nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Homeopathy sold in Pharmacy. Your thoughts please.

Mordy

A curious thing happened to my partner last week. She went in to a Pharmacy and asked for advice on what she should give our 18 month old son for a chesty cough. She was told that there was nothing except Sootha and that this was a homeopathic remedy. Now my partner was unaware of what homeopathy was but took that this was being recommended as something that would help relieve the symptoms and so accepted it.

I’ve seen and heard, as you may have, the recent advertisements that have been advising us to go to our local pharmacists before we go to our Doctors. So we are being asked to trust our pharmacists with diagnosing and treating non life threatening illness like the common cold.

So my questions are;

Do you think that this is a breach of trust of the pharmacist to be recommending and/or selling non clinically proven remedies?

And

Should this practice be stopped?

If you wish do discuss the relative merits or otherwise of homeopathy I would ask that you would read Dr David Colquhoun page (http://dcscience.net/improbable.html ). As if you feel that you have a argument in favour of the use of homeopathy I will probably end up quoting Dr Colquhoun so we might save ourselves a bit of time if you go direct to him.

Find more posts tagged with

pharmacy

pharmacist

homeopathy

Quick Links

Comments

mcmahonp

sam34 wrote: »

potential allegations of defamation, as well as the fact that our charter does not permit naming/recommending (and hence not recommending) people, practitioners or clinics

Could you post link please? I cant seem to find were this is detailed.

Excuse my ineptitude.
Thanks
McM

mcmahonp

Mordy wrote: »

Pharmacies are bound by a code of practice in Ireland and in this code it states:

“Principle One. The practice by a pharmacist of his/her profession must be directed to maintaining and improving the health, wellbeing, care and safety of the patient. This is the primary principle and the following principles must be read in light of this principle”

In order to fulfil his/her obligations under this principle a pharmacist should:
…
Not purchase or supply any product, including a medicinal product, where there is reason to doubt its safety, efficacy or quality…” *1

Do you think that the selling of homeopathic remedies is in breach of this or any other part of the code?

Reading it I think they are. But I'd love to hear from a Pharmacy owner who sells them. Interpretations and all that... Anyone?

FluffyCat

I think a lot of posts on this thread are OTT. All products on sale in ireland need a cert or licence from the IMB. All homeopathic products are deemed safe via this route.

If the OP didnt want the product, they simply could have said no but remembering that the child is only 18mths limits the amount of products available to them.

Its also about patient choice. If a pharmacy didnt sell Sootha for a child and given the fact that it is safe and suitable, then there would be uproar!

Also, in college, we were told the best thing for a cheasty cough, with no sign of infection, is water but some people feel that taking a chemical is a better option.

Pharmacy law is very complex and Im only getting to grips with it after 4 years in college!! There is no breach of the code as the product will do no harm. The idea is debatable but the whole area of CAM is a wolly one and no-one can judge other peoples choices

And one more thing, a sales assistant in a pharmacy is known as a 'skilled assistant' by the PSI and stating it is an unskilled job just shows the lack of knowledge by the poster.

eilo1

FluffyCat wrote: »

I think a lot of posts on this thread are OTT. All products on sale in ireland need a cert or licence from the IMB. All homeopathic products are deemed safe via this route.

If the OP didnt want the product, they simply could have said no but remembering that the child is only 18mths limits the amount of products available to them.

Its also about patient choice. If a pharmacy didnt sell Sootha for a child and given the fact that it is safe and suitable, then there would be uproar!

Also, in college, we were told the best thing for a cheasty cough, with no sign of infection, is water but some people feel that taking a chemical is a better option.

Pharmacy law is very complex and Im only getting to grips with it after 4 years in college!! There is no breach of the code as the product will do no harm. The idea is debatable but the whole area of CAM is a wolly one and no-one can judge other peoples choices

And one more thing, a sales assistant in a pharmacy is known as a 'skilled assistant' by the PSI and stating it is an unskilled job just shows the lack of knowledge by the poster.

Hiya,

I think you missed the point, I am not against them selling these products because of direct harm or safety issues. I disagree with the selling because of their efficacy.

