large number of parents out there who have denied their daughter the chance to be safe from cervical cancer.....................for her own sake, I hope Liadh wasn't stupid enough to carry through on her own idiotic pronouncements, because she may well live to regret it.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Politicians cause HSE to waste money and you think this is a good thing?

Only idiots raised doubts about the HPV vaccine, and an idiot doesn't deserve to be President.

Politicians raise concerns about health issues all the time - rightly or wrongly. Look at the abortion debate - some claiming no problems with existing legislation others claimig huge problems and a whole raft of people concerned about it. The real world we live in, in other words.

People have suffered negative effects as a result of using the vaccine. Totally understandable to worry about your child.
Leave the anti republican/SF thrust behind here and recognise the real world we live in for once?

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

Like any decent parent she ignored all expert medical advice...............huh?..............decent parent?.............seriously?..........she put her daughter in harm's way.................there are a large number of parents out there who have denied their daughter the chance to be safe from cervical cancer.....................for her own sake, I hope Liadh wasn't stupid enough to carry through on her own idiotic pronouncements, because she may well live to regret it.

Her daughter wasn't going to be struck down if she didn't sign the letter within 24 hours. Stop being so sensationalist blanch, it does your argument no favours.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Politicians raise concerns about health issues all the time - rightly or wrongly. Look at the abortion debate - some claiming no problems with existing legislation others claimig huge problems and a whole raft of people concerned about it. The real world we live in, in other words.

People have suffered negative effects as a result of using the vaccine. Totally understandable to worry about your child.
Leave the anti republican/SF thrust behind here and recognise the real world we live in for once?

http://www.thejournal.ie/hpv-vaccine-ireland-regret-gardasil-facts-2970847-Sep2017/

You are as bad as the anti-vaxxers, spreading false rumours about the vaccine.

If a Sinn Fein politician said that Aids wasn't caused by HIV, would you believe that too? If they said that the earth is flat, would you defend their right to have that opinion?

I have never met anyone who would go to such lengths to defend the indefensible, and anything that Sinn Fein say is gospel to you.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/hpv-vaccine-ireland-regret-gardasil-facts-2970847-Sep2017/

You are as bad as the anti-vaxxers, spreading false rumours about the vaccine.

If a Sinn Fein politician said that Aids wasn't caused by HIV, would you believe that too? If they said that the earth is flat, would you defend their right to have that opinion?

I have never met anyone who would go to such lengths to defend the indefensible, and anything that Sinn Fein say is gospel to you.

How many times does this happen? I state something and you turn it into something else, usually something sensational, in a pathetic attempt to prove your argument, such as it is.

I simply said, people have suffered negative effects. They have. And many more have benefited.
Most people go on a night out or holiday and come home safe, but that doesn't stop you worrying about your child when they go out. Again, real world realities far away from anti republican/SF sensationalism.


Now I am the same as an 'anti vaxxer'. Hilarious.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How many times does this happen? I state something and you turn it into something else, usually something sensational, in a pathetic attempt to prove your argument, such as it is.

I simply said, people have suffered negative effects. They have. And many more have benefited.
Most people go on a night out or holiday and come home safe, but that doesn't stop you worrying about your child when they go out. Again, real world realities far away from anti republican/SF sensationalism.


Now I am the same as an 'anti vaxxer'. Hilarious.

There is zero evidence of negative effects. From the link I provided you:

"One of the 2014 meta-analyses mentioned above evaluated a 2013 study of almost one million 10-17 year-old girls in Denmark and Sweden.

It found no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated girls in the rate of what have been claimed to be serious adverse effects – various autoimmune and neurological conditions, as well as venous thromboembolism (VTE), which includes deep vein thrombosis.

Another study from 2014 analysed 42 completed or ongoing clinical trials of Cervarix and found that the rates of symptoms were almost identical between vaccinated and control groups.

In fact, the rates of “medically significant conditions” and “serious adverse events” were slightly lower among the vaccinated groups, not that any particular conclusion should be drawn from that."


You are just repeating a falsehood to defend a Sinn Fein politician. Incredible, especially as it is a falsehood that puts kids at risk.

nuac

gandalf wrote: »

WTF what's next...On Discovery Channel The President of Ireland looks for hidden Nazi Gold.....

