Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 6, 2018 6:37:30 GMT -5
Sam posted this link on Ronelle's board and I was able to catch the show here.
we.tl/Bqb78o9nY9
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 6, 2018 11:07:38 GMT -5
I was grumpier years ago. I never was a fan of condon, but I want to see your sources on condon to see ifs it the same as the links sue found. it would take a lot of digging but we know he got in big trouble at his school. as far as the travel channel program years ago current affair and dateline had rebuttals on this case featuring jim fisher and Robert bryan, but to have it one sided is bad. I would have liked to chimed in on gardners claim for the reason Lindbergh killed his son. and gov hoffmans grand nephew saying there was no nailholes in rail 16 at the time of the kidnapping. he would get killed on that one.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 6, 2018 11:34:24 GMT -5
I was grumpier years ago. I never was a fan of condon, but I want to see your sources on condon to see ifs it the same as the links sue found. it would take a lot of digging but we know he got in big trouble at his school. as far as the travel channel program years ago current affair and dateline had rebuttals on this case featuring jim fisher and Robert bryan, but to have it one sided is bad. I would have liked to chimed in on gardners claim for the reason Lindbergh killed his son. and gov hoffmans grand nephew saying there was no nailholes in rail 16 at the time of the kidnapping. he would get killed on that one. I cite all of my sources Steve. Always have and always will. Also, I have dated letters from all of the requests I've made to various Archives & Colleges. Whether Sue or anyone else found links - that has nothing to do with my research - unless of course I cite them. There are things people post that I've known about years and years before those posts - sometimes since the year 2000. The first person to plaster something on the internet does not mean they were the first to know about it. You know that... On the other hand, some new things do come out too. And if they are new to me, and I use them - then they are cited. If they aren't cited then I didn't use them and my sources came from somewhere else OR I already possessed them prior. So look at my citations and you'll know exactly my sources.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 8, 2018 13:03:46 GMT -5
I understand mike but sue found stuff that was around but wasn't discovered by anybody, and I really appreciate her research. studying this case since the early 90s when they had segments on tv either current affair or dateline on this case they had rebuttals. this one sided garbage dosnt thrill me at all, as far as condon goes I will see what you have and maybe theres something new or maybe not I will see
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 8, 2018 15:27:55 GMT -5
I understand mike but sue found stuff that was around but wasn't discovered by anybody, and I really appreciate her research. studying this case since the early 90s when they had segments on tv either current affair or dateline on this case they had rebuttals. this one sided garbage dosnt thrill me at all, as far as condon goes I will see what you have and maybe theres something new or maybe not I will see You do not understand Steve. No one knows what anyone else has found. Seriously. Posting something "first" on a Message Board does NOT mean that person was the first to find it and/or know about it. Whatever I use, if it came from some source other than myself, it will be cited in my footnotes. I have an email from 2003 as a source in V2. I have one from someone who has unfortunately passed away and no one knew about that email but me and him - and its footnoted. So this idea that you have to check my footnotes as it concerns Sue is beyond absurd. Next, the MATM episode was great. One can disagree with Lloyd's theory but that doesn't mean the presentation wasn't good because it was. Look at the Strange Inheritance episode on Malone for example. I disagree that Zorn is even an Expert but because they referred to him as, I believe, the foremost expert it did not ruin the show. When he was saying certain facts were "new" that are common knowledge among everyone here that didn't ruin the show for me either. There are always going to be things we don't like or do not agree with. Anyone who wants to debate or rebut has a venue right here to do it. Talk about the episode, debate, agree, or disagree. Here is the place to do it. This idea that there is going to be a show with someone debating the case with someone else - and it would even "work" is kind of silly if you ask me. Just to reply to certain questions I sometimes need about an hour, a day, or even days to find the material by which I can properly answer.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 11, 2018 8:45:33 GMT -5
I do understand, and that sue when ronnelles board was the only one around, she found good stuff when you wernt around or these other people on your board. we looked into condons backround and we found good stuff also. I don't understand your view. on the program, I think it was good format but was twisted to think theres a big problem in this case when gardners view is absurd and hoffmans grand nephews point that there wasn't four nailholes in rail 16 when the ladder was discovered when we know there was. that's all im saying
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 11, 2018 13:09:44 GMT -5
