Author Topic: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?  (Read 90902 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #225 on: November 23, 2013, 10:36:56 PM »
Pity he didnt pass his genes on to you then in that respect..obviously left a  blank so you now call everyone else stupid fool thick  prat etc LOL!

only one that you make look a fool is yourself

Right

Gone
 @)(++(*
>>>>>


of course he passed his genes on to me ...I understand we would share at least 15 alleles



« Last Edit: November 23, 2013, 10:44:06 PM by davel »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #226 on: November 23, 2013, 10:38:24 PM »
Sceptical towards the McCann's ? Are you stating that I am "sceptical towards the McCann's" ?

read the posts

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #227 on: November 23, 2013, 10:45:03 PM »
Sceptical towards the McCann's ? Are you stating that I am "sceptical towards the McCann's" ?

what does then original post say?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #228 on: November 23, 2013, 10:46:08 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

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #229 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

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #230 on: November 23, 2013, 10:51:38 PM »
perhaps you could ask admin to reinstate it then we could discuss it

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #231 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
« Last Edit: November 23, 2013, 11:01:36 PM by davel »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #232 on: November 23, 2013, 11:02:38 PM »
Why would you be reluctant to discuss your written words ?

why should I discuss my written words that have been removed...do you not see that

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #233 on: November 23, 2013, 11:04:21 PM »
Why would you be reluctant to discuss your written words ?

 this thread is going off topic paracetamol is not a sedative... end of   

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #234 on: November 23, 2013, 11:12:44 PM »
Amen  then but lets continue the discussion of the alledged abduction....
Chose your thread to bump  for continuation or start another

Nite and bless
X
« Last Edit: November 23, 2013, 11:14:35 PM by Redblossom »

Offline puglove

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #235 on: November 23, 2013, 11:43:57 PM »
According to Rogerandout it is !

For Christ's sake. Pain relief and sedation are 2 very different things. Gawd help you lot if you need an operation, or you have a horse with colic.

Now. Man up, and move on.    ?8)@)-)
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #236 on: November 24, 2013, 06:50:13 AM »
According to Rogerandout it is !

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.
I

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #237 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....

 

CPN

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #238 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

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #239 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  @)(++(*