Posted earlier from the PSI website
"Not purchase or supply any product, including a medicinal product, where there is reason to doubt its safety, efficacy or quality…”

I realise that their is a market for CAM therapies but I do not think they should be sold in a pharmacy unless they are proven to be effective. Selling them in pharmacy is missleading to the public.

FluffyCat

eilo1 wrote: »

Hiya,

I think you missed the point, I am not against them selling these products because of direct harm or safety issues. I disagree with the selling because of their efficacy.

Posted earlier from the PSI website
"Not purchase or supply any product, including a medicinal product, where there is reason to doubt its safety, efficacy or quality…”

I realise that their is a market for CAM therapies but I do not think they should be sold in a pharmacy unless they are proven to be effective. Selling them in pharmacy is missleading to the public.

If thats your view then selling them anywhere is misleading. Having homeopathic products on the market at all is misleading. But for some people, the fact that a product has been in use for hundreds of years with the people using it claiming that it works, is good enough for them.

Remember pharmacy has been around a lot longer that 'proved' efficacy. The reason homeopathic drugs do not 'prove' efficacy is about money to do this.

Anyway, since the IMB have approved the product, the argument should really be directed to them and not to the pharmacies which are within the law selling them.

Most drugs on the market have unknown modes of action but it doesnt stop people taking them. Those companies just have the money to 'prove' they work.

28064212

Mordy wrote: »

I strongly disagree with you that the sales assistance role is “completely unskilled” and I doubt they would take kindly to read their chosen career described as such.

FluffyCat wrote: »

And one more thing, a sales assistant in a pharmacy is known as a 'skilled assistant' by the PSI and stating it is an unskilled job just shows the lack of knowledge by the poster.

Unskilled is a general term used to describe a job which doesn't require any specific qualifications. I could be hired as a sales assistant tomorrow, and I have absolutely no qualifications in that area. That is what I mean by unskilled.

eilo1

FluffyCat wrote: »

If thats your view then selling them anywhere is misleading. Having homeopathic products on the market at all is misleading. But for some people, the fact that a product has been in use for hundreds of years with the people using it claiming that it works, is good enough for them.

Remember pharmacy has been around a lot longer that 'proved' efficacy. The reason homeopathic drugs do not 'prove' efficacy is about money to do this.

Anyway, since the IMB have approved the product, the argument should really be directed to them and not to the pharmacies which are within the law selling them.

Most drugs on the market have unknown modes of action but it doesnt stop people taking them. Those companies just have the money to 'prove' they work.

Im not going to get into a debate about homeopathy's potential efficacy.

The fact is that there is no proven efficacy to date and the PSI's code states "not purchase or supply any product, including a medicinal product, where there is reason to doubt its safety, efficacy or quality"

They should be adhereing to their own code, its very simple could cause the public to loose confidence in them.

FluffyCat

28064212 wrote: »

Unskilled is a general term used to describe a job which doesn't require any specific qualifications. I could be hired as a sales assistant tomorrow, and I have absolutely no qualifications in that area. That is what I mean by unskilled.

Most sales assistants I know have completed an OTC sales course making them skilled.

Others which havent done the course but have more years experience than I have been alive would be deemed skilled.

In the interest of running a smooth pharmacy and ensuring that an assistant can assistant the pharmacist will provide training, making them.....skilled.

FluffyCat

eilo1 wrote: »

Im not going to get into a debate about homeopathy's potential efficacy.

The fact is that there is no proven efficacy to date and the PSI's code states "not purchase or supply any product, including a medicinal product, where there is reason to doubt its safety, efficacy or quality"

They should be adhereing to their own code, its very simple could cause the public to loose confidence in them.

Again, ask the IMB. They are they guys in charge. But this is a complex area and people not in the know could find is rather confusing

28064212

FluffyCat wrote: »

Most sales assistants I know have completed an OTC sales course making them skilled.

Others which havent done the course but have more years experience than I have been alive would be deemed skilled.

In the interest of running a smooth pharmacy and ensuring that an assistant can assistant the pharmacist will provide training, making them.....skilled.

