Soon to need a prescription for Nurofen/Solphadine/etc?

ebixa82 · 28-08-2010 2:14am

policeman wrote: »

An nurse experienced in cancer care once told me, through her own research, that a cancer cure had been discovered as far back as the 1970's but it was buried because the global drug giants make too much profit from it, and governments see it as some sort of population control [therefore costing them less money]. Now, I accept this is anecdotal, and you might say another paranoid conspiracy theory, but it sticks in my mind.

Profit before people.. Profit before people...Look after number 1, personal gain, blady blah. That is predominantly the way civilisation has evolved much to our collective shame. Therefore all is never what it seems.

So when the next person says to you, sorry scratch that, pontificates "I'm doing this for your own good, because I really do care what happens to you I]you moron[/I" Ask yourself do they really give a toss? What's their real motive? Are they just looking after themselves? To the latter the answer will invariably be a resounding Yes.

Is that you Richard Boyd Barrett???? Some priceless quotes from the conspiracy theorists/uneducated here tonight!!!

ebixa82 · 28-08-2010 2:23am

HorseNHaleys, BenHadad, RATM & Policeman and all the other ill informed conspiracy theorists. Thank you so much for the entertainment you are providing to us as we discuss this topic. Please keep it up!!

HorsesNHarleys · 28-08-2010 5:36am

drkpower wrote: »

Oh, you're one of those.....
Of course there are many cures for many cancers. But I dont want to interrupt your fantastical delusional thought processes so I'll leave it at that.

And I can tell you're one of them. The kind that can't form an intelligent response based on facts and information so they resort to degrading and belittling a poster by insinuating they are delusional.

You stated there are many cures for many cancers, care to back that statement up. Exactly what specific cancers are there that are being completely cured and with what specific medicine.

Denial is a hell of a lot closer to delusional, just saying.:D

policeman · 28-08-2010 6:47am

ebixa82 wrote: »

What a load of bollix. There are loads of peer reviewed articles, but the likes of you would never get the exposure to read any. You know nothing of pharmacy, PSI or medical science. Now please fcuk off...

This folks, is the medical elite at it's best. Sad isn't it? It's people like this that make decisions for us, the retarded masses.[shudder]

ebixa82 · 28-08-2010 8:14am

policeman wrote: »

This folks, is the medical elite at it's best. Sad isn't it? It's people like this that make decisions for us, the retarded masses.[shudder]

Thanks for the compliment! By the way, I never said you were a retard, simply that you had no real understanding of the situation and that I find your posts highly entertaining...

Tucking Fypo · 28-08-2010 10:27am

Well one good thing to come out of this will be petrol sales on the forecourts.(j/k) If someone addicted to Solpadeine wants it, they just have to drive further.

Wertz · 28-08-2010 10:36am

ebixa82 wrote: »

Hahahaha...drug dealers selling solpadeine. Priceless! Any more jokes?

You don't even see a possibility? Even usually well informed boardsies are piling in here asking about prescriptions and doctors vistis for their analgesic of choice...the not-so-informed out there may wander into a chemists shop, face the 3rd degree, say "Fook that" and try to get them someplace else.
All the while as discussed, codeine containing meds are available in the North and abroad without the fuss and at a lower cost...what's to stop the enterprising amongst us going and bulk buying in the North and selling on at a profit down here (with no pesky pharamcist to thwart them)? It's happening with alcohol and smokes and has for years. People are alos talking about buying on the web, where you're as liable to get sugar pills (or worse) in a fake box as you are to get the real product.

BTW someone mentioned antibiotics back up the thread...now you can't simply go into a doctor and tell him; "eh I need antibiotics for this cold/flu thing I have"...it's down to the doc to ensure they're the best thing for your complaint. The reasoning being that the more antiB's you issue the less effective they become for everyone (through resistance of microbes)...now switch that to a pharmacist, being asked for pain relief meds, or more precisely being told what pain meds to give a customer...one of the pharmacist's concerns is that if you don't require strong meds for the type of pain you have but take them anyway, that when real actual pain needs treatment that what they can sell you (without a script) will effectively be worthless.

Alicat · 28-08-2010 12:21pm

Gummy Panda wrote: »

A pharmacy is a business like any other. If you handle the situation poorly, people won't be return customers whether this is for prescriptions, toiletries, over the counter medicine, etc.

I won't use Boots pharmacy section again after trying to get Nurofen Plus. The girl behind the counter had better approach then pharmacist.

What makes you think we handle the situations badly? No matter how well we manage the situation there will ALWAYS be snotty addicts and general customers who will get in a huff and say they're never coming back again. But I'm not going to give in and just give them whatever they want. When customers 'threaten' to go somewhere else, we say "Off you go then." because for the very few times it happens to us, that customer is not worth keeping. We make up the 0.0001% that is their business with the hundreds of other customers who repeatedly come back to us because we are a friendly and professional pharmacy.

drkpower · 28-08-2010 1:00pm

HorsesNHarleys wrote: »

You stated there are many cures for many cancers, care to back that statement up. Exactly what specific cancers are there that are being completely cured and with what specific medicine.
Denial is a hell of a lot closer to delusional, just saying.:D

Cancer is being cured every day; by surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy. Not everyone is cured, sadly, but almost every cancer has some kind of cure. The fact that you call on me to provide back-up for the assertion that there are many cures for cancer (a fact which has been established for many many years, evidence of which can be found at the click of a button) clearly shows that you have an opinion that there are no cures for cancer. Such an opinion is a false belief or opinion. A false belief or opinion is a delusion. Therefore, I have shown conclusively that you are delusional.

