Maddies eye defect

Last night I had an appointment to look at furniture - which was going to be DUMPED. Whilst there i noticed the little girl has the EXACTLY the same eye defect as Madeleine, I mentioned this to my friend and mentioned the Maddie story to which she had said she had heard of, Well obviously without asking to many questions - she could sense my interest in this and explained to me that she has been to doctors since she was born., The most important bit of information she shared with me is that

ALL children with the defect (colomboma) -(sp) are MUCH slower than other children in regards to development and children with this defect attend a remedial school. Little Siobahn is exactly the same age as Maddie with EXACTLY the same colour eyes and EXACTLY the same defect!

Makes one wonder why Maddies Medical records have NOT been released to the PJ.????

Moderators please move thread - if it does not belong here.

Karen wrote:Last night I had an appointment to look at furniture - which was going to be DUMPED. Whilst there i noticed the little girl has the EXACTLY the same eye defect as Madeleine, I mentioned this to my friend and mentioned the Maddie story to which she had said she had heard of, Well obviously without asking to many questions - she could sense my interest in this and explained to me that she has been to doctors since she was born., The most important bit of information she shared with me is that

ALL children with the defect (colomboma) -(sp) are MUCH slower than other children in regards to development and children with this defect attend a remedial school. Little Siobahn is exactly the same age as Maddie with EXACTLY the same colour eyes and EXACTLY the same defect!

Makes one wonder why Maddies Medical records have NOT been released to the PJ.????

Moderators please move thread - if it does not belong here.

Well, the medical records were withheld weren't they? Although the real problem is that Maddie didn't in fact have this eye defect as the McCanns have publicly admitted last year in the Piers Morgan interview.
In some photographs the defect isn't in the same position which is impossible since it doesn't move. It seems to have been a great marketing ploy as Gerry himself told us.
But this is interesting: NOT having the coloboma would come up in the medical records - because the slow learning would not have shown up either.
Despite both of them being doctors, I'm pretty sure that doesn't exempt them from the usual health checks for the children.

C&P from the above .
In some photographs the defect isn't in the same position which is impossible since it doesn't move. It seems to have been a great marketing ploy as Gerry himself told us.

Without wishing to state the obvious surely the above line marked in Red, if true, makes g.macscam complicit.

( An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such, the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.)

From the witness statement from the McCanns' GP Dr Ian Schofield.

"Testimony of: Ian Richard SCHOFIELD
Age is less than 18 years:
Occupation: Physician (General Practice)
This deposition (comprising 1 page and signed by me) is true and according to my understanding.I am aware that, if proven to the contrary, I will be subject to prosecution if I have voluntarily testified to something with
knowledge of it being false or not corresponding to the truth.

Signature ______________________________________

I am a GP and senior partner in Alpine Practice in Rothley Road, Mountsorrel and in summary my qualifications are respectively at MBChB, DRCOG, MRCGP.
I am currently, and have been for 14 months, the GP of the McCann family. Before Madeleine's disappearance, I had only consulted Kate McCann once and never had assisted Gerry, nor ever had reason to deal with the twins Sean and Amelie and only saw them once after the disappearance of Madeleine."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RICHARD_SCHOFIELD.htm

Couple of interesting thoughts (well to me)

1) He actually doesn't state whether he had seen Madeleine in his capacity as a doctor
2) As he is "senior partner" DID any of the other partners see Madeleine

IMO he has only given 1/2 an answer to this question

Back to Madeleine's eye. Despite the trolls saying there is no video/transcript evidence of either McCann stating Madeleine had coloboma, The McCann family did request the Lancet (respected medical magazine) to publish this in June 2007.

"The McCann family has asked health professionals to look out for Madeleine McCann, a 4-year-old English girl with a coloboma of her right iris, who was abducted while on holiday in Praia Da Luz, Portugal, on May 3, 2007"

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60823-X/fulltext

Here is the NHS list for monitoring children's health up to age four. Sorry for the length, but I'm so sure that all you mums (which I'm not) will be able to pick information out of this that could be overlooked. There is simply no way imo that the McCanns could slip Maddie through the net for four years, doctors or not.

