Author Topic: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?  (Read 90812 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #165 on: November 23, 2013, 06:12:47 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.

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #166 on: November 23, 2013, 06:23:43 PM »
There is no proof that Martians don't live on Mars ...

There is plenty of evidence that there is no sentient life on Mars. Bad example.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #167 on: November 23, 2013, 07:05:55 PM »
Wrong again Coco, dictionaries provide a definition of words used in a particular language, they do not promote how words are used.

Nope.

You will find recorded in dictionaries a definition of the word aggravate as to annoy or irritate.

Its strict meaning is make worse.

Dictionaries reflect both how words are used and what they mean.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #168 on: November 23, 2013, 07:08:28 PM »
There is plenty of evidence that there is no sentient life on Mars. Bad example.

You need to understand the difference between evidence and proof.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #169 on: November 23, 2013, 07:12:27 PM »
You need to understand the difference between evidence and proof.

sorry to put the thread back on track but the answer to the thread is a resounding no

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #170 on: November 23, 2013, 07:15:27 PM »
sorry to put the thread back on track but the answer to the thread is a resounding no

And not just from the inception of the drug, but to the present day, and for the whole period that the drug has been available ...

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #171 on: November 23, 2013, 07:52:01 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

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #172 on: November 23, 2013, 08:20:44 PM »
Oxford dictionary definition of sedative-

a drug taken for its calming or sleep-inducing effect.

We've had a pharmacist confirm that Calpol / paracetamol does in fact calm pain, so in certain contexts Calpol can be described as a sedative.

No.
I

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #173 on: November 23, 2013, 08:27:24 PM »
Oxford dictionary definition of sedative-

a drug taken for its calming or sleep-inducing effect.

We've had a pharmacist confirm that Calpol / paracetamol does in fact calm pain, so in certain contexts Calpol can be described as a sedative.

You are making a complete idiot of youself....carry on

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #174 on: November 23, 2013, 08:35:00 PM »
"Calming pain" is analgesia

"Calming the CNS" is sedation.

Two different processes; two different terms.
I

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #175 on: November 23, 2013, 08:38:30 PM »
"Calming pain" is analgesia

"Calming the CNS" is sedation.

Two different processes; two different terms.

 As I posted yesterday

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #176 on: November 23, 2013, 08:43:38 PM »
Sedation  specifically involves  CNS suppression

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #177 on: November 23, 2013, 09:03:00 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.

Maybe I should try downing a bottle of it next time I shoot some smack & go out for a spin in my tractor.
Christian Brueckner Fan Club

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #178 on: November 23, 2013, 09:06:55 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

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #179 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."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/3314633/Are-we-using-too-much-Calpol.html
I