Author Topic: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?  (Read 90846 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline pinkblossoms

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #75 on: November 22, 2013, 10:51:00 AM »
According to the Oxford dictionary it does-

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.

Offline colombosstogey

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #76 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.








Offline Angelo222

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #77 on: November 22, 2013, 11:57:35 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.

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.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Lace

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #78 on: November 22, 2013, 12:44:24 PM »
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.


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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 03:01:48 PM by Angelo222 »

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #79 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.

Offline colombosstogey

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #80 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.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-482238/Kate-McCann-My-struggle-control-difficult-Madeleine.html

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.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #81 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

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #82 on: November 22, 2013, 02:29:48 PM »
absolute rubbish

Unless Angelo can produce the medical research that proves us wrong and him right ...

Offline colombosstogey

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #83 on: November 22, 2013, 04:12:16 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...

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #84 on: November 22, 2013, 04:28:45 PM »
Unless Angelo can produce the medical research that proves us wrong and him right ...
he cant..fact

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #85 on: November 22, 2013, 04:37:47 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
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 04:39:35 PM by davel »

Offline Joanne

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #86 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.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #87 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" !

 in red..absolute rubbish...paracetamol is not addictive

Doo you have problems with English..several means several...not many
« Last Edit: November 22, 2013, 05:47:04 PM by davel »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #88 on: November 22, 2013, 06:01:43 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

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #89 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