I do understand, and that sue when ronnelles board was the only one around, she found good stuff when you wernt around or these other people on your board. we looked into condons backround and we found good stuff also. I don't understand your view. on the program, I think it was good format but was twisted to think theres a big problem in this case when gardners view is absurd and hoffmans grand nephews point that there wasn't four nailholes in rail 16 when the ladder was discovered when we know there was. that's all im saying As exemplified by my first book everything gets properly documented. Nothing will be different with V2 in that regard. I've never met Hoffman's grand-nephew and I'm not sure about the photo he's got. I was interested to know if its a unique picture. In fact, there is a missing picture that Hoffman talked about that is not at the NJSP Archives. So for me it was something "new" to see and introducing him to the audience of the show was a good thing. Whether or not we believes he's right or wrong doesn't "ruin" the show - it only made it better as far as I am concerned.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 13, 2018 8:38:02 GMT -5
not silly mike they did it in the 90s, who wants a round table with people on one side of the case. terrible ending.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 13, 2018 8:40:33 GMT -5
mike you know dam well there was four nailholes in rail 16 ive seen many pictures and koehlers report on it. his research is bad
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 13, 2018 9:55:02 GMT -5
I haven't had the time to post a review on the show but plan to in detail. Of course Rail 16 had four square nail holes on March 2, 1932 and those same holes were documented multiple times at least a year before Hauptmann's arrest. This is nothing more than Scaduto recycled and Hoffman's great grand-nephew should have had some idea of the pitfall he walked into before appearing on national television. Fifteen years ago, I rebutted Scaduto's argument that Rail 16 (without holes) was laid over the attic joists and hammered into place. What Scaduto then, and obviously Patrick Bamburak even now, failed to recognize was that you can't just do this blind and expect your square nails to end up in the existing joist holes underneath, right down to the same nail orientation, angle and depth. In reality, there's no way you wouldn't end up with four fresh holes in your joists. There's lots more to comment on here and I agree Steve, the "discussion" regarding Gardner's "startling new theory" (which is actually over 85 years old) was a joke. Great production value and appearance by Richard Sloan, drama and music, but a good chunk of this uneven show should be called "Mistakes at the Museum."
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 15, 2018 9:04:41 GMT -5
hi joe remember in the 90s late 80s current affair dateline had people from different sides of the case argue this segment was a joke I cant believe gardner thinks Lindbergh did it with all the research he did. its a very weak argument theres no evidence at all that he did it. I guess its a moneymaker for a book. as far as mikes new book I didn't like the first one and I probably wont like this one but I will buy it to support the cause. these books don't clear Hauptman at all
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 15, 2018 10:32:54 GMT -5
hi joe remember in the 90s late 80s current affair dateline had people from different sides of the case argue this segment was a joke I cant believe gardner thinks Lindbergh did it with all the research he did. its a very weak argument theres no evidence at all that he did it. I guess its a moneymaker for a book. as far as mikes new book I didn't like the first one and I probably wont like this one but I will buy it to support the cause. these books don't clear Hauptman at all I think you look at the facts that are contained within the source material then possibly draw your own conclusions. I think everyone has different experiences in life that will either draw them to an idea, away from one, or at leave one open minded so as to apply future facts and evidence. I have been trying to get away from "schools of thought." I've outlined these tactics in my book: People reject certain facts they believe will harm their positions but will embrace those they "like" or think will support it. That is done because certain facts are viewed a potential problems which they believe would misrepresent the real conclusion. "Real" meaning the one they happened to believe. So if, for example, a fact emerges to show multiple people were involved, and one happens to believe Hauptmann was a Lone-Wolf, that specific fact is flatly rejected no matter how REAL it is. I like what we do here... Come up with various and possible explanations to consider. If we don't know we don't know and if we disagree we disagree - but the discussion will bring us closer to the truth - most especially once new material emerges. In V2 I do give more of my opinions in places - or at least I think so. But I fully expect there may be those who do not see what I see or believe it represents what I think it does. There's a ton on Condon. There's everything that possibly exists on the Condon's phone number and address found in Hauptmann's closet and I believe it will finally end all speculation. There's "good" information for Hauptmann and then there's the "not so good" for anyone who believes he's 100% innocent. If its new then I put it in there to get it out there. So I'll go out on a limb and say it will be a love-hate type of situation for you.