And lots of assistants are doing a summer job they have no interest in other than the fact that it pays. OTC courses are not a requirement, years of experience are not a requirement. I go to a pharmacist, I know they've done the training and are qualified. I go to a sales assistant, they might have done the training, or they might have the same knowledge as the average person on the street

Cat Melodeon

FluffyCat wrote: »

Most sales assistants I know have completed an OTC sales course making them skilled.

Others which havent done the course but have more years experience than I have been alive would be deemed skilled.

In the interest of running a smooth pharmacy and ensuring that an assistant can assistant the pharmacist will provide training, making them.....skilled.

In terms of industry, certain categories of jobs are deemed skilled, others semi-skilled, others unskilled. A skilled worker will generally have completed a standardised program of learning and will have taken standardised assessments at the end of that learning, demonstrating their qualification to work in that area. Examples of such training would be formal apprenticeships, college and university programs, etc.

You do not need this type of formal training to be a sales assistant. School-leavers can do it. students do it in a part-time capacity. For many it is their job for life and they may be dedicated workers willing to do on-the-job training, they might have heaps of skills in the areas or customer care, product knowledge, sales, use of technology etc, but if there is no formal structured program of education required to do the job, it is not classified as a skilled job.

sam34

mcmahonp wrote: »

Could you post link please? I cant seem to find were this is detailed.

Excuse my ineptitude.
Thanks
McM

it's post number 3 in the forum charter, which is one of the stickies on the front page

(sorry, i am quite poor at inserting links)

Mordy

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

In terms of industry, certain categories of jobs are deemed skilled, others semi-skilled, others unskilled. A skilled worker will generally have completed a standardised program of learning and will have taken standardised assessments at the end of that learning, demonstrating their qualification to work in that area. Examples of such training would be formal apprenticeships, college and university programs, etc.

You do not need this type of formal training to be a sales assistant. School-leavers can do it. students do it in a part-time capacity. For many it is their job for life and they may be dedicated workers willing to do on-the-job training, they might have heaps of skills in the areas or customer care, product knowledge, sales, use of technology etc, but if there is no formal structured program of education required to do the job, it is not classified as a skilled job.

A definition of the term “unskilled job” that has, in the past, been accepted at EU level is:
“(a) an unskilled job is a job which requires, for its proper execution, hardly any training and/or experience;” e.g. *1
I wonder can we can agree that this definition is sufficient for our purposes? If so then read on…
If we look at the requirements for staff whose duties include the supply of non-prescription medicines (which would most defiantly cover the Sales Assistance role) as laid down by PSI remembering of course that the PSI is the statutory body, established by the Pharmacy Act 2007 responsible for regulation of pharmacy services in Ireland, and is therefore responsible for the regulation of the Sales Assistance role.

“All staff whose work regularly includes the supply of non-prescription medicines should receive training on this service and related procedures, including circumstances necessitating referral.” *2
So the regulator of this role requires that Sales Assistances receive training. Referring back to our initial definition it says in order to qualify for the “term unskilled job” it must require hardly any training.
So our only problem then is the term “hardly any”. This is quite a subjective term so it is difficult to categorically say that the amount of training that is required for the Sales Assistance role is more or less than “hardly any”.
But IMO if the statutory body states that a role requires training then this constitutes more than “hardly any”. And so I believe that the Sale Assistance role is therefore “Skilled”. And just to note, if we find that there are people that are currently fulfilling this role, who themselves are unskilled, that does not mean that the role is unskilled as this would be arguing from the specific to general, something we shouldn’t do if we want to adhere to good deductive reasoning.

*1 http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/02/tfeature/it0502201t.htm
*2 http://www.thepsi.ie/Libraries/Publications/Pharmacy_Practice_Guidance_Manual.sflb.ashx

amjon.

I'm not a fan of homeopathy but it is here to stay, just like cigarettes and Obama. I believe that selling homeopathy from a pharmacy is actually a good idea as it allows a pharmacist to intervene in the sale if the customer is trying to use purified water to treat a genuine medical condition. This may not happen in other high street stores where ignorance or greed may allow the sale to go ahead.