Calibos · 28-08-2010 2:38pm

I'd just like to point out that not all the people complaining about the guidelines are uninformed, addicts or of the global cancer conspiracy or anti-Big Pharma brigade

Neither do I think those medical/pharmacutical professionals posting here are elitists even when their posts are debating mine. In fact they are no more elitist than most of us here complaining about the guidelines. The common thread in our posts seems to be, "We know all about the side effects, the dosages, addictive potential, signs of withdrawl, signs of addiction. We know we are responsible users of this pain-killer but we know the moronic clueless masses need to be informed and/or protected from themselves and are just annoyed the the guidelines make no provision for pharmacists to differentiate between the moronic masses and ourselves." Hows that for elitest!!

moonboy52 · 28-08-2010 2:57pm

Calibos wrote: »

I'd just like to point out that not all the people complaining about the guidelines are uninformed, addicts or of the global cancer conspiracy or anti-Big Pharma brigade

Neither do I think those medical/pharmacutical professionals posting here are elitists even when their posts are debating mine. In fact they are no more elitist than most of us here complaining about the guidelines. The common thread in our posts seems to be, "We know all about the side effects, the dosages, addictive potential, signs of withdrawl, signs of addiction. We know we are responsible users of this pain-killer but we know the moronic clueless masses need to be informed and/or protected from themselves and are just annoyed the the guidelines make no provision for pharmacists to differentiate between the moronic masses and ourselves." Hows that for elitest!!

+1

ebixa82 · 28-08-2010 3:07pm

Calibos wrote: »

I'd just like to point out that not all the people complaining about the guidelines are uninformed, addicts or of the global cancer conspiracy or anti-Big Pharma brigade

Neither do I think those medical/pharmacutical professionals posting here are elitists even when their posts are debating mine. In fact they are no more elitist than most of us here complaining about the guidelines. The common thread in our posts seems to be, "We know all about the side effects, the dosages, addictive potential, signs of withdrawl, signs of addiction. We know we are responsible users of this pain-killer but we know the moronic clueless masses need to be informed and/or protected from themselves and are just annoyed the the guidelines make no provision for pharmacists to differentiate between the moronic masses and ourselves." Hows that for elitest!!

How can someone be sure that they are not part of the moronic masses?

The problem is many people think they are taking these drugs correctly and are not. Then when they go into a pharmacy and say they want Solpadeine for a tooth ache and the Pharmacist recommends Nurofen they throw a hissy fit and storm out...

jdivision · 28-08-2010 3:53pm

Alicat wrote: »

What makes you think we handle the situations badly? No matter how well we manage the situation there will ALWAYS be snotty addicts and general customers who will get in a huff and say they're never coming back again. But I'm not going to give in and just give them whatever they want. When customers 'threaten' to go somewhere else, we say "Off you go then." because for the very few times it happens to us, that customer is not worth keeping. We make up the 0.0001% that is their business with the hundreds of other customers who repeatedly come back to us because we are a friendly and professional pharmacy.

out of curiosity was it reasonable for a pharmacist to tell me she wouldn't give me Solpadene which the nurse had told me to get when I was leaving hospital after a tonsillectomy. She gave me the prescription painkillers but refused me that. Seemed a bit stupid to me.

ebixa82 · 28-08-2010 4:05pm

jdivision wrote: »

out of curiosity was it reasonable for a pharmacist to tell me she wouldn't give me Solpadene which the nurse had told me to get when I was leaving hospital after a tonsillectomy. She gave me the prescription painkillers but refused me that. Seemed a bit stupid to me.

Why would you feel the need to take Solpadeine if you had just been given prescription pain killers?

It also depends on what the painkillers were. It is possible they may have contained Paracetamol and/or an opiate. In which case you may be overdosing..

HorsesNHarleys · 28-08-2010 4:14pm

ebixa82 wrote: »

The problem is many people think they are taking these drugs correctly and are not. Then when they go into a pharmacy and say they want Solpadeine for a tooth ache and the Pharmacist recommends Nurofen they throw a hissy fit and storm out...

I agree and I don't see where there is a problem with a Pharmacist recommending a better medication for the ailment. I trust my Pharmacist's opinion very much on which non-prescription medications work best for specific ailments and especially how they will interact with the prescription medications I'm taking. In fact our Pharmacists tend to know more about how medications will interact and their contraindications than do some doctors.