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,640
|
Post by Joe on Jun 16, 2018 9:25:14 GMT -5
hi joe remember in the 90s late 80s current affair dateline had people from different sides of the case argue this segment was a joke I cant believe gardner thinks Lindbergh did it with all the research he did. its a very weak argument theres no evidence at all that he did it. I guess its a moneymaker for a book. as far as mikes new book I didn't like the first one and I probably wont like this one but I will buy it to support the cause. these books don't clear Hauptman at all Weak argument is an understatement, Steve. Charlie had a “squarish head” and rickets? Big deal. Rickets was a common ailment among children, both rich and poor in the 1930’s and this ongoing notion that 14 drops of Viosterol was a megadose is not only misleading, it's false information. The Lindberghs essentially acknowledged that the child had rickets in the appeal they made to the kidnappers when they had his diet published in the papers, so what are they hiding here, other than nothing? Gardner also claims Dr. Van Ingen couldn’t get Charlie to stand during his last physical examination. What his agenda doesn't even seem to consider is the possibility the child was just being difficult as any normal and well developed 19-month old child might be under the same conditions in a doctor’s office. But why make mention of that possibility if it doesn't fit the theory, right? To suggest on national television that Charlie had some kind of muscle/motor restrictive disease that seriously limited his range of motion to the point his father, and by reasonable association the entire household, would have planned to eliminate him from their everyday lives, is reckless and irresponsible. And it's also very much at odds with the documented accounts of those who were in Charlie’s presence in the weeks leading up to and on March 1, 1932, where they saw him moving around as any "well developed" (Van Ingen's description from the same examination) child would be. The show's host Don Wildman, and very likely anyone new to this case and watching the ending, unfortunately were really led down a conspiratorial garden path here.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 16, 2018 12:08:29 GMT -5
Weak argument is an understatement, Steve. Charlie had a “squarish head” and rickets? Big deal. Rickets was a common ailment among children, both rich and poor in the 1930’s and this ongoing notion that 14 drops of Viosterol was a megadose is not only misleading, it's false information. The Lindberghs essentially acknowledged that the child had rickets in the appeal they made to the kidnappers when they had his diet published in the papers, so what are they hiding here, other than nothing? Gardner also claims Dr. Van Ingen couldn’t get Charlie to stand during his last physical examination. What his agenda doesn't even seem to consider is the possibility the child was just being difficult as any normal and well developed 19-month old child might be under the same conditions in a doctor’s office. But why make mention of that possibility if it doesn't fit the theory, right? To suggest on national television that Charlie had some kind of muscle/motor restrictive disease that seriously limited his range of motion to the point his father, and by reasonable association the entire household, would have planned to eliminate him from their everyday lives, is reckless and irresponsible. And it's also very much at odds with the documented accounts of those who were in Charlie’s presence in the weeks leading up to and on March 1, 1932, where they saw him moving around as any "well developed" (Van Ingen's description from the same examination) child would be. The show's host Don Wildman, and very likely anyone new to this case and watching the ending, unfortunately were really led down a conspiratorial garden path here. I know this idea that the child had a "condition" is polarizing. However, I think trying to portray that everything was cut & dry and leaves no room for speculation is flawed because there is a huge amount of room for it. This idea that he simply had Rickets therefore there's nothing to talk about is an incorrect approach. The first thing we must do is accept the diagnosis of Rickets and assume it wasn't something else. If we can do that than simply saying "Rickets" doesn't work. What kind of Rickets did he have? So saying it was a "common ailment" is misleading. Saying it occurred in both rich and poor, while true, is also misleading. The bottom line is what would cause it to occur in any child for the type of Rickets he had. IF he had Nutritional Rickets what would be the cause? Despite the rule forbidding his pictures