Calpol - interesting article

[Lite]

Have just been sent this article on Calpol:

www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/behind_the_label/346400/behind_the_label_c alpol.html

Any views or experiences from members?

I've used Calpol in the past for occasional help when my son was teething badly or a bit feverish after a vaccination. We still have a bottle somewhere for emergencies. No signs of wheezing or eczema whatsoever.

Some people are constantly popping pills and sucking on thermometers themselves and I suppose that could translate into over-anxiety/overmedicating their children. And if people really 'don't think of Calpol as medicine' then they're just being a bit thick

Like anything else, used sparingly and it's helpful, used to excess and it's problematic.

Its a pity Dr's didn't prescribe the 'active ingredients' (safe for a child of course) in their pure state - without the sugary syrup.

I have a dd 5 months and would use when necessary, as with anything fine when used correctly but any product comes with its risk of allergies

article here

OP are you doing research for something?

I know people IRL who get through a bottle of calpol a week. With one child. My bottle (tho t'is medised not calpol) tends to be in the cupboard so long it gets manked up and sticky and I chuck it out.

There are people I agree who will pop pills themselves for next to nothing, so will do the same for their children.

Some responses to the original Lancet article suggested that the link between Calpol and wheezing was not so clear. Children who require a lot of pain killers may need these pain killers because of underlying conditions and those conditions may be responsible for increased levels of wheezing. See here

Interestingly, I have a friend who (by any standards) has over medicated her 3.5 year old (with Calpol) since his birth. Administering it most weeks.

He then developed an 'underlying' respiratory problem - which led to more medication.

What came first - the chicken or the egg?

my ds 7 never had over use of calpol but did have it fairly frquently due to numerous surgies within the first few yeara of life. He had always been fine with skin etc until he hit 6 and suddenly he had eczema break out and it has never gone.

He only ever has it on his neck and chest never anywhere else.

Was it caused by the use of calpol, well i don't know but the way i look at it is, yes he has the eczema, no it doesn't bother him or hurt him, but the operations would have done had he not had the pain relief he had. It really swings in roundabouts.

Lite the underlying respiratory problem (hard to diagnose, for example asthma, in small babies) may have been the reason for the administering of the medicine

BALD - the child in this case 'developed' respiratory problems.

The more paracetamol a child had in the early years of life, the higher the risk. Thus children under 12 months who were given a paracetamol-based medicine at least once a month more than tripled the chances of suffering wheezing attacks by the age of 6 or 7.

I agree with BALD. I suspect that children who have a predisposition to catching every infection going (and thus developing a fever for which Calpol or similar may well be given, perfectly reasonably) are also the children at risk of asthma etc. Some parents may well give it too often. I think that's a separate problem.

And agree with RunningOutOfIdeas too, sorry, missed that post.

Be interesting to know what causes the 'predispositions'.

Its fascinating that allopathic medicine is wrapped up in a sugary syrup. Wonder why that would be?

There is a non members/media request fee I'm afraid

and calpol is now sugar free

That's quite an old article isn't it. Well, from last year. Not in the news now.

look it was talked about here

"Its fascinating that allopathic medicine is wrapped up in a sugary syrup. Wonder why that would be?"

Because paracetamol is very bitter and a sweetener makes the medicine more palatable to children (cf Mary Poppins). What other reason are you suggesting?

I was being facetious.

I would imagine most parents could muster up a fruit smoothie, or some other healthy alternative, to disguise the allopathic medicine, without the use of the pink stuff.

This, of course, might make difficult marketing.....what a thought.

I use generic paediatric paracetamol suspension with no colourings when ds has a fever/pain (because I am tight mainly). It's still got a sweet taste though - unsweetened paracetamol suspension would be foul. Think of the taste if you crunch a tablet.

Where /how do you obtain that suzi?

Just ask in the chemist. Much, much cheaper.

In fact, because they've got this Community Prescribing scheme here where you can register with the pharmacy to get over the counter (generic) meds for children free without having to schlep along to the doctors for a prescription, it's as much cheaper as you could possibly get

Thank you- I'll ask about it next time I'm in.

The same sort of research was banded about a few years ago about antibiotic use in children under one year of age resulting in a hugely increased risk of asthma. Further research on that seems to have seriously diminished the strength of the original research and its conclusions (or more accurately, journalists' interpretations of the meaning and conclusions of the research). I dislike articles like that, which are clearly intended to alarm on the basis of very little solid evidence. I put it in the same camp as the theories that stress in pregnancy causes dyslexia or autism; or that a child that doesn't crawl is missing out on a hugely important part of its development and is heading for a lifetime of dyspraxia (that may have been avoided if he/she had been taught to crawl?!)... ie we look at things like stress and medicines and logically presume that they will cause some kind of long term harm, so skew the way we interpret the evidence to fit our theories. They may contribute to problems in some way, but that doesn't give us the right to claim we can prove it when we can't, or make people change their behaviours as a result of an unlikely claim (again, it is more often the way journalists report on this type of research that gives the impression it virtually proves something when it doesn't). It can scare people and make them feel hugely guilty for no particularly good reason to read articles like this.

I really do not believe that the avoidance of Calpol in early life will protect anyone from developing asthma or eczema if they are susceptible to developing these conditions. I do, however, believe that it is really not a good idea to regularly give a baby Calpol, but I don't need alarmist articles to make me think that.