I don't understand why anyone would verbally abuse a Pharmacist for making a more appropriate recommendation. Isn't that their job?

gbee · 28-08-2010 4:15pm

ebixa82 wrote: »

Why would you feel the need to take Solpadeine if you had just been given prescription pain killers?..

Partly an issue arises with dissolving the Solpadeine against the tables prescribed by a [our] doctor.

The ritualism is gone and the effect is reportedly not the same.

Calibos · 28-08-2010 4:21pm

I know I am not part of the moronic masses because I only need to take between 4 and 6 tablets a month

I know I am not part of the moronic masses because (pre guidelines) I took nearly 10 days full dosages of both N+ and Solpadine offset by two hours sanctioned by the pharmacist (for Wisdom extraction,dry socket and infection), was aware I would get withdrawls, recognised said withdrawls, and took regular paracetemol for that one withdrawl headache.

I know I am not part of the moronic masses because I did not become dependent pre guidelines when they were handed out like smarties nor I am scared by the 'Won't someone think of the Children" anti codeine hysteria.

I know I am not part of the moronic masses because rather than being swayed one way or the other (take them for everything/take them as the absolute last last last resort) I know there is a middle ground. Should one take them for every little pain? No of course not! Is there anything wrong with taking some to 100% get rid of a pain quickly when one works on their feet 10 hours a day 6 days of the week in a retail environment and where distractions because of that headache, neckache, muscle ache mean mistakes are made or one is grumpy with customers. No, I see nothing wrong with that.

Needless to say, you will pick up on one part of that post, ignore the rest and run with it. "Ha!! I knew it! Grumpy!! That'll be the widthdrawl, I knew you were an addict!!"

ArmaniJeanss · 28-08-2010 4:42pm

Out of interest, seeing as these are only PSI 'guidelines', what would be the ramifications if a pharmacy decided to ignore them - either as an aggressive measure to increase its business, because it was wasting too much staff time, or because they felt the guidelines were wrong?

ebixa82 · 28-08-2010 4:48pm

gbee wrote: »

Partly an issue arises with dissolving the Solpadeine against the tables prescribed by a [our] doctor.

The ritualism is gone and the effect is reportedly not the same.

You are talking about addicts there. This person is not an addict. They had just got their tonsils removed. Why would a non-addict be looking for Solpadeine having just been given a stronger painkiller?

drkpower · 28-08-2010 7:32pm

sesna wrote: »

That would be up to a court to decide. In my opinion, probably nothing.

Unlikely. Refusing to comply with these regulations is an offence. These are the penalties:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/act/pub/0020/sec0072.html#sec72

It would also be grounds for disciplinary action.

ArmaniJeanss · 28-08-2010 8:11pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Out of interest, seeing as these are only PSI 'guidelines', what would be the ramifications if a pharmacy decided to ignore them - either as an aggressive measure to increase its business, because it was wasting too much staff time, or because they felt the guidelines were wrong?

drkpower wrote: »

Refusing to comply with these regulations is an offence.

Thats kind of interesting - the word 'guideline' isn't really the word they should be using then, it sounds sort of benevolant and cosy, in a 'shur its only a bit of a guideline' sort of way.

But if its actually the law of the land that its now illegal in the criminal sense to sell these products without 'the chat' then maybe this should have been made clearer.

sesna · 28-08-2010 8:54pm

drkpower wrote: »

Unlikely. Refusing to comply with these regulations is an offence. These are the penalties:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/act/pub/0020/sec0072.html#sec72

It would also be grounds for disciplinary action.

Regulations are very different to the PSI's "guidelines". Of course failure to comply with the law/regulations warrants penalty.

HavingCrack · 28-08-2010 11:54pm

policeman wrote: »

An nurse experienced in cancer care once told me, through her own research, that a cancer cure had been discovered as far back as the 1970's but it was buried because the global drug giants make too much profit from it, and governments see it as some sort of population control [therefore costing them less money]. Now, I accept this is anecdotal, and you might say another paranoid conspiracy theory, but it sticks in my mind.

Profit before people.. Profit before people...Look after number 1, personal gain, blady blah. That is predominantly the way civilisation has evolved much to our collective shame. Therefore all is never what it seems.

I've heard there was a cure for HIV-AIDS covered up as well but there has never been a reputable scientist or doctor who has publicly announced the cures for both HIV and cancer were suppressed to the best of my knowledge so I'd be quite suspicious.

ebixa82 wrote: »

What a load of bollix. There are loads of peer reviewed articles, but the likes of you would never get the exposure to read any. You know nothing of pharmacy, PSI or medical science. Now please fcuk off...

Thats a ridiculous statement even from someone who clearly has an exaggerated sense of their own importance. Its relatively simple to gain access to medical journals for anyone, its not as if they contain the US nuclear activation codes. Nice to see that medical snobbery is still alive and well in Ireland.

drkpower · 29-08-2010 1:00am

sesna wrote: »

Regulations are very different to the PSI's "guidelines". Of course failure to comply with the law/regulations warrants penalty.