to be taken, the few we have show him outside. Next, we also know this child had the best medical care. For example, after the child was delivered Dr. Hawks saw the baby everyday for a period of time before he " turned the baby over to a baby man." So in this case we are left to speculate that child was still Vitamin-D deficient and suffering the weight of effects the whole time and up to March 1st because he wasn't in the sun and did not have a proper diet? Next you claim Lloyd was misleading by saying 14 drops of Viosterol was a "megadose" and here is his source: "In some instances, viosterol, a very concentrated form of vitamin D produced by the irradiation of egosterol, is indicated. Ten drops of a one percent solution of irradiated ergosterol, is equivalent to about 50 teaspoons of cod-liver oil. When it is realized that three teaspoons daily of cod-liver oil is sufficient for a baby, it can be readily agreed that viosterol is a drug which the physician alone should prescribe."
[Source]: "The Curative Value of Light: Sunlight and Sun-Lamp in Health and Disease", by Edgar Mayer, M.D., F.A.C.P. D. Appleton & Company, New York, 1932. Page 160-161. Unless what Dr. Mayer wrote here is incorrect, then I believe what's written above fully supports Lloyd's point. Perhaps an expert on Viosterol in 1932 will appear on this Board to say Dr. Mayer was wrong - or right - I don't know. But until that time I am no expert on viosterol, and I'm not a doctor, but this source would be one I'd consult to learn about it. I think we should also consider that Dr. Van Ingen only prescribed one teaspoonful of cod liver oil a day. So that does suggest a normal dosage right? But yet here we are discussing Viosterol, not because Anne posted a diet consisting of 1 teaspoon of cod liver oil, but instead 14 drops of Viosterol. And finally, not to beat a dead horse, as I wrote in my book I find it incredibly odd Charlie was referred to by so many as "spoiled" when we all know about the crazy rules Lindbergh implemented for the exact reason to specifically prevent that type of behavior. Either they weren't working or there was another reason for it. Next shouldn't we also consider the other types of Rickets (if that is what he really had)? Renal and Hypophosphatemic. Also, there are sometimes other causes for the symptoms commonly associated with Rickets as well. It why the speculation will never end - but to suggest there's nothing to speculate about, I believe, is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jun 16, 2018 16:42:01 GMT -5
Has anyone ever considered that maybe Charlie needed a liver transplant? (Unheard of in 1932.) If he had a 'mild case of rickets', the treatment he was receiving should have corrected it. Apparently, nothing seemed to be helping. Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow is telling, in my opinion. Also, her indication that Charlie's 'kidnapping' was somehow linked to his medical condition should not be taken with a grain of salt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2018 20:14:03 GMT -5
If he had a 'mild case of rickets', the treatment he was receiving should have corrected it. Apparently, nothing seemed to be helping. Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow is telling, in my opinion. Also, her indication that Charlie's 'kidnapping' was somehow linked to his medical condition should not be taken with a grain on salt. From what I have read about Viosterol as a treatment for rickets, it was considered an effective treatment for most cases of rickets in 1932. However, if a child with rickets was not able to metabolize the vitamin then it would not help him. There were such cases and the rickets would be progressive. I think you bring up an important point concerning Mrs. Morrow. She did speak out about the kidnapping. She put "inside job" and "the condition of the baby's health" together and stated so to the public. Michael has this in Volume One of The Dark Corners, chapter 11, page 133. See footnote 372 for the source Michael used. This statement by Mrs. Morrow is a fact. It happened. She said it. We must consider it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 17, 2018 7:24:45 GMT -5