There are three main strands to health protection in children: screening, surveillance and
immunisation.
1.3.1 Screening
Screening is defined by the UK National Screening Committee as a ‘public health service in
which members of a defined population, who do not necessarily perceive they are at risk of,
or are already affected by a disease or its complications, are asked a question or offered a
test, to identify those individuals who are more likely to be helped than harmed by further
tests or treatment to reduce the risk of a disease or its complications’.
www.nsc.nhs.uk
The aim of screening is to identify children at risk of a particular condition. Screening is not
diagnostic; it only identifies those who are likely to benefit from further investigation or
treatment. A screening test may consist of a question identifying a child with a specific risk
factor. Some of those identified by screening will be found not to be at increased risk when
they have further investigations. These children are called ‘false positives’. There will also
be people who are at increased risk but are not identified by the screening programme.
These are called ‘false negatives’. Parents, where appropriate, should be made aware of
the benefits and limitations of screening tests so that they can make informed decisions
about whether or not to participate.
If children who screen negative present later with symptoms consistent with the condition
screened for, they should be referred as appropriate. (For example, a negative neonatal
blood spot screen for cystic fibrosis does not exclude cystic fibrosis in a 3-year-old child
with multiple chest infections and failure to thrive). Parents should be made aware of the
signs and symptoms of the specific conditions for which the child has been screened and
advised to contact their GP or other health professional if they have any concerns, even if
the screening test did not identify a problem. Health professionals should be equipped to
advise and support parents who have concerns. They should also know when, where and
how to refer the child.
Health visitors, school nurses, community paediatricians, allied health professionals and
GPs are likely to be the first point of contact when parents have concerns. Parents may
also raise their concerns with staff in their child’s nursery, pre-school or school.
Population screening involves more than applying a screening test to an individual. To
achieve its aims, a population based screening programme needs to be provided in a
systematic way by appropriately trained staff. The target population needs to be defined,
as does the timing of the test. The test needs to be applied in a uniform way with agreed
positive or negative result. These parameters should be set according to the best available
evidence. The referral pathway for screen positive individuals should be clearly defined.

1.3.2 Surveillance
There should be ongoing surveillance of the general health and development of the child.
Health professionals must listen to parental concerns and respond appropriately including
onward referral and future assessment. They should work in partnership with parents to
support them in making healthy choices for their children. That partnership should be
based on trust. It is also essential that parents know where to go for advice when they
have a concern about their child.
The development of a family-centred public health role for health professionals will support
a more proactive approach to promoting child health with a reduced emphasis on routine
systemised surveillance.
Where there is a concern about a child’s development, formal assessment to confirm or
refute these initial suspicions is essential. This should be undertaken as part of a more
comprehensive assessment involving a network of child development services and should
include consideration of referral to a community paediatrician.
Local care pathways and protocols should be monitored and evaluated on an ongoing
basis to ensure their effectiveness

1.3.3 Immunisation
Health professionals can contribute to improving the health and quality of life of children by
promoting the uptake of safe and effective vaccines.
All children should be offered immunisation in line with the current national
immunisation schedule. Contact with the family at the time of immunisation provides the
health professional with the opportunity to provide relevant health promotion and carry out
general health surveillance, including growth monitoring of the child

1.4 Information sharing
From the antenatal period onwards and during the first few weeks of a baby’s life, there
must be an effective transfer of information between the midwife and the health visitor. The
midwife should complete a transfer record for inclusion in the personal child health record
(PCHR).
The health visiting record should be completed at the end of the pre-school period and
passed onto the school health service. The transfer of information from the pre-school
health visitor to the school nurse must be carried out in line with organisation protocols for
transfer of information.
The transition from early years to primary school, primary school to post-primary school,
and from post-primary school to employment or further education or training have been
identified as vulnerable stages of development for children and young people. It is
essential that there is an exchange of relevant information within, and between agencies to
allow them carry out an integrated assessment of need and to meet the needs of these
individuals, particularly for those who have special needs e.g. disability.

1.5 Summary of Hall 4 programme
1. Every child and their parent(s) should have access to a universal core programme of
preventive health care.
The content of this is based on three considerations:
a) The delivery of agreed screening procedures;
b) Evidence-based health promotion; and,
c) The need to establish which families requires additional support.
2. The core programme includes:
Pre-school 0-5
• Antenatal visit / contact
• Neonatal examination
• Newborn hearing screening
• Newborn blood spot screening
• Primary visit
• 8 week developmental review
• The national immunisation programme and growth
monitoring, 8 weeks, 3 months, 4 months, 12 months
(immunisation only), 15 months and 4 years.
• Record review at 2 years.
• School readiness assessment at 4 years
The personal child health record [PCHR] will provide parents with a comprehensive health record for their child. It will also provide a core child health data set.