I dont want to get overly-technical but this is the position:

Under the 2007 Act (which i posted) it is an offence to breach a regulation. The Codeine Guideline were made pursuant to the 2008 Regulations (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/si/0488.html, in particular section 10). The Codeine Regulations were made specifically to ensure compliance with the 2008 Regulations. Therefore breach of the Codeine Guidelines is a breach of the Regulation and therefore an offence under the 2007 Act. So, yes, a breach of the guideline is the very same thing as a breach of the Regulations.

Hope that makes sense.

policeman · 29-08-2010 1:31am

Now that cancer theory is just that, as I said. What sticks in my mind is the profit before people mentality, and we are chock full of that.

The airline industry has often been accused of compromising safety in the past because it's more expensive to spend money on plane faults than it is to pay compensation to bereaved families, ie the weighing up of risk vs cost.Plenty of aviation disaster docs on telly alarmingly conclude saving money comes before lives.

Global drug giants haven't a squeaky clean record when it comes to testing their drugs [eg. Kano trovafloxacin trial litigation]or pushing some drugs over others. Giving a medical "professional" a nice new pen and treating them to all sorts of perks so that doctors prescribe their product or chemists prominently displaying or favouring their stuff might sound nonsense to you, but these are the things I like to ponder.

So you can take the p*ss, and say my comments are ridiculous and sh*te.etc. I'd much rather be someone who is a little sceptical and maybe likes to question stuff, rather than living my life as a lobotomised sheep, fooled by the smoke and mirrors, and believing everything I'm told by the man behind the curtain. The power trippers, the egos, and self important d*cks would prefer if we were all like that, and never asked questions.

drkpower · 29-08-2010 1:36am

policeman wrote: »

The power trippers, the egos, and self important d*cks would prefer if we were all like that, and never asked questions.

Actually, they love the fact that it is people like you who are asking the questions.:D

HavingCrack · 29-08-2010 2:02am

policeman wrote: »

Now that cancer theory is just that, as I said. What sticks in my mind is the profit before people mentality, and we are chock full of that.

The airline industry has often been accused of compromising safety in the past because it's more expensive to spend money on plane faults than it is to pay compensation to bereaved families, ie the weighing up of risk vs cost.Plenty of aviation disaster docs on telly alarmingly conclude saving money comes before lives.

Global drug giants haven't a squeaky clean record when it comes to testing their drugs [eg. Kano trovafloxacin trial litigation]or pushing some drugs over others. Giving a medical "professional" a nice new pen and treating them to all sorts of perks so that doctors prescribe their product or chemists prominently displaying or favouring their stuff might sound nonsense to you, but these are the things I like to ponder.

So you can take the p*ss, and say my comments are ridiculous and sh*te.etc. I'd much rather be someone who is a little sceptical and maybe likes to question stuff, rather than living my life as a lobotomised sheep, fooled by the smoke and mirrors, and believing everything I'm told by the man behind the curtain. The power trippers, the egos, and self important d*cks would prefer if we were all like that, and never asked questions.

I hope that wasn't aimed at me

HorsesNHarleys · 29-08-2010 2:55am

policeman wrote: »

Now that cancer theory is just that, as I said. What sticks in my mind is the profit before people mentality, and we are chock full of that.

The airline industry has often been accused of compromising safety in the past because it's more expensive to spend money on plane faults than it is to pay compensation to bereaved families, ie the weighing up of risk vs cost.Plenty of aviation disaster docs on telly alarmingly conclude saving money comes before lives.

Global drug giants haven't a squeaky clean record when it comes to testing their drugs [eg. Kano trovafloxacin trial litigation]or pushing some drugs over others. Giving a medical "professional" a nice new pen and treating them to all sorts of perks so that doctors prescribe their product or chemists prominently displaying or favouring their stuff might sound nonsense to you, but these are the things I like to ponder.

So you can take the p*ss, and say my comments are ridiculous and sh*te.etc. I'd much rather be someone who is a little sceptical and maybe likes to question stuff, rather than living my life as a lobotomised sheep, fooled by the smoke and mirrors, and believing everything I'm told by the man behind the curtain. The power trippers, the egos, and self important d*cks would prefer if we were all like that, and never asked questions.

Amen to that, very well stated. It's nice to see that not all are completely jaded in their thought process!!! It's not worth wasting your time debating with a bunch sophomoric imbeciles wearing rose colored glasses who believe that anyone with an opposing opinion or who doesn't trust everything big corporations or the government tells them is automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist.:rolleyes:

Bottom line is to the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry you are a 'CUSTOMER' not a patient.

I hope that wasn't aimed at me

I can't speak for Policeman, but I presume his response was aimed at the arrogant twits with their heads shoved so far up their arse their talking their condescending crap out their belly buttons.:rolleyes:

sesna · 29-08-2010 4:55am

drkpower wrote: »

I dont want to get overly-technical but this is the position:

Under the 2007 Act (which i posted) it is an offence to breach a regulation. The Codeine Guideline were made pursuant to the 2008 Regulations (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/si/0488.html, in particular section 10). The Codeine Regulations were made specifically to ensure compliance with the 2008 Regulations. Therefore breach of the Codeine Guidelines is a breach of the Regulation and therefore an offence under the 2007 Act. So, yes, a breach of the guideline is the very same thing as a breach of the Regulations.