Has anyone ever considered that maybe Charlie needed a liver transplant? (Unheard of in 1932.) If he had a 'mild case of rickets', the treatment he was receiving should have corrected it. Apparently, nothing seemed to be helping. Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow is telling, in my opinion. Also, her indication that Charlie's 'kidnapping' was somehow linked to his medical condition should not be taken with a grain on salt. I think over the years we've considered everything and part of that consideration should be Joe's position that there was nothing to it. Without the "smoking gun" its all just conjecture. But not being "allowed" to consider different options seems short-sighted to me. A friend of mine has a bottle of Viosteral from 1932. On the bottle itself it says " as prescribed by a physician." It also says that " each gram contains not less than 10,000 vitamin D units." I could be wrong but I think: 400 units represents 100%, and that one gram equals 20 drops. So again this seems to back up the position that 14 drops is a megadose. There are so many things to consider when kicking around the possibilities. A big one for me is that obviously animals were consuming the body. Yet they did not touch the heart and liver. I've asked several people why and cannot get a straight answer. Someone told me that if a liver is full of toxins animals will avoid it. So its hard to proceed with what we have without solid facts to go by.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 17, 2018 8:13:57 GMT -5
Not exactly. Although rickets in general may have been common, a poor child had a significantly higher chance of developing it than a child from a wealthy background. That's because avoiding and treating rickets in general requires both adequate amounts of Vitamin D in the diet and adequate exposure to sunlight. Lack of either of these factors was much more likely to be present in poor children than wealthier kids. Remember that living in crowded tenements in urban areas reduced children's exposure to light and the poverty conditions in general caused inadequate diets for many.
Having said that, in Charlie's particular case we have speculated here that his rickets might have been due to a very rare form of the disease, an inherited enzyme deficiency which prevents the metabolism of ingested Vitamin D into an active form which can be utilized by the body. In these rare cases, massive amounts of the vitamin ingested orally would not treat or alleviate the problem.
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 17, 2018 19:46:27 GMT -5
Not exactly. Although rickets in general may have been common, a poor child had a significantly higher chance of developing it than a child from a wealthy background. That's because avoiding and treating rickets in general requires both adequate amounts of Vitamin D in the diet and adequate exposure to sunlight. Lack of either of these factors was much more likely to be present in poor children than wealthier kids. Remember that living in crowded tenements in urban areas reduced children's exposure to light and the poverty conditions in general caused inadequate diets for msny. Having said that, in Charlie's particular case we have speculated here that his rickets might have been due to a very rare form of the disease, an inherited enzyme deficiency which prevents the metabolism of ingested Vitamin D into an active form which can be utilized by the body. In these rare cases, massive amounts of the vitamin ingested orally would not treat or alleviate the problem. It’s also possible that tickets was misdiagnosed. Lloy’s Newest book has more insight into the medical condition and he speculates that the condition might be closer to hydrocephalus and related to the high altitude flight CAL forced Anne to take. This would also account for the larger square head and open fontenel. Michael I don’t think it’s in doubt that animals carried the body to the woods from the road but wondering if you’ve put any thought that the organs were removed in a medical setting? This could account for why deeper organs were removed while others were in tact. An animal, even if they weren’t going to consume a diseased heart, would pull it out and discard it to get to what they wanted.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 18, 2018 7:51:06 GMT -5
Michael I don’t think it’s in doubt that animals carried the body to the woods from the road but wondering if you’ve put any thought that the organs were removed in a medical setting? This could account for why deeper organs were removed while others were in tact. An animal, even if they weren’t going to consume a diseased heart, would pull it out and discard it to get to what they wanted. There are some sources which make a claim the body had been embalmed. On page 301 of V1 I show that Foster was claiming Fawcett was going to call VanIngen to testify to that. While I absolutely believe Fawcett was going to call VanIngen, there's no way to know what his testimony would be unless he testified. We know for a fact he could not say with absolute certainty it was the actual child, although he believed it was, and this fact could have caused doubt in the jury. There's also a source from Lt. Hicks who said it was