Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Lace on November 21, 2013, 11:34:04 AM
Title: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2013, 11:34:04 AM
In Amaral's book he talks about Calpol being a sedative and that we Brits give it to our children to help them sleep.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 21, 2013, 11:52:37 AM
In Amaral's book he talks about Calpol being a sedative and that we Brits give it to our children to help them sleep.
In my days it was Phenergan. I knew a few mums who would give their children phenergan when they were teething and I have known mums to give them phenergan just to get a good nights rest, so its not unusual well it wasnt then lol. I hasten to add I did it once for teething and it had the opposite effect on my baby it made her wide awake lol.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2013, 11:53:52 AM
If Amaral saying we Brits leave our children alone, makes you worried and concerned. Imagine how the McCann's felt when he wrote his book with innuendos that they give Madeleine calpol for her to sleep. That sometimes a child becomes 'unwanted' that Kate was expressing that Madeleine had become am inconvenience because she had to be carried around.
Imagine being accused of having someone sexually attracted to children as a friend. Of faking an abduction and of hiding your child's body?
Would you be feeling a tad concerned or would you want to sue?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Lace on November 21, 2013, 11:56:07 AM
In my days it was Phenergan. I knew a few mums who would give their children phenergan when they were teething and I have known mums to give them phenergan just to get a good nights rest, so its not unusual well it wasnt then lol. I hasten to add I did it once for teething and it had the opposite effect on my baby it made her wide awake lol.
Calpol is not a sedative. The reason the child sleeps is because it takes away the pain the child has.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 21, 2013, 12:00:16 PM
If Amaral saying we Brits leave our children alone, makes you worried and concerned. Imagine how the McCann's felt when he wrote his book with innuendos that the give Madeleine calpol for her to sleep. That sometimes a child becomes 'unwanted' that Kate was expressing that Madeleine had become am inconvenience because she had to be carried around.
Imagine being accused of having someone sexually attracted to children as a friend. Of faking an abduction and of hiding your child's body?
Would you be feeling a tad concerned or would you want to sue?
Well my dear its totally irrelevant because I would never HAVE LEFT MY CHILDREN IN THE FIRST PLACE, so non of this would be relevant.
Ask your self.
Your child is left each night you find out from the child that she had been awake crying a lot the night before.
What would you do?
a. Stay in that night b. Give the child a mild sedative to help her settle, then go out?
How can you possibly tell me that it was good PARENTING to leave children alone like this even more so after the child was awake the night before. ARE YOU SERIOUS?
Tell me this.
The child was known to have sleeping problems, this is FACT. When you take children away on holiday they get very excited and this can make it very hard to settle them in the evening.
How can 3 children on the night of the 3rd be so SOUND ASLEEP non of them woke up even with a flat full of people?
Tell me how is this possible.
It isnt rocket science that think that perhaps the children were sedated to enable them to settle better. There is actually NOTHING wrong in that as long as it isnt abused.
Oh as to the sexually attracted then they need to sue The Gaspars who made that statement it wasnt Amaral who made that statement but doctor FRIENDS OF THE MCCANNS...Why would they do that?
No I wouldnt sue because it wouldnt have happened anyway.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 21, 2013, 12:07:19 PM
The new product range will be available nationwide from September 2007 and is being supported by a multi-million pound integrated advertising and public relations campaign.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 21, 2013, 12:32:42 PM
The new product range will be available nationwide from September 2007 and is being supported by a multi-million pound integrated advertising and public relations campaign.
Pointless arguement there were other meds on the market which had a sedative effect.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 21, 2013, 12:42:15 PM
Of course there are. Dozens. But Amaral specifically cited Calpol - which is NOT a seditive - the active ingredient is paracetamol.
Amaral also made reference to calpol night, in a way which might have led the unwary reader to suppose the McCanns gave it Madeleine:
In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
It was lleft to Joana Morais, in a perfectly disgraceful blog, to take up the baton of calpol night.
Certainly by UK law, Amaral's reference would be libel.
Not sure about Portuguese.
The irony is that the whole subject of calpol (and all variants thereof) was raised because the McCanns, themselves, frankly told the PJ they had calpol with them on that holiday, but hadn't used it.
An odd think to 'admit' if they had something sinister to hide in respect of its use ...
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 21, 2013, 01:06:19 PM
Of course there are. Dozens. But Amaral specifically cited Calpol - which is NOT a seditive - the active ingredient is paracetamol.
I take one paracetamol at night it settles me. Is it a sedative I have no idea but it does the trick. I have nerve pain, which paracetamol would not touch, but one tablet really does help me sleep. Rather do that then be on horrible drugs or even diazepam.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Jean-Pierre on November 21, 2013, 01:27:06 PM
I take one paracetamol at night it settles me. Is it a sedative I have no idea but it does the trick. I have nerve pain, which paracetamol would not touch, but one tablet really does help me sleep. Rather do that then be on horrible drugs or even diazepam.
I am sorry to hear that. Parcetamol is a useful because of its anti inflammatory qualities, and although it does not help with nerve pain it may be a reduction in associated inflation which enable you to settle.
However, it does not sedate.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 01:35:31 PM
adj. 1. tending to calm or soothe. 2. assuaging pain or allaying irritability or excitement.
Calpol could very easily be described as a sedative under the dictionary reference highlighted above, this was possibly the context in which Goncalo Amaral was referencing !
No it couldn't.
Medicines that take away pain are analgesics.
However, children (like adults) free of pain sleep better than children (or adults) in pain. Parcetamol is a useful because of its anti inflammatory qualities,
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs control inflammation
Paracetamol is not an anti-inflammatory drug.
Something like Ibuprofene would be an NSAID drug.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Benice on November 21, 2013, 01:49:04 PM
If it assuages pain it may well be referred to as a sedative.
Is there any evidence that the children were in pain? If not then pain relief would make absolutely no difference to them.
e.g. I don't have toothache. If I take pain relief - I still won't have toothache. So it has no affect at all on me.
The Calpol Kate had with her was not a sedative and contained no sedative properties. This has been discussed at great length and proved many times - over the years.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 04:31:04 PM
a drug taken for its calmingor sleep-inducing effect
Feel free to re-write the Oxford dictionary should you like BUT Calpol does have a calming effect on illnesses like teething pains, high temperatures etc. in children and adolescents !
Try the British National Formulary:
More clearly:
PARACETAMOL(Acetaminophen) Additional information
interactions (Paracetamol). Indications
mild to moderate pain, pyrexia (pyrexia with discomfort in children) Cautions
alcohol dependence; max. daily infusion dose 3 g in patients with hepatocellular insufficiency, chronic alcoholism, chronic malnutrition, or dehydration; before administering, check when paracetamol last administered and cumulative paracetamol dose over previous 24 hours; interactions: Appendix 1 (paracetamol)
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Carana on November 21, 2013, 04:36:34 PM
Why has this thread about the CMTV programme turned into a discussion about Calpol?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 04:38:05 PM
I prefer the Oxford dictionaries definition of 'sedative' thank you very much ferryman !
You shouldn't!
The British National Formulary is The Bible for all practising nurses ...
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Victoria on November 21, 2013, 05:23:30 PM
a drug taken for its calmingor sleep-inducing effect
Feel free to re-write the Oxford dictionary should you like BUT Calpol does have a calming effect on illnesses like teething pains, high temperatures etc. in children and adolescents !
If you want to use that definition, every type of medication is a sedative because it will 'calm' the effects of whatever it's treating. Bit silly to stretch the meaning of words that far just for the sake of saving face, wouldn't you say?
I would.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 05:59:15 PM
Hi ferryman, could you quote it please as I can't find the post ! P.S. it's Colombosstogey btw !
Quote from: Lace on Today at 11:34:04 AM
In Amaral's book he talks about Calpol being a sedative and that we Brits give it to our children to help them sleep.
In my days it was Phenergan. I knew a few mums who would give their children phenergan when they were teething and I have known mums to give them phenergan just to get a good nights rest, so its not unusual well it wasnt then lol. I hasten to add I did it once for teething and it had the opposite effect on my baby it made her wide awake lol.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 06:41:37 PM
Again it is your inability to read the written word which has once again tripped you up ! The poster called 'Lace' introduced the word 'Calpol' into the debate, colombosstogey merely replied with a 'real life' experience of the use of a pre-Calpol product called Phenergan ! Do please keep up ferryman !
Have you understood the fact that calpol is not a sedative?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 07:16:06 PM
a drug taken for its calmingor sleep-inducing effect
Feel free to re-write the Oxford dictionary should you like BUT Calpol does have a calming effect on illnesses like teething pains, high temperatures etc. in children and adolescents !
Sedatives produce sedation...conscious sedation..sedation isn't sleep..
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 07:24:57 PM
Sedatives produce sedation...conscious sedation..sedation isn't sleep..
Bang on right ...
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 07:37:37 PM
The Oxford dictionary on line definition:
noun (plural same or paracetamols) [mass noun] British
a synthetic compound used as a drug to relieve and reduce fever, usually taken in tablet form. Alternative name: para-acetylaminophenol; chemical formula: C8H9NO2. Compare with acetaminophen
Half right.
It is used to treat pyrexia or lower high temperatures.
It is also used as a mild pain-reliever.
But the Oxford dictionary says nothing the drug being a 'sedative'.
That is exactly the point I made, albeit that some posters on this forum (who should know better) tried to derail the original thread by suggesting that Goncalo Amaral was suggesting the use of Calpol as a sleep inducing sedative ! I merely pointed out an alternative dictionary definition of the word ! Simple as !
Calpol is not a sedative and has no sedative effects
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 07:44:26 PM
adj. 1. tending to calm or soothe. 2. assuaging pain or allaying irritability or excitement.
Calpol could very easily be described as a sedative under the dictionary reference highlighted above, this was possibly the context in which Goncalo Amaral was referencing !
I would certainly disagree with that definition as many sedatives have no analgesic(pain assuaging) properties whatsoever
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 07:51:25 PM
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: John on November 21, 2013, 07:58:34 PM
I haven't read all the posts on this thread but I recall this being discussed some months ago and it was stated then that the chemical composition of Calpol has changed since 2007. Something about it being made less potent???
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Cariad on November 21, 2013, 08:00:43 PM
I get the impression that this is a debate about the English language, not pharmacology....
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sedative
2. assuaging pain or allaying irritability or excitement
I've used Calpol to treat pain and/or fever in my children and never noticed any additional drowsiness in them, above and beyond what you would expect from an unwell child anyway.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 08:03:36 PM
I haven't read all the posts on this thread but I recall this being discussed some months ago and it was stated then that the chemical composition of Calpol has changed since 2007. Something about it being made less potent???
I think you may be confusing calpol with calpol night, which was introduced in 2007, around the time the McCanns were made arguidos.
I think the basic formula of calpol has not changed.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: DCI on November 21, 2013, 08:13:13 PM
I haven't read all the posts on this thread but I recall this being discussed some months ago and it was stated then that the chemical composition of Calpol has changed since 2007. Something about it being made less potent???
Our Ref: XXXXXX-Letter Date: XXXX 2009
Dear Madam/Sir
Thank you for your recent enquiry concerning Calpol Infant Suspension (120mg paracetamol per 5ml).
Calpol Infant Suspension contains paracetamol which is used to relieve pain and reduce fever. As you rightly point out, it does not have sedative properties. We are keen to ensure that consumers understand how to use all of our products correctly. In the case of Calpol, we ensure clear messages in our advertising to ensure correct usage. The product also contains clear instructions for use on the box and within the enclosed patient information leaflet.
Thank you for your concern regarding the reputation of our product and the suggestion that we contact Mr Amaral. We will give your suggestion due consideration.
Yours sincerely
Johnson & Johnson Ltd
XXXXXX XXXXXXXX BSc (Hons) Medical Information Officer Professional Information Ltd on behalf of Johnson & Johnson Ltd
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 08:13:26 PM
a drug taken for its calming or sleep-inducing effect:
That's quite clear to me AND readily available on-line ferryman !
Full quote from the link:
Definition of sedative in English
sedative Pronunciation: /ˈsɛdətɪv/ Translate sedative | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish adjective
promoting calm or inducing sleep:the seeds have a sedative effect
noun
a drug taken for its calming or sleep-inducing effect: she won’t let them give her sedatives because of the baby a mild sedative
Origin:
late Middle English: from Old French sedatif or medieval Latin sedativus, from Latin sedat- 'settled', from the verb sedare (see sedate1) sedative in other Oxford dictionaries
.... inappropriate comment removed ...
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 08:17:42 PM
Well davel it's your prerogative to agree or disagree, I wasn't trying to change your perception of a dictionary defined word, I merely highlighted a possible contextual use of the word by Goncalo Amaral as defined by the dictionary !
Amaral was mistaken in thinking calpol is a sedative...a nice soft pillow and a comfortable bed will induce sleep....but they are not sedatives
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 08:22:28 PM
Amaral was mistaken in thinking calpol is a sedative...a nice soft pillow and a comfortable bed will induce sleep....but they are not sedatives
You know, I think even that's not strictly right.
I think Amaral (hazily) understood that calpol is not a sedative, but he somehow arrived (in his imagination) at some (non-existent!) "distinction" between a "sedative" and a "sleeping solution", which he held calpol to be.
I'm sure he relates in his book that Kate explained calpol is not a sedative.
I confess, I would need to check my references on that.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 08:39:14 PM
What do you think his "distinction" is between a sedative and a sleeping solution ?
What I think has nothing to do with it.
Educate yourself on the facts.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: DCI on November 21, 2013, 08:47:17 PM
Amaral thinks and said
Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 21, 2013, 08:50:55 PM
I wish people would come to some consensus, somehow......so the same stuff doesnt just get regurgitated time after time after time.....is that remotely possible?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 08:53:51 PM
Amaral was mistaken in thinking calpol is a sedative...a nice soft pillow and a comfortable bed will induce sleep....but they are not sedatives
Here we are, Dave.
This is the extract I had in mind, from chapter 4 of Amaral's book:
MADELEINE SLEEPS BADLY
One of the police officers who went to the McCanns' home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
The mother admits having taken some [calpol] to Portugal. She insists though that there is no calming effect, its being composed solely of paracetamol, and that she did not give any of it to her daughter during the holiday. At the time of her disappearance, Madeleine was sleeping in the same room as the twins. The latter, in spite of the noise, the mother's screaming and the comings and goings, did not wake up, as if they had been given sedatives. Would there not be a link between that difficulty in falling asleep and Madeleine's tragic end?
He admits Kate told them calpol is not a sedative, and I think (sort of) fuzzily believed her, but concocted some illusory "distinction" between it and what he chose to refer to as a "sleeping solution".
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 21, 2013, 08:56:27 PM
I wish people would come to some consensus, somehow......so the same stuff doesnt just get regurgitated time after time after time.....is that remotely possible?
That would seem logical, wouldn't it ?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 08:58:02 PM
This is the extract I had in mind, from chapter 4 of Amaral's book:
MADELEINE SLEEPS BADLY
One of the police officers who went to the McCanns' home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
The mother admits having taken some [calpol] to Portugal. She insists though that there is no calming effect, its being composed solely of paracetamol, and that she did not give any of it to her daughter during the holiday. At the time of her disappearance, Madeleine was sleeping in the same room as the twins. The latter, in spite of the noise, the mother's screaming and the comings and goings, did not wake up, as if they had been given sedatives. Would there not be a link between that difficulty in falling asleep and Madeleine's tragic end?