Hope that makes sense.

I dont want to get over-technical but you are blatantly mixing up the regulations with the PSI's interpretation of them which are guidelines. Once again, there has not been any change in legislation pertaining to supply of codeine products. Saying breach of codeine "guidelines" is a breach of regulation is your opinion merely.

The guidelines are merely the PSI's interpretation of the law. The PSI's guidelines do not supercede regulation. How can it be that a pharmacy which supplied codeine last month without question would be suddenly in breach of regulations, despite the fact there has been no change whatsoever to any regulation. Hence why I said in my opinion a court would dko nothing about a supposed breach of these vague and useless "guidelines".

policeman · 29-08-2010 5:22am

To bring it all back around, there is a direct correlation between society's love of/emphasis on money over people, and substance/drug taking/abuse.

Incidence of alcohol abuse and drug abuse increases during periods of economic difficulty on a grand scale ie."recession", as people worry about money, mortgages etc

And those who barely make it into any "socio-economic" group, as statisticians like to call it, are forever on the fringes in the depths of poverty, and are always the one's shooting smack, or smoking crack cocaine, because it relieves the [psychological] pain.

Then, the secret addicts are the ones who constantly worry about their jobs, the next paycheck, the bills, and are popping a couple of codeine pain killers in their handbag because, shock horror, it relieves the [psychological] pain for them, even though they don't know it themselves

So, if you want to tackle drugs, and addictions, tackle western greed first and foremost and it might just remove the need. Throwing rocks at people because you are too small minded and can't see the wood for the trees is, and always will be, a futile exercise

ebixa82 · 29-08-2010 7:23am

HavingCrack wrote: »

I've heard there was a cure for HIV-AIDS covered up as well but there has never been a reputable scientist or doctor who has publicly announced the cures for both HIV and cancer were suppressed to the best of my knowledge so I'd be quite suspicious.

You have heard there was a cure for HIV-AIDS? But do you believe this bullshiit? Really?

HavingCrack wrote: »

Thats a ridiculous statement even from someone who clearly has an exaggerated sense of their own importance. Its relatively simple to gain access to medical journals for anyone, its not as if they contain the US nuclear activation codes. Nice to see that medical snobbery is still alive and well in Ireland.

It's more a case of medical fact which I think it is necessary to input every now and then considering the amount of deluded, ill informed posts popping up on this thread!

ebixa82 · 29-08-2010 7:35am

policeman wrote: »

Now that cancer theory is just that, as I said. What sticks in my mind is the profit before people mentality, and we are chock full of that.

The airline industry has often been accused of compromising safety in the past because it's more expensive to spend money on plane faults than it is to pay compensation to bereaved families, ie the weighing up of risk vs cost.Plenty of aviation disaster docs on telly alarmingly conclude saving money comes before lives.

Global drug giants haven't a squeaky clean record when it comes to testing their drugs [eg. Kano trovafloxacin trial litigation]or pushing some drugs over others. Giving a medical "professional" a nice new pen and treating them to all sorts of perks so that doctors prescribe their product or chemists prominently displaying or favouring their stuff might sound nonsense to you, but these are the things I like to ponder.

So you can take the p*ss, and say[/B]my comments are ridiculous and sh*te.etc. I'd much rather be someone who is a little sceptical and maybe likes to question stuff,[/B] rather than living my life as a lobotomised sheep, fooled by the smoke and mirrors, and believing everything I'm told by the man behind the curtain. The power trippers, the egos, and self important d*cks would prefer if we were all like that, and never asked questions.

I really do think your comments would be more suited to the Conspiracy Theory section.

BTW who exactly is the "Man behind the curtain"?

ebixa82 · 29-08-2010 7:52am

policeman wrote: »

To bring it all back around, there is a direct correlation between society's love of/emphasis on money over people, and substance/drug taking/abuse.

Incidence of alcohol abuse and drug abuse increases during periods of economic difficulty on a grand scale ie."recession", as people worry about money, mortgages etc

And those who barely make it into any "socio-economic" group, as statisticians like to call it, are forever on the fringes in the depths of poverty, and are always the one's shooting smack, or smoking crack cocaine, because it relieves the [psychological] pain.

OK, so firstly everyone fits into some socio-economic group irrespective of how poor they are. Secondly it is not always those living in extreme poverty who abuse these drugs. Jim Morisson, Jimmy Hendrix, Kurt Cobain and hundreds of other extremely wealthy musicians took smack. Whitney Houston had a serious crack addiction for the best part of a decade. None of these lived in poverty afaik.

policeman wrote: »

Then, the secret addicts are the ones who constantly worry about their jobs, the next paycheck, the bills, and are popping a couple of codeine pain killers in their handbag because, shock horror, it relieves the [psychological] pain for them, even though they don't know it themselves

Do you think that everyone who finds themselves in financial stress starts taking codeine based painkillers?

The last thing someone in hardship is likely to do is speny close to 7e on a box of Solpadeine..