embalmed, and I have a couple of more from the Trenton Cops and even Kirkham mentioned it during his Grand Jury testimony. This was one of the reasons there's been so many people who believe the body was really a different corpse and not the actual child.... That in essence, a body had been dug up from somewhere else and staged. However, without hearing it from VanIngen, Mitchell, or Swayze I think it could just be cops/investigators seeing a body in a certain condition then trying to explain what they see. Or not. But without "more" I cannot say. But lets say a medical procedure was performed and certain organs were removed. The body was then dumped. We do have evidence of animal activity. How do we explain these organs remained untouched by these scavengers after the fact? I am certain there's someone with expertise out there who could answer this question but no one I've consulted has ever been able to give me a straight answer.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 18, 2018 8:40:52 GMT -5
the problem is mike things you think are important aren't important to me. I argue the guilt or innocence of hauptmann I don't care about little tidbits
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jun 18, 2018 19:13:54 GMT -5
If he had a 'mild case of rickets', the treatment he was receiving should have corrected it. Apparently, nothing seemed to be helping. Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow is telling, in my opinion. Also, her indication that Charlie's 'kidnapping' was somehow linked to his medical condition should not be taken with a grain on salt. From what I have read about Viosterol as a treatment for rickets, it was considered an effective treatment for most cases of rickets in 1932. However, if a child with rickets was not able to metabolize the vitamin then it would not help him. There were such cases and the rickets would be progressive. I think you bring up an important point concerning Mrs. Morrow. She did speak out about the kidnapping. She put "inside job" and "the condition of the baby's health" together and stated so to the public. Michael has this in Volume One of The Dark Corners, chapter 11, page 133. See footnote 372 for the source Michael used. This statement by Mrs. Morrow is a fact. It happened. She said it. We must consider it. I remember reading this in V1, and thank you for remembering exactly where. I think Mrs. Morrow was very involved with Charlie and kept a close eye on what was happening with him. Trojanusc brought up Lloyd's theory that he might have been hydrocephalic. I don't agree. Without a shunt, his symptoms and the progression of the condition would have been far more pronounced at the age of 20 months. I do think that he could not metabolize Vitamin D, and that it was more than likely genetic, and inherited. I know that all we can do these many years later is to speculate, but he was certainly not a healthy baby.
|
|
|
Post by rebekah on Jun 18, 2018 19:25:07 GMT -5
Has anyone ever considered that maybe Charlie needed a liver transplant? (Unheard of in 1932.) If he had a 'mild case of rickets', the treatment he was receiving should have corrected it. Apparently, nothing seemed to be helping. Dr. Van Ingen's letter to Mrs. Morrow is telling, in my opinion. Also, her indication that Charlie's 'kidnapping' was somehow linked to his medical condition should not be taken with a grain on salt. I think over the years we've considered everything and part of that consideration should be Joe's position that there was nothing to it. Without the "smoking gun" its all just conjecture. But not being "allowed" to consider different options seems short-sighted to me. A friend of mine has a bottle of Viosteral from 1932. On the bottle itself it says " as prescribed by a physician." It also says that " each gram contains not less than 10,000 vitamin D units." I could be wrong but I think: 400 units represents 100%, and that one gram equals 20 drops. So again this seems to back up the position that 14 drops is a megadose. There are so many things to consider when kicking around the possibilities. A big one for me is that obviously animals were consuming the body. Yet they did not touch the heart and liver. I've asked several people why and cannot get a straight answer. Someone told me that if a liver is full of toxins animals will avoid it. So its hard to proceed with what we have without solid facts to go by. So much could have been learned if he had not been cremated immediately. Do you think that this is why Lindbergh had it done so quickly? That story about the fear he would be disinterred and held for ransom again is just not believable. The family could have buried him in an undisclosed location, making this 'fear' unnecessary. Am I right in thinking that the cremation was done without Anne even being consulted?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 19, 2018 7:04:20 GMT -5