Contact between 15 months and 4 years – 2 year record review:
At the 15 month review, the health visitor in partnership with the parent(s) should agree the
schedule for future contact and subsequent reviews.
At 2 years the health visitor will exercise his/her professional judgement to decide if a contact is
required.
The health visitor is responsible for reviewing the child’s record (family health needs assessment,
child’s health record, risk factors, hospital A & E referrals, hospital correspondence, paediatric
referrals, outcomes of referrals, and child health system summary record (if available)).
A formal contact may not be necessary for all families. When no formal face-to-face contact is
planned the health visitor should ensure that there is liaison with other members of the primary
care team and other agencies as required. Local arrangements within Trusts should be in place
to ensure effective liaison between early years services and health visiting teams to ensure that
no new problems have emerged.
In other cases contact by telephone, letter or email may be sufficient, whereas some families
may require face-to-face contact.
Record action taken.

At 2 year record review, the health visitor should assess children with risk factors for congenital
heart disease, vision, hearing –

4 years – school readiness assessment
Action: Health visitor-led service Venue: Clinic/other
Review, discuss, record and refer onwards (where appropriate):
• Review and discuss any parental concerns/ review child’s progress e.g. family health
needs assessment, child’s health record, hospital correspondence, outcomes of referrals,
and child health system summary record).
• Review and discuss maternal and family mental health and well-being history and current
status.
• Additional support required.
• Review and discuss risk factors for TB, hearing, vision, and refer as per locally agreed
protocols. Record TB Risk status (for targeted population).
• Review and update family health needs assessment.
• Observe parent(s) child interaction.
• Discuss involvement with local support networks.
• Discuss confidentiality and consent (as required).
Physical examination/growth monitoring:
• Growth monitoring: weight and height – see appendix ii
• Plot, interpret centile and take appropriate action.
• Age appropriate vision screening for those children with risk factor (1st degree relative with
amblyopia, squint, high refractive error or nystagmus and act according to locally agreed
protocols). See appendix x – xi.
Immunisation:
• Identify infants requiring extended pneumococcal programme and arrange for
immunisations to be given.
• As per JCVI National Immunisation Schedule given by GP, practice nurse, treatment room
nurse or health visitor.
• Health professionals should take this opportunity to ensure that the preschool
immunisation schedule is complete.
• Identify and follow-up on incomplete immunisations.
Health promotion should be targeted towards the individual family’s needs.
Health promotion should complement regional and local strategies and targets to improve the health and well-being
of children. See appendix i.
Risk factors:
• Review and update risk assessment. See appendix ii-xii.
• Identify parent(s) who may need additional support (e.g.
substance abuse, learning difficulties, and mental health).
Children suspected of having special educational needs or child's development deviated
from the normal, refer to community paediatrician.
Identify and follow up incomplete preschool screening.
• Identify and follow up non-compliance with reviews and referrals.
• Review family health needs assessment and arrange for transfer of files to school health department.
Record any additional health visitor visits.

Very informative tigger. Have not quoted within your post but just want to flag this part up,

Quote, a snip,


4 years – school readiness assessment
Action: Health visitor-led service Venue: Clinic/other
Review, discuss, record and refer onwards (where appropriate):
• Review and discuss any parental concerns/ review child’s progress e.g. family health
needs assessment, child’s health record, hospital correspondence, outcomes of referrals,
and child health system summary record).
• Review and discuss maternal and family mental health and well-being history and current
status.
• Additional support required.
• Review and discuss risk factors for TB, hearing, vision, and refer as per locally agreed
protocols. Record TB Risk status (for targeted population).
• Review and update family health needs assessment.
• Observe parent(s) child interaction.
• Discuss involvement with local support networks.
• Discuss confidentiality and consent (as required).
Physical examination/growth monitoring:
• Growth monitoring: weight and height – see appendix ii
• Plot, interpret centile and take appropriate action.
• Age appropriate vision screening for those children with risk factor (1st degree relative with
amblyopia, squint, high refractive error or nystagmus and act according to locally agreed
protocols). See appendix x – xi.
Immunisation:
• Identify infants requiring extended pneumococcal programme and arrange for
immunisations to be given.
• As per JCVI National Immunisation Schedule given by GP, practice nurse, treatment room
nurse or health visitor.
• Health professionals should take this opportunity to ensure that the preschool
immunisation schedule is complete.
• Identify and follow-up on incomplete immunisations.
Health promotion should be targeted towards the individual family’s needs.
Health promotion should complement regional and local strategies and targets to improve the health and well-being
of children. See appendix i.
Risk factors:
• Review and update risk assessment. See appendix ii-xii.
• Identify parent(s) who may need additional support (e.g.
substance abuse, learning difficulties, and mental health).
Children suspected of having special educational needs or child's development deviated
from the normal, refer to community paediatrician.
Identify and follow up incomplete preschool screening.
• Identify and follow up non-compliance with reviews and referrals.
• Review family health needs assessment and arrange for transfer of files to school health department.
Record any additional health visitor visits.