He admits Kate told them calpol is not a sedative, and I think (sort of) fuzzily believed her, but concocted some illusory "distinction" between it and what he chose to refer to as a "sleeping solution".
A calpol generation..I haven't read his book but if this is the standard then it must be full of absolute rubbish. The man has not got a clue.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 21, 2013, 09:04:30 PM
A calpol generation..I haven't read his book but if this is the standard then it must be full of absolute rubbish. The man has not got a clue.
Typical!!! @)(++(*
For years in the UK there has been a dub of the calpol generation, eg two articles one from 2005 and the other as late as 2013.... Im sure theres loads more if you google....Cant blame Amaral for THAT! But you will, true to form!!
Twelve million bottles and packets of Calpol, the infant form of paracetamol, are sold every year, indicating that British children are now the Calpol generation
The bottle with lurid pink mixture, that is: Calpol. It shifts 12 million units a year in the UK, and a study in 2007 found that 84 per cent of children had been given paracetamol by the age of six months. Such is our dependence on this formula that we have been dubbed the Calpol Generation.
and of course when people state they are experts on the subject......................
Even experts get things wrong.....theres nothing as utterly sad and desperate though as a person, lay or expert, who says he gets nothing wrong or wont admit he has got somethng wrong when proved so....
Then theres the self appointed moral pontificators, priests and popes.....
as sad as selling xmas cards in september! And easter eggs in december... @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 09:14:54 PM
For years in the UK there has been a dub of the calpol generation, eg two articles one from 2005 and the other as late as 2013.... Im sure theres loads more if you google....Cant blame Amaral for THAT! But you will, true to form!!
Twelve million bottles and packets of Calpol, the infant form of paracetamol, are sold every year, indicating that British children are now the Calpol generation
The bottle with lurid pink mixture, that is: Calpol. It shifts 12 million units a year in the UK, and a study in 2007 found that 84 per cent of children had been given paracetamol by the age of six months. Such is our dependence on this formula that we have been dubbed the Calpol Generation.
Here is the full quote (from the article above) Twelve million bottles and packets of Calpol, the infant form of paracetamol, are sold every year, indicating that British children are now the Calpol generation. That is the view of German-born Silke Moser, a mother of two.
The view of one, German-born woman ...
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 09:15:39 PM
For years in the UK there has been a dub of the calpol generation, eg two articles one from 2005 and the other as late as 2013.... Im sure theres loads more if you google....Cant blame Amaral for THAT! But you will, true to form!!
Twelve million bottles and packets of Calpol, the infant form of paracetamol, are sold every year, indicating that British children are now the Calpol generation
The bottle with lurid pink mixture, that is: Calpol. It shifts 12 million units a year in the UK, and a study in 2007 found that 84 per cent of children had been given paracetamol by the age of six months. Such is our dependence on this formula that we have been dubbed the Calpol Generation.
I think you need to read the articles and perhaps understand them...do you know any parents who give calpol to help children sleep..
in the Uk calpol is widely used to reduce temperatures in children,,,stop believing the rubbish you read in the papers...there is no abuse of calpol in the uk
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 21, 2013, 09:16:05 PM
Here is the full quote (from the article above) Twelve million bottles and packets of Calpol, the infant form of paracetamol, are sold every year, indicating that British children are now the Calpol generation. That is the view of German-born Silke Moser, a mother of two.
The view of one, German-born woman ...
Are you an expert in this field ferryman ?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 21, 2013, 09:21:11 PM
Here is the full quote (from the article above) Twelve million bottles and packets of Calpol, the infant form of paracetamol, are sold every year, indicating that British children are now the Calpol generation. That is the view of German-born Silke Moser, a mother of two.
You don't need to be an expert to know that calpol is an analgesic and not a sedative...perhaps on a serious note a Portuguese poster might tell us what is used in Portugal for childrens fevers...perhaps amaral just hadn't spent enough time with his children to be aware of how common these can be. Children are not very good at controlling their temperatures and can develop dangerously high temperatures quickly . Anyone experienced a child with a febrile convulsion
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 21, 2013, 09:48:04 PM
A spokesman said: ‘The change is to ensure children get the optimal dose of paracetamol suitable for their age. It is not because of safety concerns.’
Must have missed where it says anything about a 'calpol generation'.
yes you missed it as its in the article...go to specsavers....as you continue to miss or ignore or both, the point, that the term calpol generation is not attributable to mr amaral as davel claimed, but to uk publications....never mind...carry on detracting its what you do best......
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 21, 2013, 09:53:22 PM
100% correct Cariad, as per the Oxford dictionary definition of 'sedative' ! A 'sedative' assuages pain, it does not need to be sleep inducing ! Not my words, they are the austere words of the highly respected Oxford dictionary ! Some of our numbers on this forum seem to want to re-write the definition of the word in deference to the people of the Oxford dictionary !
however hard you try to spin it you are wrong...calpol could never be described as a sedative by any sensible person.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 21, 2013, 11:08:00 PM
100% correct Cariad, as per the Oxford dictionary definition of 'sedative' ! A 'sedative' assuages pain, it does not need to be sleep inducing ! Not my words, they are the austere words of the highly respected Oxford dictionary ! Some of our numbers on this forum seem to want to re-write the definition of the word in deference to the people of the Oxford dictionary !
nothing wrong with the fact that a sedative assuages pain ...the words of the oxford English dictionary calpol assuages pain and is therefore a sedative...those are your words and are complete rubbish Don't try and re write the Oxford English Dictionary
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Benice on November 21, 2013, 11:15:19 PM
Calpol is not a sedative and has no sedative properties..fact
Exactly and no amount of nitpicking, twisting and side swerving by people who desperately want to believe that the McCanns sedated their children with Calpol, as suggested by Amaral, will make that true. End of.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: VIXTE on November 22, 2013, 01:37:21 AM
Calpol is not the same as Calpol Night and Calpol is and extremely mild type of paracetamol for babies and very small children, it would not even help reducing the very high temperature in children. I had to take my child to an ER when Calpol was not helping, and they offered Ibuprofen.
Calpol is nothing. Nothing. Just helps if the child has a mild sore throat or a little pain. And even if the parents have it, they might not use it.. or have it handy just if needed.
Amaral is very stupid regarding this issue!
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 07:46:27 AM
If Goncalo Amaral wished to argue the claimed use of the word 'sedative' in any context, he would only need to refer to the Oxford English dictionary definition of the word 'sedative' as his defence ! Some posters on this forum have chosen to make more of this than is necessary !
Benice, as far as I have read not one person (me included) on this thread has suggested that either Kate or Gerry sedated their children with Calpol or any other substance ! Are you deliberately trying to take this thread off topic, AGAIN ?
you may think you are making a clever argument..you are not..you are showing yourself to be ...derogative comment removed...sedatives act by depressing the CNS...calpol is an analgesic and does not supress the CNS. Just because calpol reduces pain it does not make it a sedative....
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Cariad on November 22, 2013, 07:55:57 AM
100% correct Cariad, as per the Oxford dictionary definition of 'sedative' ! A 'sedative' assuages pain, it does not need to be sleep inducing ! Not my words, they are the austere words of the highly respected Oxford dictionary ! Some of our numbers on this forum seem to want to re-write the definition of the word in deference to the people of the Oxford dictionary !
I wonder why everybody is debating whether calpol causes drowsiness? I think I've already said that in my experience it doesn't, but I'll say it again just in case I didn't....
It did however 2. assuaging pain or allaying irritability or excitement.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sedative
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 08:00:31 AM
I wonder why everybody is debating whether calpol causes drowsiness? I think I've already said that in my experience it doesn't, but I'll say it again just in case I didn't....
It did however 2. assuaging pain or allaying irritability or excitement.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sedative
everybody knows that Cariad but pat wants to convince us all that it is reasonable to call calpol a sedative..it isn't...
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Cariad on November 22, 2013, 08:03:14 AM
everybody knows that Cariad but pat wants to convince us all that it is reasonable to call calpol a sedative..it isn't...
Oh, it came across as though everybody was discussing whether Calpol causes drowsiness. I was just adding that I don't believe it does.....
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 22, 2013, 09:14:25 AM
Mr Amaral states in his book "The Truth of the Lie" that >
"The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a " Calpol generation". In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
The mother admits having taken some to Portugal. She insists though that there is no calming effect, its being composed solely of paracetamol and that she did not give any of it to her daughter during the holiday".
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: pinkblossoms on November 22, 2013, 09:28:48 AM
Calpol Night was released into the market in September 2007 - four months after Madeleine McCann disappeared,
1.Calpol is a paediatric medication which is used to treat pain and fever 2.Its main ingredient is paracetemol. 3.Calpol is not a sedative and contains no sedative properties whatsoever.
Amaral needs to do some research 8-)(--)
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: pinkblossoms on November 22, 2013, 10:51:00 AM
a drug taken for its calming or sleep-inducing effect
Do some research pat, you are looking very silly in keep quoting the Oxford dictionary @)(++(*
Calpol is not a sedative and contains no sedative properties whatsoever.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 22, 2013, 11:44:46 AM
So that was fun lol..
7 pages of calpol.
And the point being..............................?
Oh yes its not about Calpol at all its all about AMARAL AGAIN.
Not about finding the child, just another derail to get a point in about Mr Amaral.
Who cares about Calpol I dont. I dont care what anyone says being an OAP, I have known people to give phenergan and yes Calpol to calm children down to get them to sleep.
Maybe it was their misconception of the medication who knows, perhaps they just assume it has a sedative affect, BUT people do give it to children and the McCanns must have given it their children, as why take a BOTTLE OR TWO on holiday? They had Calpol with them, so perhaps what he said Mr Amaral that is was correct...
Anyway again its just a chance to knock our poor old Mr Amaral again.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Angelo222 on November 22, 2013, 11:57:35 AM
And the point being..............................?
Oh yes its not about Calpol at all its all about AMARAL AGAIN.
Not about finding the child, just another derail to get a point in about Mr Amaral.
Who cares about Calpol I dont. I dont care what anyone says being an OAP, I have known people to give phenergan and yes Calpol to calm children down to get them to sleep.
Maybe it was their misconception of the medication who knows, perhaps they just assume it has a sedative affect, BUT people do give it to children and the McCanns must have given it their children, as why take a BOTTLE OR TWO on holiday? They had Calpol with them, so perhaps what he said Mr Amaral that is was correct...
Anyway again its just a chance to knock our poor old Mr Amaral again.
It is well known that children who have been given Calpol over several nights are restless and irritable if the substance is then withheld. Evidence the behaviour of the twins on the nights following Madeleine's disappearance.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Lace on November 22, 2013, 12:44:24 PM
And the point being..............................?
Oh yes its not about Calpol at all its all about AMARAL AGAIN.
Not about finding the child, just another derail to get a point in about Mr Amaral.
Who cares about Calpol I dont. I dont care what anyone says being an OAP, I have known people to give phenergan and yes Calpol to calm children down to get them to sleep.
Maybe it was their misconception of the medication who knows, perhaps they just assume it has a sedative affect, BUT people do give it to children and the McCanns must have given it their children, as why take a BOTTLE OR TWO on holiday? They had Calpol with them, so perhaps what he said Mr Amaral that is was correct...
Anyway again its just a chance to knock our poor old Mr Amaral again.
Yes it is about Calpol and Amaral.
It is what he based his theory on. He claims the McCann's give Madeleine Calpol to help her sleep, she woke up groggy with its effects stood on the sofa and fell off banging her head.
Now Amaral is basing his theory on a form of Calpol that wasn't even being sold in May 2007.
The McCann's probably did give the children Calpol, if they had a temperature, as her father said it was only Calpol he saw them give the children. This was then taken out of context by Amaral to use in his theory.
As for taking it on holiday, yes I would, you take the basics, Paracetemol, Calpol. something for upset stomachs.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 22, 2013, 12:57:22 PM
It is well known that children who have been given Calpol over several nights are restless and irritable if the substance is then withheld.
No it isn't.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 22, 2013, 01:20:35 PM
It is well known that children who have been given Calpol over several nights are restless and irritable if the substance is then withheld. Evidence the behaviour of the twins on the nights following Madeleine's disappearance.
Hi Angelo good point. Yes the same is true of Phergan. I only gave it once, but a few of my friends years ago who used it found they had more trouble with the children and were told to stop giving it.
The thing is though I dont see anything wrong with Mr Amaral saying about Calpol, and I dont judge the McCanns if they gave it their children no way. Kids get irrate and you never know if they are tired or in pain or just fussing. Why not give them Calpol if you have any i really dont see a problem with this.
I really dont see what Mr Amaral said is such a HUGE PROBLEM. IT ISNT ILLEGAL to give children Calpol is it. NOW if he was accusing them of giving their children an illegal substance I can see an arguement.
The thing is also Mrs McCann herself stated that Madeliene was a difficult child and hard to control, and even had a star chart to get to sleep. It would appear she was perhaps jealous of the twins and caused her poor mum a few problems which sadly often happens when new children are introduced to the family.
No I certainly would not judge the McCanns for using Calpol, how the hell can I when i have used Phenergan in the olden days. No I really dont see any arguement to what Mr Amaral said lol.
I would certainly have thought if a 3 year old had been crying for about 1.5 hours on 2nd May they would have needed Calpol as by then the children would more likely have had a headache and felt awful.
I know when I have cried for any reason I have had to resort to something as I get a stress headache and I would think the same goes for children. NO I really wouldnt have worried about Calpol not at all.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 01:34:40 PM
It is well known that children who have been given Calpol over several nights are restless and irritable if the substance is then withheld. Evidence the behaviour of the twins on the nights following Madeleine's disappearance.
absolute rubbish
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 22, 2013, 02:29:48 PM
Unless Angelo can produce the medical research that proves us wrong and him right ...
Personally there are problems with it like any medicine. The E numbers alone are dodgy.
CALPOL Infant Suspension contains 120mg Paracetamol in each 5ml.
Excipients: sucrose (contains 2.2 g of sucrose per 5 ml), sorbitol liquid (E420), methyl parahydroxybenzoate (E218), ethyl parahydroxybenzoate (E214), propyl parahydroxybenzoate (E216) and carmoisine (E122). See section 4.4 for further information.
All E numbers in bold are banned in France and Australia.
E218 & E122 :
these substances have been linked to hyperactivity, and the Hyperactive Children’s Support Group identifies them as likely causes of mysterious and sudden cases of ADHD-like hyperactivity. They too say these substances are not recommended to be consumed by children.
..................................
Any long term use of a pain killer can cause withdrawal problems.....thats why people get addicted to these drugs...
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 04:28:45 PM
Personally there are problems with it like any medicine. The E numbers alone are dodgy.
CALPOL Infant Suspension contains 120mg Paracetamol in each 5ml.
Excipients: sucrose (contains 2.2 g of sucrose per 5 ml), sorbitol liquid (E420), methyl parahydroxybenzoate (E218), ethyl parahydroxybenzoate (E214), propyl parahydroxybenzoate (E216) and carmoisine (E122). See section 4.4 for further information.
All E numbers in bold are banned in France and Australia.
E218 & E122 :
these substances have been linked to hyperactivity, and the Hyperactive Children’s Support Group identifies them as likely causes of mysterious and sudden cases of ADHD-like hyperactivity. They too say these substances are not recommended to be consumed by children.
..................................
