Printable View
Anybody hear him interviewing (or rather shouting at) Mary Harney?
He is a disgrace. I understand the topic concerned (cervical cancer vaccinations) is of the utmost importance and a very grave matter. However, I think D'arcy's ego has grown out of control. He is arrogant and pompous and another bugbear is that he calls his mother "mum". He's from Kildare, not Killiney!!
Your views?
Mary Harney is needlessly condemning women to cancer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Den Perry
Yes, D'Arcy can be a sanctimonious ass, but let’s not ignore the real story.
Didn't hear the interview, but the little I do hear of his show usually angers me. As a friend said, he's the only man in the world with vagina envy
What angered me was he never once corrected the idiots that texted in saying things like "mary harney is saying its only 12 year old slappers that get this cancer so who cares" he read out quite a number of texts like this even though she said nothing of the sort.
It seems pretty resonable to me that they would focus on a process that finds the cancer in women right now so they can be cured rather than a vaceen that may stop you getting cancer in 10 years.
The hysterical nonsence this morning with people texting in saying my child is going to die and she doesnt care !! **** off if you are that worried about it just pay for it your self.
Ray Darcy show is rubbish now he is so full of his own importance that if anyone dares dissagree with him he just shouts them down. Thank god tom dunne is on news talk
I haven't listened to his show in a long time - when did he start doing hard-hitting interviews with ministers? I thought the odd one out quiz was as hard hitting as he got.
Why exactly does there have to be choice? For a saving which is a relative pittance. I'd rather they invested in the future health of women now, and dealt with the processes for identifying it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
I can see why you are backing Harney now. Never mind the people who can't afford it, sure once the well off don't get cancer what does it matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Saw him hosting The Panel. Stopped watching.
As for Harney, the sooner she goes and takes her cack-handed plans for 2-tier healthcare with her the better. To be briefly replaced by a FF Minister for long enough for everyone to know that her policies are theirs too.
Ok tell me which health service you would take the 10 mill a year off ?. Dont just say get it from the tribunals or something like that because Harney has no control over taking money from another department. She has to choose the best way to spend the money she is given if she isnt given enough then thats not her fault. She has chosen to try and help the women with cancer right now over the ones that may get it in 10 years and then to help the ones that may get it in 10 years in a year or two. If she had the 10 mill she would do it straight away she doesnt need another stick to be beaten with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
On the secoind point the vaceen was ment to start in 2009 for 12 year old girls only. It will now come into practice in 2010 or 2011 when the girls will be 13 or 14. What are the chances or a 14 year old girl getting this type of cancer ?
This vaceen will not be or never was planned to be given to all women.
The hysterical nonsence this morning with people texting in saying my child is going to die and she doesnt care !! **** off if you are that worried about it just pay for it your self.
Fon an vacination programme to be sucessful approx 80% of the population involved needs to be vacinated... thus the policy reason why for measles, polio etc. the Govt (ie you and me) pays the cost to ensure there is full coverage...so your statement above is in effect nonsensical...also the fact is that an average of 80 women every year will die as a result of this decision.
Finally does anyone else find it odd that we as a society deem it ok to provide free medical cards for the over 70/s who at least have had a reasonably long life...but aren't going to ensure that for the sake of a paltry €10m per annum we going to deny that chance to 80 women.
[QUOTE=anto1208;1056366]Ok tell me which health service you would take the 10 mill a year off ?. Dont just say get it from the tribunals or something like that because Harney has no control over taking money from another department. She has to choose the best way to spend the money she is given if she isnt given enough then thats not her fault. She has chosen to try and help the women with cancer right now over the ones that may get it in 10 years and then to help the ones that may get it in 10 years in a year or two. If she had the 10 mill she would do it straight away she doesnt need another stick to be beaten with.
Take it off the salaries paid in the health service
On the secoind point the vaceen was ment to start in 2009 for 12 year old girls only. It will now come into practice in 2010 or 2011 when the girls will be 13 or 14. What are the chances or a 14 year old girl getting this type of cancer ?