Cue those stories about U-Boats near the West Coast as Germany collapsed in 1945

Roll up for the last of the marked charts showing stashes in islands in Clew Bay

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

There is zero evidence of negative effects. From the link I provided you:
.

Better tell the HSE that, not me.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/pubinfo/schoolprog/hpv/hpv-vaccine-safety/

Occasionally girls faint after getting any injection. Girls will be advised to sit down for 15 minutes after vaccination which helps prevent fainting.
1 in 10 girls will have pain, swelling and redness at the injection site and/or headache.
1 in 100 girls will have nausea, pain in the vaccinated arm and mild fever.
You can give her paracetamol or ibuprofen to ease any pain.

Between 1 in 1000 and 1 in 10,000 girls will get an itchy rash or hives.
Between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 100,000 girls will have wheezing (bronchospasm).
1 in 1 million girls will have a serious allergic reaction.
As usual seek medical advice if you are concerned.

As usual you are sensationalising something I said.

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Better tell the HSE that, not me.

https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/pubinfo/schoolprog/hpv/hpv-vaccine-safety/



As usual you are sensationalising something I said.

So no different to any other vaccine, in fact safer than some others I have had.

No sensationalising. You are making it out that there is some unusual problem with the HPV vaccines that required parents to consider it carefully and to go on radio to warn of the dangers. That simply isn't true.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

So no different to any other vaccine, in fact safer than some others I have had.

No sensationalising. You are making it out that there is some unusual problem with the HPV vaccines that required parents to consider it carefully and to go on radio to warn of the dangers. That simply isn't true.

No, again, I said something, 'that people had negative effects from taking the vaccine' which they do and you turned me into an anti vaxxer.

Increasingly surreal to watch what you are doing here.

Why not just say 'I hate her because she is a Shinner/republican' I would have more respect for you.

Esel

Seriously boring at this stage, lads.

The Unfollow button is beckoning.

Capt'n Midnight

blackwhite wrote: »

Some posters will be quite disengenuous with allegations like that. Plenty can remember their posting histories when it comes to actual child protection issues.

Don’t forget - the party must always come first

just ask Sean Gallagher.

VinLieger

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No, again, I said something, 'that people had negative effects from taking the vaccine' which they do and you turned me into an anti vaxxer.

Increasingly surreal to watch what you are doing here.

Why not just say 'I hate her because she is a Shinner/republican' I would have more respect for you.

The negative affects descirbed by blanch are pretty standard across alot of vaccines and are nothing to do with the concerns ni riada raised and you well know it.

Personally i dont like SF or really anything they stand for, but believe it or not this is not about partisan politics. This is about vaccinations and i dont care what someones political beliefs are, we could agree on 99% of things but if you are antivax then in my opinion you are the stupidest, most pig ignorant, anti science piece of human garbage that exists and need to be opposed and shown up for what you are at every chance. Ni Riada in my opinion due to her comments a few years ago falls into this category and i do not agree that she has yet satisfactorally distanced herself from the likes of regret or the comments she made.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Can we get back on topic please.

FreudianSlippers

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Well, they all do that.
Varadkar was playing to public opinion when he criticised the civil marriage bill but changed with the wind a few years later.

You cannot seriously think that we live in a world that is unaffected by worries and concerns however unfounded. It is the meat and bones of daily life that these things happen.

Varadkar never criticised "the civil marriage bill" because it never existed.

ancapailldorcha

No more talk about vaccine safety please. There's a thread in After Hours on the topic for people who wish to discuss it.

blackwhite

I see Duffy is confirmed in now, Waterford backed him this morning

Together with the unnanmed SF candidate, I'd guess that the field probably set now.



As an aside - I see two of the Waterford councillors voted to nominate O'Doherty. Would be interesting to see who they were!

hotmail.com

So with the Sinn Fein candidate chosen this weekend, that completes the line up you would think.

That's unless one or more of the candidates drop out before the election.

I expect turnout to be very low, perhaps not even getting to 40%. The 1997 Presidential election turnout was below 50%.

VinLieger

If we ever wanted more evidence that Duffy was a stalking horse for Gallagher we have it, he's now calling for other councils to nominate gemma.