Mordy

amjon. wrote: »

I'm not a fan of homeopathy but it is here to stay, just like cigarettes and Obama. I believe that selling homeopathy from a pharmacy is actually a good idea as it allows a pharmacist to intervene in the sale if the customer is trying to use purified water to treat a genuine medical condition. This may not happen in other high street stores where ignorance or greed may allow the sale to go ahead.

An interesting point of view, I’ll give you that for sure but. However, leaving the actual analogies aside for a moment, I would hesitate to agree with the sentiment behind them. I must believe that Good Science will prevail over quackery. Homeopathy will eventually go the way of the Babylonians exorcism. If we don’t believe this we are asking the human race to stagnate, halting progress in this field. That is a something I cannot see happening. Can you?

As to it being good to have Homeopathy sold at a pharmacist so they can tell you that it has no proven affect, this might be fine in itself but for the fact that having it placed on the shelves close to our wonderful acetylsalicylic acid for example, imbibes it with some modicum of respectability or even credibility. Which I hope you will agree is a dangerous thing to do.

Cat Melodeon

Mordy wrote: »

A definition of the term “unskilled job” that has, in the past, been accepted at EU level is:
“(a) an unskilled job is a job which requires, for its proper execution, hardly any training and/or experience;” e.g. *1
I wonder can we can agree that this definition is sufficient for our purposes?
...
So the regulator of this role requires that Sales Assistances receive training. Referring back to our initial definition it says in order to qualify for the “term unskilled job” it must require hardly any training.
So our only problem then is the term “hardly any”. This is quite a subjective term so it is difficult to categorically say that the amount of training that is required for the Sales Assistance role is more or less than “hardly any”.
But IMO if the statutory body states that a role requires training then this constitutes more than “hardly any”. And so I believe that the Sale Assistance role is therefore “Skilled”. And just to note, if we find that there are people that are currently fulfilling this role, who themselves are unskilled, that does not mean that the role is unskilled as this would be arguing from the specific to general, something we shouldn’t do if we want to adhere to good deductive reasoning.

*1 http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/02/tfeature/it0502201t.htm
*2 http://www.thepsi.ie/Libraries/Publications/Pharmacy_Practice_Guidance_Manual.sflb.ashx

In fairness now, if you want to apply good deductive reasoning the place to begin would be with a definition of what a skilled worker is, not what a unskilled worker is not.

1. Manual worker who has completed a formal apprenticeship or training in a craft or trade. In the classified lists used as job classifications , the skilled worker ranks above the semi-skilled worker . Various categories of skilled worker are frequently differentiated.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/FRANCE/SKILLEDWORKER-FR.htm

2. Within the meaning of the legislation on the minimum wage , term denoting a manual worker who holds one of a specified range of formal qualifications, attracting a 20 per cent. premium in minimum wage rates.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/LUXEMBOURG/SKILLEDWORKER-LX.htm

I have referenced the same website as you yourself quoted from in order to avoid misunderstandings based on semantics.

I do not deny that retail workers may receive on-the-job training. I do not deny that pharmacy retail staff may receive industry specific training in relation to sale of specific goods. I do not deny that every worker must possess some skills in order to carry out their duties.

However if it is not a standardised formal training program it does not allow them to be identified as skilled workers. These are definitions of terms used in EU employment law and trade union negotiations. You can interpret them all you like, but there is a vast body of documentation and legislation that would suggest that you are using the term 'skilled worker' inappropriately when referring to pharmacy sales assistants who have not qualified as pharmacists.

locum-motion

Pharmacy Counter Assistant training is semi-formalised, in that there are a few different programmes out there; for example, each of the chains (Boots, Unicare, Hickey's etc) have their own training programmes for new staff, as well as a course that is run by the IPU several times a year in various locations, and also FÁS run a course in various locations.
Many if not most of the Medicines Counter Assistants in the country have completed one of these courses.

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

In fairness now, if you want to apply good deductive reasoning the place to begin would be with a definition of what a skilled worker is, not what a unskilled worker is not.