Any long term use of a pain killer can cause withdrawal problems.....thats why people get addicted to these drugs...
you really should think and read the post before you support the ideas of angelo....angelo talks of withdrawl sypmtoms after several nights use of calpol...utter rubbish
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Joanne on November 22, 2013, 04:56:23 PM
Up until 2009, you could get calpol night which had paracetamol and diphenhydramine, this is a sedative/anti-histamine. And Paracetamol is addictive http://www.drugrehabwiki.com/wiki/Paracetamol as are a lot of things.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 05:45:24 PM
colombosstogey is correct in their assertion that "Any long term use of a pain killer can cause withdrawal problems" !
Angelo didn't state how many nights constitute "several nights" ! You should take your own medicine (pardon the pun) and "think and read the post" !
Joanna said paracetamol was addictive and you backed it up re withdrawal symptoms...took you along time to google several so your assertion that angelos post was correct is also wrong
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 06:49:26 PM
No, once again you are wrong in your assertion that I backed up Joanne, I merely backed up colombosstogey in that "Any long term use of a pain killer can cause withdrawal problems"
I am quite lucky that I need not refer to Google for the definition of the word 'several', or the proper spelling of 'do' !
P.S. The posters name is Joanne by the way NOT Joanna, again you should learn to read posts properly !
You did Google it because you used the exact defn used in your beloved Oxford dictionary---exactly word for word---long term use of ANY painkiller does not cause withdrawal symptoms.. so that's you,Colombo and Joanna wrong...bit pathetic to point out typos...I'm posting from a tablet..I'm not a good typist...I have someone do that for me
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: DCI on November 22, 2013, 06:51:54 PM
Up until 2009, you could get calpol night which had paracetamol and diphenhydramine, this is a sedative/anti-histamine. And Paracetamol is addictive http://www.drugrehabwiki.com/wiki/Paracetamol as are a lot of things.
Calpol night didn't exist until later on in 2007! So It doesn't apply in this case. Facts about Calpol
1.Calpol is a paediatric medication which is used to treat pain and fever
2.Its main ingredient is paracetemol.
3.Calpol is not a sedative and contains no sedative properties whatosever.
4.There are two strengths of Calpol i.Calpol Baby & Child for ages up to 6 years ii.Calpol Six Plus for children aged 6 and over. This is available as a Fastmelt Tablet.
5.In 2007, Calpol released a new product into the market called Calpol Night. It was used for alleviating discomfort caused by coughs and colds. Calpol Night contained Diphenhydramine which is a type of medicine called a sedating antihistamine. It enters the brain in sufficient quantities to cause drowsiness.
6.Calpol Night was granted its license in January 2007
7.Calpol Night was released into the market in September 2007 - four months after Madeleine McCann disappeared.
8.In March 2009 , a study concluded that there was no evidence that such medicines worked for the under six age group, and that they could potentially cause side effects such as allergic reactions, effects on sleep or hallucinations.
9.Calpol Night has subsequently been discontinued in the UK.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 22, 2013, 06:53:42 PM
You did Google it because you used the exact defn used in your beloved Oxford dictionary---exactly word for word---long term use of ANY painkiller does not cause withdrawal symptoms.. so that's you,Colombo and Joanna wrong...bit pathetic to point out typos...I'm posting from a tablet..I'm not a good typist...I have someone do that for me
I googled too, Davel, and found this link on Calpol.
No I can assure you that I don't need a dictionary to inform me of the meaning of the word 'several' ! And it's Joanne, for the second time, I guess your much applauded and quoted 'near photographic memory' must be letting you down ! Are you seriously suggesting on a public forum that long term usage of a pain killer has no withdrawal effects if it is withdrawn ?
This is what you stated.. Any long term use of a pain killer can cause withdrawal problems
Notice the use of the word ANY...this statement does not apply to paracetamol as it is a non opiate pain killer...and while we are talking about it...on what facts do you base this statement ...what you have read in the daily mail perhaps
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: VIXTE on November 22, 2013, 09:45:32 PM
All pure speculation and fantasy! 1. Calpol is harmless 2. No proof children were even given Calpol 3. Even if the children were given Calpol, it is not meant to harm them, no proof that Calpol ever harmed any child 4. Even if Calpol did harm Madeleine, giving Calpol is nothing illegal, the parents are the doctors and would know how to deal with the 'bad effect of Calpol' issue.
Not a single theory about Calpol stands!
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 23, 2013, 06:15:46 AM
you really should think and read the post before you support the ideas of angelo....angelo talks of withdrawl sypmtoms after several nights use of calpol...utter rubbish
My dear you need to get a life. No really.
I am merely purporting that it isnt the pain killing ingredients you need to worry about with Calpol its the E numbers.
Oh and long term use of pain killing drugs can lead to addiction. Jeez its common knowledge.
People pop Paracetamol/Panadol tablets into their mouths all the time for no reason really its just habit, got a pain pop a pill, thats how it happens. I worked with drug addicts my dear, and it isnt just cocaine they were addicted to you know. People even get addicted to cough mixture. So they start of with paracetamol, then move onto codeine etc and then tramadol and then they are really in trouble.
IF you read my post I actually dont see anything wrong with McCanns using Calpol. That is READ MY POSTS.
I also think people should be made aware of ingredients of things like Calpol as the E numbers are more likely to do harm to children then the drug to soothe their pain.
My friend nearly died taking a ONE tablet which had codeine and paracetamol in it. Any MEDS have the potential to be deadly even if used correctly. Also if you read ANY of the packets of paracetamol or pain killers it does state I believe only to be used short term, now why is that?
You just argue for the sake of it, not a worthy appointment and sadly hun you are now on my ignore list. I cant be bothered to waste one more drop of my precious energy with someone who is so blinded by hatred for one man that he cannot see anything else...ciao.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 07:36:47 AM
This thread has really amused me. I am a dispensing pharmacist with an interest in another case on this board where I used to be very active but recently only drift through to note any changes. I have re-registered just to point out some of the incredible errors on this thread. It is typical of what can happen on the internet when people half research a subject they do not understand and use references (if any) of soubtful validity.
I really do not know where to start!
Paracetamol is not a sedative. There that will do. There may be a dictionary that defines it as such, but no pharmacist or doctor would class Paracetamol as a sedative. Simple reference to the British National Formulary would confirm this. uneducated people may call it a sedative, but no educated person would- make your choice- do you want to appear educated and admit that it is not a sedative, or appear uneducated and insist that it is!
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Cariad on November 23, 2013, 08:33:50 AM
This thread has really amused me. I am a dispensing pharmacist with an interest in another case on this board where I used to be very active but recently only drift through to note any changes. I have re-registered just to point out some of the incredible errors on this thread. It is typical of what can happen on the internet when people half research a subject they do not understand and use references (if any) of soubtful validity.
I really do not know where to start!
Paracetamol is not a sedative. There that will do. There may be a dictionary that defines it as such, but no pharmacist or doctor would class Paracetamol as a sedative. Simple reference to the British National Formulary would confirm this. uneducated people may call it a sedative, but no educated person would- make your choice- do you want to appear educated and admit that it is not a sedative, or appear uneducated and insist that it is!
No one has claimed that Paracetamol causes drowsiness. We're debating the alternative meaning of the word 'sedative'. I'm not really sure why though.....
There was probably a point 11 pages ago, but if there was, I've forgotten it 8)-)))
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 09:01:05 AM
This thread has really amused me. I am a dispensing pharmacist with an interest in another case on this board where I used to be very active but recently only drift through to note any changes. I have re-registered just to point out some of the incredible errors on this thread. It is typical of what can happen on the internet when people half research a subject they do not understand and use references (if any) of soubtful validity.
I really do not know where to start!
Paracetamol is not a sedative. There that will do. There may be a dictionary that defines it as such, but no pharmacist or doctor would class Paracetamol as a sedative. Simple reference to the British National Formulary would confirm this. uneducated people may call it a sedative, but no educated person would- make your choice- do you want to appear educated and admit that it is not a sedative, or appear uneducated and insist that it is!
the problem on the thread is that posters have agendas and do not want to admit what is true. Paracetamol could never be described as a sedative and therefore the thread is finished. paracetamol is not addictive nor does it cause withdrawal symptoms. Pats got everything wrong and is now trying to derail the thread.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:04:17 AM
Up until 2009, you could get calpol night which had paracetamol and diphenhydramine, this is a sedative/anti-histamine. And Paracetamol is addictive http://www.drugrehabwiki.com/wiki/Paracetamol as are a lot of things.
This is one of the worst references I have ever seen- full of errors and misunderstanding and with no professional standing. It is a US page. In the US the agreed name for what we call Paracetamol is acetaminophen, they do not recognise the word Paracetamol.
This is the first paragraph:
"Paracetamol is a well-known and widely used medication to treat moderate to severe pain. It is also sold under the brand name Paracod and is a brand for the generic codeine. Paracetamol works by blocking the signals in the brain that create feelings of pain and is also used to treat severe cough as it can suppress the cough reflex in the central nervous system."
Let us see how wrong this is. First sentence fine, Paracetamol is used to treat pain! Second sentence ERROR Paracetamol is not spld under the Brand name Paracod. In the US that is Acetaminophen plaus codeine (codeine is an addictive opioid). The Wiki is conflating Paracetamol with Paracod- paracetamol does not suppress the cough reflex but codeine and paracetamol PLUS codeine do suppress it.
Now the second paragraph:
"Paracetamol is often prescribed when conditions call for morphine or codeine. As a painkiller, Paracetamol is known to be nearly as potent – but not quite – as morphine. When it is used to treat cough, Paracetamol is designed to deliver even stronger relief than what is possible with codeine."
First sentence total rubbish. Paracetamol is not any equivalent for the pain relief of opioids. Second sentence doubly so!
In the UK Paracetamol and Codeine is named Co-codamol and is used for pain more severe than the lowest level.
Given that I think that any reasonable person will see that the contents of that page are totally untrustworthy.
In the rest of the page I would point out the following errors:
"Paracetamol is an opiate and therefore is a Schedule II controlled substance." WRONG.
"It has a high abuse liability and while it is very similar to morphine, codeine and other opiates" WRONG
"Paracetamol triggers the brain’s pleasure centers while blocking pain. This process contributes to its ability to generate an addiction in users." WRONG
"A tolerance for Paracetamol can be quickly developed and users may require more and more of the medication to achieve the desired effect." WRONG
"Paracetamol delivers effects that are similar to that of morphine and codeine, in addition to sedation, respiratory depression and euphoria that are less intense than morphine." WRONG
"Other side effects created by Paracetamol include, shallow breathing, slow heartbeat; feeling light-headed, fainting; confusion, fear, unusual thoughts or behavior; seizure (convulsions); problems with urination; or nausea, stomach pain, loss of appetite, itching, dark urine, clay-colored stools and jaundice." WRONG
"The abrupt cessation of Paracetamol can cause a range of unpleasant and dangerous symptoms, especially if an individual has been taking the medication for a long period of time. Cessation of Paracetamol will immediately lead to withdrawal syndrome, which closely mimics heroin withdrawal." WRONG
"Addiction to Paracetamol can be a life-threatening addiction, as well as the associated symptoms of withdrawal." WRONG
"Detoxification is required to cleanse the body of this drug and must be done under the care of a board-certified physician and a board-certified psychiatrist." ONLY IN OVERDOSE and to avoid liver failure, not for any other reason.
"Many quality treatment centers suggest comfortable detox using withdrawal medications specific to Paracetamol abuse. A quality center will do a full physical on a person to determine the right medications for comfortable detox. This method helps to correct the chemical imbalances and should be combined with psychological evaluations and other medical care." UNNECESSARY as Paracetamol is not addictive.
There is hardly a correct statement there as they are conflating two different preparations.
No weight can be given to evidence from that page at all. It is the worst reference I have ever seen!
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:11:16 AM
No one has claimed that Paracetamol causes drowsiness. We're debating the alternative meaning of the word 'sedative'. I'm not really sure why though.....
There was probably a point 11 pages ago, but if there was, I've forgotten it 8)-)))
A Sedative is something that Sedates- in pharmacological and medical usage that means direct reduction of reaction to stressors. It is achieved by a level of suppressing consciousness slightly or moderately to allow intervention. Many drugs are sedatives;paracetamol is not.
Certainly removing pain also allows intervention, but this is a different matter to sedation!
Paracetamol is classed as and used as an Analgesic and an anti-pyretic (fever reducer), never a sedative.
An example might be to look at other irritants than pain that cause a reaction- irritating noises, or high room temperatures. No-one would call sound-proofing or air conditioning 'sedatives' ut, like Paracetamol, they do remove a stressor that hen makes sedation possible.
Paracetamol is not and never has been a sedative.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:12:46 AM
Oh and long term use of pain killing drugs can lead to addiction. Jeez its common knowledge.
In the case of dependency inducing drugs that is the case. Certain drugs will create a physiological dependency. Paracetamol is not one of them!
People can become psychologically addicted to Paracetamol, but people may also become psychologically addicted to sugar, foods, and other non-medications.
Psychological and Physiological addictive processes are totally different.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 09:12:55 AM
This is one of the worst references I have ever seen- full of errors and misunderstanding and with no professional standing. It is a US page. In the US the agreed name for what we call Paracetamol is acetaminophen, they do not recognise the word Paracetamol.
This is the first paragraph:
"Paracetamol is a well-known and widely used medication to treat moderate to severe pain. It is also sold under the brand name Paracod and is a brand for the generic codeine. Paracetamol works by blocking the signals in the brain that create feelings of pain and is also used to treat severe cough as it can suppress the cough reflex in the central nervous system."
Let us see how wrong this is. First sentence fine, Paracetamol is used to treat pain! Second sentence ERROR Paracetamol is not spld under the Brand name Paracod. In the US that is Acetaminophen plaus codeine (codeine is an addictive opioid). The Wiki is conflating Paracetamol with Paracod- paracetamol does not suppress the cough reflex but codeine and paracetamol PLUS codeine do suppress it.
Now the second paragraph:
"Paracetamol is often prescribed when conditions call for morphine or codeine. As a painkiller, Paracetamol is known to be nearly as potent – but not quite – as morphine. When it is used to treat cough, Paracetamol is designed to deliver even stronger relief than what is possible with codeine."
First sentence total rubbish. Paracetamol is not any equivalent for the pain relief of opioids. Second sentence doubly so!
In the UK Paracetamol and Codeine is named Co-codamol and is used for pain more severe than the lowest level.
Given that I think that any reasonable person will see that the contents of that page are totally untrustworthy.
In the rest of the page I would point out the following errors:
"Paracetamol is an opiate and therefore is a Schedule II controlled substance." WRONG.
"It has a high abuse liability and while it is very similar to morphine, codeine and other opiates" WRONG
"Paracetamol triggers the brain’s pleasure centers while blocking pain. This process contributes to its ability to generate an addiction in users." WRONG
"A tolerance for Paracetamol can be quickly developed and users may require more and more of the medication to achieve the desired effect." WRONG
"Paracetamol delivers effects that are similar to that of morphine and codeine, in addition to sedation, respiratory depression and euphoria that are less intense than morphine." WRONG
"Other side effects created by Paracetamol include, shallow breathing, slow heartbeat; feeling light-headed, fainting; confusion, fear, unusual thoughts or behavior; seizure (convulsions); problems with urination; or nausea, stomach pain, loss of appetite, itching, dark urine, clay-colored stools and jaundice." WRONG
"The abrupt cessation of Paracetamol can cause a range of unpleasant and dangerous symptoms, especially if an individual has been taking the medication for a long period of time. Cessation of Paracetamol will immediately lead to withdrawal syndrome, which closely mimics heroin withdrawal." WRONG
"Addiction to Paracetamol can be a life-threatening addiction, as well as the associated symptoms of withdrawal." WRONG
"Detoxification is required to cleanse the body of this drug and must be done under the care of a board-certified physician and a board-certified psychiatrist." ONLY IN OVERDOSE and to avoid liver failure, not for any other reason.
