Author Topic: The Calpol claim revisited.  (Read 83311 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #255 on: July 19, 2018, 12:34:46 PM »
But then she'd have two more problems to deal with.

With a room full of people, I am sure if the twins did awake ,Tapas members would look after them...
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Robittybob1

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #256 on: July 19, 2018, 12:35:15 PM »
Are you saying the book isn't?  Are there bits we should ignore?

If Kate tried to rouse them then she could have shouted from the balcony.. Help!, Help!... but she didn't because she didn't want to wake the twins...
More than likely IMO.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #257 on: July 19, 2018, 12:42:12 PM »
If she had tried to rouse the and failed she would have had to get help. If she had tried and succeeded there would have been no need to wonder about it later.

Why would she want to wake them... She knew from her checks they were OK....
« Last Edit: July 19, 2018, 06:44:10 PM by Davel »

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #258 on: July 19, 2018, 12:51:51 PM »
Why would she want to wake them... She knew from her checks they we're OK....

Yes. but later claimed they may have been drugged- stay with it captain!
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Mr Gray

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #259 on: July 19, 2018, 01:00:28 PM »
Yes. but later claimed they may have been drugged- stay with it captain!

We have been through this before... They were not unconscious ....I'm not just with it I'm way ahead

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #260 on: July 19, 2018, 01:03:38 PM »
If she had tried to rouse the and failed she would have had to get help. If she had tried and succeeded there would have been no need to wonder about it later.
BLACK or WHITE, good example.  If this, then that, if that then this.   You weren't there, you don't know what happened exactly, you don't know to what extent the kids roused or turned over momentarily or otherwise, Kate is well within her rights to speculate that her kids may have been sedated based on her own observations, and doesn't need you to tell her how she should or shouldn't have behaved. IMO.
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #261 on: July 19, 2018, 01:04:15 PM »
Are you saying the book isn't?  Are there bits we should ignore?

If Kate tried to rouse them then she could have shouted from the balcony.. Help!, Help!... but she didn't because she didn't want to wake the twins...
Is that what she said?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #262 on: July 19, 2018, 06:15:19 PM »
Do you really care about any of this, seriously?

No . I am just pointing out what you need to know if the set up is to have legs.
Fred said this Joe said that and do you think professional like that.... and all that haraz is irrelevant.

I suppose I should "do" interesting posts; you know the type one, liners culminating in You can''t can you.Paragraphs of pointless questions demanding if you please, answers, then reams of cut and paste.
Not my bag old stick but chacun son gout as they say.
 
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline sadie

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #263 on: July 19, 2018, 11:07:50 PM »

mmmmkay! it will be our little secret. You pretending not to apologise- no problem. shhh *giggles*

back on topic... If the children were drugged as Kate suggested, she is in a better position to identify what could be used.

Are you related to Alice, perchance?

Offline Sunny

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #264 on: July 20, 2018, 06:27:17 PM »
You will be pleased to know I did some research and Calpol night only definitely (as far as I can see) came out in September 2007 so I very much doubt the McCanns used it.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2018, 01:43:24 PM by John »
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #265 on: July 21, 2018, 01:12:43 PM »


 you said...

"Madeleine's case but which still holds currency in some quarters eleven years after the event.
Exactly as the CALPOL accusation does."


I don't see anyone on this forum  supporting the calpol theory!  other quarters should not be quoted or used to establish an alliance of any kind with members here. It is wholly unprofessional.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 04:48:10 PM by Brietta »
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Brietta

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #266 on: July 21, 2018, 08:28:15 PM »
 
  ... and after all that verbosity ... this remains "The Calpol claim revisited" thread ... might I suggest that named threads exist for a reason on fora so it might be nice to make the attempt to stay on topic.  Thank you
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Robittybob1

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #267 on: July 22, 2018, 01:39:35 AM »

  ... and after all that verbosity ... this remains "The Calpol claim revisited" thread ... might I suggest that named threads exist for a reason on fora so it might be nice to make the attempt to stay on topic.  Thank you
Was there something left to debate?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #268 on: August 01, 2018, 07:19:01 PM »
Ketamine

Consciousness
Given that many paediatric sedations take place in ED in the evening and often around or after a child’s usual bed-time,
a child (> 6 months of age) may be discharged asleep if more than 1 hour has elapsed since last IV sedative/narcotic, or
>2 hours since last IM sedative/narcotic AND if the child is rousable with gentle stimulation.
 Fully awake (normal age appropriate verbalisation or interactivity, follows commands) - 2 points
 Rousable but unable to follow commands (if usually able) - 1 point
Unresponsive - 0 points, not for discharge until rousable.


Google cite http://www.anzctr.org.au/AnzctrAttachments/370334-24.02.16%20KINDER%20Protocol%20version%202.0.pdf

Yours?
I generally discharge patients after an hour....they are still under the influence and go home...go to bed and sleep like a log

Offline Robittybob1

Re: The Calpol claim revisited.
« Reply #269 on: August 09, 2018, 05:04:15 AM »
I generally discharge patients after an hour....they are still under the influence and go home...go to bed and sleep like a log
Is that safe?  Are they driving?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.