Messages

[looker]

If you are staying the Sat night and heading home after the match on the train it's the only time I bring a bag.... place across the road from Connelly station has a looker rental, they'll have put the prices up no doubt!

That's some service, they kept an eye on your bag until you come back?  I have seen boyos offering to watch your car for a few euros while you're at the match but never your luggage.

Are there no physios or doctors in Armagh? Please don't resort to advice from us eejits on the Board except for advice to seek proper medical help. You are at an age where you can't afford to take chances with your health, what used to be a minor injury out easily overcame  can now lead to complications.

Do you have a Sky sub for Sky Go at home?

Do you have an IPad or laptop to take to France or can you get access to the same? (Laptop can be connected to a TV by hdmi for a bigger picture)

Will you have an Internet connection via cable, wifi or using a hotspot enabled smartphone?

Can you afford £10 for a month's sub for ExpressVPN?

If tha answer is yes to all four of these questions then unlike the vast majority of people in Ireland you can watch the games on Saturday as broadcast by Sky. As a bonus you can watch any Sky output for the whole of your holiday. Other TV channels from home will also be available.

What did Tyrone do to Down who beat Armagh in the 1st rd, same for Derry and Donegal; all playing in higher division that Armagh! Armagh have improved but will not trouble Tyrone!

Don't think Down can be used as the yardstick in this instance, they folded against both Tyrone and a Monaghan team they owned in Armagh. In both cases the secret was to put a lead of 5/6 points on them and they lose heart with no one on the bench as good as on the field.

[registered by diagnosis]

For those who refuse to read the details of the case and continue to demand an answer to the question of "why was he refused treatment?", consider this.

The treatment the American doctor was proposing, and would have gone ahead with if allowed, had never been tested for the specific genetic mutation of Charlie's disease, which affected both both his muscles and brain. Not even on mice. It wouldn't have been treatment, it would have been a science experiment. One the treating physician would have a financial interest in.

I assume the parents logic was  if the child is going to die anyway, is this not worth a punt? What was there to lose?

The biggest issue was the apparent pain being suffered by the child, registered by diagnosis but not registered physically by the child's responses which were removed by his condition. Appears to be like a patient with locked in syndrome experiencing pain but not able to show it.

Is this is crux? What does that mean exactly? I took it that there is pain associated with the condition?
Was there also neurological scans associated with pain?

Apologies for questions there is too much garbage online, and the articles posted spend most of their inches talking about Nial Farange and the like.

According to the medics they were able to diagnose that little Charlie was experiencing pain as a result of the breakdown at a cellular level, this would been via scans, etc.  It was on this evidence presented to the judge that he decided that prolonging the child's life via artificial ventilation was also prolonging his agony and he should be allowed to pass away as a result of his condition as soon as possible. The parents wanted more time with their child but acting in the child's best interest the judge ordered that the life support should be turned off as soon as Charlie was transferred to the hospice requested by the parents. It would appear that the child died almost immediately.

I hate to bug you Owen but Im struggling with the bold bit and I cant really find anything on-line. Your the best source of information i've uncovered on this...so apologies but im gonna have to ask....

What exactly were the tests that the doctors interpreted as suffering? Where they neurological? Was there details as to their accuracy? Could their accuracy be affected by the child's condition? To what level did they deem the pain? Did the child experience any neurological patterns that could be associated with comfort or happiness when in his parents company?

these are the two paragraphs from the GOSH statement that also changed my mind on this;

"At the first hearing in Charlie's case in March, GOSH's position was that every day that passed was a day that was not in his best interests. That remains its view of his welfare. Even now, Charlie shows physical responses to stressors that some of those treating him interpret as pain and when two international experts assessed him last week, they believed that they elicited a pain response.

"In GOSH's view there has been no real change in Charlie's responsiveness since January. Its fear that his continued existence has been painful to him has been compounded by the Judge's finding, in April, that since his brain became affected by RRM2B [his genetic disease] , Charlie's has been an existence devoid of all benefit and pleasure. If Charlie has had a relationship with the world around him since his best interests were determined, it has been one of suffering."

If the poor wee mite was suffering every day then GOSH and the Judge in question were right considering the US Doctor had no clinical evidence that this procedure he was proposing would be of any benefit to Charlie.
The parents were obviously clinging onto any hope they could and that's normal, but the arsehole of a US doctor who was feeding them this crap even though he hadn't bother to look over Charlies Clinical notes needs reprimanded in some way. He put the parents and the poor kid through even more suffering.

And he was benefiting financially from the drug company. The judge pointed out that he would allow him or the drug company to use the child for experimentation especially when it would prolong his pain and most likely increase it. Also to blame are the Pope, Vatican hospital chief, Trump, Farage, self appointed family spokesman and US pastor who pushed in. All increasing the pressure on the parents.