tigger
Platinum Poster



Number of posts: 1091
Age: 45
Location: The Hague
Warning:


Points: 1495
Registration date: 2011-07-02



So Madeleine was due one hec of a lot in the school readiness when she returned from PdL.

Coloboma is an eye problem that can form due to underdevelopment of the eyes when baby is growing inside the womb. The defect can develop because of a gap in the structure of the eyes such as the iris, lens, eyelid, retina, choroid or optic disc.

Types of Coloboma
Coloboma can mildly or severely affect the vision depending on how big the gap is and where it is located inside the eyes.

Fundus or Optic Disc Coloboma:
It develops as a large gap inside the optic nerves and/or macula. This can severely affect the vision.

Iris Coloboma:
Commonly, coloboma can affect only the iris. The iris may appear as a keyhole or oval-shaped structure instead of normal round shape. Iris coloboma can occur in one eye or both the eyes and can affect the central vision. Children may dislike exposure to bright lights because of limiting ability of the iris to allow normal amount of light to enter into the eyes.

Choroid Coloboma:
This type of coloboma is similar to retinal coloboma

If eyelids are affected, it may not close properly leaving the eyes watery and dry.
Morning Glory Syndrome:
It affects the shape of the optic nerve. The coloboma is so called because the optic nerves looks like the inside of a morning glory flower.

What Causes Coloboma?
Though the particular genetic inheritance is yet to be identified, it is assumed that coloboma can be caused because of mutation in the PAX2 gene. This can also occur due to eye trauma.

What are the Signs and Symptoms of Coloboma?
Some of the common signs and symptoms of coloboma are impaired vision, partial loss of iris, visual field loss, development of nystagmus, etc.

How is Coloboma eye Diagnosed?
Parents of the affected child may notice key-hole like shape of the iris. They may also notice that the child is trying to avoid bright lights or act like they are suffering from impaired vision. Parents may want to take advice from a specialist.

What are the Treatments for Coloboma Eye?
At present, there is no treatment for coloboma eye. During the early years, the child should be regularly monitored to check the condition of eyes. Later on, every six months up to the age of seven, eye tests should be carried out. Glasses might be prescribed. Though, glasses cannot correct coloboma, they can correct myopia or hypermetropia, thereby correcting parts of vision that is not affected by coloboma. In the later stage, cosmetic contact lenses can be prescribed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are four main types of coloboma.

Sometimes a child may dislike bright lights or have reduced vision.
Was Madeleine checked out regularly at the opticians?
Could she have been accident prone if her vision was not good. Do we even know if her vision was good? Have the McCanns ever said so?

It's very strange how Madeleine's coloboma, which was such a huge part of the Mccampaign in the early days, (despite them being advised by the police not to emphasise this) is now just a "fleck".

BelEddie wrote:C&P from the above .
In some photographs the defect isn't in the same position which is impossible since it doesn't move. It seems to have been a great marketing ploy as Gerry himself told us.

Without wishing to state the obvious surely the above line marked in Red, if true, makes g.macscam complicit.

( An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such, the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.)

The above, marked in red, is true. It's a quote from the McCanns' interview with Vanity Fair magazine, published January 10th 2008.

Go to page 4 of the article and scroll down to the section that starts with A

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802

Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

AnnaEsse wrote:

BelEddie wrote:C&P from the above .
In some photographs the defect isn't in the same position which is impossible since it doesn't move. It seems to have been a great marketing ploy as Gerry himself told us.

Without wishing to state the obvious surely the above line marked in Red, if true, makes g.macscam complicit.

( An individual is complicit in a crime if he/she is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so. As such, the individual effectively allows criminals to carry out a crime despite possibly being able to stop them, either directly or by contacting the authorities, thus making the individual a de-facto accessory to the crime rather than an innocent bystander.)

