Express 06/05/12

Wintabells, you say that obviously the twins welfare as always been of paramount importance to the McCanns (save for their abandoning them night after night).....I disagree....until social services got involved they were quite happy to parade them in front of the cameras...playing happy families!

Theres so many treatments out there for hayfever, so why this particular withdrawn one?

wjk wrote:Theres so many treatments out there for hayfever, why this particular one?

Lots of more modern, non-drowsy ones. So why such an old style one that had actually been withdrawn in 2003?

AnnaEsse wrote:

Chris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

wjk wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:The list of drugs the McCanns had with them for their own use is much more interesting. Perhaps someone can find it. It may be on McCann Files. Amongst those drugs was Terfenadine, an antihistamine which had already been banned in the US. Info I can find states only that Terfenadine is no longer available on prescription in the UK, but I can't find a date when this happened.

Triludan Seldane, Terfenadine, Teldane

An anti-histamine

FDA took 5 years to recognise the harm it did, and a further 8 years to ban it!

It was a top selling anti-histamine in 1990's; it caused cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalisations and deaths. Eventually withdrawn in USA 1998.

ETA:



http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077700/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2013

Thats really interesting. I'd only ever heard of them taking the Calpol. I thought I'd read, heard and watched everything in this case, but theres always something that pops up to make you think! Thanks Anna.

Terfenadine was banned in the US in 1998 because of potentially fatal side effects. So, who was taking this very old style antihistamine? Someone emailed me a while ago and said that it had already been banned in the UK in 2007, but I can't find anything other than that it is now withdrawn from prescription.

An article cited as being from the Guardian in 2003 refers to Triludan having already being withdrawn.

http://www.c-r-y.org.uk/Guardian_01July2003.htm

Thank you. So, what was Gerry doing with a med that had been withdrawn? And where did he get it?

It says Triludan was withdrawn as an over the counter drug. It is possible it was still available on prescription. I was certainly prescribed it for hay fever but that would have been years before.

ETA Mar 2000 it was prescription only:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~aair/terfenadine.htm

Roasted Arizona wrote:Wintabells, you say that obviously the twins welfare as always been of paramount importance to the McCanns (save for their abandoning them night after night).....I disagree....until social services got involved they were quite happy to parade them in front of the cameras...playing happy families!

Hi Roasted Arizona,

Playing happy families would make sense if they weren't a happy family - they certainly wouldn't want the police to suspect that there was any kind of stress or discord between them which might have caused someone to flip out. I'm not sure they could avoid the cameras nor do I think that by allowing their children's faces to be photographed they demonstrated a lack of care about them. Since May 3rd 2007 their main drive (in my view, anyway) is for their twins to remain in their care and in the dark, and if parading them in front of the cameras helps that goal, they'll do it.

Wintabells wrote:I think it very unlikely that these drugs were given to children to sedate them or treat the symptoms of ADHD. They clearly belong to and were prescribed for their correct purpose to Brian Healy, who must have forgotten to take them back home with him.


But Gerry's comment about the 'abductor' slipping the twins something and FP's description of Kate checking the twins were breathing does make me wonder if sedatives of some sort were used, that night.

This is the conflict you are faced with!

For Gerry or Kate to even mention things like that, means they are covering their base already.
(even ignoring the following video where he is blatently lying when asked if he had given sedatives to the children)




No normal person who had their child 'abducted' would even consider mentioning anything like this, it would not come to mind.

This placed with what we know of Maddie getting up in the night, means that as Doctors they would have used a traditional medical 'cure' for these sorts of behaviours (they would have done a pediatric and a psychiatric rotation in training). Drs often prescribe meds off-label and Kate was an anesthesiologist. She would have been very comfortable in the use of sedation!

Now: for her to bother writing about this in the new edition of her book is another example of what they do often, make excuses for things which haven't happened yet. On the balance of probability, I am sure that those medications were not 'accidently' left behind. Its a medical condition which means he would have needed those meds every day and would take them by routine. If they were Brian's they would be with him. He would take them everywhere.

I also think its reasonable to suggest that if the children were sedated, as hypothesised by the Mccann's, that those would have been the best medications to use.

Loopdaloop wrote:

Wintabells wrote:I think it very unlikely that these drugs were given to children to sedate them or treat the symptoms of ADHD. They clearly belong to and were prescribed for their correct purpose to Brian Healy, who must have forgotten to take them back home with him.