A friend of mine has a bottle of Viosteral from 1932. On the bottle itself it says " as prescribed by a physician." It also says that " each gram contains not less than 10,000 vitamin D units." I could be wrong but I think: 400 units represents 100%, and that one gram equals 20 drops. So again this seems to back up the position that 14 drops is a megadose. Okay so I've been researching this to death because I hate not knowing something I want to know about. The very first thing I want to say is that I believe it wouldn't have even mattered if the child was legitimately "sick." I think that if Lindbergh suspected he was inferior or defective in any way that's all that would be necessary. Having said that I do believe there was something "wrong" with him. Now, we know as a matter of fact that the 1% solution of viosterol is highly potent. That 10 drops equal 50 teaspoons of cod liver oil. With all of the searching I've done I am finding pictures of old bottles on collecting sites that appear to be less potent that are not marked 1%. Were these around in 1932? If yes then this could be a possible alternative to consider. What the label on these bottles indicate is that 5 drops equal 3 teaspoons of cod liver oil. So if this was it, he would have been taking around 9X the prescribed dose and not 70X. Still a big dose when considering he was prescribed a modest 1 teaspoon - if indeed this was the version Anne was referring to. All guess-work of course but I wanted to share it nevertheless. What's most interesting for me is when and where did it switch from a mere teaspoon of cod liver oil over to 14 drops of viosterol? VanIngen's letter to Mrs. Morrow was written on May 4th, so the viosterol did not come from him or he would have noted it in that letter. I know this is going off on a tangent but I also found a study in 1940 concerning viosterol and rickets which is interesting. It involved 13 children from ages 8-24 months some afflicted with moderate cases and other more severe. According to the study, after receiving a 800 USP Units for 1 week all but 4 showed signs of healing. Next, 8 of the 13 were "completely healed" by the end of the 6th week. Anyway for what its worth, and there's definitely more to be learned here.... Am I right in thinking that the cremation was done without Anne even being consulted? This is a good question and I'm not sure if I know. Hopefully someone else does? I do know the "official" version as to "why" he was cremated was the "family" believed if he was buried somewhere somebody would have "dug him up." This implication being that a crazy person, or a grave robber "type" would do this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2018 7:32:57 GMT -5
I know this is going off on a tangent but I also found a study in 1940 concerning viosterol and rickets which is interesting. It involved 13 children from ages 8-24 months some afflicted with moderate cases and other more severe. According to the study, after receiving a 800 USP Units for 1 week all but 4 showed signs of healing. Next, 8 of the 13 were "completely healed" by the end of the 6th week. Anyway for what its worth, and there's definitely more to be learned here.... Thanks for mentioning the 1940 study about viosterol and rickets. Like you say, there is a lot to be learned about the use of viosterol and its availability in various strengths. The fact that this was being given to Charlie really underscores that something was wrong with him and it wasn't going away with the use of cod liver oil. I have been looking for info about the use of viosterol from the time period that surrounds the birth and life span of Charlie. Here is a link to a page from the Journal of the American Medical Association that talks about the use of high dosages of viosterol in treating serious cases of rickets. The article page is from 1932. jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/279750
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Jun 19, 2018 8:14:05 GMT -5