I really think you need to get back on topic and stop polluting the thread with your conspiracies of Western Greed etc.

But to prove a point. You mention above that there are secret addicts who become addicted because they have money problems.
Well it is these new guidelines which are going to help tackle the situation by not readily selling these codeine based products. And in the process result in significant loss of OTC turnover for most community pharmacies. So how does that fit into your theory?

HavingCrack · 29-08-2010 3:32pm

ebixa82 wrote: »

You have heard there was a cure for HIV-AIDS? But do you believe this bullshiit? Really?

If you can take your head out of your arse for a minute and re read my post you can clearly see I am highly sceptical that a there is a cure for HIV AIDS or cancer being covered up. I am in fact in agreement with you.

However it has been put forward as a theory that pharmaceutical companies put far less funding into HIV AIDS research as against other infections and viruses because of its massive prevelance in 3rd World countries which would not give them a profitable enough market. This does actually seem quite likely in my opinion.

[/QUOTE]It's more a case of medical fact which I think it is necessary to input every now and then considering the amount of deluded, ill informed posts popping up on this thread![/QUOTE]

You've taken completely what I said completely out of context of its original post which referred to you saying a 'normal' (non medical person) would never have access to medical journals which is just not true. What medical facts are you talking about? If there has been countless studies done into the affects of codine research done in Ireland could you please provide some references to the appropriate peer reviewed articles?? This shouldn't prove difficult for someone as well connected as yourself.....

drkpower · 29-08-2010 4:16pm

sesna wrote: »

I dont want to get over-technical but you are blatantly mixing up the regulations with the PSI's interpretation of them which are guidelines. Once again, there has not been any change in legislation pertaining to supply of codeine products. Saying breach of codeine "guidelines" is a breach of regulation is your opinion merely.

The guidelines are merely the PSI's interpretation of the law. The PSI's guidelines do not supercede regulation. How can it be that a pharmacy which supplied codeine last month without question would be suddenly in breach of regulations, despite the fact there has been no change whatsoever to any regulation. Hence why I said in my opinion a court would dko nothing about a supposed breach of these vague and useless "guidelines".

Nope; the PSI is statutorily created and obliged and entitled to issue guidelines on what the practical application of the Regulations are; ie. they tell the profession what the Regulations mean. And they have done so. The Codeine regulations elaborate on and explain the meaning of Regulation 10 of the 2008 Regulations. Breaching their guidelines, for the purposes of the law, is akin to breaching the Regulation itself, unless a court finds that the terms of the Guidelines are excessive or unreasonable having regard to the terms of the Regulation.

This is a very straightforward area of regulatory law. Similarly, for instance, the IMB is entitled to produce Guidelines pursuant to medicinal products legislation (ie. mandating what a wholesalers of medicines must do; ie. store medicine in such and such conditions). They expand on the Regulations. Breaching an IMB Guideline IS a breach of the Regulation under which the Guideline was created.

So I am afraid that your 'view' that a court would do nothing about a supposed breach of these "guidelines" is simply legally and factually incorrect.

sesna · 29-08-2010 6:05pm

drkpower wrote: »

Nope; the PSI is statutorily created and obliged and entitled to issue guidelines on what the practical application of the Regulations are; ie. they tell the profession what the Regulations mean. And they have done so. The Codeine regulations elaborate on and explain the meaning of Regulation 10 of the 2008 Regulations. Breaching their guidelines, for the purposes of the law, is akin to breaching the Regulation itself, unless a court finds that the terms of the Guidelines are excessive or unreasonable having regard to the terms of the Regulation.

This is a very straightforward area of regulatory law. Similarly, for instance, the IMB is entitled to produce Guidelines pursuant to medicinal products legislation (ie. mandating what a wholesalers of medicines must do; ie. store medicine in such and such conditions). They expand on the Regulations. Breaching an IMB Guideline IS a breach of the Regulation under which the Guideline was created.

So I am afraid that your 'view' that a court would do nothing about a supposed breach of these "guidelines" is simply legally and factually incorrect.

The "guidelines" are merely the PSI's interpretation of the law. Court's tend to deal with precedent or what is actually written down in law.

There has never been any court cases for breach of the guidelines. Nowhere on the statute books does it mention that it's illegal sell someone solpadeine, or any codeine product, without first offering paracetamol or some other non-codeine containing painkiller. I sincerely doubt an independent judge would give much credance to such a case either.

its very easy to be compliant with regulation 10 the 2008 regulations whilst at the same time breaching the PSI's guidelines.

I'm afraid your legal and "factual" assertions are actually just opinion.

ebixa82 · 30-08-2010 8:35am

HavingCrack wrote: »

However it has been put forward as a theory that pharmaceutical companies put far less funding into HIV AIDS research as against other infections and viruses because of its massive prevelance in 3rd World countries which would not give them a profitable enough market. This does actually seem quite likely in my opinion.