1. Manual worker who has completed a formal apprenticeship or training in a craft or trade. In the classified lists used as job classifications , the skilled worker ranks above the semi-skilled worker . Various categories of skilled worker are frequently differentiated.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/FRANCE/SKILLEDWORKER-FR.htm

2. Within the meaning of the legislation on the minimum wage , term denoting a manual worker who holds one of a specified range of formal qualifications, attracting a 20 per cent. premium in minimum wage rates.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/LUXEMBOURG/SKILLEDWORKER-LX.htm

I have referenced the same website as you yourself quoted from in order to avoid misunderstandings based on semantics.

I do not deny that retail workers may receive on-the-job training. I do not deny that pharmacy retail staff may receive industry specific training in relation to sale of specific goods. I do not deny that every worker must possess some skills in order to carry out their duties.

However if it is not a standardised formal training program it does not allow them to be identified as skilled workers. These are definitions of terms used in EU employment law and trade union negotiations. You can interpret them all you like, but there is a vast body of documentation and legislation that would suggest that you are using the term 'skilled worker' inappropriately when referring to pharmacy sales assistants who have not qualified as pharmacists.

theseason

While there is an issue with the sale of homeopathic remedies it comes down to the right of the customer to choose what they want and as long as that is the case they should remain in pharmacies so that they can be informed as to the risks of using these. Ireland is in fact quite conservative when it comes to their use and it is much more of an issue on the continent particularly in France where homeopathic remedies are frequently used as treatments for common ailments and even to prevent the common cold if you are a bit run down.

May I also add that if you question the sale of homeopathic products can you also consider all chesty cough remedies (plenty of water has been shown to be much more effective) as well as other items which have questionable activity which are also licensed by the IMB as the homeopathic products are.

NewHillel

theseason wrote: »

While there is an issue with the sale of homeopathic remedies it comes down to the right of the customer to choose what they want and as long as that is the case they should remain in pharmacies so that they can be informed as to the risks of using these.

I couldn't agree less. Quackery has no place in a pharmacy, which is supposed to be helping customers make informed choices. It's even worse when some of these products ar actively promoted to gullible customers, who place their trust in the pharmacist.

kuro_man

angeldelight wrote: »

I don't believe in homeopathy either and I'm a pharmacist. If someone comes in to me looking for a cough bottle for a child of that age I will tell them that the only one available is Sootha, which is a homeopathic remedy. It hasn't been proven to work but many parents find it to be very good. It is then up to the parent to decide whether or not they want to buy it. I've given them the relevant information and they can make their choice. 9 times out of 10 they buy the product as they would like to try something to try and relieve the cough. Nobody put a gun to your partners head and said take this and give it to your child or else... Clearly if you had been the one to visit the pharmacy you would have chosen not to purchase it as you have strong views on homeopathy however your partner chose to buy it. If she didnt know what homeopathic meant she could have asked. I really don't understand the level of vitriol in your post - all the information was given, and she made the decision to buy it

I hate this argument. You have breached the customer's trust in your judgment. The white coat gives you authority, you must take responsibility.

People find it very hard to make informed choices. Giving them anecdotal evidence suggesting that is works is hiding behind semantics. No wonder most buy it. Did you at least inform them that they are diluted so much that the so-called "ingredient" doesn't exist?

Pharmacist make money from homeopathic "remedies" despite knowing that they are placebos. Having homeopathic remedies in pharmacies gives them credence. Homeopathic "remedies" administered instead of suitable treatment can be dangerous, especially to children.

Give a woman sootha this time. Next time, she'll give her fever-ridden child a homeopathic "remedy" instead of calpol or ibuprofen, which could be very dangerous. It is reasonable to believe (right or wrongly) that a pharmacy or pharmacist would not sell a "remedy" with no active ingredient.

You must take some responsibility for this: if you don't believe it works, don't sell it.

nesf

kuro_man wrote: »

I hate this argument. You have breached the customer's trust in your judgment. The white coat gives you authority, you must take responsibility.

People find it very hard to make informed choices. Giving them anecdotal evidence suggesting that is works is hiding behind semantics. No wonder most buy it. Did you at least inform them that they are diluted so much that the so-called "ingredient" doesn't exist?