[registered by diagnosis]

For those who refuse to read the details of the case and continue to demand an answer to the question of "why was he refused treatment?", consider this.

The treatment the American doctor was proposing, and would have gone ahead with if allowed, had never been tested for the specific genetic mutation of Charlie's disease, which affected both both his muscles and brain. Not even on mice. It wouldn't have been treatment, it would have been a science experiment. One the treating physician would have a financial interest in.

I assume the parents logic was  if the child is going to die anyway, is this not worth a punt? What was there to lose?

The biggest issue was the apparent pain being suffered by the child, registered by diagnosis but not registered physically by the child's responses which were removed by his condition. Appears to be like a patient with locked in syndrome experiencing pain but not able to show it.

Is this is crux? What does that mean exactly? I took it that there is pain associated with the condition?
Was there also neurological scans associated with pain?

Apologies for questions there is too much garbage online, and the articles posted spend most of their inches talking about Nial Farange and the like.

According to the medics they were able to diagnose that little Charlie was experiencing pain as a result of the breakdown at a cellular level, this would been via scans, etc.  It was on this evidence presented to the judge that he decided that prolonging the child's life via artificial ventilation was also prolonging his agony and he should be allowed to pass away as a result of his condition as soon as possible. The parents wanted more time with their child but acting in the child's best interest the judge ordered that the life support should be turned off as soon as Charlie was transferred to the hospice requested by the parents. It would appear that the child died almost immediately.

I hate to bug you Owen but Im struggling with the bold bit and I cant really find anything on-line. Your the best source of information i've uncovered on this...so apologies but im gonna have to ask....

What exactly were the tests that the doctors interpreted as suffering? Where they neurological? Was there details as to their accuracy? Could their accuracy be affected by the child's condition? To what level did they deem the pain? Did the child experience any neurological patterns that could be associated with comfort or happiness when in his parents company?

I am unable to give specifics of the medical diagnosis and treatment provided by the medics at GOSH. All that I know is from reading the court papers. It is clearly stated within that the medics believed Charlie could experience pain and was doing so because he suffered epileptic fits and seizures, had encephalopathy and the maintenance of his life required painful procedures. More details is within the papers if you read them, they have been quickly made available for all by the court service. So, I don't know why your extensive web searches have not led you to the core evidence provided in court.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/gosh-v-yates-and-gard-20170411-1.pdf

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/410.html

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/charlie-gard-190617.pdf

[registered by diagnosis]

For those who refuse to read the details of the case and continue to demand an answer to the question of "why was he refused treatment?", consider this.

The treatment the American doctor was proposing, and would have gone ahead with if allowed, had never been tested for the specific genetic mutation of Charlie's disease, which affected both both his muscles and brain. Not even on mice. It wouldn't have been treatment, it would have been a science experiment. One the treating physician would have a financial interest in.

I assume the parents logic was  if the child is going to die anyway, is this not worth a punt? What was there to lose?

The biggest issue was the apparent pain being suffered by the child, registered by diagnosis but not registered physically by the child's responses which were removed by his condition. Appears to be like a patient with locked in syndrome experiencing pain but not able to show it.

Is this is crux? What does that mean exactly? I took it that there is pain associated with the condition?
Was there also neurological scans associated with pain?

Apologies for questions there is too much garbage online, and the articles posted spend most of their inches talking about Nial Farange and the like.

According to the medics they were able to diagnose that little Charlie was experiencing pain as a result of the breakdown at a cellular level, this would been via scans, etc.  It was on this evidence presented to the judge that he decided that prolonging the child's life via artificial ventilation was also prolonging his agony and he should be allowed to pass away as a result of his condition as soon as possible. The parents wanted more time with their child but acting in the child's best interest the judge ordered that the life support should be turned off as soon as Charlie was transferred to the hospice requested by the parents. It would appear that the child died almost immediately.

I see the delightful Kevin Myers is in some hot water as he published an article in the Sunday Times claiming that the BBC's best paid female presenters were paid more as they were Jewish. The Sundays Times has now pulled the article. This might or might not be a major thing, but he denied the Holocaust in the Indo 8 years ago, that article has now disappeared also.

And let me say that I have no time people critical of Isreali policies being regard as "anti-Semitic", that is bollix, but as the recent thread on concentration camps indicated you cannot deny the basic events in WW2.

The important point of this incident lies beyond Meyers in that the Times published the article on its website and only removed when noticed by others. Editors were happy to have an idiot produce the story and then blame him when they got their anti BBC and anti Semitic point across. The site has a pay wall hence not noticed earlier. Easy to apologise for mistake in publishing when the seed has been planted in the minds of many willing to think it might be true.