But Gerry's comment about the 'abductor' slipping the twins something and FP's description of Kate checking the twins were breathing does make me wonder if sedatives of some sort were used, that night.

This is the conflict you are faced with!

For Gerry or Kate to even mention things like that, means they are covering their base already.
(even ignoring the following video where he is blatently lying when asked if he had given sedatives to the children)




No normal person who had their child 'abducted' would even consider mentioning anything like this, it would not come to mind.

This placed with what we know of Maddie getting up in the night, means that as Doctors they would have used a traditional medical 'cure' for these sorts of behaviours (they would have done a pediatric and a psychiatric rotation in training). Drs often prescribe meds off-label and Kate was an anesthesiologist. She would have been very comfortable in the use of sedation!

Now: for her to bother writing about this in the new edition of her book is another example of what they do often, make excuses for things which haven't happened yet. On the balance of probability, I am sure that those medications were not 'accidently' left behind. Its a medical condition which means he would have needed those meds every day and would take them by routine. If they were Brian's they would be with him. He would take them everywhere.

I also think its reasonable to suggest that if the children were sedated, as hypothesised by the Mccann's, that those would have been the best medications to use.

Hi Loopdaloop

I agree that something stinks regarding sedation and that they have a habit of making excuses for things that haven't happened yet, but I'm confused - are you suggesting that BH deliberately left his medications behind deliberately and if so, why, when he didn't visit until after M's dissappearance.

I suspect the twins may have received sedatives of some sort, perhaps only on the night of the 3rd, hence the comment about them being 'slipped' something, but I can't see how BM's medication could have been utilised if it wasn't there yet?

Wintabells wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:

Wintabells wrote:I think it very unlikely that these drugs were given to children to sedate them or treat the symptoms of ADHD. They clearly belong to and were prescribed for their correct purpose to Brian Healy, who must have forgotten to take them back home with him.


But Gerry's comment about the 'abductor' slipping the twins something and FP's description of Kate checking the twins were breathing does make me wonder if sedatives of some sort were used, that night.

This is the conflict you are faced with!

For Gerry or Kate to even mention things like that, means they are covering their base already.
(even ignoring the following video where he is blatently lying when asked if he had given sedatives to the children)




No normal person who had their child 'abducted' would even consider mentioning anything like this, it would not come to mind.

This placed with what we know of Maddie getting up in the night, means that as Doctors they would have used a traditional medical 'cure' for these sorts of behaviours (they would have done a pediatric and a psychiatric rotation in training). Drs often prescribe meds off-label and Kate was an anesthesiologist. She would have been very comfortable in the use of sedation!

Now: for her to bother writing about this in the new edition of her book is another example of what they do often, make excuses for things which haven't happened yet. On the balance of probability, I am sure that those medications were not 'accidently' left behind. Its a medical condition which means he would have needed those meds every day and would take them by routine. If they were Brian's they would be with him. He would take them everywhere.

I also think its reasonable to suggest that if the children were sedated, as hypothesised by the Mccann's, that those would have been the best medications to use.

Hi Loopdaloop

I agree that something stinks regarding sedation and that they have a habit of making excuses for things that haven't happened yet, but I'm confused - are you suggesting that BH deliberately left his medications behind deliberately and if so, why, when he didn't visit until after M's dissappearance.

I suspect the twins may have received sedatives of some sort, perhaps only on the night of the 3rd, hence the comment about them being 'slipped' something, but I can't see how BM's medication could have been utilised if it wasn't there yet?

I don't believe he left them, I think Kate and Gerry acquired the meds and used them for their own purposes yet shifted the blame to a forgetful father.

Loopdaloop wrote:

I don't believe he left them, I think Kate and Gerry acquired the meds and used them for their own purposes yet shifted the blame to a forgetful father.

Oh, ok. I see. Thanks for explaining.

Didn't Iris do a topic on 'Questions answered before they are asked?

This seems to be one of those.

The twins were almost certainly sedated, heavily too, on the night of 3/5/07.

At a much later date their hair was analyzed and found to be completely clear of drugs. This was months later when their hair had been cut very short and in the diary of those months we find quite a few instances of the twins being very difficult, throwing tantrums and bedtime being more and more of a trial. All Kate's own words!
The tests were done by the McCanns team, as well as their own tests on other items with DNA which completely exonerates them. I've never seen a report of those tests?

Then I think in the book she uses the fact that the PJ didn't test for drugs on the twins was their fault. I'm pretty sure they refused. Both the parents should have been tested as well, imo.