Pharmacist make money from homeopathic "remedies" despite knowing that they are placebos. Having homeopathic remedies in pharmacies gives them credence. Homeopathic "remedies" administered instead of suitable treatment can be dangerous, especially to children.

Give a woman sootha this time. Next time, she'll give her fever-ridden child a homeopathic "remedy" instead of calpol or ibuprofen, which could be very dangerous. It is reasonable to believe (right or wrongly) that a pharmacy or pharmacist would not sell a "remedy" with no active ingredient.

You must take some responsibility for this: if you don't believe it works, don't sell it.

This kind of comes back to my main issue with this. By just being displayed in a pharmacy these placebos get an air of authority about them. If the remedies were stocked on a Tesco shelf they wouldn't sell half as well.

kuro_man

Pharmacists are saying "hey, other ill-advised desperate parents in your situation bought this, so perhaps you should too, that's €12 please".

They should say: "go a supermarket and buy some honey and a lemon - much cheaper."

SpiderP

kuro_man wrote: »

I hate this argument. You have breached the customer's trust in your judgment. The white coat gives you authority, you must take responsibility.

People find it very hard to make informed choices. Giving them anecdotal evidence suggesting that is works is hiding behind semantics. No wonder most buy it. Did you at least inform them that they are diluted so much that the so-called "ingredient" doesn't exist?

Pharmacist make money from homeopathic "remedies" despite knowing that they are placebos. Having homeopathic remedies in pharmacies gives them credence. Homeopathic "remedies" administered instead of suitable treatment can be dangerous, especially to children.

Give a woman sootha this time. Next time, she'll give her fever-ridden child a homeopathic "remedy" instead of calpol or ibuprofen, which could be very dangerous. It is reasonable to believe (right or wrongly) that a pharmacy or pharmacist would not sell a "remedy" with no active ingredient.

You must take some responsibility for this: if you don't believe it works, don't sell it.

I work as a pharmacist in a community pharmacy where I am not the supervising pharmacist. I have no say in what is stocked by the shop but my superior (the supervising pharmacist) would never question my judgement with respect to recommending or not recommending any product.

I would never recommend a homeopathic "remedy" to a patient on the grounds that I think they offer at most a placebo effect. That being said, we have a lady who has used the pharmacy for years for her prescriptions and is a valued patient/customer to the pharmacy. She uses Bach's rescue remedy to help her when she gets a bit anxious from time to time. I heard her purchasing a bottle recently while I was busy in the dispensary, she was chatting to the OTC assistant explaining to her that she was to give a lecture in front of several hundred people the next day and that she wanted to get a bottle "just to give me peace of mind". What would you have done in my situation:
a) "Excuse me madam, don't you know that that's just a bottle of water and will at most elicit a placebo effect and that if you're suffering from situational anxiety you should find another, better way of dealing with it? Best of luck with your public speaking now!"
b) Leave the woman, who has her own judgement of the value of said product to make a purchase that's not doing her any harm.

It's a much more complex issue than people saying "You should be promoting only evidence based medicine in your establishment there my good pharmacist, and shame on you for doing otherwise!" - hate to tell you, a lot of the coughs and colds formulations etc you can buy over the counter don't have much evidence to support their widespread use, particularly at the doses obtainable over the counter - something that's recently been addressed by the IMB - but you will nonetheless even find doctors prescribing them from time to time.

The same goes for nutritional supplements that are available widely in pharmacies. If I had a penny for every time I've told someone that a person who eats a healthy balanced diet and has no underlying illnesses shouldn't need to take a multivitamin to be told "ah sure it won't do any harm" and have them buy it anyway, I'd have a sh*tload of pennies.

I understand the general point of view people are making, and I think for the most part, the vast majority of pharmacists would agree - the plural of anecdote is most certainly not data. Yet many are like myself and unfortunately have no say in what the store stocks and are thus stuck between a rock and a hard place. This will becoming increasingly more the case in the coming years with current developments in the sector.

