I'm still lost as to the interest of this thread.
OP: Calpol was illegal in Portugal in 2007 in the McCann case and illegal in Portugal in the Irish case in 2015.
It wasn't "illegal" in May 2007. It simply wasn't on sale in PT at that time (whether or not it ever was).
What exactly does "illegal" mean?
For some reason, the sales authorisation appears to have been "revoked" in 2008 (but Merc's link concerns a higher dosage, thanks to Davel for spotting that).
It's not clear what exactly "revoked" actually means in this context.
Was it considered to be a dangerous substance (and therefore banned)? Was the higher dosage as per Merc's link the issue? Or is it one of those situations in which getting anything launched requires.... erm, a helping hand (as in a license not being renewed)?
This thread was created by cutting a chunk out of another thread that was going off-topic. You would need to find the original thread to get the context, in which the OP here made sense, but I won't bore anyone with the background.
You can tell by the fact that this thread has reached the length it has that some forum members are extremely sensitive re Calpol and its role in the McCann case, though I am at a loss to understand why. I made very clear (either in this thread or the parent thread) that I had not researched this in detail because I personally did not consider it significant in the McCann case.
I consider it to be significant in the case of the Irish family in 2015, but as I am not interested in that case very much, other than it appears to me to be a bit of Portugal-bashing using Madeleine as the stick.
Hence, I was not willing to spend hours digging through the Portuguese medical system to find out how over-the-counter medicines are regulated, nor am I interested in spending hours researching what the Portuguese penal code says about hard drugs and about the use of non-licensed medicines.
Thanks to a bit of hard work by two or three members, I think the issue of Calpol in Portugal has now been clarified.
Take a look at the revocation article of March 2008 for 50mg Calpol, which I shall now call Calpol50. Scroll right down to the bottom, and you will see the date this product was authorised. It was not 3 May 2007. It was years earlier.
To think the Portuguese company with the licence to market Calpol50 sat on it and did nothing beggars belief. The reasonable assumption is that Calpol50 was on sale in Portugal for years. Whether it was called Calpol or not, who cares.
Then we have the authorisation of 24mg Calpol on 3 May 2007, by a sheer coincidence the day Madeleine disappeared.
Why did the formula change from Calpol50 to Calpol24? I could speculate, but I don't see the point. When was Calpol50 withdrawn from the market? Again, I could speculate, but I don't see the point. And I don't see the point of researching either.
Calpol50 might or might not have been available OTC in May 2007. It may or may not have had some form of prohibition order in place to prevent its sale. But the licence was not revoked until March 2008.
With that in place, how does the McCann case fit in with Calpol50? It is still a non-issue. I would assume UK Calpol was Calpol50, but it may have already been replaced by Calpol24 if J&J was quicker through the traps. Anyone with a bottle of UK Calpol will be able to tell us if the current version is Calpol50 or Calpol24, which would only be relevant if the UK stuck with Calpol50.
If anyone can be bothered to check the archiving report (I'm not) then the consideration given to Calpol and to sedatives would become clear. The McCanns were not charged with anything in this respect. As neither the twins nor Madeleine were tested for drugs, one obvious line is ruled out. I doubt very much whether the PJ tracked the product history of Calpol in Portugal from Calpol50 to Calpol24. So even if there was a temporary ban on Calpol50 at the time, and the McCanns brought in Calpol50, I doubt the PJ would have twigged, and I have no idea what penalty, if any, there might be.
I think it is safe to assume the McCanns, like most UK families at the time, would have been ignorant of any restriction that might have been placed on Calpol in Portugal in April/May 2007, so again I see this as a non-issue.
Before anyone jumps in with 'this proves Calpol was not involved in Madeleine's disappearance', no it doesn't. It is a trivial exercise to develop a scenario where Calpol plays a significant role, and where alternatives to Calpol play a significant role. So I do hope we are not going to wander down that path.
Why doesn't Wiki have Calpol on sale? Perhaps they don't know it is licensed to a Portuguese company. If the name used in Portugal is not Calpol, perhaps they didn't pick that up.
Why has our daughter not seen Calpol in Portugal? It could be that the range of chemists is too small to be significant. Of course, if is not called Calpol, you have your explanation.
Thumbs up to those members who put time and effort into digging into this. Please note, this is another instance of this forum turning up information that is not widespread elsewhere.
