Author Topic: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?  (Read 90857 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #255 on: November 24, 2013, 11:41:20 AM »
According to the Oxford English dictionary it is !

As I keep saying, the OED records usage, not correctness.

Any medically trained person will tell you that Calpol is not a sedative. Uneducated people may say this but they are incorrect.

Are you able to recognise yourself in the above Monty Python sketch?
I

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #256 on: November 24, 2013, 12:01:41 PM »
Are you now claiming that the people at the Oxford English dictionary are uneducated ?

No. They are paid to record how people, educated and uneducated, use the language.

For instance now "Literally" can mean its opposite "Metaphorically" and "Enormity" now means large rather than evil.

If people misuse English then the OED will record it.

Stupid people have misused sedative so the OED has recorded it.

Calpol is NOT a sedative.
I

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #257 on: November 24, 2013, 12:18:22 PM »
It is according to the Oxford English dictionary !
the oxford English dictionary is only available online with a subscription

Offline puglove

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #258 on: November 24, 2013, 12:29:12 PM »
the oxford English dictionary is only available online with a subscription

Davel! You missed a trick! You should have said prescription!

And you're normally soooooo hilarious!    8(0(*
Jeremy Bamber kicked Mike Tesko in the fanny.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #259 on: November 24, 2013, 12:30:26 PM »
Davel! You missed a trick! You should have said prescription!

And you're normally soooooo hilarious!    8(0(*

had a late night...bit tired

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #260 on: November 24, 2013, 12:49:01 PM »
So could you provide the link to the Oxford English Dictionary pat

Offline colombosstogey

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #261 on: November 24, 2013, 12:51:17 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  ?

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


Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #262 on: November 24, 2013, 01:00:01 PM »
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

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.
I

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #263 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

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #264 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
I

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #265 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.
I

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #266 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.
I

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #267 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

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #268 on: November 24, 2013, 02:04:32 PM »
Who claimed that the moon was made of cheese ?

www.oxforddictionaries.com/

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

 well done..thats the oxford dictionaries...not THE Oxford English Dictionary

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #269 on: November 24, 2013, 03:35:28 PM »
Not chromosomal; endocrine.

I think you will find a chromosomal disorder causes the endocrine problem