I would also like to point out that I think the example of giving a homeopathic remedy to a "fever ridden child" is a bad one. No OTC assistant would recommend such a product if a child was feverish - it's literally the first thing that they're taught on their training programmes. If it warranted (at least where I work) I would intervene if I thought a person/child was seriously ill, and was not going to benefit from anything that the OTC assistant could recommend. 9/10 though this is not the case as they generally refer them to a pharmacist in such situations.

kuro_man

SpiderP wrote: »

It's a much more complex issue than people saying "You should be promoting only evidence based medicine in your establishment there my good pharmacist, and shame on you for doing otherwise!" - hate to tell you, a lot of the coughs and colds formulations etc you can buy over the counter don't have much evidence to support their widespread use, particularly at the doses obtainable over the counter - something that's recently been addressed by the IMB - but you will nonetheless even find doctors prescribing them from time to time.

Given that the principals of homeopathy break the laws of physics it would be easy to single out homeopathy as quackery. Not stocking them would avoid the situation above and any implicit condoning of its usage. Also, a lot of people confuse homeopathy with herbal remedies and the packaging often exploits this. [/quote]

SpiderP wrote: »

The same goes for nutritional supplements that are available widely in pharmacies. If I had a penny for every time I've told someone that a person who eats a healthy balanced diet and has no underlying illnesses shouldn't need to take a multivitamin to be told "ah sure it won't do any harm" and have them buy it anyway, I'd have a sh*tload of pennies.

This is not a fair comparison: vitamin/suppement pills can be useful to certain people (e.g. pregant women) and they have active ingredients. I agree they are over-marketed and are not needed by the majority but they do have a use. You can't say that of homeopathy.

SpiderP wrote: »

I would also like to point out that I think the example of giving a homeopathic remedy to a "fever ridden child" is a bad one. No OTC assistant would recommend such a product if a child was feverish - it's literally the first thing that they're taught on their training programmes. If it warranted (at least where I work) I would intervene if I thought a person/child was seriously ill, and was not going to benefit from anything that the OTC assistant could recommend. 9/10 though this is not the case as they generally refer them to a pharmacist in such situations.

I wasn't suggesting this but a parent may do it by themselves. They could give their children a homeopothy "remedy" for a cough which then gets better, reinforcing the belief that it works. They may then use it for more serious conditions, like a fever. A pharmacist/doctor may not be present to advise otherwise. Pharmacies that stock homeopathy "remedies" are part of the problem, not the solution. Even the Irish Times can't tell fact from fiction - read this irresponsible article and tell me we don't have a problem. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0308/1224291571073.html

nesf

kuro_man wrote: »

Even the Irish Times can't tell fact from fiction - read this irresponsible article and tell me we don't have a problem. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0308/1224291571073.html

That article just reinforces my belief that we need a Ben Goldacre of our own with a regular column in the Irish Times. (Bad Medicine in the Guardian for those who don't get the reference)

nesf

Oh and in the spirit of the thread, bypass the middleman!

http://bulkhomeopathy.com/

boardswalker

nesf wrote: »

That article just reinforces my belief that we need a Ben Goldacre of our own with a regular column in the Irish Times. (Bad Medicine in the Guardian for those who don't get the reference)

I second the support for Ben Goldacre. While he criticises homeopathy, he doesn’t seem to wear blinkers. Over the years, he has been outspoken about the failings of big pharma.

In Feb 27 2008, on the subject of the trials of anti-depressants, he wrote “Alongside these deep-rooted, systematic problems with the pharmaceutical industry, the single issue of SSRI antidepressants, and these new findings, becomes almost trivial. Biased under-reporting of clinical trials happens in all areas of medicine. It wastes money, and it costs lives.”

On 9 May 2009, he wrote “The pharmaceutical industry, and publishers, as we have repeatedly seen, have serious difficulties in living up to the high standards needed in this field, and bad information in the medical literature leads doctors to make irrational prescribing decisions, which ultimately can cost lives, and cause unnecessary suffering, not to mention the expense.”