For those who refuse to read the details of the case and continue to demand an answer to the question of "why was he refused treatment?", consider this.

The treatment the American doctor was proposing, and would have gone ahead with if allowed, had never been tested for the specific genetic mutation of Charlie's disease, which affected both both his muscles and brain. Not even on mice. It wouldn't have been treatment, it would have been a science experiment. One the treating physician would have a financial interest in.

I assume the parents logic was  if the child is going to die anyway, is this not worth a punt? What was there to lose?

The biggest issue was the apparent pain being suffered by the child, registered by diagnosis but not registered physically by the child's responses which were removed by his condition. Appears to be like a patient with locked in syndrome experiencing pain but not able to show it.

Trump threatened to cut federal money to Alaska if Lisa Murkowski did not support the Senate healthcare plan. He got his interior secretary, Zinke, to do it. Murkowski is chair of a Senate budget committee that controls Zinkes budget.

Trump is useless

He is far from useless Foid.

No he is dangerous.

Buy a new battery.

True. Hoping it's not an electrical problem draining it

If the battery is a few years old then it could be the battery. I was away for a week with work last month and came back and my car didn't start. It took some industrial strength jump leads to get it started as the standard Halfords type were useless. As we were taking my car to the airport last week my missus said she wasn't going on holiday until I got a new battery. I forgot how dear the f**kers were!

That was a bit last minute and unreasonable of her!

LOL. Poorly constructed sentence on my part  . Must try harder.

Especially when read along with the last sentence. Happy holidays!

But I am calling you out on saying the parents brought it on themselves and that they were wrong to fight for his life in the face of adversity. They were 100% right to pursue the course of action they did if they felt that they should and should be applauded for doing so.

There has been vitriol posted on line about GSOH and its staff. Some that the police have been forced to take seriously. We also have judges specifically including in their communications the regret that so so many have commented on social media on a subject that they don't have the full facts on and that others in turn have interpreted what they have read on social media as fact. It's a downward spiral of inaccuracies akin to Chinese whispers.

On the parents we need to appreciate the difference between it being "understandable " that they would want to fight on for the life of their child and them being "right" to do so if it was only going to create suffering. My understanding is that is where the medical opinion lay from the outset and after due process the highest courts agreed.

Correct. Effectively in law, the parents had taken the legal action against their own child as his rights have primacy in law and GOSH had a duty to uphold his rights on the basis of the medical opinion that the hospital had acquired from its own staff and the experts available in the world. Even the opinion of the US doctor was considered when it was based on zero evidence something he had not expected.

We pay motor tax in Ireland on motortax.ie - is it different up North?

Up to April 2017, the motor tax or Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) was based on CO2 emissions, so some cars were duty free, some polluters like my 2L diesel VW only charged £30, other slight polluters like a little old petrol 1.2L charged up to £100.  All based on reducing CO2 while ignoring NOx output which is not regarded by governments or car manufacturers in Europe. Even now there is no legislation on it.

The result of so many fuel efficient engines both petrol and diesel was that UK income from VED has drastically fallen. So, from April 2017, all new cars are charged a base level of duty of £140 pa and a sliding scale surcharge based on CO2 output. Cars costs over £40k have an additional surcharge of £310 pa

The only exemptions are for electric cars which are not charged duty except for cars costing over £40k pay £310 pa, e.g. any Tesla even though they are non-direct polluters.

Why where the parents not allowed to get the treatment? It appears that cost had nothing really to do with it and the doctors opinion was overridinig that because they felt there was no hope of sucessful treatment, is that correct?

So, you read nothing the articles? It appears that you would prefer attacking others personally to reading for yourself.

US, EU and UK law place the needs of the child as paramount. On this basis, the request of the parents was measured against the effect on the child being moved to somewhere where treatment was not proven even on mice. Also court would not approve the child becoming a guinea pig for US doctor. His needs trumped everything else.

Cost has never been an issue for GOSH or NHS at any stage. Both went beyond usual bounds to get full diagnosis and possible treatment.  All their work was made available to the court for assessment.

The US doctor was shown to be useless. Firstly, his 'success' was with a child with a different condition. Secondly, he never reviewed the child's records or scans and made his pronouncements blindly and for self publicity. Also he had financial links to company providing the drugs he was going to use on Charlie even though they hadn't been tested on mice.

All of this is in the public domain in the court papers, nothing was secret. Just exploiters making use of the poor child for their own ends.

Down lacked depth from the bench only able to call on some old warriors who are not able to make an impact.  Also lack the quality one to one with Monaghan.

Having said that Another poor Deegan performance kept Monaghan in the game in the first half with handy frees.