Certain companies specialise in HIV/AIDS treatment, while others specialise in more common infections. Not every drug company is responsible in trying to cure a drug for every possible disease state.
Also, do you think that HIV/AIDS are exclusive to 3rd world countries? If memory serves me right there's more than 150,000 people infected with the virus in Italy, a figures simliar in France and Spain.

HavingCrack wrote: »

You've taken completely what I said completely out of context of its original post which referred to you saying a 'normal' (non medical person) would never have access to medical journals which is just not true. What medical facts are you talking about? If there has been countless studies done into the affects of codine research done in Ireland could you please provide some references to the appropriate peer reviewed articles?? This shouldn't prove difficult for someone as well connected as yourself.....

Members of the IPU receive monthly magazines containing articles about the prevalence of codeine addiction in the community and the measures required to overcome this. By all means, get enough points to get into pharmacy, complete the course and become a member of the IPU.
An easier method of obtaining some information on the regualtions etc. you might like to read has been given in above posts by drkpower and sesna.

Hope that helps.

drkpower · 30-08-2010 10:15am

sesna wrote: »

The "guidelines" are merely the PSI's interpretation of the law. Court's tend to deal with precedent or what is actually written down in law.

There has never been any court cases for breach of the guidelines. Nowhere on the statute books does it mention that it's illegal sell someone solpadeine, or any codeine product, without first offering paracetamol or some other non-codeine containing painkiller. I sincerely doubt an independent judge would give much credance to such a case either.

its very easy to be compliant with regulation 10 the 2008 regulations whilst at the same time breaching the PSI's guidelines.

I'm afraid your legal and "factual" assertions are actually just opinion.

There has never been a court case for breach of the Regulations either:D.

I'm not sure what bit of this you arent getting. Perhaps its my fault for not explaining clearly enough:

First up, the PSI are expressly entitled to sanction pharmacists for breaching their own Guidleines and that can include suspension of their registration. That procedure is subject to the conformation of the High Court in precisely the same way that doctors are struck off their Register. So, breaching a PSI Guideline can have significant consequences for a pharmacist, under that mechanism.

Secondly, the Guidelines are not law, you are correct there. However they are made by a statutory body (the PSI) who has the authority and obligation under the law to make them and who are obliged to supervise compliance with the Act. The Codeine Regulations are made for the purpose of elaborating on the meaning of the 2008 Regulations. A breach of a Guideline is therefore, in effect, a breach of the Regulation (insofar as the meaning of that Regulation is understood by the PSI). Of course, a court is not obliged to agree with the PSI's interpretation, but given their role and express statutory function, it is incredibly unlikely that a court would disagree with the PSI's viiew unless it was an entirely unreasonable view to take.

As an analogy, the IMB has enacted guidelines on the wholesaling of medicinal products. They are not law. The Guidelines say that you cant store persihable medicines at less than X degrees celsius. Nowhere in the Medicine Wholesaling law is it stated to be an offence to store medicines at less than X degrees celsius. However it IS an offence to do so unless the court believes that it was unreasonable for the IMB to make those Guidelines.

I hope you understand it now.

sesna wrote: »

I'm afraid your legal and "factual" assertions are actually just opinion.

Lol:D
Eh no, its not; this stuff is not new. Regulatory law applies to many other fields and many other bodies. The law is essentially the same across all of these fields. It is very straightforward. You may be new to it but I'm not.;):D

Dravokivich · 30-08-2010 11:51am

My main problem with this is, I don't buy pain killers when I need them, I buy them for when I'm going to need them...

I use Solphadine as it's a brand I'd been brought up with as a kid and they worked for me when I've needed them.

ebixa82 · 30-08-2010 12:10pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

My main problem with this is, I don't buy pain killers when I need them, I buy them for when I'm going to need them...

I use Solphadine as it's a brand I'd been brought up with as a kid and they worked for me when I've needed them.

Again this is another action which these new regulations hope to stomp out.

If you were "brought up" with such a brand then it's an error on the part of whoever brought you up I'm afraid.

If you have dental pain for example and you have only Solpadeine in your house you will most likely use this drug to ease the pain. However dental pain is usually caused by inflammation, in which case Nurofen should be the first line treatment. Not Solpadeine. i.e. you are misusing Solpadeine.

It is this misuse of such codeine based meds that can lead to addiction down the line and is precisely what the regulations have been implemented for.

username123 · 30-08-2010 12:29pm

ebixa82 wrote: »

If you have dental pain for example and you have only Solpadeine in your house you will most likely use this drug to ease the pain. However dental pain is usually caused by inflammation, in which case Nurofen should be the first line treatment. Not Solpadeine. i.e. you are misusing Solpadeine.

Im sorry but if you read the patient information leaflet available with Solpadeine it clearly states:

Solpadeine Tablets provide effective relief from pain, including:

Headache
Toothache
Period pain
Rheumatic pain
Backache
Neuralgia
Relief of cold and 'flu symptoms

Now I dont have a medical degree, and neither do most of the population, but if the medicine says it provides relief from toothache then I dont analyse whether or not that toothache is classed as 'dental pain caused by inflammation' - all I know is Ive a toothache and Solpadeine says it works for toothaches.