On 24 Jan 2011, he wrote “We don't talk enough in medicine about the barriers to people taking changes in evidence and practice on board, recognising that we are human and prone to marketing and inflexibility; and while we do make an effort with "continuing professional development" in medicine, our systems for disseminating information when it changes - getting the right information to the right person at the right time, in an avalanche of tens of thousands of papers published every years - those systems are inefficient and slow. “

In the foreword for the book “Testing Treatments” he wrote “But there is a lot of money at stake in some research, and for reasons you will see in this book, 90% of trials are conducted by industry. This can be a problem, when studies funded by industry are four times more likely to have a positive result for the sponsor’s drug than independently funded trials. ……. Where the stakes are so high, sometimes the ideals of a fair test can fail.”

On 4 Nov 2011, he wrote “Pharmaceutical companies can behave dismally. Most important, they still won't publish all the results of all the clinical trials conducted on humans. This is indefensible, and because we tolerate it, we don't know the true effect of the medicines that we give.”

Yes, I would love to see posts like that around here.

nesf

boardswalker wrote: »

I second the support for Ben Goldacre. While he criticises homeopathy, he doesn’t seem to wear blinkers. Over the years, he has been outspoken about the failings of big pharma.

In Feb 27 2008, on the subject of the trials of anti-depressants, he wrote “Alongside these deep-rooted, systematic problems with the pharmaceutical industry, the single issue of SSRI antidepressants, and these new findings, becomes almost trivial. Biased under-reporting of clinical trials happens in all areas of medicine. It wastes money, and it costs lives.”

On 9 May 2009, he wrote “The pharmaceutical industry, and publishers, as we have repeatedly seen, have serious difficulties in living up to the high standards needed in this field, and bad information in the medical literature leads doctors to make irrational prescribing decisions, which ultimately can cost lives, and cause unnecessary suffering, not to mention the expense.”

On 24 Jan 2011, he wrote “We don't talk enough in medicine about the barriers to people taking changes in evidence and practice on board, recognising that we are human and prone to marketing and inflexibility; and while we do make an effort with "continuing professional development" in medicine, our systems for disseminating information when it changes - getting the right information to the right person at the right time, in an avalanche of tens of thousands of papers published every years - those systems are inefficient and slow. “

In the foreword for the book “Testing Treatments” he wrote “But there is a lot of money at stake in some research, and for reasons you will see in this book, 90% of trials are conducted by industry. This can be a problem, when studies funded by industry are four times more likely to have a positive result for the sponsor’s drug than independently funded trials. ……. Where the stakes are so high, sometimes the ideals of a fair test can fail.”

On 4 Nov 2011, he wrote “Pharmaceutical companies can behave dismally. Most important, they still won't publish all the results of all the clinical trials conducted on humans. This is indefensible, and because we tolerate it, we don't know the true effect of the medicines that we give.”

Yes, I would love to see posts like that around here.

The thing is, Ben Goldacre's reasoned and calculated complaints about Big Pharma are a world away from the average conspiracy theory-esque stuff that anti-Pharma people come out with on here and elsewhere online. I'm all for reasoned critique but most people just seem to come out with a "we can't trust them therefore herbal medicine must be brilliant" level of crap.

kuro_man

I just watch this interview with Micheal Baum, wonderful intellegent and empathic man who is obviously emotional and dispaired about the use of homeopathy in the NHS and the rise of irrational belief systems. Great stuff, worth watching all of them, it gets better and better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grWfxsFWOFI

boardswalker

nesf wrote: »

The thing is, Ben Goldacre's reasoned and calculated complaints about Big Pharma are a world away from the average conspiracy theory-esque stuff that anti-Pharma people come out with on here and elsewhere online. I'm all for reasoned critique but most people just seem to come out with a "we can't trust them therefore herbal medicine must be brilliant" level of crap.

Don't worry about the "average conspiracy theory-esque stuff" - that's just a red herring for you to divert attention.

What scares me about Big Pharma is the reasoned and caculated analysis of Big Pharma that are made by many, including Ben Goldacre.

Given what I know now about the abuse of evidence as part of the approval process, about off-label prescribing and about serious conflicts of interest in research, all well documented by Ben Goldacre et al, its very clear that patients/consumers are much more at risk from flawed highly potent drugs than they are from "sugarpills/water."

I haven't seen too many threads on here concerned about the risks of medicines where the evidence turned out to be lacking and patients suffered as a result.