Calpol

[SapphireSteel]

I googled a few pages of image results and found one.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3570610/Kate-McCann-I-smashed-bed-in-rage-at-cops.html


They aren't too many about me with my kids either so I can't hold it against her. It's just that we're not too big on photography and when someone takes photos of the kids it's usually me so I don't end up in the photos.

There aren't a heap about of me either with my kids (I was usually the one behind the camera), but the ones that are around are usually taken on high days and holidays, example birthdays, christmas, easter, or events with friends who offered to take a happy snap.

I note the only photo you found of Kate with Madeleine shows a grinning Kate with an unsmiling Madeleine, clearly taken before the twins were born.

Photos I have of myself with my oldest (daughter) include both of us holding her baby brother at the hospital, me dangling her in a paddling pool, us laughing together at some event or other when I was pregnant, her and I sharing a kiss on Christmas Day.

There are a few of me, her and her baby brother together, especially when he was first born and daddy was steering the camera (how many photos did Gerry take?). After that it becomes her and him together (they are partners in crime to this day, 20 odd years later).

My point is, we weren't particularly well off, but photos were incredibly important to me as I lacked any of myself growing up, as did my husband. I was so proud of my beautiful children I took hundreds and in those days it cost to get them developed. It was a major expense that I happily paid.

Kate and Gerry had to go through IVF to even get Madeleine or the twins in the first place. You would think that there would be photo after photo of proud Kate with her firstborn. Not so.

I find it odd and inexplicable. These children should have been their pride and joy.

 

[brit1981]

There are lots of photos of kate and madeleine, including when she was a baby. They are in her book too. But have you thought that they have released so many of their family photos that they maybe want to keep some private and for them only rather thna having them on the internet ripped apart by strangers. There have been cases of people doctoring the images to make them pornographic (seriously some people are missing a soul), and people talking in great length about how photos of madeleine are sexually provocative and suggestive (again seriously, a child eating an ice cream is not sexually suggestive and is not proof her parents are perverts). So can we blame them they want to keep some private and just for he rloved ones, rather than having them tainted in this way. If something happened to our loved ones, would we not be devastated to see people talking about their photos in this way, and try to protect a few of them?

 

[SapphireSteel]

There are lots of photos of kate and madeleine, including when she was a baby. They are in her book too. But have you thought that they have released so many of their family photos that they maybe want to keep some private and for them only rather thna having them on the internet ripped apart by strangers. There have been cases of people doctoring the images to make them pornographic (seriously some people are missing a soul), and people talking in great length about how photos of madeleine are sexually provocative and suggestive (again seriously, a child eating an ice cream is not sexually suggestive and is not proof her parents are perverts). So can we blame them they want to keep some private and just for he rloved ones, rather than having them tainted in this way. If something happened to our loved ones, would we not be devastated to see people talking about their photos in this way, and try to protect a few of them?

If my baby went missing, I would do a number of things.

First and foremost, I would look for her.

This did not occur.

Secondly, I would call for her.

Again, at no stage did Kate call for her child.

But then, I wouldn't leave my prized possessions alone in an unlocked hotel room in the middle of a strange country, either.

 

[badhorsie]

There are lots of photos of kate and madeleine, including when she was a baby. They are in her book too. But have you thought that they have released so many of their family photos that they maybe want to keep some private and for them only rather thna having them on the internet ripped apart by strangers. There have been cases of people doctoring the images to make them pornographic (seriously some people are missing a soul), and people talking in great length about how photos of madeleine are sexually provocative and suggestive (again seriously, a child eating an ice cream is not sexually suggestive and is not proof her parents are perverts). So can we blame them they want to keep some private and just for he rloved ones, rather than having them tainted in this way. If something happened to our loved ones, would we not be devastated to see people talking about their photos in this way, and try to protect a few of them?

Ths is an OUTRAGEOUS assertation and I hope that you can back this up with a link and what it has to do with Calpol is beyond my imagination, Why can we not stay on topic???

 

[SapphireSteel]

Ths is an OUTRAGEOUS assertation and I hope that you can back this up with a link

The entire thing is outrageous.

Concrete evidence is dismissed, yet the "abductor" is still with us, despite not one single shred that Madeleine was taken by a stranger.

As far as ANY OF US KNOW, she could have wandered away by herself.

What's really funny is Jane Tanner's sighting of Madeleine being "abducted" - did she not notice? The abductor also strolled right in front of Gerry and Jez Wilkins, but neither saw either him nor Gerry his own daughter being spirited away, right in front of his eyes.