Wintabells wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:

I don't believe he left them, I think Kate and Gerry acquired the meds and used them for their own purposes yet shifted the blame to a forgetful father.

Oh, ok. I see. Thanks for explaining.

But Brian Healy was there in the villa wasn't he, beginning of August?

ann_chovey wrote:

Wintabells wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:

I don't believe he left them, I think Kate and Gerry acquired the meds and used them for their own purposes yet shifted the blame to a forgetful father.

Oh, ok. I see. Thanks for explaining.

But Brian Healy was there in the villa wasn't he, beginning of August?

IMO The Brian Healy meds are genuine and attention was brought to them for the sole purpose of diverting attention away from the parents' possible drugs use. Ditto the crime novel, to divert attention away from the CEOP manuals. As usual it's the details left out that provide the clues, as posters have already mentioned. So the dogs reacting to the scent of death and scent of blood in their apartment and boot of their car become part of a Spanish TV video in which a crime novel and her father's drugs were used as evidence of guilt - how ridiculous! It's rewriting history - all part and parcel of reputation management. Still following the wider agenda - with Scotland Yard on side and even Redwood doing the GMTV morning sofa sessions - not much to worry about. Now, what do we do about that pesky Amaral?

Whilst we are all looking at Brian Healeys medication, as pointed out to us by KM, what about the Terfenadine Anna pointed out they had with them? A prescription only drug in the UK. Banned in America.

wjk wrote:Whilst we are all looking at Brian Healeys medication, as pointed out to us by KM, what about the Terfenadine Anna pointed out they had with them? A prescription only drug in the UK. Banned in America.

Also not available in the UK as a prescription drug certainly as far back as September 2006. (Not in Issue 52 0f BNF).

malena stool wrote:

wjk wrote:Whilst we are all looking at Brian Healeys medication, as pointed out to us by KM, what about the Terfenadine Anna pointed out they had with them? A prescription only drug in the UK. Banned in America.

Also not available in the UK as a prescription drug certainly as far back as September 2006. (Not in Issue 52 0f BNF).

Ooh, thanks for that ms. I've searched for that info but couldn't find it.
So, why would they have this drug on them?

wjk wrote:

malena stool wrote:

wjk wrote:Whilst we are all looking at Brian Healeys medication, as pointed out to us by KM, what about the Terfenadine Anna pointed out they had with them? A prescription only drug in the UK. Banned in America.

Also not available in the UK as a prescription drug certainly as far back as September 2006. (Not in Issue 52 0f BNF).

Ooh, thanks for that ms. I've searched for that info but couldn't find it.
So, why would they have this drug on them?

And where would they obtain it and why would they be using it? Both of them being medics they would certainly be aware of its adverse side effects and the fact it had been withdrawn from being available as a prescription only medicine before Sept 2006.

Exactly. Theres so many antihistamines out there, why this one?

malena stool wrote:

wjk wrote:Whilst we are all looking at Brian Healeys medication, as pointed out to us by KM, what about the Terfenadine Anna pointed out they had with them? A prescription only drug in the UK. Banned in America.

Also not available in the UK as a prescription drug certainly as far back as September 2006. (Not in Issue 52 0f BNF).

Also not listed in 'mims' (January 2005 edition)

wjk wrote:Exactly. Theres so many antihistamines out there, why this one?

Ahem:

First generation Antihistamines "May cause significant drowsiness". (Alternatively called "Sedating Antihistamines")

Second generation ones are alternatively called "non-drowsy"



FACT.

malena stool wrote:

wjk wrote:

malena stool wrote:

wjk wrote:Whilst we are all looking at Brian Healeys medication, as pointed out to us by KM, what about the Terfenadine Anna pointed out they had with them? A prescription only drug in the UK. Banned in America.

Also not available in the UK as a prescription drug certainly as far back as September 2006. (Not in Issue 52 0f BNF).

Ooh, thanks for that ms. I've searched for that info but couldn't find it.
So, why would they have this drug on them?

And where would they obtain it and why would they be using it? Both of them being medics they would certainly be aware of its adverse side effects and the fact it had been withdrawn from being available as a prescription only medicine before Sept 2006.

AnnaEsse: It was a top selling anti-histamine in 1990's; it caused cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalisations and deaths. Eventually withdrawn in USA 1998.