Id wager on Duffy to produce the dirt and attacks during the campaign and debates while leaving Gallagher looking supremely presidential to sit above the rest of the field

FrancieBrady

hotmail.com wrote: »

So with the Sinn Fein candidate chosen this weekend, that completes the line up you would think.

That's unless one or more of the candidates drop out before the election.

I expect turnout to be very low, perhaps not even getting to 40%. The 1997 Presidential election turnout was below 50%.

Depends how fractious the campaign becomes.
Can Gallagher repeat his poll topping lead in to the vote and will the now customary vitriol develop over who gets this post?
I still suspect that like Gallagher is a Fianna Failer, Duffy will be the go to man for FG.

expectationlost

Councillors Breda Gardner independent and David Kennedy Sinn Fein say they'll propose Gemma O'Doherty to Kilkenny County Council for nomination to run in presidential campaign https://kclr96fm.com/kilkenny-county-council-hears-from-two-more-presidential-hopefuls/

Homeopath, Iridologist, Kinesiologist etc Breda Gardner bredagardner.com ...

blackwhite

expectationlost wrote: »

Councillors Breda Gardner independent and David Kennedy Sinn Fein says he'll propose Gemma O'Doherty to Kilkenny County Council for nomination to run in presidential campaign

Homeopath, Iridologist etc Breda Gardner bredagardner.com ...

Is there an epidemic of insanity sweeping the southeast at the moment?

Anyone who thinks Gemma O'Doherty is a suitable candidate given her behaviour over the past two weeks alone (and ignoring the craziness she's displayed prior to that!) needs to have their head examined.

An Ciarraioch

blackwhite wrote: »

expectationlost wrote: »

Councillors Breda Gardner independent and David Kennedy Sinn Fein says he'll propose Gemma O'Doherty to Kilkenny County Council for nomination to run in presidential campaign

Homeopath, Iridologist etc Breda Gardner bredagardner.com ...

Is there an epidemic of insanity sweeping the southeast at the moment?

Anyone who thinks Gemma O'Doherty is a suitable candidate given her behaviour over the past two weeks alone (and ignoring the craziness she's displayed prior to that!) needs to have their head examined.

Even before that, Pa Daly, an SF councillor in Kerry also declared his support for her - the official meeting for voting on nominations is next Monday ...

EdgeCase

The presidential elections here are in some ways a very unusual type of election as the job does not have any political, executive or policy function. In effect you're electing Ireland's ambassador-in-cheif. So they have to be someone who encapsulates what Ireland is in 2018.

I don't really understand how anyone thinks it's a good platform for policy issues. If they were elected, they'd actually be utterly hamstrung by the constitutional requirements for the president to be above politics. There's also a formal division of powers between the presidency and the executive (government) and legislature (Dail and Seanad) and also the courts. So, the president is precluded from having any role in any of those.

Even if they want to refuse to sign legislation, they can only do so on the advice of the Council of State, where the believe it to be unconstitutional and then it can only be referred to the Supreme Court for judicial review.

Almost all of the presidential "powers" are ceremonial and can only be used "on the advice of the Taoiseach" or "on consultation with the Council of State".

They can't even leave the state without the permission of the Government, the only citizen who is in that position!

For anyone campaigning on issues, it would be a very poor choice of position as you'd effectively be gagged by the constitution.

Constitutionally speaking, the presidency here is pretty much just a republican, democratised and elected version of the Queen of England's job (without the head of the church bits and some of the other old imperial baggage.)

It's all about symbolism, ceremony and big vision cultural kind of things and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with government policy.

expectationlost

perhaps some don't actually want to be president

FrancieBrady

EdgeCase wrote: »

The presidential elections here are in some ways a very unusual type of election as the job does not have any political, executive or policy function. In effect you're electing Ireland's ambassador-in-cheif. So they have to be someone who encapsulates what Ireland is in 2018.

I don't really understand how anyone thinks it's a good platform for policy issues. If they were elected, they'd actually be utterly hamstrung by the constitutional requirements for the president to be above politics. There's also a formal division of powers between the presidency and the executive (government) and legislature (Dail and Seanad) and also the courts. So, the president is precluded from having any role in any of those.

