Talk:Calpol

Colouring

Just wondering, 'cause calpol isn't pink anymore, it, or atleast the one sold in scotland, now has a white colouring. Does this mean that the suspected carcinogenic colouring has been removed? 81.129.76.59 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pink here in England.

Bias

Does anyone else think that this page reads as though it were written by someone who's very anti-Calpol? 90.194.170.175 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information here is of interest to anybody thinking of giving their child Calpol. Perhaps you should assume good faith on behalf of your fellow wikipedia editors. Famousdog (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also regard this page as very anti-Calpol. If you know how/are able to, please consider put a 'Neutrality disputed' tag up, or at least discuss the issue. There's a negative side to almost all substances used in medicinal preparations, but this page seems to try and stress this too much, especially when it's merged with the section of the contents of Calpol. A separate section for possible side-effects may be both clearer in presentation and more easily understandable, especially for the average layperson who is considering the use/administration of Calpol. 78.86.242.135 (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everybody who has a problem with "bias" on WP always expect somebody else to correct it? Do it yourself. That's how WP works! If anybody has a problem with your edits they'll edit them, and so on... Famousdog (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done an edit quite as major as the one required here, and I was looking for an authority figure to either do it (as their authority allows them to do so) or at the very least give permission for others to do so and oversee the process. Obviously this is not going to happen, so I've edited anyway. I hope we can work together on this one 90.194.170.175, since we seem to share a common opinion. 78.86.242.135 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the material that you deleted because it is from a verifiable and relatively trustworthy publication. If you can find material that contradicts the claims made in the Ecologist article, please add them, but do not indulge in wholesale blanking of content. Cheers, Famousdog.

You seem to be missing my point. I do not dispute the trustworthiness of the of the information, but I question its necessity. All medicines (and indeed any food/drink) that have these substances inside them may be equally able to cause the side effects as noted by the WP article as it stands now. However, I do not see these long lists of potential risks on most WP articles; indeed, there is no mention of the potential risks of almost every substance in the medicine for any of the other brand names as listed in the List_of_paracetamol_brand_names. Indeed, Tylenol is the only one to mention risk at all, and even then it is only for the toxicity of paracetamol. This is to be somewhat expected, as paracetamol is the main active ingredient (and this Calpol article, in a hilarious gaffe of sensationalism, manages to omit the risks associated with paracetamol, its active ingredient).

If the the risks of almost every ingredient are to be listed on the Calpol article, then why is it not the same everywhere else on WP? It is common knowledge that there are risks associated with the taking of almost every type of medicine. Should we go one step further, it could be argued that we should list the risk associated with the ingredients of other food and drink products too. And one might also argue that we aren't being thorough enough; this forum post by ennui:(http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36389) suggests that there are even more risks associated with minor ingredients of Calpol that we could list.

Whilst I appreciate the fact that there has been a (rather sensationalist) publication which makes the information for Calpol easy to copy, paste and reference, just because we have such information does not mean that we should publish it on WP. If we do decide to start listing the possible "suspected" risks associated with medicines, then we must be thorough and do this for every medicine instead of just the one. "Stomach discomfort or pain, nausea, stomach ulcer with or without bleeding, black tarry stools, worsening of asthma, unexplained wheezing or shortness of breath, liver and kidney problems, headache, dizziness, hearing disturbance and rarely skin rash, itching, peeling, easy bruising and facial swelling." are just some of the posssible side-effects of Calpol, and a similar list can be found for all comparable medicines. Your Ecologist article also mentions that out of the hundred thousands (at the very least) of children who have consumed Calpol, one girl developed Stevens Johnson Syndrome after taking Calpol. Your Ecologist article then suggests that this is enough evidence for Stevens Johnson Syndrome to be included on the list. It concludes that, "bizarrely", the manufacturers were not held responsible for warning of the possibility of the isolated incident.

Moving back to more reasonable ground, I hope that you now understand my point that not all information is needed. I leave it to you to edit/revert the article as you see fit in light of our entertaining little discussion. If you still do not understand my point I will be happy to make it even clearer than it is above. 78.86.242.135 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Quality Article - Merge with paracetamol

This is a poorly maintained, poorly referenced article. I am thinking that this article should be merged with paracetamol. Calprofen can redirect to paracetamol/ibuprofen (as per current discussions on wikiproject:pharmacology) if needed. Now if it can be brought up to standard like Tylenol, with notable information, that can not be better detailed in the INN drug page then it may be okay to keep. Any comments. Cheers Lethaniol 00:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem poor, even oddly mentioning 'the company' but not naming one - checking it seems to be now Pfizer and prior/alternative 'trading style' Warner-Lambert Consumer Healthcare. Can't seem to immediately reliably source the statement "brand was owned by Mark Profad, the president of the company and Paul Knott, his vice president" - I only see numerous sites giving the exact same sentence, anyone know?

I do think there should be coverage of the product/brand as it's such a bigseller. And it should include mention of the concerns - there seems to be repeated reliable coverage of them, such as several large studies tentatively linking its active ingredient to later asthma, suggestions that doctors and health workers are recommending it too readily and some parents may over-use it, and also the continuing worries about some of the additives which have been banned in foods (which seems to have been wiped from the article sometime after the above discussion in 2010). Sighola2 (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this sold?

I changed the reference to this product being sold in China to being sold in Hong Kong, having lived in both places for years I have never seen it in mainland China, but I have seen it in Hong Kong. Thread on Geo Baby[1] confirms others living in HK see it sold there. Would be nice to have a corporate page confirming what regions this is sold in. --SnakeSeries (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]