As members of the medical profession, they could have obtained it pre September 2006 and been using it since then. Makes one wonder how many cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalisations and deaths it caused in the UK (NHS) between being banned in USA in 1998 and withdrawn in the UK in September 2006 and whether it's a potential litigation minefield.

T4two wrote:

malena stool wrote:

wjk wrote:

malena stool wrote:

wjk wrote:Whilst we are all looking at Brian Healeys medication, as pointed out to us by KM, what about the Terfenadine Anna pointed out they had with them? A prescription only drug in the UK. Banned in America.

Also not available in the UK as a prescription drug certainly as far back as September 2006. (Not in Issue 52 0f BNF).

Ooh, thanks for that ms. I've searched for that info but couldn't find it.
So, why would they have this drug on them?

And where would they obtain it and why would they be using it? Both of them being medics they would certainly be aware of its adverse side effects and the fact it had been withdrawn from being available as a prescription only medicine before Sept 2006.

AnnaEsse: It was a top selling anti-histamine in 1990's; it caused cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalisations and deaths. Eventually withdrawn in USA 1998.

As members of the medical profession, they could have obtained it pre September 2006 and been using it since then. Makes one wonder how many cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalisations and deaths it caused in the UK (NHS) between being banned in USA in 1998 and withdrawn in the UK in September 2006 and whether it's a potential litigation minefield.

See my post above. It's also not listed in 'mims' (the dr's prescribing bible) in January 2005.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

wjk wrote:Exactly. Theres so many antihistamines out there, why this one?

Ahem:

First generation Antihistamines "May cause significant drowsiness". (Alternatively called "Sedating Antihistamines")

Second generation ones are alternatively called "non-drowsy"



FACT.

I've always lent towards accidental overdose but only ever read about them having Calpol.
I find this very interesting especially, since Miss Kate is trying to divert our attention TOWARDS her fathers medication.

mumbles wrote:

T4two wrote:

malena stool wrote:

wjk wrote:

malena stool wrote:
Also not available in the UK as a prescription drug certainly as far back as September 2006. (Not in Issue 52 0f BNF).

Ooh, thanks for that ms. I've searched for that info but couldn't find it.
So, why would they have this drug on them?

And where would they obtain it and why would they be using it? Both of them being medics they would certainly be aware of its adverse side effects and the fact it had been withdrawn from being available as a prescription only medicine before Sept 2006.

AnnaEsse: It was a top selling anti-histamine in 1990's; it caused cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalisations and deaths. Eventually withdrawn in USA 1998.

As members of the medical profession, they could have obtained it pre September 2006 and been using it since then. Makes one wonder how many cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalisations and deaths it caused in the UK (NHS) between being banned in USA in 1998 and withdrawn in the UK in September 2006 and whether it's a potential litigation minefield.

See my post above. It's also not listed in 'mims' (the dr's prescribing bible) in January 2005.

So how old would this medicine have been? At least 2 years old in 2007?

wjk wrote:

mumbles wrote:

T4two wrote:

malena stool wrote:

wjk wrote:
Ooh, thanks for that ms. I've searched for that info but couldn't find it.
So, why would they have this drug on them?

And where would they obtain it and why would they be using it? Both of them being medics they would certainly be aware of its adverse side effects and the fact it had been withdrawn from being available as a prescription only medicine before Sept 2006.

AnnaEsse: It was a top selling anti-histamine in 1990's; it caused cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalisations and deaths. Eventually withdrawn in USA 1998.

As members of the medical profession, they could have obtained it pre September 2006 and been using it since then. Makes one wonder how many cardiac arrhythmias, blackouts, hospitalisations and deaths it caused in the UK (NHS) between being banned in USA in 1998 and withdrawn in the UK in September 2006 and whether it's a potential litigation minefield.

See my post above. It's also not listed in 'mims' (the dr's prescribing bible) in January 2005.

So how old would this medicine have been? At least 2 years old in 2007?

Possibly wjk,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelf_life
The expiration date of pharmaceuticals specifies the date the manufacturer guarantees the full potency and safety of a drug. Most medications are potent and safe after the expiration date. A rare exception is a case of renal tubular acidosis purportedly caused by expired tetracycline. A study conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration covered over 100 drugs, prescription and over-the-counter. The results showed about 90% of them were safe and effective as far as 15 years past their expiration dates. Joel Davis, a former FDA expiration-date compliance chief, said that with a handful of exceptions - notably nitroglycerin, insulin and some liquid antibiotics - most expired drugs are probably effective.[5]

Wrong post!