"Many quality treatment centers suggest comfortable detox using withdrawal medications specific to Paracetamol abuse. A quality center will do a full physical on a person to determine the right medications for comfortable detox. This method helps to correct the chemical imbalances and should be combined with psychological evaluations and other medical care." UNNECESSARY as Paracetamol is not addictive.
There is hardly a correct statement there as they are conflating two different preparations.
No weight can be given to evidence from that page at all. It is the worst reference I have ever seen!
I know Ive already read it...I stopped when it described paracetamol as an opiate
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 09:17:17 AM
In the case of dependency inducing drugs that is the case. Certain drugs will create a physiological dependency. Paracetamol is not one of them!
People can become psychologically addicted to Paracetamol, but people may also become psychologically addicted to sugar, foods, and other non-medications.
Psychological and Physiological addictive processes are totally different.
the posters on here are getting confused with the opiate painkillers that can cause dependency
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:18:50 AM
I also think people should be made aware of ingredients of things like Calpol as the E numbers are more likely to do harm to children then the drug to soothe their pain.
It is clinically proven that Paracetamol relieves pain, reduces pyrexia and lessens the symptoms of simple ills and pains.
It is not clinically proven that E numbers harm all children.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:21:15 AM
My friend nearly died taking a ONE tablet which had codeine and paracetamol in it. Any MEDS have the potential to be deadly even if used correctly.
I most sincerely doubt that. All severe reactions are reported through a central scheme. I have never seen any such reaction to a single co-codamol tablet!
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:24:22 AM
Also if you read ANY of the packets of paracetamol or pain killers it does state I believe only to be used short term, now why is that?
It says that because long term administration may mask symptoms and thus avoid diagnosis of a more serious condition by a doctor. Once seen by a doctor, many people remain on full dose Paracetamol for decades without any problem.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:27:53 AM
I most sincerely doubt that. All severe reactions are reported through a central scheme. I have never seen any such reaction to a single co-codamol tablet!
perhaps she nearly @)(++(* choked on it
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:39:17 AM
Personally there are problems with it like any medicine. The E numbers alone are dodgy.
CALPOL Infant Suspension contains 120mg Paracetamol in each 5ml.
Excipients: sucrose (contains 2.2 g of sucrose per 5 ml), sorbitol liquid (E420), methyl parahydroxybenzoate (E218), ethyl parahydroxybenzoate (E214), propyl parahydroxybenzoate (E216) and carmoisine (E122). See section 4.4 for further information.
All E numbers in bold are banned in France and Australia.
E218 & E122 :
these substances have been linked to hyperactivity, and the Hyperactive Children’s Support Group identifies them as likely causes of mysterious and sudden cases of ADHD-like hyperactivity. They too say these substances are not recommended to be consumed by children.
"E numbers" are not banned in France and Australia. SOme food additives are on different lists for different countries. France must allow all EEC allowed additives in any food imported from other EEC countries. Australia uses many E numbers and excludes others.
The substances linked here are a colouring, three anti-fungal preservative, and a bulking agent, all of which are used in soft drinks and ice cream and other children's foods.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:41:19 AM
Who cares about Calpol I dont. I dont care what anyone says being an OAP, I have known people to give phenergan and yes Calpol to calm children down to get them to sleep.
Phenergan and Paracetamol are two completely different medications.
Paracetamol is a safe widely used analgesic and anti-pyretic.
Phenergan is chemically similar to Chlorpromazine/Largactil/Thorazine, the anti-psychotic and sedative used in severe mental illness.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 11:09:37 AM
thanks for the input rogerandout you have basically confirmed everything I have said over the last couple of days...lets see if the posters take more notice of you than they did of me
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: VIXTE on November 23, 2013, 01:19:42 PM
Now we can see how much Mr Amaral is incorrect in claiming that Calpol, an extremely mild form of paracetamol, designed for babies and small toddlers, has sedative properties!
No wonder he is sued for label when he is actually clueless.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 23, 2013, 02:27:50 PM
I most sincerely doubt that. All severe reactions are reported through a central scheme. I have never seen any such reaction to a single co-codamol tablet!
... removed inappropriate remark ...
She never took codeine before in her life and had severe allergic reaction to it, MR KNOW ALL. She nearly DIED.
Just cos you havent seen it doesnt mean it isnt true. What about people who are allergic to peanuts some dont even need to eat one, just have a trace of it in the food.
Honestly sometimes people on this forum just want to be big shots. Get a life. So you say your a pharmacist so what, I have been nearly screwed by a few who gave me wrong ADVICE lol I'm a brain surgeon, prove I aint.
Oh and by the way my friend was in the Army so there, it wouldnt necessary be on any data base in the uk.
Anyway so why the agression?
makes me laugh this thread. Calpol so what I have even said there is NOTHING wrong in the McCanns giving it, read my posts if you can be bothered lol..So thats another one on my ignore list at this rate I wont have much to read ROFLMAO.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 23, 2013, 02:30:30 PM
Phenergan and Paracetamol are two completely different medications.
Paracetamol is a safe widely used analgesic and anti-pyretic.
Phenergan is chemically similar to Chlorpromazine/Largactil/Thorazine, the anti-psychotic and sedative used in severe mental illness.
Before i ignore you. Did i say they wernt. Do keep up. I never mentioned Phenergan was paracetamol lol. Oh and anyone can google the information its quite easy.
~Really so funny.....all this over CALPOL and it has got us where NO BL**DY WHERE LOL....
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 23, 2013, 02:35:35 PM
I worked with drug addicts my dear, and it isnt just cocaine they were addicted to you know.
I can guarantee you've never worked with anyone "addicted" to paracetamol.
Exceed the prescribed dose, even by a single tablet, in a 24 hour period, and you can risk serious liver damage, or even death.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 02:58:35 PM
She never took codeine before in her life and had severe allergic reaction to it, MR KNOW ALL. She nearly DIED.
Just cos you havent seen it doesnt mean it isnt true. What about people who are allergic to peanuts some dont even need to eat one, just have a trace of it in the food.
Honestly sometimes people on this forum just want to be big shots. Get a life. So you say your a pharmacist so what, I have been nearly screwed by a few who gave me wrong ADVICE lol I'm a brain surgeon, prove I aint.
Oh and by the way my friend was in the Army so there, it wouldnt necessary be on any data base in the uk.
Anyway so why the agression?
makes me laugh this thread. Calpol so what I have even said there is NOTHING wrong in the McCanns giving it, read my posts if you can be bothered lol..So thats another one on my ignore list at this rate I wont have much to read ROFLMAO.
Talking of NUTS
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 03:41:08 PM
She never took codeine before in her life and had severe allergic reaction to it, MR KNOW ALL. She nearly DIED.
Just cos you havent seen it doesnt mean it isnt true. What about people who are allergic to peanuts some dont even need to eat one, just have a trace of it in the food.
Honestly sometimes people on this forum just want to be big shots. Get a life. So you say your a pharmacist so what, I have been nearly screwed by a few who gave me wrong ADVICE lol I'm a brain surgeon, prove I aint.
Oh and by the way my friend was in the Army so there, it wouldnt necessary be on any data base in the uk.
Anyway so why the agression?
makes me laugh this thread. Calpol so what I have even said there is NOTHING wrong in the McCanns giving it, read my posts if you can be bothered lol..So thats another one on my ignore list at this rate I wont have much to read ROFLMAO.
If it happened it would be available to me as a Reportable Incident. There is no such report.
No aggression- mere facts I am afraid.
It is almost impossible for a person to have a severe reaction to codeine or any opioid in low doses becasue such opioids circulate freely in the blood stream of ordinary people. The receptors for endorphins are the same as for simple opioiods. Endorphins are chemically similar to such opioids and are produced by the body. Allergy to codeine would only show at levels above natural levels of endorphins, so I severely doubt if it was a single tablet! I do know of cases where administration of opioids at well above normative levels has led to allergic reactions, but cannot see how a single oral tablet would do that. I suspect the story may have become amplified beyond the original. If single tablet administration could cause a severe reaction, then codeine would certainly not have been available over the counter for so long as a non-prescription medication (as it was until the seventies.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 03:45:43 PM
Before i ignore you. Did i say they wernt. Do keep up. I never mentioned Phenergan was paracetamol lol. Oh and anyone can google the information its quite easy.
~Really so funny.....all this over CALPOL and it has got us where NO BL**DY WHERE LOL....
You included the two in the same sentence as if they were comparable. They are incredibly different in every way.
Do you accept that Calpol (with Paracetamol and E numbers as its constituents) is available for over the counter sales without restriction, is used by almost all parents during a child's upbringing and has led to no cases of sedation at all. Do you accept that the E numbers criticised are commonly used in child friendly drinks, sweets, ice cream and other foodstuffs?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 03:56:19 PM
Let us just stick to clear substantiated facts and anyone who wants to disagree needs to produce evidence to show the falsity of the following statements:
1/ Calpol with only Paracetamol as the effective ingredient is a pain killer and anti-pyretic. It is NOT a sedative in any medical or scientific meaning of the word. 2/ It is widely available without prescription and hardly any children get to 12 years of age without using it at some time.This means it is widely tested in children and there are minimal side effects noted, and none of those side effects are sedative.
Perhaps that will put a cap on the misinformation.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 04:05:22 PM
Exceed the prescribed dose, even by a single tablet, in a 24 hour period, and you can risk serious liver damage, or even death.
That is a bit of an exaggeration. Some people will show signs of liver toxicity if they regularly take over 4 grams a day, even just 4225g has been shown in particularly sensitive individuals to produce such initial signs. Even on the maximum dose it is possible to see changes in Liver Function Tests. Overdose with severe risk requires about 10g- 20 tablets in an average sized adult- 2.5 times the daily dose.
It is common to deliver an extra gram in the first day of usage as a loading dose to get blood levels elevated as quickly as possible to therapeutic levels, meaning often people will receive 5 grams in the first day.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 04:15:52 PM
It blocks an enzyme that is produced when tissue damage or other pain inducing incidents occur. It does not 'assuage' pain, it blocks enzymes that irritate the pain receptors- it stops the creation of a sufficiently high level of 'pain producing chemicals'. It also reduces high temperatures by a similar action on a different set of receptors in the brain. It does not affect the pain transmission function of the CNS, nor 'reduce temperature' but in both cases it inhibits the enzymes causing irritation distally and the signals increasing the temperature of the body centrally.
However opioids such as codeine block the distal pain receptors and stop transmission of 'pain signals' to the Central Nervous system.
This difference explains why Paracetamol is non-addictive whereas codeine is addictive. As codeine is also a CNS depressant, it explains why Codeine results in sedation, but Paracetamol does not.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 04:24:31 PM
Better way to explain it- the enzymes it inhibits cause pain underneath the skin. Paracetamol has the same effect as external neutralisation of causes of pain- if you have a toxin placed on your skin like an alkali solution such as old fashioned soap solutions it stings initially and then the pain can become severe. If you pour acid (vinegar on it, the pain stops because the toxin is eliminated.
Paracetamol acts like the vinegar externally (neutralising the alkali soap) by neutralising the enzyme in a similar way. As they are neutralised they are not able to cause the pain receptors to react and so no pain signal is sent. They are sort of pre-pain pain killers.
Codeine and other opioids on the other hand block the signals being sent rather than remove their cause.
Paracetamol does have an additional slight anti-inflammatory effect, but nowhere as high as NSAIDS.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: icabodcrane on November 23, 2013, 04:28:17 PM
If it happened it would be available to me as a Reportable Incident. There is no such report.
No aggression- mere facts I am afraid.
It is almost impossible for a person to have a severe reaction to codeine or any opioid in low doses becasue such opioids circulate freely in the blood stream of ordinary people. The receptors for endorphins are the same as for simple opioiods. Endorphins are chemically similar to such opioids and are produced by the body. Allergy to codeine would only show at levels above natural levels of endorphins, so I severely doubt if it was a single tablet! I do know of cases where administration of opioids at well above normative levels has led to allergic reactions, but cannot see how a single oral tablet would do that. I suspect the story may have become amplified beyond the original. If single tablet administration could cause a severe reaction, then codeine would certainly not have been available over the counter for so long as a non-prescription medication (as it was until the seventies.
Your knowledge must be encyclopedic if, as you seem to be suggesting, you would know of any and all severe reactions to any drug ever prescribed ... right off the top of your head !
I take it I could throw up any prescribed medications and you would immediately remember whether or not severe reactions to it had been 'reported' ?
Does your expertese run only to adverse reactions to active ingredients in the drugs involved, or are you also aware of severe allergic reactions to non active filler/binders such as lactose ?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 04:38:28 PM
Your knowledge must be encyclopedic if, as you seem to be suggesting, you would know of any and all severe reactions to any drug ever prescribed ... right off the top of your head !
I take it I could throw up any prescribed medications and you would immediately remember whether or not severe reactions to it had been 'reported' ?
Does your expertese run only to adverse reactions to active ingredients in the drugs involved, or are you also aware of severe allergic reactions to non active filler/binders such as lactose ?
Sarcasm is uncalled for. I deal only in facts.
There are many reactions to all medications and their carriers. there is a very effective reporting system for side effects and other anomalous reactions.
If there had been a report of a reaction to a single tablet of codeine, it would have been reported; it has not been.
Added to that, the biochemistry militates against it as codeine has natural near analogues in the normal blood contents and so a strong aversion to minimal amounts of it would be extremely unlikely.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 04:39:11 PM
Better way to explain it- the enzymes it inhibits cause pain underneath the skin. Paracetamol has the same effect as external neutralisation of causes of pain- if you have a toxin placed on your skin like an alkali solution such as old fashioned soap solutions it stings initially and then the pain can become severe. If you pour acid (vinegar on it, the pain stops because the toxin is eliminated.
Paracetamol acts like the vinegar externally (neutralising the alkali soap) by neutralising the enzyme in a similar way. As they are neutralised they are not able to cause the pain receptors to react and so no pain signal is sent. They are sort of pre-pain pain killers.
Codeine and other opioids on the other hand block the signals being sent rather than remove their cause.
Paracetamol does have an additional slight anti-inflammatory effect, but nowhere as high as NSAIDS.
Paracetamol does have an additional slight anti-inflammatory effect, but nowhere as high as NSAIDS.
Interesting.
I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 23, 2013, 04:42:39 PM
Paracetamol does have an additional slight anti-inflammatory effect, but nowhere as high as NSAIDS.
Interesting.
I didn't know that.
Until recently it was thought that it had no anti-inflammatory effects, but further careful research has shown that it does have a mild anti-inflammatory effect, but nowhere near that of NSAIDS
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 04:46:52 PM
It is a question of whether the pain removal is within the central nervous system or without.
If I stop punching you in the face, that does not make 'stopping punching' an analgesic- it merely removes the cause of the pain.
oh thanks, though I have an inky feeling this is going to be some pointless semantical discussion, so bowing out >@@(*&)
stopping punching is some kind of relief from pain i would think, an analgesic in essence! As it removes the cause...