The above, marked in red, is true. It's a quote from the McCanns' interview with Vanity Fair magazine, published January 10th 2008.

Go to page 4 of the article and scroll down to the section that starts with A

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802

Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

Good morning AnnaEsse

John McCann Gerry's brother commented on Madeleine's coloboma, he said it was what made her special.

I'd never heard of a coloboma, before Gerry spoke of it, so I looked it up on Google. I discovered that some children who have colobomas suffer from a condition known as CHARGE syndrome.

http://www.chargesyndrome.org/about-charge.asp

Autism is associated with CHARGE, so I Googled was Madeleine McCann autistic, I was taken to a website about autism and on one of the pages, Gerry's sister Patricia, was asking for donations to Madeleine's fund. If Madeleine wasn't autistic, I found it strange that Patricia would be asking for donations to her fund.

maebee wrote:It's very strange how Madeleine's coloboma, which was such a huge part of the Mccampaign in the early days, (despite them being advised by the police not to emphasise this) is now just a "fleck".

But in the latest age advanced photograph it's back, very clearly too. What is very interesting though: it's not been mentioned, neither by the mcCanns or SY.
So that does make me mad! How stupid do we have to be to swallow this?

In April we're told 'Maddie is alive - there's a very good chance of this and here's a photograph to help you.' But the photograph shows a child who could be 11 or 12 and has no distinguishing features - O wait! Forgot to mention the coloboma - the one unique marker.

Which would also save innocent people and children all over the world a lot of hassle when they are suspected of having or being Maddie.

So, the coloboma is just one of many issues that the McCanns have lied and changed their stories about, several times.

Interestingly, her eye, featuring the Very Distinctive Mark was on a google banner (great marketing ploy Gerry) in June 2007

http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-164675619/google-search-for-maddie-exclusive-missing-girl-s

and it must have been seen many millions of people. Even more interestingly, that image doesn't seem to be anywhere on the net anymore. That's using both Google and Yahoo to search. Has someone from Google done a little research into the case and removed all signs of their foolish stunt, I wonder?

Good marketing ploy as the Mccanns wont have to travel half way around the world(they have already done the world tour...thankyou very much) to identify the poor terrified girl dragged from her parents to the local police station...as the lack of colomba(fleck)can identify her as not Maddie

Just thought,with the effects of colomba to the eye in possibily effecting the sight,shouldnt the sheeple of had a new aged progression picture of Maddie aged 9-12 with glasses on? could even encourage more funds from the makers of designer glasses...i hate giving them ideas

Wallflower wrote:So, the coloboma is just one of many issues that the McCanns have lied and changed their stories about, several times.

Interestingly, her eye, featuring the Very Distinctive Mark was on a google banner (great marketing ploy Gerry) in June 2007

http://www.questia.com/read/1G1-164675619/google-search-for-maddie-exclusive-missing-girl-s

and it must have been seen many millions of people. Even more interestingly, that image doesn't seem to be anywhere on the net anymore. That's using both Google and Yahoo to search. Has someone from Google done a little research into the case and removed all signs of their foolish stunt, I wonder?

I've read elsewhere that they tried to get Google to do this, to convert both the O's with a stripe as a logo, but Google wouldn't do it.
It wouldn't be out of character for TM to pre-empt such a stunt, just to force Google to do it or have bad publicity for not doing it. I am sure the idea came from TM and it came pretty early too. Imo they had brilliant marketing advice - the photograph and the coloboma were a masterstroke of publicity.

I think they pulled that trick a few times, J.K. Rowling being one example as having helped write and market the book.

She has a birth mark on her leg does she not?

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm

The birthmark is mentioned here.

[quote="Not Born Yesterday"]http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm

The birthmark is mentioned here. [/quot

Thank you Not Born Yesterday. So she has a small birth mark on the calf of her left leg. I cannot recall her parents ever mentioning that, just the eye marking, which of course as far as marketing was more punchy than a birth mark on the leg.

I daresay that the birthmark was barely noticable but, then again, as we now know, so was the eye defect!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I daresay that the birthmark was barely noticable but, then again, as we now know, so was the eye defect!

Maybe so , but the parents never mentioned it, the eye defect. If I may say, the eye defect was more attractive than a mark on the leg. Couldn't really use the birthmark to sell the image.