Even if they want to refuse to sign legislation, they can only do so on the advice of the Council of State, where the believe it to be unconstitutional and then it can only be referred to the Supreme Court for judicial review.

Almost all of the presidential "powers" are ceremonial and can only be used "on the advice of the Taoiseach" or "on consultation with the Council of State".

They can't even leave the state without the permission of the Government, the only citizen who is in that position!

For anyone campaigning on issues, it would be a very poor choice of position as you'd effectively be gagged by the constitution.

Constitutionally speaking, the presidency here is pretty much just a republican, democratised and elected version of the Queen of England's job (without the head of the church bits and some of the other old imperial baggage.)

It's all about symbolism, ceremony and big vision cultural kind of things and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with government policy.

Spot on and it's why it is very difficult to unseat Higgins imo.
Erudite, intellectual and a genuinely charming person. Perfect for the job.

blanch152

EdgeCase wrote: »

The presidential elections here are in some ways a very unusual type of election as the job does not have any political, executive or policy function. In effect you're electing Ireland's ambassador-in-cheif. So they have to be someone who encapsulates what Ireland is in 2018.

I don't really understand how anyone thinks it's a good platform for policy issues. If they were elected, they'd actually be utterly hamstrung by the constitutional requirements for the president to be above politics. There's also a formal division of powers between the presidency and the executive (government) and legislature (Dail and Seanad) and also the courts. So, the president is precluded from having any role in any of those.

Even if they want to refuse to sign legislation, they can only do so on the advice of the Council of State, where the believe it to be unconstitutional and then it can only be referred to the Supreme Court for judicial review.

Almost all of the presidential "powers" are ceremonial and can only be used "on the advice of the Taoiseach" or "on consultation with the Council of State".

They can't even leave the state without the permission of the Government, the only citizen who is in that position!

For anyone campaigning on issues, it would be a very poor choice of position as you'd effectively be gagged by the constitution.

Constitutionally speaking, the presidency here is pretty much just a republican, democratised and elected version of the Queen of England's job (without the head of the church bits and some of the other old imperial baggage.)

It's all about symbolism, ceremony and big vision cultural kind of things and absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with government policy.

You are making a good case for Gemma O'Doherty.

You only have to read these boards for a short while to come across every kind of conspiracy theory or discover that every government decision is designed to enrich Denis O'Brien, or that FG are trying to fool the public by not running a Presidential candidate, or that we can build houses overnight at next to zero cost or that Irish Water was set up to be sold to Denis O'Brien, or that vaccines are dangerous, that Vitamin D can cure measles, or any number of similar weird pronouncements.

If those types of posts on here reflect wider society, then Gemma is the woman for Ireland 2018.

James Brown

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Spot on and it's why it is very difficult to unseat Higgins imo.
Erudite, intellectual and a genuinely charming person. Perfect for the job.

I don't believe Gallagher or Duffy are the kind of character looking to be an ambassador for the country. Gallagher will be looking to sell himself and use the office to further his business ties IMO. We need someone with a level of grace and respect for themselves. With the quality currently running, nobody comes close to Higgins.

nc6000

So two councillors in Waterford voted for Gemma O'Doherty. Scary stuff.

Larbre34

There is a relatively simple solution to the farce of the last few weeks.

Every prospective candidate (except any incumbent who would do it their first time) should be required to gather, say, 50,000 citizen signatures (on paper, not online and submitted to the national returning officer for verification).

At that point, they would then be permitted to go forward for nomination by the current method, through the Oireachtas or Local Authorities.

Many of the current controversial candidates are stating that the Presidency is a ceremonial role and should be open to everyman. I disagree. It is the Head of State, the guardian of the Constitution and the face of the Nation at home and abroad. The person should be astute, capable, worldly, socially active and aware and preferably have deep organisational experience.

If anyone putting themselves forward cannot get 50,000 testimonials from their fellow citizens to endorse their record of public service, social activity, charitable work, philanthropy, academic achievement, entrepreneurship or whatever big ticket they are standing on, they shouldnt be wasting anyone's time.

Let there be no more SLM, John Groarke or Norma Burke, they are a bloody disgrace. And as for Gemma, if she thinks a large cohort agree with what she says or does, let her go and find just 1% of the population who agree with her. Its not much to ask for.