@)(++(*
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 04:56:42 PM
Having read back and seen what Pat is on about.
Using everyday meanings of words in particular subject areas always casuse problems.
Dictionaries merely report how words are used, not what they actually mean within a defined subject area.
In common speech one might say that paracetamol assuaged pain- and in fact it does stop pain signals being received, but to then go on to say that anything that 'assuages pain' makes that action or substance a 'sedative' is a logical error.
Using the example above- stopping punching you in the face would allow you to calm down and relax and feel less agitated, but does that make 'stopping punching someone in the face' a sedative. NO.
Sedatives are clearly defined in pharmacology and medicine as actions or substances that reduce reactions to external or internal stimuli.
Some analgesics (pain relievers) ate sedatives as they do that directly.
Paracetamol does not and is not classed formally as a sedative.
It is the difference between informal and formal usage- educated and uneducated as I noted above.
In a clinical environment if a senior doctor said "this person needs sedation, what shall we give him" and the junior doctor suggested paracetamol, she would be rightfully derided because Paracetamol is an anti-pyretic and analgesic, but not a sedative.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 04:58:00 PM
It's a combination of two classic propaganda techniques Red
1 ) Pseudo - intellectual Bull
The use of lots of unusual words in complicated, incomprehensible sentences that sound very educated
2 ) Confuse with Technicalese
Confusing the issue with lots of technical-sounding garbage that means little or nothing
This all reminds of a former member who has flounced more times than Ginger Rogers ball-gown 8(0(*
There are facts and there are opinions.
It maybe that people have the opinion that Paracetamol is a sedative, but it is a fact that it is not. The British National Formulary is divided into sections. One section is for analgesics, another is for sedatives. look it up yourself. Paracetamol is an analgesic (and anti-pyretic) and is not listed as a sedative.
That is because it is not a sedative.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 23, 2013, 05:05:48 PM
It's a combination of two classic propaganda techniques Red
1 ) Pseudo - intellectual Bull
The use of lots of unusual words in complicated, incomprehensible sentences that sound very educated
2 ) Confuse with Technicalese
Confusing the issue with lots of technical-sounding garbage that means little or nothing
This all reminds of a former member who has flounced more times than Ginger Rogers ball-gown 8(0(*
If Spencer starts talking to himself about dogs again he will give the game away.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 05:13:29 PM
This forum is really quite abusive compared with others on the board. Is this normal? That factual debate is dismissed by insolence and schoolboy humour.
Can anyone produce an academic reference to Paracetamol having a proven sedative effect?
If not, the question is answered.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: pinkblossoms on November 23, 2013, 05:17:00 PM
no it isnt but my ref to semantics had nothing to do with that! But your dancing around what pain relief means....and what it doesnt
Pain Relief Medication does not necessarily cause sedation. (Paracetamol does not)
Pain Relief Medication may cause sedation. (Opioids do)
Pain Relief may allow the heightened reaction to stressors to decrease the amount of sedatives needed, but that does not mean that analgesics are necessarily deatives.
Paracetamol is a non-sedative analgesic.
Unlike other medications which are sedative analgesics (opioids and others) which are sedative in their effect.
Such medications are require to have a warning attached.
Paracetamol does not.
No clinically trained person would refer to Paracetamol as a sedative.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 05:21:06 PM
So are the manufacturers of Calpol lying when they state - Pain & Fever relief ? Surely if you remove the cause of pain pain will therefore be dissipated ? And logically if you provide a substance that removes the 'cause' of pain then that substance has assuaged the original pain !
You can argue the toss 'til the cows come home BUT Calpol (and by association, paracetamol) does actually assuage pain.
Pain relief is analgesia Fever relief is anti-pyretic effect.
Sedation is changing the level of consciousness. Paracetamol does not do that and so is not a sedative drug.
As noted above, all sedative drugs require a warning about driving or operating machinery. Paracetamol does not.
Paracetamol is not a sedative drug.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 23, 2013, 05:23:22 PM
Pain Relief Medication does not necessarily cause sedation. (Paracetamol does not)
Pain Relief Medication may cause sedation. (Opioids do)
Pain Relief may allow the heightened reaction to stressors to decrease the amount of sedatives needed, but that does not mean that analgesics are necessarily deatives.
Paracetamol is a non-sedative analgesic.
Unlike other medications which are sedative analgesics (opioids and others) which are sedative in their effect.
Such medications are require to have a warning attached.
Paracetamol does not.
No clinically trained person would refer to Paracetamol as a sedative.
What a waste of time typing that i already said my post was not about sedation properties of paracetamol lol but your dancing around what pain relief means, never mind leave you to it
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 05:25:45 PM
Some do- like opioids. They act within the Central Nervous System and reduce pain signal transmission by binding to pain receptors and blocking prostaglandins from activating them.
Some lie Paracetamol do not. They remove the cause of pain like acidifying an alkalising solution on the skin. Their mode of action for analgesia is not involved with the CNS as with opioids, but in the blood stream where they stop irritant biochemicals (prostaglandins) from activating pain receptors by neutralising them.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 05:26:55 PM
What a waste of time typing that i already said my post was not about sedation properties of paracetamol lol but your dancing around what pain relief means, never mind leave you to it
I suggest you read up on clinical treatment of pain then.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 23, 2013, 05:30:59 PM
It's a combination of two classic propaganda techniques Red
1 ) Pseudo - intellectual Bull
The use of lots of unusual words in complicated, incomprehensible sentences that sound very educated
2 ) Confuse with Technicalese
Confusing the issue with lots of technical-sounding garbage that means little or nothing
This all reminds of a former member who has flounced more times than Ginger Rogers ball-gown 8(0(*
Pseudo - intellectual Bull
That's certainly what those perpetuating the myth that calpol is a sedative are guilty of.
And burying the myth matters in respect of Madeleine, because the McCanns had calpol with them on that holiday, and firmly squashing the canard that the McCanns 'sedated' Madeleine is important.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 05:32:47 PM
If you do not want to believe me, try:
Terence Stephenson, professor of child health at Nottingham University:
"Paracetamol doesn't have any sedative properties whatsoever and neither does Nurofen," he says. "It's a widespread misconception that Calpol helps children to sleep. Doctors used to prescribe antihistamines to help children sleep, but not any longer."
...
"Doctors agree that as painkillers these medications are effective and, most importantly, safe. "There was a study in the US of over 80,000 children given ibuprofen and paracetamol, and the number of those who developed side effects that could be attributed to the medicine was absolutely tiny," says Prof Stephenson."
I suggest you read up on clinical treatment of pain then.
Why would I waste my time...Im not really that interested if at all, youre the one posting inanities like calpol does not help pain, is not pain relief....so why is it on the market as pain relief/analgesic? As I said never mind....
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 05:36:15 PM
So you are stating on a public forum that paracetamol does NOT assuage pain ! That any product that contains paracetamol is falsely advertised as having pain assuaging properties, and that you will state your supposed professional reputation on that statement ?
The word 'assuaging' is never used in clinical reports.
The technical term is analgesics or pain-relievers.
You are just trying too hard to use a misconception that you have found in a dictionary.
Paracetamol is not and never has been defined or used as a sedative by the medical profession.
Uneducated people may have used language that contradicts this, but that is because they are uneducated. Dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive- they record how people use the language, not how language should be used.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 05:37:06 PM
Why would I waste my time...Im not really that interested if at all, youre the one posting inanities like calpol does not help pain, is not pain relief....so why is it on the market as pain relief/analgesic? As I said never mind....
Where have I said that?
I quite clearly state that it is an analgesic.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 05:40:01 PM
Let's try to debunk this, so doctors state that they are painkillers and are effective in pain relief (i.e. they assuage pain) BUT your professional opinion is that they don't !
Doctors never use the term "assuage pain"
I agree with the Professor above- Paracetamol has no sedative effect.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 23, 2013, 05:45:50 PM
That's certainly what those perpetuating the myth that calpol is a sedative are guilty of.
And burying the myth matters in respect of Madeleine, because the McCanns had calpol with them on that holiday, and firmly squashing the canard that the McCanns 'sedated' Madeleine is important.
Is there any proof that they didn't sedate her?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 05:46:41 PM
Why would I waste my time...Im not really that interested if at all, youre the one posting inanities like calpol does not help pain, is not pain relief....so why is it on the market as pain relief/analgesic? As I said never mind....
Pain is a process:
"Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage."
Calpol does reduce pain, just not within the Nervous system , but by chemical effect on prostaglandins in the tissue around the NS.
Rather than dousing a fire by the application of water, it stops it by cutting off the fuel.
If there are prostaglandins in the tissue, they will attach to pain receptors and pain signals will be sent. Paracetamol chemically changes the prostaglandins which stops them attaching to the pain receptors and stops signals being sent without actually intervening in the NS. On the other hand, analgesics attach to the neurons and block the prostaglandins attaching. This affects the neurons which is why opioids may be addictive and sedative whereas paracetamol is not!
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 23, 2013, 05:46:56 PM
No But KM did have her twins tested five months later to prove they werent.... >@@(*&)
But in those first few days never did anything about getting them to hospital to get checked out...for drugs or anythng else....after being so worried they wouldnt wake up and kept checking them for signs of life!!!! ...I suppose she did her own "knowledge" as a GP!
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 23, 2013, 05:54:02 PM
No But KM did have her twins tested five months later to prove they werent.... >@@(*&)
But in those first few days never did anything about getting them to hospital to get checked out...for drugs or anythng else....after being so worried they wouldnt wake up and kept checking them for signs of life!!!! ...I suppose she did her own "knowledge" as a GP!
Shortly after they had been first accused (by convicted torturer Tavares Almeidas) of sedating the children.
Before that the question (accusation) never arose.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 05:55:01 PM
Is it really necessary to deviate from the subject:
Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 23, 2013, 05:58:46 PM
Hallelujah, so Calpol does in effect reduce pain ergo it assuages the feeling of pain ergo may be referred to as a sedative !
No.
Sedatives affect the Central Nervous System and reduce stimulation there. Paracetamol does not affect the CNS in this manner and hence is not a sedative. No Medically trained person would call Paracetamol a Sedative. The Professor above denies it. Dictionaries do not say what things mean but how words are used.
Paracetamol is not a sedative.
Produce one cite for it being a sedative.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 06:02:44 PM
I have checked an academic database.
"Assuage Pain" only appears in papers that are fringe medicine, historical summaries or discussing psychic rather than physical pain."
So there is no evidence of Medics using the term when talking about modern analgesia.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 06:03:54 PM
If it happened it would be available to me as a Reportable Incident. There is no such report.
No aggression- mere facts I am afraid.
It is almost impossible for a person to have a severe reaction to codeine or any opioid in low doses becasue such opioids circulate freely in the blood stream of ordinary people. The receptors for endorphins are the same as for simple opioiods. Endorphins are chemically similar to such opioids and are produced by the body. Allergy to codeine would only show at levels above natural levels of endorphins, so I severely doubt if it was a single tablet! I do know of cases where administration of opioids at well above normative levels has led to allergic reactions, but cannot see how a single oral tablet would do that. I suspect the story may have become amplified beyond the original. If single tablet administration could cause a severe reaction, then codeine would certainly not have been available over the counter for so long as a non-prescription medication (as it was until the seventies.
Haven't caught up yet, just wanted to reply to this first.
My Mother, Sister and niece are all allergic to Ibuprofen. My Niece ended up in hospital after being given it by the doctor. My Mother was also hospitalised for an allergic reaction but I can't recall off the top of my head whether that was ibuprofen or penicillin.
Ibuprofen is available over the counter and absolutly fine for most people. That doesn't mean it can't cause an a reaction in some. I assure you that I am not lying or exaggerating.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Cariad on November 23, 2013, 06:23:43 PM
I've no intention of bringing this thread off topic as you seem to be trying your utmost to do. Dictionaries define, to quote Rogerandout "what things mean", I presume he was referring to words in the quote, and the various contexts in which those words can be used !
sorry to put the thread back on track but the answer to the thread is a resounding no
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 08:20:44 PM
A McCann sceptic ! What's that when it's at home ? Do you fully comprehend the English language davel ?
Argue as much as you may BUT the Oxford English dictionary will take precedence over a couple of forum posters, in my book !
Ergo Calpol can be classified as a sedative (in context) ! End of debate.
you have continued to make an absolute idiot of yourself..over and over again..keep up the good work The oxford dictionary makes no such statement..its your warped interpretaion
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:12:12 PM
It is not just me saying this , but all other medically trained people:
Terence Stephenson, professor of child health at Nottingham University:
"Paracetamol doesn't have any sedative properties whatsoever and neither does Nurofen," he says. "It's a widespread misconception that Calpol helps children to sleep. Doctors used to prescribe antihistamines to help children sleep, but not any longer."
...
"Doctors agree that as painkillers these medications are effective and, most importantly, safe. "There was a study in the US of over 80,000 children given ibuprofen and paracetamol, and the number of those who developed side effects that could be attributed to the medicine was absolutely tiny," says Prof Stephenson."
It is not just me saying this , but all other medically trained people:
Terence Stephenson, professor of child health at Nottingham University:
"Paracetamol doesn't have any sedative properties whatsoever and neither does Nurofen," he says. "It's a widespread misconception that Calpol helps children to sleep. Doctors used to prescribe antihistamines to help children sleep, but not any longer."
...
"Doctors agree that as painkillers these medications are effective and, most importantly, safe. "There was a study in the US of over 80,000 children given ibuprofen and paracetamol, and the number of those who developed side effects that could be attributed to the medicine was absolutely tiny," says Prof Stephenson."
"There was a study in the US of over 80,000 children given ibuprofen and paracetamol, and the number of those who developed side effects that could be attributed to the medicine was absolutely tiny,"
'Absolutely tiny', not very specific is it.
And so of this 'absolutely tiny' number who reported attributable side effects, I wonder how many reported weakness or fatigue.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:24:30 PM
"There was a study in the US of over 80,000 children given ibuprofen and paracetamol, and the number of those who developed side effects that could be attributed to the medicine was absolutely tiny,"
'Absolutely tiny', not very specific is it.
And so of this 'absolutely tiny' number who reported attributable side effects, I wonder how many reported weakness or fatigue.
Neither weakness nor fatigue are sedation.
Read the professor's words. Calpol is not a sedative
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 23, 2013, 09:26:01 PM
No But KM did have her twins tested five months later to prove they werent.... >@@(*&)
But in those first few days never did anything about getting them to hospital to get checked out...for drugs or anythng else....after being so worried they wouldnt wake up and kept checking them for signs of life!!!! ...I suppose she did her own "knowledge" as a GP!
Bump
This issue is far more important....keeps getting drowned out.....
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:27:12 PM
I just do not understand why people are so determined to believe a falsehood against all the evidence.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:28:02 PM
Any chance of answering that question davel ? Also do you really want me to post up the Oxford English definition of 'sedative' AGAIN ? I can do if you lack the capacity to read back over the thread ! Maybe your tablet is acting up again !
As I practice sedation and therefore as I have stated, am an expert in it I don't need to read anything. By all means keep making an absolute idiot of yourself.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 23, 2013, 09:44:53 PM
This issue is far more important....keeps getting drowned out.....
This (non)"issue" has already been answered.
The McCanns were first accused of sedating the children in September 2007.
