Re: Why have the McCanns lied about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years?

by tinkier 24.02.17 15:48

Yvie Han wrote:
tinkier wrote:
What's_up_doc? wrote:
Yvie Han wrote:I possibly have a theory why they lied about the Coloboma ....

It is on the " what my sister in law used to use " thread

There was a Childrens medicine that was all the Buzz in 2007 called MEDISED, it was paracetemol with a sedative to aid sleep. Many parents were using it so they would get a good sleep, 8 + hours, as it knocked the kids out.

In 2007 it was recommended 3+ MONTHS

This changed sometime in 2008/2009 to 6+ YEARS !!!!

Quite a HUGE difference.

THEN it was taken completely OFF the market in the UK - DISCONTINUED.

Anyway today I was reading about it and I was alerted to the ONE indication where it says DO NOT USE and that is for an EYE Condition, which has many associations with Coloboma.

It's very very strange that a children's medicine has ONLY ONE , indication and that is of an EYE condition.

Just thought is it coincidental !!!! I think there is something lurking.
That is amazing - I wonder if there are any baby photographs that could support this theory

I was having a look on the national archives just to see if I could find out anything re Medised. There is a whole list of products for treating colds in children that were re labelled to remove the dosages for children under 6 years in feb 2009. Looking into it further, it seems both Medised and CALPOL NIGHT (same active ingredients, different names) was actually discontinued in the UK. It certainly states it's contraindicated, not to be given in a condition called closed angle glaucoma. People with coloboma may also have other eye abnormalities e.g glaucoma.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Yes, I found it very coincidental, I have since read medical prof recommended Medised to a youngster for a few weeks to sedate after major operation.

The change in the age from 3 months to 6 years old apparently first came into force around September 2007, from what I have read today.

It was then taken off the UK market around 2012 entirely.

It was a medication many G.P's suggested, usually when that is the case they are getting a good backhander for promoting it.

It first came on sale around 2004.

The DO NOT USE - with the Acute Angle Glaucoma was what got me. I thought it was strange, the only thing on the DO NOT USE list was about an eye condition.

There seems to be conflicting reports re when it was removed, net doctor article dated march 2009 re being discontinued in UK.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Yvie Han 24.02.17 16:23

Yes there are conflicting reports when it was discontinued.

On that link AGAIN I find it strange this eye condition is the single thing for NOT TO USE IN, especially as it has a close association with Coloboma. I would like to know when this eye condition became a contraindication on these medicines.

Pharmaceutical companies with mega power.

It could account for the cover up of this case, could you imagine if it was tied into the accidental death and the implications of that. How many potential lawsuits worldwide where children have had accidents fatal ones whilst these meds are in the system.

We know the cover up is there, it could be a possibility.

by MayMuse 24.02.17 16:46

Yvie Han wrote:Yes there are conflicting reports when it was discontinued.

On that link AGAIN I find it strange this eye condition is the single thing for NOT TO USE IN, especially as it has a close association with Coloboma. I would like to know when this eye condition became a contraindication on these medicines.

Pharmaceutical companies with mega power.

It could account for the cover up of this case, could you imagine if it was tied into the accidental death and the implications of that. How many potential lawsuits worldwide where children have had accidents fatal ones whilst these meds are in the system.

We know the cover up is there, it could be a possibility.

IF the McCanns used any of this medicine ( there is NO proof ) they as DR's would surely be aware of any contradictions/implications.

If it was an accident, ie. that Madeleine overdosed, then would they not have called an ambulance to help their daughter?

The fact that KM suggests sedation coming from an "abductor" of which again there is no evidence of, why not get the twins ( who slept through the whole commotion) tested promptly instead of waiting months down the road?

by Yvie Han 24.02.17 16:52

Because she possibly used it on the twins, and that is why the wait of 3 months for their testing?

If a certain sleeping aid for a child was found in them then for sure it would of been administered to all of them?

What I am saying is I am not sure when the Acute angle glaucoma became a contraindication in that medicine, as it is THE only one listed!

by tinkier 24.02.17 19:29

They don't just remove a medicine from the market for no reason. Side effects are usually listed as very common, common or rare. I have read that some parents were overdosing their kids on it, but can't find any literature online that includes any fatalities. It seems it was first banned for under 6, then removed from the market completely. Just makes one wonder if there had been a fatality in an under 6 year old caused by a heavy handed parent overdosing, or the child having a rare medical condition that proved fatal, no one was aware of the danger until it happened?

I have also read that there was a cocktail of E numbers in calpol/night calpol attributed to hyperactivity in some kids. Also E122 was a suspected carcinogen. There has to be more to removing the night calpol completely… one fatality would do it for sure.

by Casey5 24.02.17 19:52

The McCanns have never, ever said that Madeleine had a coloboma. They only ever said it was a fleck but showed it on photos as a very distinctive fleck, in fact built a lot of their campaign around the fact. I wonder what it was diagnosed as, if anything.

by MayMuse 24.02.17 20:43

Casey5 wrote:The McCanns have never, ever said that Madeleine had a coloboma. They only ever said it was a fleck but showed it on photos as a very distinctive fleck, in fact built a lot of their campaign around the fact. I wonder what it was diagnosed as, if anything.

I believe she also had a mild form of heterochromia due to the difference in colours of her irises, this is present from birth.

Flecks like that are normally coloboma and can go hand in hand with the above mentioned.

I do not think these distinguishing marks are mentioned on her passport?

I also believe that this is a false start in the investigation/disappearance ?

by plebgate 24.02.17 21:25

Casey5 wrote:The McCanns have never, ever said that Madeleine had a coloboma. They only ever said it was a fleck but showed it on photos as a very distinctive fleck, in fact built a lot of their campaign around the fact. I wonder what it was diagnosed as, if anything.