Absurd.

 

[brit1981]

Well I am not going to go looking and posting links to show doctored images of children (but there have been cases reported in mainstream media- just be careful what search terms you use when googling).
As for the peopel finding the pictures of her eating an ice cream sexually suggestive, there are whole forums set up against the mccanns where this is used to accuse the mccanns of all sorts of things like abuse. the basis being that the picture of a child eating an ice cream is somehow sexually suggestive.

 

[brit1981]

The entire thing is outrageous.

Concrete evidence is dismissed, yet the "abductor" is still with us, despite not one single shred that Madeleine was taken by a stranger.

As far as ANY OF US KNOW, she could have wandered away by herself.

What's really funny is Jane Tanner's sighting of Madeleine being "abducted" - did she not notice? The abductor also strolled right in front of Gerry and Jez Wilkins, but neither saw either him nor Gerry his own daughter being spirited away, right in front of his eyes.

Absurd.

Jane Tanner never said she recognized the chidl as Madeleine, she always stated she never saw the childs face and the only reason she even thought it was a girl was because of the colour of the pyjamas. She said it was dark and the abudctor walked across the junction. She had no reason whatsoever to think it was someone abductign a child, it was only later when madeleine was gone she realised she might have seen madeleine beign abducted (but as pletny of epople woudl have been carrying their cvhildren back from the evening creche it may well have been innocent). jeremy and Gerry were not facing the junction so had no reason to see the man and child. They were sid eon as it were further down the street talking to each other, they were not facing the junction like Jane was.

And what exactly is the concrete evidence that has been ignored - can someone please post one piece of actual concrete evidence that the mccanns were involved in their child's disappearence.

 

[Salem]

Ths is an OUTRAGEOUS assertation and I hope that you can back this up with a link and what it has to do with Calpol is beyond my imagination, Why can we not stay on topic???

This has nothing to do with Calpol and is off topic for this thread. On another note, you can find such posts all over the internet and even some on the early threads here - although not as harsh/strong as the other poster indicated.

Salem

Let's get back on topic here. This is about Calpol.

 

[brit1981]

Just wanted to confirm that i did not mean the comments on this forum were the ones that were so harsh. The internet is available to billons of people, and not all of them are the sort of people you want to have a photo of your child.

Going back to calpol. Calpol is not a sedative, but could if enough was taken cause liver failure (but we are talking a lot , and in the long term liver damage would be noticeable -jaundice etc). It is also sweet so a child might take it themselves, which would provide a much easier excuse for a child overdosing on it than hiding their body etc.
Calpol night is a sedative, but this was nto on the market at the time, and as it was intended for use as a sedative why not admit using it. If I gave my child something intended for use in children at night and they died from it, I would be demanding the drug was taken off the market not protecting the drug company by covering it up for them?

 

[SapphireSteel]

You can overdose very easily on panadol.

I don't know what it is called in Britain, I think it is Tylenol in the US.

It is paracetamol. I believe that Calpol is too.

One packet will kill you...further, it will not kill you immediately, but cause your organs to shut down slowly, while you remain alive and aware and in agony.

The reason it is fatal is not because it is "poisonous" in large doses, but because it overloads your liver, which then shuts down completely. Death follows. There is no treatment.

Still it is sold freely in every shop, and marketed as the safest pain relief there is, even though a relatively small overdose will kill you. A well kept secret.

From the Australian New Zealand Medical Journal -

Paracetamol is the most widely used over-the-counter analgesic agent in the world. It is involved in a large proportion of accidental paediatric exposures and deliberate self-poisoning cases and is the leading pharmaceutical agent responsible for calls to poisons information centres in Australia and New Zealand. Paracetamol is also the single most commonly taken drug in overdoses that lead to hospital presentation and admission.1 Hepatic failure and death are uncommon outcomes,2,3 although paracetamol remains the most important single cause of acute fulminant hepatic failure in Western countries.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2008...isoning-australia-and-new-zealand-explanation

 

[brit1981]

Calpol is designed for children, so it would take a huge amount to kill someone in one evening. Liver failure does not normally lead to instant or quick death. There would also be signs such as vomiting etc it would not just be a case of a child drinking so much they just died in their sleep. There is also no reason to cover up a death like that as children do get hold of medicine (you yourself have quoted that paracetamol is involved in a large proportion of ACCIDENTAL peadiatric exposures.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I have never been of the "Calpol Overdose" opinion anyway so it's all academic to me. Although I note Calpol Night would still be on the market if it was considered safe.

I personally think something darker occurred.