Stop derailing the thread.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 09:45:44 PM
So we have a pharmacist and a sedationist(that's just part of what I do) but pat and google think they know better
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 23, 2013, 09:48:00 PM
Terence Stephenson, professor of child health at Nottingham University:
"Paracetamol doesn't have any sedative properties whatsoever and neither does Nurofen," he says. "It's a widespread misconception that Calpol helps children to sleep. Doctors used to prescribe antihistamines to help children sleep, but not any longer."
...
"Doctors agree that as painkillers these medications are effective and, most importantly, safe. "There was a study in the US of over 80,000 children given ibuprofen and paracetamol, and the number of those who developed side effects that could be attributed to the medicine was absolutely tiny," says Prof Stephenson."
Sedation is the act of calming by administration of a sedative. A sedative is a medication that commonly induces the nervous system to calm.
Purpose
The process of sedation has two primary intentions. First, sedation is recommended to allow patients the ability to tolerate unpleasant diagnostic or surgical procedures and to relieve anxiety and discomfort. Second, sedation for uncooperative patients may expedite and simplify special procedures that require little or no movement. Additionally, sedation is often desirable to diminish fear associated with operative procedures. Sedation is typically used for common diagnostic tests that require prolonged immobilization such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed axial tomography (CAT) scanning. Some cases that require sedation may also necessitate the use of analgesics to decrease pain associated with a procedure or test.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 23, 2013, 09:52:08 PM
The McCanns were first accused of sedating the children in September 2007.
Stop derailing the thread.
no, the ISSUE is why the mccanns didnt get their toddlers checked out pdq after their eldest was abducted and which they believed was drugged along with their other two.....so much so the mother was checking them for signs of life that very night! how the feck would she know they werent given some deadly drug????Stop obfuscating.........the question has nothing at all to do with kate mccann being accused of drugging the twins months later...nothing at all....the question is why she did not take them to a and e that very night! To check for drugs or anything else.... >@@(*&)
This was explained to you before on the thread, but you ignored it for some reason Well? Your skewing facts will never get the real facts to go away
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 09:53:17 PM
The membership only has your word for that davel, unless you are prepared to post (or have your fabled typist do it for you) your personal details and professional qualifications on the forum then the membership can make up their own minds as to the veracity of your claim !
Now once AGAIN what is a "McCann sceptic" ?
P.S. Calpol is a sedative according to the Oxford English dictionary !
I Have no intention of revealing my extensive undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications although anyone with any intelligence will recognise where they lie...so...
keep making an absolute idiot of yourself...you may have noticed not one person on the forum supports your view...but please..be my guest..keep making an absolute idiot of yourself...try googling ..is paracetamol a sedative
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 09:56:20 PM
no, the ISSUE is why the mccanns didnt get their toddlers checked out pdq after their eldest was abducted and which they believed was drugged along with their other two.....so much so the mother was checking them for signs of life that very night! Stop obfuscating.........the question has nothing at all to do with kate mccann being accused of drugging the twins months later...nothing at all....the question is why she did not take them to a and e that very night! To check for drugs or anything else.... >@@(*&)
This was explained to you before on the thread, but you ignored it for some reason Well?
this thread addresses the question ...is calpol a sedative...your post is off topic ...feel free to start an alternative thread
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 23, 2013, 09:58:01 PM
I Have no intention of revealing my extensive undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications although anyone with any intelligence will recognise where they lie...so...
keep making an absolute idiot of yourself...you may have noticed not one person on the forum supports your view...but please..be my guest..keep making an absolute idiot of yourself...try googling ..is paracetamol a sedative
boasting again? Not a good trait.....btw getting a degree is no sure sign of intelligence....per se, it depends on so many variables 8((()*/
specially if you earned it 20 yrs ago and your brain has gone awol since then.....just saying
Thing is....degree or no degree, calling people idiots left right and centre just makes you a wally bsc ba etc @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 10:02:58 PM
In your opinion pat..but we have established beyond doubt that your opinion is worthless
There is no WE and there is no established anythng only in your post graduate imagnation @)(++(*
You have a massive chip on your shoulder calling people stupid, fools, worthless etc perhaps youvebeen looking in the mirror lately hmmm, gosh you even called the portuguese prosecutor a stupid fool
>@@(*&)
Sad..sign of a small.....err... no not that...mentality
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 23, 2013, 10:09:00 PM
There is no WE and there is no established anythng only in your post graduate imagnation @)(++(*
You have a massive chip on your shoulder calling people stupid, fools, worthless etc perhaps youvebeen looking in the mirror lately hmmm, gosh you even called the portuguese prosecutor a stupid fool
>@@(*&)
Sad..sign of a small.....err... no not that...mentality
no we have established that pat is perhaps the only person in the world who maintains that paracetamol is a sedative..and therefore a fool...do you agree with her
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 23, 2013, 10:11:20 PM
no, the ISSUE is why the mccanns didnt get their toddlers checked out pdq after their eldest was abducted and which they believed was drugged along with their other two.....so much so the mother was checking them for signs of life that very night! how the feck would she know they werent given some deadly drug????Stop obfuscating.........the question has nothing at all to do with kate mccann being accused of drugging the twins months later...nothing at all....the question is why she did not take them to a and e that very night! To check for drugs or anything else.... >@@(*&)
This was explained to you before on the thread, but you ignored it for some reason Well? Your skewing facts will never get the real facts to go away
BUMP before bed, the subject the pro mccans cant answer and wont talk about, just one of many, where they remain silent, tara 8((()*/
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 10:15:23 PM
That flies in the face of your earlier statement -
Quote from: Rogerandout on Today at 05:46:41 PM Pain is a process:
Calpol does reduce pain
Pain is a process between the outside world, the body and the brain.
Calpol does reduce pain because it is an analgesic. It does this by changing the chemical state of the affected area but does not impact directly on the nervous system. It is neither a sedative nor an hypnotic.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 10:16:48 PM
You've introduced that quote "McCann sceptic" into the debate, I've asked you to explain it to me ! Simple request, simple explanation required please.
if you are that thick that you don't understand the English language then its a waste of time
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 10:18:33 PM
You've introduced that quote "McCann sceptic" into the debate, I've asked you to explain it to me ! Simple request, simple explanation required please.
would you like me to explain the word sedative to you as I am an expert in the field
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 10:20:01 PM
Still no definition of "McCann sceptic" so ! I doo (sic) hope the moderators come to your rescue soon and delete your rather tedious attemp at debate !
oK a mccannn sceptic is someone who is sceptical towards the McCanns
by the way you spelt attempt wrong..no big deal and I have made a point on this forum about NOT criticising spelling or grammar as some pedants do
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 10:31:48 PM
I've tried but your original post at 8-34 p.m. where your first mention of "McCann sceptic" has been conveniently deleted ! So I'll ask again, do you claim that I am a "McCann sceptic" ?
YES it has been deleted ..perhaps you requested it to be deleted
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 10:47:46 PM
I haven't deleted it so admin has on the request of someone....who could that be
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 10:51:38 PM
perhaps you could ask admin to reinstate it then we could discuss it
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 10:58:09 PM
Well I'd imagine with your much lauded and commented upon "near photographic memory" you'd be able to reproduce it ! Unless of course you wish not to for whatever reason. Hopefully admin will reinstate the post, I didn't request it's deletion ! Why would I ?
well someone did and I am sure you will understand my reluctance to discuss a post that has been removed. . I am quite shocked as the post was not offensive..perhaps the perpertrator will make themselves known
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 23, 2013, 11:02:38 PM
I have not said at any time that it may be a sedative. you have been claiming that previously.
You stated on post 13 of this thread:
If it assuages pain it may well be referred to as a sedative. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2993.msg107279#msg107279
I think there may be something wrong with your comprehension or logic.
It may erroneously be referred to as a sedative; it may erroneously be referred to as an elephant. But it is NOT a sedative and may not correctly be referred to as such. Anyone referring to it as a sedative is making an error and stating a falsehood.
The fact is that Paracetamol is an analgesic (it relieves pain). It is not a sedative and it is not a hypnotic.
It relieves pain in a very simple way by removing an irritant from damaged tissue. It does not ameliorate pain by directly affecting the nervous system as other pain killers do. In its pain killing function (unlike its anti-pyretic effect) it acts outwith the central nervous system.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Cariad on November 24, 2013, 09:14:22 AM
would you like me to explain the word sedative to you as I am an expert in the field
I love you guys. The above quote was my favourite but it was a close call. There's nothing better than a good belly laugh on a Sunday morning @)(++(*
I humbly request that the title of the tread is changed to something like "does Calpol cause drowsiness" cause we have an almost unanimous agreement that it doesn't.
Red, do you , or does anyone else for that matter , have any theories on why the Mccanns waited 5 months before testing the twins for drugs?
I can't think of a logical reason myself....
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: CPN on November 24, 2013, 09:48:50 AM
I love you guys. The above quote was my favourite but it was a close call. There's nothing better than a good belly laugh on a Sunday morning @)(++(*
I think, had you seen it, reply 241 in its original form would have been your favourite, Cariad - "So we have a pharmacist and a seditionist(that's just part of what I do) but pat and google think they know better" (look up sedition if you do know it and you can see how appropriate it was!) but davel changed it to sedationist a couple of minutes later
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Cariad on November 24, 2013, 09:54:58 AM
I think, had you seen it, reply 241 in its original form would have been your favourite, Cariad - "So we have a pharmacist and a seditionist(that's just part of what I do) but pat and google think they know better" (look up sedition if you do know it and you can see how appropriate it was!) but davel changed it to sedationist a couple of minutes later
Yes! That would've been my favourite! That's brilliant @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 10:06:30 AM
Andrew Marr has just broadcast several John Cleese's sketches. The last one explains Opposing Pat's method of argument
"That's not argument, that's just contradiction"
"No it isn't!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 10:11:23 AM
I love you guys. The above quote was my favourite but it was a close call. There's nothing better than a good belly laugh on a Sunday morning @)(++(*
I humbly request that the title of the tread is changed to something like "does Calpol cause drowsiness" cause we have an almost unanimous agreement that it doesn't.
Red, do you , or does anyone else for that matter , have any theories on why the Mccanns waited 5 months before testing the twins for drugs?
I can't think of a logical reason myself....
Why would you have toxicology tests done. What would be the rationale as parents. I can see why the police might ( maybe should have) done it, but what would the parents gain. It would only anyway identify possible sedatives with short serum half lives- many sedatives have a fifty per cent removal at first pass and would be undetectable by normal laboratories even after only 24 hours.
Edited to add- if sedation was by inhalation the residual signs would probably be even less detectable.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Cariad on November 24, 2013, 10:19:53 AM
Why would you have toxicology tests done. What would be the rationale as parents. I can see why the police might ( maybe should have) done it, but what would the parents gain. It would only anyway identify possible sedatives with short serum half lives- many sedatives have a fifty per cent removal at first pass and would be undetectable by normal laboratories even after only 24 hours.
Edited to add- if sedation was by inhalation the residual signs would probably be even less detectable.
The youtube linky isn't working 8(8-))
I don't see why the parents would have the tests done at that late stage. I guess they wanted answers, but the longer they left it, the less likely they would be to get them. Either get it done straight away, or don't bother. I think that had my children been in that situation, I may well have taken them to a hospital to be checked out.
Then again, I'm not medically trained, nor have I experienced that kind of trauma so I can't really put myself in their position....
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 10:27:27 AM
I don't see why the parents would have the tests done at that late stage. I guess they wanted answers, but the longer they left it, the less likely they would be to get them. Either get it done straight away, or don't bother. I think that had my children been in that situation, I may well have taken them to a hospital to be checked out.
Then again, I'm not medically trained, nor have I experienced that kind of trauma so I can't really put myself in their position....
The point is that the doctors at the hospital would do little more than the doctors themselves.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 10:42:03 AM
I think, had you seen it, reply 241 in its original form would have been your favourite, Cariad - "So we have a pharmacist and a seditionist(that's just part of what I do) but pat and google think they know better" (look up sedition if you do know it and you can see how appropriate it was!) but davel changed it to sedationist a couple of minutes later
It doesnt surprise me that you have nothing intelligent to add to the debate apart from pointing out a spelling mistake... I see lots and lots of spelling and grammar mistakes on here but don't feel I need to correct posters. if you have nothing relevant to add I suggest you cease posting and let the thread stay on topic
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: CPN on November 24, 2013, 10:52:25 AM
It doesnt surprise me that you have nothing intelligent to add to the debate apart from pointing out a spelling mistake... I see lots and lots of spelling and grammar mistakes on here but don't feel I need to correct posters. if you have nothing relevant to add I suggest you cease posting and let the thread stay on topic
davel, please - get a sense of humour! I myself made a mistake in that posting you have quoted. I just found your mistake very funny
As to not posting here - as far as I am aware you are not an admin. If / when John asks me to stop posting, I will
As to contributing nothing on this thread - I don't know enough about it so, yes, have not contributed here. But do contribute where I feel I do know / have experience of what I am talking about
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 10:58:08 AM
davel, please - get a sense of humour! I myself made a mistake in that posting you have quoted. I just found your mistake very funny
As to not posting here - as far as I am aware you are not an admin. If / when John asks me to stop posting, I will
As to contributing nothing on this thread - I don't know enough about it so, yes, have not contributed here. But do contribute where I feel I do know / have experience of what I am talking about
oh..and theres me thinking you are just a silly old fool
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: CPN on November 24, 2013, 11:04:54 AM
Good morning CPN, it's very simple, Calpol can be referred to as a sedative as per the Oxford English dictionary definition of the word sedative (we've had a pharmacist confirm that it calms pain) HOWEVER it doesn't cause drowsiness or induce sleep.
Wheres the defn from the OED
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 11:17:50 AM
Good morning CPN, it's very simple, Calpol can be referred to as a sedative as per the Oxford English dictionary definition of the word sedative (we've had a pharmacist confirm that it calms pain) HOWEVER it doesn't cause drowsiness or induce sleep.
Thanks, OPat, but to be honest I do not want to join in the argument here, and would not claim to be an expert on anything to do with it. I've just been reading as the arguments progressed. There is a lot I don't know about the case and at least I am honest enough to admit that and not pretend I know everything. I contribute on what I know. But I do object to being called a silly old fool....!! not acceptable IMO
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 11:20:17 AM
Good morning CPN, it's very simple, Calpol can be referred to as a sedative as per the Oxford English dictionary definition of the word sedative (we've had a pharmacist confirm that it calms pain) HOWEVER it doesn't cause drowsiness or induce sleep.
Sedatives necessarily cause drowsiness.
Calpol is NOT a sedative but is an analgesic.
Still misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: CPN on November 24, 2013, 11:22:05 AM
The problem is you have called people that far too many times in the past for it to seem like your sense of humour - either that or it is a warped SOH. I am NOT continuing this and shall not reply further
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 11:23:35 AM
The problem is you have called people that far too many times in the past for it to seem like your sense of humour - either that or it is a warped SOH. I am NOT continuing this and shall not reply further
Thank heavens
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 24, 2013, 11:34:10 AM
Good morning CPN, it's very simple, Calpol can be referred to as a sedative as per the Oxford English dictionary definition of the word sedative (we've had a pharmacist confirm that it calms pain) HOWEVER it doesn't cause drowsiness or induce sleep.
LOL, 21 pages woo hoo. And Maddy is still......................................
M.I.S.S.I.N.G .... now aint that the truth.