Someone posted this week on the forum an article in the Lancet which asked medical staff around the World to look out for Maddie. The article also mentioned the coloboma. If Maddie did not have a coloboma was the Lancet ever informed?

by Yvie Han 24.02.17 21:37

Oh I read somewhere I think within the trademark papers that GM told Piers Morgan that it was Coloboma?

by tinkier 24.02.17 21:59

Yvie Han wrote:Oh I read somewhere I think within the trademark papers that GM told Piers Morgan that it was Coloboma?

Madeleine's eye defect definately looks like a "key hole"exactly like the cats eye coloboma seen here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Yvie Han 24.02.17 22:14

tinkier wrote:
Yvie Han wrote:Oh I read somewhere I think within the trademark papers that GM told Piers Morgan that it was Coloboma?
Madeleine's eye defect definately looks like a "key hole"exactly like the cats eye coloboma seen here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hi, thanks for that I have read on up on it some other medical sites, it appears to be a rare chromosomal disorder. I was shocked by some of the other symptoms of that disorder along with the cat like eyes, the ears, anal region, heart and kidneys.

Which makes me more skeptical to the medical records NOT being disclosed.

by Philip Anders 24.02.17 22:24

Yvie Han wrote:Oh I read somewhere I think within the trademark papers that GM told Piers Morgan that it was Coloboma?

MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.

MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

by Yvie Han 24.02.17 22:30

Philip Anders wrote:
Yvie Han wrote:Oh I read somewhere I think within the trademark papers that GM told Piers Morgan that it was Coloboma?

MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.

MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

Massive deflection from GM there and isn't he a Heart Surgeon? Which he would know all about Coloboma as it can have some serious heart defects. The genital and anal defects are also quite astonishing, I am very surprised reading about it tonight I actually thought it was just an eye problem, but it can go far further than that.

Are there any pictures of Maddies ears- I'm off to have a look.

by Philip Anders 24.02.17 22:39

t suret

Yvie Han wrote:
Philip Anders wrote:
Yvie Han wrote:Oh I read somewhere I think within the trademark papers that GM told Piers Morgan that it was Coloboma?

MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.

MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

Massive deflection from GM there and isn't he a Heart Surgeon? Which he would know all about Coloboma as it can have some serious heart defects. The genital and anal defects are also quite astonishing, I am very surprised reading about it tonight I actually thought it was just an eye problem, but it can go far further than that.

Are there any pictures of Maddies ears- I'm off to have a look.

Two doctors would struggle to convince anyone that they weren't sure if it was colomba or not.
So many questions that could sink them if ever they face an agressive IUC but of course they're well protected, as was Jimmy Savile until after his death when he could no longer blab.

by tinkier 24.02.17 22:50

Gerry not sounding too convincing somehow. They would know exactly what her eye defect was, being Dr's I'm 100% sure they would have had it checked out.

Not everyone with a coloboma does have visual problems. Some find the effects of the sun a little too intense, but apart from that their vision is normal.

by Guest 24.02.17 23:16

02-Processo Vol 2 Pages 467 and 468. McCANN Madeleine Beth CONTROL NO. : F-131/5-2007

REQUESTING COUNTRY: PORTUGAL
FILE No. : 2007123403
DATE OF PUBLICATION: 8 May 2007
CIRCULATION TO THE MEDIA (INCLUDING INTERNET): YES
IDENTITY PARTICULARS

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

PRESENT Family Name : McCANN
FAMILY NAME AT BIRTH : McCANN
Forenames : Madeleine Beth
Sex : F
DATE AND Place OF Birth: 12th May 2003 - Leicester, United Kingdom
Also known as Maddie.
OTHER DATES OF BIRTH USED : N/A
FATHER'S FAMILY NAME AND FORENAMES: McCann Gerald Patrick.
MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME AND FORENAMES : HEALY Kate Marie
IDENTITY : CONFIRMED
NATIONALITY : BRITISH (CONFIRMED)
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS - BRITISH PASSPORT No 45XXXXXXX, issued on 4th August 2003 (UNITED KINGDOM) (Valid until 4th August 2008)
Occupation : N/A
Language Spoken : English
MARITAL STATUS : N/A
DESCRIPTION:
HEIGHT : 90 cms
HAIR : Blond
EYE: Green/Blue
BUILD : Slim
DISTINGUISHING MARKS AND CHARACTERISTICS :
Left Eye : Blue and Green colour
Right Eye : Green colour with a Brown spot in Retina
Small brown mark on Left Leg Calf.
Teeth : EUA
BLOOD GROUP : N/A
DNA CODE : N/A
REGIONS/COUNTRIES LIKELY TO BE VISITED : United Kingdom.

Please note - this is NOT a copy of Madeleine McCann's passport. It is the missing person notice issued by the PJ.

by Soekie 01.04.19 21:56

Why should this be a lie?

If indeed she was abducted to being exploited in peadophilic networks, but even worse: if she was being abducted to become someone else's child, it would mean that the "new parents" had a child with very distinctive features, remembering anyone instantly to Maddie...
So better not to show here to daylight anymore...

As said in another post I to my pain believe that the change of she living somewhere else happily may be small as this is not very realistic that one can appear all the sudden with a 3yo "adopted" after this case made so much rumour in the media. Everyone knows the case and the chance that no-one would may the link and speak-up is almost inexistent.

Apart from that my eyes are also appearing green from far, but blue from close and have a mixture in them, even of "yellowish".

So yes there are lots of more possibilities than usually thought.

by Guest 01.04.19 22:10

Apart from that my eyes are also appearing green from far, but blue from close and have a mixture in them, even of "yellowish".

Sounds like jaundice to me - keep away from the myths!

Latest topics