Not exactly. Although rickets in general may have been common, a poor child had a significantly higher chance of developing it than a child from a wealthy background. That's because avoiding and treating rickets in general requires both adequate amounts of Vitamin D in the diet and adequate exposure to sunlight. Lack of either of these factors was much more likely to be present in poor children than wealthier kids. Remember that living in crowded tenements in urban areas reduced children's exposure to light and the poverty conditions in general caused inadequate diets for msny. Having said that, in Charlie's particular case we have speculated here that his rickets might have been due to a very rare form of the disease, an inherited enzyme deficiency which prevents the metabolism of ingested Vitamin D into an active form which can be utilized by the body. In these rare cases, massive amounts of the vitamin ingested orally would not treat or alleviate the problem. It’s also possible that tickets was misdiagnosed. Lloy’s Newest book has more insight into the medical condition and he speculates that the condition might be closer to hydrocephalus and related to the high altitude flight CAL forced Anne to take. This would also account for the larger square head and open fontenel. Michael I don’t think it’s in doubt that animals carried the body to the woods from the road but wondering if you’ve put any thought that the organs were removed in a medical setting? This could account for why deeper organs were removed while others were in tact. An animal, even if they weren’t going to consume a diseased heart, would pull it out and discard it to get to what they wanted. A child born with hydrocephalus at that time wouldn't be likely to have survived past early infancy. In addition, the large head of the fetus would likely have forced delivery by Caesarian secttion (which, as far as we know, did not occur). So I'd pretty much rule out hydrocephalus as a diagnosis. Organs removed in a medical setting? Very possible that organs were removed by humans, but not exactly in a "medical setting." This would be more likely a fiendish desecration of the body, and I wouldn't rule out cannibalism.
|
|
|
Post by wolfman666 on Jun 19, 2018 8:38:24 GMT -5
but amie it dosnt mean his father had him killed. if its the only excuse that he was sick that's nearly enough for any real researcher to say the father killed him
|
|
|
Post by trojanusc on Jun 19, 2018 22:30:32 GMT -5
It’s also possible that tickets was misdiagnosed. Lloy’s Newest book has more insight into the medical condition and he speculates that the condition might be closer to hydrocephalus and related to the high altitude flight CAL forced Anne to take. This would also account for the larger square head and open fontenel. Michael I don’t think it’s in doubt that animals carried the body to the woods from the road but wondering if you’ve put any thought that the organs were removed in a medical setting? This could account for why deeper organs were removed while others were in tact. An animal, even if they weren’t going to consume a diseased heart, would pull it out and discard it to get to what they wanted. A child born with hydrocephalus at that time wouldn't be likely to have survived past early infancy. In addition, the large head of the fetus would likely have forced delivery by Caesarian secttion (which, as far as we know, did not occur). So I'd pretty much rule out hydrocephalus as a diagnosis. Organs removed in a medical setting? Very possible that organs were removed by humans, but not exactly in a "medical setting." This would be more likely a fiendish desecration of the body, and I wouldn't rule out cannibalism. The trouble with that is the organs on top were in tact, indicating it was done in a precise medical setting, not a ravaging cannibal. Assuming Charlie had an illness, it is not unlikely his body could have been examined for medical purposes. Hydrocephalus can occur in number of ways, including where a relatively normal newborn’s health becomes increasingly problematic with time. Anne’s high altitude flight without pressurization should be looked at to see what fetal illnesses may stem from such a flight.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2018 6:14:14 GMT -5
Anne’s high altitude flight without pressurization should be looked at to see what fetal illnesses may stem from such a flight. That flight should definitely be looked at. As if it wasn't enough, that altitude without pressurization was only one issue. Lindbergh flew so fast his gauges broke and there was an exhaust leak some of which was blowing right into Anne's face. She begged him to land, but he refused because he did not want either of them to look "weak."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2018 6:37:30 GMT -5
but amie it dosnt mean his father had him killed. if its the only excuse that he was sick that's nearly enough for any real researcher to say the father killed him Steve, I believe Dr. Gardner's position on the Mysteries At The Museum show was that Lindbergh was seeking to have Charlie institutionalized but that something went wrong and Charlie ended up dead. I don't think Dr. Gardner was promoting a deliberate death plot when he spoke during that round table discussion.
|
|