Shameful post from a complete no-mark.
Itâs obviously too complex for anyone to be held accountable for all those dead and dying women.
1 Like
Hang Holohan is easy understand, weâll stick with that
This Mani lad works for the HSE
1 Like
Nobody will be hung. They never are
would you think about investing in a grinder mate?
2 Likes
I certainly should. Cant remember where the old one is.
4 Likes
If Luke OâNeill must be on, he should at least follow up the Covid talk with a duet with Mundy.
Tubs will do a face turn this weekend. âTonight on the Late Late we interview the thousands upon thousands of people who had COVID and never even noticedâ
2 Likes
the same lads giving out about the late late being miserable will be watching the valentines special and be giving out that itâs too much craic.
A load of goldilocks
Thereâs other channels out there lads. You could be watching shows such as Nazi Megastructures or Ten Deadliest Snakes with Nigel Marven or Bottom on one of the fluff channels if Tubs & The Misery Porn Show is getting too much.
Some fellas love to be miserable.
The western on TG4 on Friday nights is where it is at .
4 Likes
A great call.
Although Iâd appreciate it if TG4 resumed their ode-to-continental-minge Le Film slot.
2 Likes
Yes there is no one to blame. There was no scandal. Most people know that now in fairness.
Retrospective bias means each time reviewed will change 40% of time. So they were not read incorrectly just because someone else read differently. If cytologists too cautious you get a load of false positives.
Awards mental. And unethical.
People dying because of cervical cancer not because of screening.
Independent review found our screening as good as UK which is gold standard for cervical check.
Most European countries donât do audits, only us and the Uk. Others do and donât disclose.
1 Like
hi Tony
2 Likes
Jaysis.
Some of ye are bad as Peadar Toibin; Noirin Russell clamped him with this:
Blockquote When a woman in a screening programme develops cancer her previous slides are reviewed and abnormalities can be found.
âHowever a discrepancy found on review does not imply that the same finding should have been made under routine screening conditions,â according to Dr Russell, who highlighted the phenomenon of retrospective bias, as the reviewer knows the woman has developed cancer.
âIt is therefore misleading and not factually correct to say that these were âmistakesâ or âmissed readingsâ or to suggest that they confirm evidence of negligence. They are instead regrettable but expected findings in a cervical cancer screening programme.â
Blockquote
Are we far of having computers make these diagnosis? Humans are dumb and always making mistakes and missing things.
Id say a bit off with cytology. Itâs a hpv test since this year so more accurate. If itâs not sued into yesterday before then.
What your one in charge is getting across is that they werenât mistakes they are a known part of screening. So no other country would give someone millions if they got a false negative that was upgraded on an audit. Like it doesnât make sense. For a non diagnostic test.
Lung cancer screening badly needed but has stalled due to all the cervical claims.
Blockquote
False positives and false negatives are unavoidable. They happen in every screening programme. They may cause you to lose trust in the screening programme. But the benefits of cervical screening outweigh these limitations.
Blockquote
2 Likes