Author Topic: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?  (Read 90849 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline colombosstogey

Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #300 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.

SCORED....i wondered how long it would take to come back to him lol.....is it 23 pages ....  8@??)(


Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #301 on: November 25, 2013, 04:20:45 PM »
SCORED....i wondered how long it would take to come back to him lol.....is it 23 pages ....  8@??)(

I mentioned this a few posts above. It is the only reason why OpposingPat kept on arguing a silly point.

The OP is "In Amaral's book he talks about Calpol being a sedative and that we Brits give it to our children to help them sleep."
I

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #302 on: November 25, 2013, 04:39:01 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   

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #303 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.
I

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #304 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.....?


Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #305 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.
I

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #306 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

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #307 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?
I

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #308 on: November 25, 2013, 05:07:14 PM »
When did you stop beating your wife?

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

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #309 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.....

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #310 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.
I

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #311 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!
I

Redblossom

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #312 on: November 25, 2013, 05:16:33 PM »
I specifically said prescription only medicines.

yes you did, I didnt.....

Offline Rogerandout

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 383
  • Total likes: 0
  • Upholder of Verifiable Scientific Truth
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #313 on: November 25, 2013, 05:17:51 PM »
yes you did, I didnt.....

Which is why your reply was not a reply.

Which meds are you thinking of?
I

icabodcrane

  • Guest
Re: Was Calpol in 2007 really a sedative?
« Reply #314 on: November 25, 2013, 05:23:09 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  ?