You go Pat I love your posts. ?{)(**
I would have thought to get a child to sleep deeply you would need to use something other then Calpol. There are things on the market you can even buy without prescription that will make children sleep.
Just because someone showed the police a bottle of Calpol doesnt mean they didnt have other meds to hand.
The fact the children were SOUND asleep when they were the night before WIDE AWAKE and crying makes me wonder sometimes. Were ALL the children chlorformed by the Perb....who knows...no tests were done on the surviving 2 children to ensure they were safe.
But perhaps they were just exhausted from crying for over 1.5 for their parents....the night before. 8(8-))
So should we do poll lol. Is Calpol a sedative.....
The only reason why this thread is in existance is because Amaral mentioned it in his book, naughty man lol.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 11:41:20 AM
Your knowledge must be encyclopedic if, as you seem to be suggesting, you would know of any and all severe reactions to any drug ever prescribed ... right off the top of your head !
I take it I could throw up any prescribed medications and you would immediately remember whether or not severe reactions to it had been 'reported' ?
Does your expertese run only to adverse reactions to active ingredients in the drugs involved, or are you also aware of severe allergic reactions to non active filler/binders such as lactose ?
I wouldnt take no notice of no it all...lol.
The fact is this was over twenty years ago anyway and my friend was in the Army for a time I cant honestly remember if she was in the UK at the time or Munster in Germany.
Anyway No It All didnt even bother to ask me nicely any information just went in like a charging bull.
People like that are not worthy of my energy lol. Thanks hun for sticking up for me. x
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 01:00:01 PM
The fact is this was over twenty years ago anyway and my friend was in the Army for a time I cant honestly remember if she was in the UK at the time or Munster in Germany.
Anyway No It All didnt even bother to ask me nicely any information just went in like a charging bull.
People like that are not worthy of my energy lol. Thanks hun for sticking up for me. x
We all know what value to place on an anecdote that would seem to conflict with substantial facts.
You are expecting us to accept that this case is the only one of many millions of first administration of codeine that resulted in a major incident, happened to be unrecorded and just coincidentally supports your unsustainable belief.
Have to go, pigs on the bird table need feeding.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 01:18:08 PM
And you are expecting us to accept your (supposed) professional qualifications without a verifiable reference to same ! Would the incident have been recorded and available to you if the incident occurred in German territory ?
You have claimed that the oxfird English dictionary supports you but you are unable to provide a link to support this
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 01:33:10 PM
And you are expecting us to accept your (supposed) professional qualifications without a verifiable reference to same ! Would the incident have been recorded and available to you if the incident occurred in German territory ?
You are contrary. A few posts ago you were quite accepting of my qualifications when you mistakenly thought I supported you:
" (we've had a pharmacist confirm that it calms pain) "
Post
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 01:36:00 PM
I have decided that it is a waste of time dealing with the ignorance of OpposingPat and Columbossogey.
They do not seem to have much support and deserve to be left alone with their ignorance.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 01:51:15 PM
In summary for those with the intelligence to understand.
Paracetamol is not a sedative.
Anyone who says it is, is mistaken.
It is not an excuse for Amaral's error regarding his false belief that Calpol was a sedative. (Which is essentially what obstinate people are trying to do- defend an error made by Amaral.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 01:55:21 PM
Supports me ? I've not claimed that Calpol is a sedative so why would I need support to back up something I've not claimed ? Are you really really sure you have actually 'read' this thread or have you reverted to form and 'read' what you think you've 'read' ?
no Ive read it and I know you are mistaken in your quote from the OED...you have no quote from the OED to support your claim
paracetamol is not a sedative and the moon is not made of cheese
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 02:04:32 PM
davel would know, he's an expert is sedition (his words) don't you know ! Also he has a much lauded and commented upon "near photographic memory" sobhe wouldn't forget things like this ! And he has a typist as well !
Could you tell me what sobhe means
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Wonderfulspam on November 24, 2013, 03:55:49 PM
Are you seriously trying to deny the fact that www.oxforddictionaries.com/ and www.oed.com are both operated by Oxford University Press?
They are now published by the OUP. The dictionary you are choosing is in the throes of being rewritten to OUP standards. Oxford Dictionaries was an upstart trading on the Oxford name by squatting on an unregistered trade mark. IIRC it was a Robert Maxwell company set up. Eventually OUP bought them out.
The dictionary you chose has little recognition and is not related to the OED except by current ownership.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 05:36:38 PM
back on track...paracetamol is not a sedative..fact
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 05:50:13 PM
I welcome debate, but will report all off topic, goading, personal comments and abuse.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 24, 2013, 05:56:28 PM
Well, that has sorted that.
Back to discussing Calpol?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 06:08:55 PM
They are now published by the OUP. The dictionary you are choosing is in the throes of being rewritten to OUP standards. Oxford Dictionaries was an upstart trading on the Oxford name by squatting on an unregistered trade mark. IIRC it was a Robert Maxwell company set up. Eventually OUP bought them out.
The dictionary you chose has little recognition and is not related to the OED except by current ownership.
so pat THOUGHT she/he was quoting the Oxford English Dictionary...... she/he wasn't..big mistake
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 06:11:05 PM
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative? « Reply #367 on: Today at 06:55:47 PM »
"It would be nice for pat to post I was wrong re calpol"
My pleasure, you were, according to the Oxford English dictionary !
I don't believe you have access to the OED...the OED does not state that calpol is a sedative..you are totally misaken..unless of course you can show me where the OED confirms calpol is a sedative ...which it wont
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: j.rob on November 24, 2013, 08:35:50 PM
So what? Who really cares? Why is it so important? Perhaps Amaral was referring to sedative as defined by the dictionary. For God's sake, it is hardly libellous.
Parents give their children Calpol all the time. It's an over-the-counter medicine. Practically everyone I knew with babies and young children used to stuff them with Calpol at night if they had a cold/were fussy. Why would it be libellous to suggest that the McCanns used Calpol to calm their children?
What is more likely is that the McCanns DID use a sedative - not Calpol but something else, something much more powerful. Amaral was on the right scent but not quite right in the details. And if the McCanns did use a much stronger sedative, then that would account for how the twins slept through the night when Madeleine allegedly disappeared.
That is probably why the whole Calpol debate is such a hot potato - an attempt to throw everyone off the scent just when they were getting close. So predictable, it's actually quite funny.
That is what happens in medical negligence cases. There will be endless nitpicking, derailing, obfuscation, failure to look at the whole picture, apportioning blame on others rather than taking responsibility. As soon as someone starts to get near the truth, there will be a dissection of the minutiae and an attempt to discredit the whistle-blower. In fact, a full-blown assault on the whistle-blower or the person trying to find the truth.
The Calpol red herring is a good case in point. Amaral was on the right track - some of the finer details are probably not there but sniffing in the right direction. So there will be a full-on attack on the person who is getting close to the truth, accusing them of all sorts of things.
And what about the McCanns? How many people have they lied to?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: j.rob on November 24, 2013, 08:36:17 PM
The whole world, perhaps?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 24, 2013, 08:38:00 PM
That is very true, I don't think anybody has claimed that it does !
It seems that the only explanation is that you are a bit on the dim side in continuing to think that calpol could be thought of as a sedative. You only have to use google to find out the truth. You just carry on believing what you want to believe...it doesn't matter..anyone with an ounce of sense knows what paracetamol is.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 07:48:38 AM
Having read back through the thread it becomes obvious that what is being proposed is not that Paracetamol is a sedative, but that Amaral may be excused for assuming it was.
I don't think this flies for several reasons. First, the real information (Paracetamol is not a sedative) was there and it was his responsibility to know this. And secondly it is a pattern of behaviour apparent from his over-valuing other doubtful informatio- Dogs, Forensics, circumstantial- in an effort to make the facts fit his theory rather than the theory fit the facts.
It does seem that regular reporting of abuse works- it stopped as soon as I took overt action. I have learned!
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2013, 09:56:50 AM
So what? Who really cares? Why is it so important? Perhaps Amaral was referring to sedative as defined by the dictionary. For God's sake, it is hardly libellous.
Parents give their children Calpol all the time. It's an over-the-counter medicine. Practically everyone I knew with babies and young children used to stuff them with Calpol at night if they had a cold/were fussy. Why would it be libellous to suggest that the McCanns used Calpol to calm their children?
What is more likely is that the McCanns DID use a sedative - not Calpol but something else, something much more powerful. Amaral was on the right scent but not quite right in the details. And if the McCanns did use a much stronger sedative, then that would account for how the twins slept through the night when Madeleine allegedly disappeared.
That is probably why the whole Calpol debate is such a hot potato - an attempt to throw everyone off the scent just when they were getting close. So predictable, it's actually quite funny.
That is what happens in medical negligence cases. There will be endless nitpicking, derailing, obfuscation, failure to look at the whole picture, apportioning blame on others rather than taking responsibility. As soon as someone starts to get near the truth, there will be a dissection of the minutiae and an attempt to discredit the whistle-blower. In fact, a full-blown assault on the whistle-blower or the person trying to find the truth.
The Calpol red herring is a good case in point. Amaral was on the right track - some of the finer details are probably not there but sniffing in the right direction. So there will be a full-on attack on the person who is getting close to the truth, accusing them of all sorts of things.
And what about the McCanns? How many people have they lied to?
THANK YOU, an excellent post points well made.
I TOTALLY AGREE with ALL of it.
RED HERRING.............. 8@??)(
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 25, 2013, 01:02:26 PM
The libel is the untrue inference that the McCanns sedated their children.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: stephen25000 on November 25, 2013, 01:12:15 PM
A lack of evidence does not mean a crime has not been committed, does it. 8)-)))
That's the answer to my question.
Over and out ...
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 03:55:47 PM
Why the petty bickering about off subject matters. It looks like someone is posting about the thread, and instead it is people settling scores with each other.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2013, 04:01:06 PM
Why the petty bickering about off subject matters. It looks like someone is posting about the thread, and instead it is people settling scores with each other.
So was calpol 2007 really a sedative...is the title to the thread...I propose a vote...theres been enough discussion... just yes or no...I vote no
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 04:11:18 PM
A vote does not matter. You might as well vote for pi being 3 rather than 3.142 as a US state tried to last century!
It is a fact that Calpol is non-sedative.
The only question is- does anyone believe the falsehood that it is.
The question is "Do you believe the truth that Calpol is non-sedative, or do you believe the falsehood that it is sedative?".
From what I can see, people only want to make it possible to suggest that it is a sedative to save the face of Mr Amaral.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: colombosstogey on November 25, 2013, 04:18:11 PM
A vote does not matter. You might as well vote for pi being 3 rather than 3.142 as a US state tried to last century!
It is a fact that Calpol is non-sedative.
The only question is- does anyone believe the falsehood that it is.
The question is "Do you believe the truth that Calpol is non-sedative, or do you believe the falsehood that it is sedative?".
From what I can see, people only want to make it possible to suggest that it is a sedative to save the face of Mr Amaral.
That was the intention of this thread, was it not ? ... an invitation for members to defend Amaral's mention of calpol as a possible medication given by the McCanns to quieten their children at night ?
I agree wth you, though, that diminishing an important issue to nothing more than a stick with which to beat Amaral is unfortunate
A much more relevant thread might be one that asks the question :
'Is it possible that the McCanns sedated their children during the holiday ?'
The discussion might include the fact that Kate is a qualified anaesthetist and that Madeleine's medical records were never made available to the original investigation
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 04:42:40 PM
That was the intention of this thread, was it not ? ... an invitation for members to defend Amaral's mention of calpol as a possible medication given by the McCanns to quieten their children at night ?
I agree wth you, though, that diminishing an important issue to nothing more than a stick with which to beat Amaral is unfortunate
A much more relevant thread might be one that asks the question :
'Is it possible that the McCanns sedated their children during the holiday ?'
The discussion might include the fact that Kate is a qualified anaesthetist and that Madeleine's medical records were never made available to the original investigation
You don't need to be a qualified anaesthetist to sedate someone. Do we know whether Madeleine's notes were made available, and if they were, was it a requirement that the availability must not be mentioned. I find it hard to believe that a summery would not have been sent given the parent's were in a position to give permission. What are the facts?
Arguing that because A and B it is possible that C allows you to say that anything is possible with no real addition to the original knowledge- which looks like just grabbing a stick to beat the McCanns with.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 04:44:23 PM
The libel is the untrue inference that the McCanns sedated their children.
If you werent there you dont know if it is an untrue inference and therefore libel......besides, many parents do sedate their children to aid sleep....its not actually a crime as far as I know.....so why so defensive.....?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 04:47:22 PM
If you werent there you dont know if it is an untrue inference and therefore libel......besides, many parents do sedate their children to aid sleep....its not actually a crime as far as I know.....so why so defensive.....?
It would be unprofessional at least to administer prescription only medicine not prescribed by an independent doctor to ones children. It could also technically be illegal as poisoning.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: icabodcrane on November 25, 2013, 04:50:27 PM
You don't need to be a qualified anaesthetist to sedate someone. Do we know whether Madeleine's notes were made available, and if they were, was it a requirement that the availability must not be mentioned. I find it hard to believe that a summery would not have been sent given the parent's were in a position to give permission. What are the facts?
Arguing that because A and B it is possible that C allows you to say that anything is possible with no real addition to the original knowledge- which looks like just grabbing a stick to beat the McCanns with.
I am not 'arguing' any point other than dismissing calpol as a non sedative medication has no bearing at all on whether or not the McCanns DID sedate their children during that week
I simply wanted to point out that the McCanns not sedating their children with calpol does not equate with the McCanns not having sedated their children at all
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 04:51:39 PM
I am not 'arguing' any point other than dismissing calpol as a non sedative medication has no bearing at all on whether or not the McCanns DID sedate their children during that week
I simply wanted to point out that the McCanns not sedating their children with calpol does not equate with the McCanns not having sedated their children at all
When did you stop beating your wife?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: icabodcrane on November 25, 2013, 05:07:14 PM
That is a rather unfortunate way of making a point
I take it what you meant to say was that if there is no suggestion that something 'did' occur, then it wrong to suggest it 'may' have ?
Except in the case of the McCanns children, the suggestion of sedation was made by the McCanns themselves, which makes it a subject open to discussion, I think
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 05:10:43 PM
It would be unprofessional at least to administer prescription only medicine not prescribed by an independent doctor to ones children. It could also technically be illegal as poisoning.
Since when has using sedative medicines to help your kids sleep been an act of poisoning?
There are plenty of over the counter medicines that did or so it, no prescription necessary.....
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 05:12:01 PM
That is a rather unfortunate way of making a point
I take it what you meant to say was that if there is no suggestion that something 'did' occur, then it wrong to suggest it 'may' have ?
Except in the case of the McCanns children, the suggestion of sedation was made by the McCanns themselves, which makes it a subject open to discussion, I think
Sedation by others, then turned by some people here into a stick to beat them with.
Very similar to the implication in my reply to your previous point.
Amaral Got the Calpol wrong and it seems to be a pattern- getting the dogs and Forensics evidence muddled and over-valued. Typical of non-modern policing- of trying to fit the facts to the theory rather than trying to build a theory out of the facts.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 05:14:45 PM
Since when has using sedative medicines to help your kids sleep been an act of poisoning?
There are plenty of over the counter medicines that did or so it, no prescription necessary.....
I specifically said prescription only medicines. There is very little sedative left on the OTC market currently.