Not true...there's is only a committment to look again at the possibilty of introducing it in 2010...which IMO with the way the exchequer funds are going means it won't be ontroduced.
This vaceen will not be or never was planned to be given to all women.
Correct but at least if you started to provide to 12 years olds every year from now , over time all women would be vacinated.
The health budget is over €16bn - €10 million is a drop in the ocean for a measure that will save lives. But if you want some areas she could start with scrapping co-location. She also share's cabinet responsibility for not raising the tax take by stopping the various avoidance schemes that would have raised billions, never mind 10 million.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Who said it was for all women? If you don't vaccinate now, then girls who would've been due the vaccine will die of cervical cancer. There is no maybe.Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Do you think they just plucked 12 as the age out of the air or would you think there's a medical reason? :rolleyes:
Thats ridiculous. Tell me how many girls will die of cervical cancer by 14 ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Macy
Because the vacine is most effective against 2 strains of the cancer that is mainly but not allways caused by sexual activity thats why they chose 12. But it is still recomended to give this to all women between 12 and 25 who are sexually active.
For this to work you would need 100% of all girls to get the vacine. which wont happen the MMR vacine doesnt have a 100% take up for god sake. Then out of that 100% about 70% will avoid this type of cancer caused by HPV ( around 20 out of the 100 strains of it )
So 30% will still be at risk and will need screening which is what she wants to have on line first and foremost beacuse its the most effective tool in combating the cancer.
I didn't hear the interview but I used to listen to D'Arcy in the morning but he really is becoming an annoying git.. As someone else said, Tom Dunne's Newstalk show is very good - well worth a listen.
No wrong yet again, vacination is proven to be the most effective tool ...if you believe otherwise sure we should simply try and cure measles or polio when someone gets it !! Also it's a lot less invasive than a smear test and thus uptake is much higher.[/B]Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calcio Jack
They need at least 80% take up for it to be worth doing at all on a cost - result basis not for it to work which is what I think you are eluding to, ideally you really need 100% take up for it to remove the risk of cancer in the way people seem to think that this vaccine will work.
My point on the parent paying themselves was directed at the one person that texted ray darcy with the hysterical nonsense saying “my child will die because of Mary Harney”, I’m saying that she could easily pay for the vaccine herself to protect her child (if she is so worried) just like all the other parents of children that don’t fall into this narrow age bracket will have to do and have been doing since this drug was released if she really thinks her child will die then why is she letting her child die for the sake of 600 euro to prove Mary Harney wrong?
80 women a year die from this that’s a very small chance that her child will be one of those 80 to make a comment like that is stupid.
On your last point yes the vaccine is the most effective tool but this one is not 100% effective. Its is only 70% effective so EVEN if you get 100% take up that still leaves 30% open to getting the disease. That 30% will still need to get smear tests because that 30% isn’t recognisable without the test then all 100% will still have to get tested.
So all M Harney has said is that she would rather get the tests up and running properly than start the vaccine. Because while the vaccine may save 80 women in 10 or 20 years the tests could save 80 women next year. That is a very reasonable response.
D'Arcy became an over-rated, over opinionated knob after his first child was born.
His show used to be good up til then.
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive and both should be in place...do you now accept that there is no committment to roll out the vacine but only a worthless promise to review the situation next year ?Quote:
Originally Posted by anto1208
I agree he was little full on with Mary Harney this morning but he did apologise later in the show saying he let his emotions take over and was getting annoyed and pretty much lost his cool a bit.
Moving this to Off Topic as unclear if this is about Ray D'arcy or Cancer.
I never listen to D'arcy so can't comment on him & I am not an oncologist so not clear what the impact of vaccine or lack of vaccine will cause.
Tom Dunne is show is good however he is annoying when tries to talk about sport. I must say he is the definition of football barstooler. Apparently a life long Manchester United fan (assumes a certain interest in football) yet never heard of Joey O'Brien.
he ruined the Panel