Harleyman Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 lets face it, medicine ISNT an exact science, some people can be wrongly diagnosed with months to live and live for years before dieing, some might live till they die naturally, and some might die before or without proper diagnosis............does it make the dr any crapper or dodgier? How long did the diagnosis take? How detailed was the diagnosis? It all smells rotten. This is a conspiracy theory of the classic kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 How long did the diagnosis take? How detailed was the diagnosis? It all smells rotten. This is a conspiracy theory of the classic kind. Indeed it is; no evidence whatsoever, no possible reason to believe in it, but out the cranks come like they always do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Indeed it is; no evidence whatsoever, no possible reason to believe in it, but out the cranks come like they always do. How long did the diagnosis take? How detailed was the diagnosis? It all smells rotten. This is a conspiracy theory of the classic kind. is the evidence in the public domain? did they officially go into detail about the diagnosis etc? cos all we can go on is what we actually know in the case, we dont know either way that the diagnosis was dodgy or not, some trust it (even tho it looks flawed in hindsight) and some dont what would you be thinking (and typing ) now if hed been left in prison, he actually did die when said, and it came out afterwards he was innocent? would there be a similer sort of outcry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 is the evidence in the public domain? did they officially go into detail about the diagnosis etc? cos all we can go on is what we actually know in the case, we dont know either way that the diagnosis was dodgy or not, some trust it (even tho it looks flawed in hindsight) and some dont what would you be thinking (and typing ) now if hed been left in prison, he actually did die when said, and it came out afterwards he was innocent? would there be a similer sort of outcry? All the more reason to set up a commission to examine the whole affair The doctors should be questioned at length and in great detail He wasn't innocent. If he was then I'm the king of Denmark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 He wasn't innocent. If he was then I'm the king of Denmark you dont know that, nobody does, thats the thing with this case it ISNT cut and dried as people make out, as has been said even some of the victims families reckon hes not guilty why cant certain people believe the actual people it affects who should actually be believing him guilty as hell and to be strung up? it doesnt sit right those people believing he didnt do it, there must be a valid reason for em to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted July 21, 2010 Share Posted July 21, 2010 Ernest Saunders was freed from jail because he had developed Alzheimer's disease; within three months he'd become the only person in history to have made a recovery from it. Or, you might choose to believe, he managed to con a doctor into signing a false certificate so that he could wangle his way out. It does look as though reports of Megrahi's imminent death were somewhat over-exaggerated - as Mark Twain might have put it - but that fact alone doesn't lead me to think that BP were involved. IIRC, in the case of Ernest Saunders, the excuse/argument used after his "recovery" was that he had never been diagnosed as having Alzheimers, but that he was showing (something along the lines of) pre-alzheimer symptoms. In the case of Megrahi, I believe that it is more likely that he was freed to avoid his case going to appeal, than it being anything to do with BP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Surprised? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/7871234/Dying-Lockerbie-bomber-could-survive-for-10-years-or-more.html Dying Lockerbie bomber 'could survive for 10 years or more' The Lockerbie bomber could survive for 10 years or longer, according to a cancer specialist who last year said he would be dead within three months of his release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted August 19, 2010 Share Posted August 19, 2010 Maybe not http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/7946881/Doctors-treating-Lockerbie-bomber-claim-he-was-not-consulted-over-his-release.html Doctors treating Lockerbie bomber claim he was not consulted over his release Relatives of those killed in the Lockerbie outrage last night voiced their disgust after it emerged that cancer specialists treating the bomber were not consulted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vResistance Posted August 22, 2010 Share Posted August 22, 2010 All the more reason to set up a commission to examine the whole affair The doctors should be questioned at length and in great detail He wasn't innocent. If he was then I'm the king of Denmark All Hail the king of Denmark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.