Crimonal Poisoning can occur with OTC medicines, and indeed with non medicines- there have been convictions for poisoning with Sodium Cholride- NaCl, table salt!
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 05:16:33 PM
Sedation by others, then turned by some people here into a stick to beat them with.
Very similar to the implication in my reply to your previous point.
Amaral Got the Calpol wrong and it seems to be a pattern- getting the dogs and Forensics evidence muddled and over-valued. Typical of non-modern policing- of trying to fit the facts to the theory rather than trying to build a theory out of the facts.
Just to clarify
You accept that there is a possibility that the McCann children were sedated ? ... but by 'someone else' and not by the McCanns ?
What evidence do you base that distinction on ?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2013, 05:24:30 PM
If you werent there you dont know if it is an untrue inference and therefore libel......besides, many parents do sedate their children to aid sleep....its not actually a crime as far as I know.....so why so defensive.....?
if you say it you must be able to prove it...or it is libellous...basic uk libel law..remember sally bercow
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2013, 05:26:04 PM
I specifically said prescription only medicines. There is very little sedative left on the OTC market currently.
Crimonal Poisoning can occur with OTC medicines, and indeed with non medicines- there have been convictions for poisoning with Sodium Cholride- NaCl, table salt!
several...friend of mine defended one
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 05:28:55 PM
You seem to have a problem with comprehension. I did not say that.
Do you accept that the McCann children may have been sedated that night ... given the unaturally deep sleep of the twins, perhaps ?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 05:33:24 PM
There seems to be a problem with discussion here.
If you disagree with someone you make up something and from then on insist that that is the case.
It is so confrontational that no facts get considered. Everyone seems to assume that no-one of an opposing view has anything right about the whole case. Query a sacred cow and you are suddenly one of the opposition.
Icabod's response to my posts is a very good example- he assumed that I had saisd something I had not and then started pushing that point rather than going back and looking at the discussion.
Too much heat and too little light.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2013, 05:34:00 PM
Do you accept that the McCann children may have been sedated that night ... given the unaturally deep sleep of the twins, perhaps ?
Unnatuarally?
Let's see.
Dedicated and extremely professional staff at the creche the children attended organised fun-filled, adventurous and hectic, but exhausting, days for the youngsters who availed themselves of those services.
At the conclusion of those days, the youngsters would be satisfied and fulfilled, but also exhausted, and (unsurprisingly) would sleep, deeply and soundly, but also healthily and, yes, the twins slept soundly through the hullabalo of events of May 3rd.
But, hey, it's more fun to spread scurrilous myths about 'drug sedation' and the like ...
Are there any reports about the physical health of the twins since May 3rd 2007?
I think not.
I'm sure there's a reason ...
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 05:51:41 PM
So we have no real proof that the Twins were so sleepy that they were probably sedated- just suppositions from people who wish it to be so.
They may well have been sedated by parents or abductors, but we seem to have no reason to believe that unless we believe that abductors of the parents did it.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Rogerandout on November 25, 2013, 05:54:22 PM
It is odd that one set of participants here seem to think it possible that the parents did the sedation, but not possible for an abductor, whereas another set seem to think that it is possible for an abductor, but not for the parents.
What does that tell me? It tells me that people are bending the limited facts to fit their own agendas.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: icabodcrane on November 25, 2013, 06:00:55 PM
It is odd that one set of participants here seem to think it possible that the parents did the sedation, but not possible for an abductor, whereas another set seem to think that it is possible for an abductor, but not for the parents.
What does that tell me? It tells me that people are bending the limited facts to fit their own agendas.
Why doesn't it tell you that some people are more willing to invoke the presumption of innocence than others?
After all, no person clearly identified (as person "x") has been clearly identified as a potential or actual abductor.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 06:26:45 PM
My reply was not a reply? Oh dear.....i mentioned sedative medicines, made no reference to prescription or over the counter, you are the one who launched into defense mode and started speaking about illegalities of non independent prescription only sedatives and poisonings.....no need to jump guns @)(++(*
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 06:30:34 PM
if you say it you must be able to prove it...or it is libellous...basic uk libel law..remember sally bercow
No one said the mccanns sedated their kids as fact.....my point was in my answer to ferryman he made the assertion that any inference was untrue..and also libel........he cant do that unless he knows it is untrue thats all.....carry on though......
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2013, 06:44:32 PM
It is odd that one set of participants here seem to think it possible that the parents did the sedation, but not possible for an abductor, whereas another set seem to think that it is possible for an abductor, but not for the parents.
What does that tell me? It tells me that people are bending the limited facts to fit their own agendas.
it is possible that either happened but highly, highly unlikely IMO
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 06:44:47 PM
My reply was not a reply? Oh dear.....i mentioned sedative medicines, made no reference to prescription or over the counter, you are the one who launched into defense mode and started speaking about illegalities of non independent prescription only sedatives and poisonings.....no need to jump guns @)(++(*
Keep on dancing round the point, won't you.
It could have been technically poisoning. And it would be unethical to treat your own children with POM drugs.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 06:47:50 PM
It could have been technically poisoning. And it would be unethical to treat your own children with POM drugs.
my post was nothng to do with could be would be poisoning...stop dancing around and misrepresenting my original post....Im sticking YOU in room 101 IGNORE THE PEST......aka ignore list...thats all you deserve..... Enjoy dishonest machinations with others here on in........ 8((()*/
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2013, 06:47:57 PM
I have no idea and would not want to speculate because it is nothing to do with me. There is a certain type of person who wants to investigate the ins and outs of a cats backside and try to understand exciting worlds that amuse them. They are usually called fantasists or obsessives.
There are several groups of people in the real world tasked with investigating the subject. In the forum world there are people who think they are part of the real investigation.
I only came here because I could see that people were writing inaccuracies, but am beginning to understand that there is some dark game going on here between two groups of very strange individuals, obsessed with a case that has nothing to do with them I suspect their lives are rather sad.
I see
What pity ... that stance makes for very poor debate
In any event, the subject of the McCann children having been sedated that night was something the McCanns themselves 'speculated' ... and not without reason
The children who slept so lightly that the McCanns were concerned that the mere sound of a key in the lock of the front door would wake them ( and consequently left the patio doors open instead ) did not, on that fateful night ever even once stir, despite the shouting and general mayhem going on around them !
Under the circumstances it is fair to debate the subject, I believe, and even, like the McCanns themselves, to 'speculate' a little
If we accept that there is a possiblility ... perhaps even a likelihood ... that the McCann children were sedated, then the next stage of the debate is to discuss :
By what means may they have been sedated
For what reason
By whom
It would make for interesting dialogue, and I think
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2013, 07:01:03 PM
What pity ... that stance makes for very poor debate
In any event, the subject of the McCann children having been sedated that night was something the McCanns themselves 'speculated' ... and not without reason
The children who slept so lightly that the McCanns were concerned that the mere sound of a key in the lock of the front door would wake them ( and consequently left the patio doors open instead ) did not, on that fateful night ever even once stir, despite the shouting and general mayhem going on around them !
Under the circumstances it is fair to debate the subject, I believe, and even, like the McCanns themselves, to 'speculate' a little
If we accept that there is a possiblility ... perhaps even a likelihood ... that the McCann children were sedated, then the next stage of the debate is to discuss :
By what means may they have been sedated
For what reason
By whom
It would make for interesting dialogue, and I think
well start a thread and see if people find it interesting
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 07:01:36 PM
Not making rules, its common sense and understanding....something you obviously dont or wont have...oh but you tried to rewrite the rules of what is considered fair comment on high profile cases, and it never meant does not mean and never will mean what you tried to make it mean, nice try no cigar, not even a wee puff
Bye luv @)(++(*
flushed
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Mr Gray on November 25, 2013, 07:03:51 PM
Not making rules, its common sense and understanding....something you obviously dont or wont have...oh but you tried to rewrite the rules of what is considered fair comment on high profile cases, and it never meant does not mean and never will mean what you tried to make it mean, nice try no cigar, not even a wee puff
Bye luv @)(++(*
flushed
whatever you say I will continue to post as I see fit
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 25, 2013, 07:30:39 PM
In the whole post, what is the reference for the one point I underline?
What pity ... that stance makes for very poor debate
In any event, the subject of the McCann children having been sedated that night was something the McCanns themselves 'speculated' ... and not without reason
The children who slept so lightly that the McCanns were concerned that the mere sound of a key in the lock of the front door would wake them ( and consequently left the patio doors open instead ) did not, on that fateful night ever even once stir, despite the shouting and general mayhem going on around them !
Under the circumstances it is fair to debate the subject, I believe, and even, like the McCanns themselves, to 'speculate' a little
If we accept that there is a possiblility ... perhaps even a likelihood ... that the McCann children were sedated, then the next stage of the debate is to discuss :
By what means may they have been sedated
For what reason
By whom
It would make for interesting dialogue, and I think
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: icabodcrane on November 25, 2013, 07:37:40 PM
In the whole post, what is the reference for the one point I underline?
In the documentary/reconstruction the McCanns commissioned there is a conversation between Gerry McCann and Mathew Oldfield
Gerry McCann explains that the reason they started leaving the patio doors open was because they were afraid the sound of of the key in the lock of the front door would wake the children
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 25, 2013, 07:39:32 PM
In the documentary/reconstruction the McCanns commissioned there is a conversation between Gerry McCann and Mathew Oldfield
Gerry McCann explains that the reason they started leaving the patio doors open was because they were afraid the sound of of the key in the lock of the front door would wake the children
Reference?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: icabodcrane on November 25, 2013, 07:46:05 PM
I don't know how to do links, sorry, but all you have to do is go to page 4 of our video library above, and click on the Cutting Edge thread ( stop at 13.40 )
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 07:52:42 PM
you have been given CLEAR indication three times now, are you so incapable of searching instead of stomping??? Not to mention that you SHOULD have watched this documentary before......
heres your LINK! Enjoy and just in case you need it repeated from 13 40
oh btw its near if you want to start a bit earlier where gerry mccann admits he never ONCE physically checked on his kids!!! Apart from that last night..... >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Lyall on November 25, 2013, 07:59:56 PM
It's true, ferryman. I've seen it too ?>)()<
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 08:18:15 PM
Oh just in case you have "technical problems" lol heres the transcript Ferryman!
G: Yeah, I mean, I was saying this earlier, that at no point, other than that night, did I go stick my head in. That was the only time, because the door was like that. I mean, I knew how I’d left it.
MO: It’s more that you know I’d felt you’d done enough. You’ve been and seen. It’s quiet.
G: Part of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise coming through the front door. We didn’t want to disturb them. Sigh. Stupid, now, isn’t it.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html
Wonder why he said stupid now isnt it? >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 25, 2013, 08:23:34 PM
Oh just in case you have "technical problems" lol heres the transcript Ferryman!
G: Yeah, I mean, I was saying this earlier, that at no point, other than that night, did I go stick my head in. That was the only time, because the door was like that. I mean, I knew how I’d left it.
MO: It’s more that you know I’d felt you’d done enough. You’ve been and seen. It’s quiet.
G: Part of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise coming through the front door. We didn’t want to disturb them. Sigh. Stupid, now, isn’t it.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id235.html
Wonder why he said stupid now isnt it? >@@(*&)
Here is the exact link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atfDV7imHHY#t=15
Where is the explanation about the sound of the key?
ETA:
Icabodcrane's post at 727:
In the documentary/reconstruction the McCanns commissioned there is a conversation between Gerry McCann and Mathew Oldfield
Gerry McCann explains that the reason they started leaving the patio doors open was because they were afraid the sound of of the key in the lock of the front door would wake the children
Where is Gerry's explanation about the sound of the key?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 08:33:59 PM
Where is the explanation about the sound of the key?
ETA:
Icabodcrane's post at 727:
In the documentary/reconstruction the McCanns commissioned there is a conversation between Gerry McCann and Mathew Oldfield
Gerry McCann explains that the reason they started leaving the patio doors open was because they were afraid the sound of of the key in the lock of the front door would wake the children
Where is Gerry's explanation about the sound of the key?
A) your posting "here is the exact link" as if it differed from any other link is nit picking disingenuous rubbish
B) your posting about what exactly made the noise is more nit picking rubbish.....it was obviously coming in through the front door, key or anything else. icabs suggestion of the noise of a key was not de facto but explanatory/descriptive..... if you read back the point was made that they didnt want to risk waking the kids......whether it was from a door hinge creak or a key, matters not! One iota......
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: icabodcrane on November 25, 2013, 08:34:07 PM
Where is the explanation about the sound of the key?
ETA:
Icabodcrane's post at 727:
In the documentary/reconstruction the McCanns commissioned there is a conversation between Gerry McCann and Mathew Oldfield
Gerry McCann explains that the reason they started leaving the patio doors open was because they were afraid the sound of of the key in the lock of the front door would wake the children
Where is Gerry's explanation about the sound of the key?
oh dear
I had a feeling you might try to establish another hair-splitters' convention
The fact I was hoping to establish was that the McCanns, themselves, were best placed to know whether their children were light or heavy sleepers
Cleary, if they thought the sound of using the front door would wake their children then they considered them to be light sleepers
Yet, on that fateful night neither of the twins roused at all, despite the noisy mayhem all around them
It might be an indication that they had been sedated
Wouldn't you agree ?
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: DCI on November 25, 2013, 08:35:09 PM
Where is the explanation about the sound of the key?
ETA:
Icabodcrane's post at 727:
In the documentary/reconstruction the McCanns commissioned there is a conversation between Gerry McCann and Mathew Oldfield
Gerry McCann explains that the reason they started leaving the patio doors open was because they were afraid the sound of of the key in the lock of the front door would wake the children
Where is Gerry's explanation about the sound of the key?
Gerry's actual words are:
Part of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise coming through the front door. Because you don't want to disturb them. Stupid now, but! He doesn't mention anything about a key.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Redblossom on November 25, 2013, 08:37:55 PM
Part of the reason we ended up coming through the back was the noise coming through the front door. Because you don't want to disturb them. Stupid now, but! He doesn't mention anything about a key.
yes weve passed that bit...why do you thnk he said its stupid now? Makes no sense to me >@@(*&)
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: Cariad on November 25, 2013, 08:50:38 PM
Going back to a point davel made about kids sleeping through live bands, my sister in law is a drummer and her daughter was perfectly capable of sleeping through the noise of a samba band. However, she'd be immediately reduced to tears by a cross voice. I guess it's more to do with what you're used to.
My niece slept through a fire alarm going off directly outside her bedroom, but the sound of my sister doing up the velcro on her trainers would wake her.
Both true stories.
KM must have had a reason for getting the kids tested. I assume that she must've thought that sedation was a possibility.
Title: Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
Post by: ferryman on November 25, 2013, 09:12:30 PM
So I take it you accept Gerry said nothing about a key?
Gerry said nothing about the sound the key made in the lock ... I was not quoting verbatim and made a mistake ... I'm sorry
To be honest I did not think it was necessary to check on what the 'precise' noise Gerry thought would wake the children up if they used the front door ( I assumed that the sound of the door being unlocked would be harder to avoid that the actual opening and closing of the door .. which could be managed quite quietly if done gently and carefully )
The 'real' point I was hoping to get across was that using the front was decided against by the McCanns for fear of the noise waking the childeren ... indicating that they knew the children were quite light sleepers
That brings into question the fact that the twins were in a profoundly deep sleep on the night Madeleine was reported missing ... and might suggest they had been sedated