Stark · 30-08-2010 12:33pm

I find most medicines stop just about short of "effective in the treatment of world hunger" on the packet. It's better to ask a medical professional than rely on what the manufacturer claims. Ibuprofen and aspirin are better than paracetamol for treating pain due to inflammation.

Though if you were "brought up" with solpadeine, then it's likely that the placebo effect is very strong for you.

ArmaniJeanss · 30-08-2010 12:43pm

Stark wrote: »

Plenty of medicines promise the world on the packet. Ibuprofen and aspirin are better than paracetamol for treating pain due to inflammation.

Though if you were "brought up" with solpadeine, then it's likely that the placebo effect is very strong for you.

Why hasn't the PSI investigated this advertising/labelling?

Last Wednesday a pharmacist told me that 'Solpadeine is not for headaches'.
Now clearly GSK advertise it on TV, print media and on the packaging itself as being for headaches. GSK is deliberately misleading us (or the pharmacist is lying).

ebixa82 · 30-08-2010 12:56pm

username123 wrote: »

Im sorry but if you read the patient information leaflet available with Solpadeine it clearly states:

Solpadeine Tablets provide effective relief from pain, including:
Headache

Toothache

Period pain

Rheumatic pain

Backache

Neuralgia

Relief of cold and 'flu symptoms

Now I dont have a medical degree, and neither do most of the population, but if the medicine says it provides relief from toothache then I dont analyse whether or not that toothache is classed as 'dental pain caused by inflammation' - all I know is Ive a toothache and Solpadeine says it works for toothaches.

Fair enough but it's not the first line treatment for dental pain. If you go for a dental procedure which may result in pain then 95-100% of Dentists will prescribe either Ibuprofen, Mefenamic Acid (Ponstan) and in severe cases Diclofenac (Difene/Voltarol.
All these drugs belong to the same family of drugs (Non Steroidal Anit-Inflammatories) and none contain codeine.

It is for this reason why people should ask their Pharmacist what is the best drug of choice for their particular complaint.
Paracetamol/Codeine (Solpadeine) are analgesics, they may provide relief for a short period but will do little for the underlying inflammation. Once the Solpadeine wears off the inflammation is still there and wat happens next? More solpadeine taken of course!

MarkGrisham · 30-08-2010 1:00pm

So basically the public is ignorant of what these drugs do and most pharmacists can't be bothered to tell them otherwise. Bad situation! People need to wise up and ask questions about what they're putting into themselves. This lad absolutely lays into people using the stuff. He's pretty harsh but has a point about people overusing pills for headaches.

Dravokivich · 30-08-2010 1:01pm

ebixa82 wrote: »

Again this is another action which these new regulations hope to stomp out.

If you were "brought up" with such a brand then it's an error on the part of whoever brought you up I'm afraid.

If you have dental pain for example and you have only Solpadeine in your house you will most likely use this drug to ease the pain. However dental pain is usually caused by inflammation, in which case Nurofen should be the first line treatment. Not Solpadeine. i.e. you are misusing Solpadeine.

It is this misuse of such codeine based meds that can lead to addiction down the line and is precisely what the regulations have been implemented for.

Ahem... my parents can't teach me to use something responsibly? I didn't get it for everything...

I've had absyss's before... they are easy to spot as they stick out from the jawline along the side of your face.

There's a big difference between some pain and a buildup of pressure trying to bulge outwards. From your response... I doubt you've felt the difference...

I'd have to be constantly popping them to get addicted... It's not that often that I would use them... and when I last used'em.. I think I only needed 2 doses of it... but that was quite a while ago and can't remember what for now...

ebixa82 · 30-08-2010 1:03pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Why hasn't the PSI investigated this advertising/labelling?

Last Wednesday a pharmacist told me that 'Solpadeine is not for headaches'.
Now clearly GSK advertise it on TV, print media and on the packaging itself as being for headaches. GSK is deliberately misleading us (or the pharmacist is lying).

Solpadeine can of course be used for headaches. But it is not first line treatment. First line treatment is Paracetamol/Panadol. If this does not work then Solpadeine could be used for a 3 day course. If headaches are still then recurring then you should go to your Doctor to see what is the cause of these recurring headaches instead of continuing to use a potentially addictive drug..

ebixa82 · 30-08-2010 1:09pm

MarkGrisham wrote: »

So basically the public is ignorant of what these drugs do and most pharmacists can't be bothered to tell them otherwise. Bad situation! People need to wise up and ask questions about what they're putting into themselves. This lad absolutely lays into people using the stuff. He's pretty harsh but has a point about people overusing pills for headaches.

That was a good link there. If only that article could be hung on the wall of every pharmacy in the country!

BTW, when you say most pharmacists can't be bothered to tell them otherwise etc.....well since August 1st they are and that is the reason why this thread is into it's 50th page..

You see all the drug abusers, mis-users, nanny state haters etc etc on this form seem to not like being told about the dangers of these drugs!!

ebixa82 · 30-08-2010 1:17pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

Ahem... my parents can't teach me to use something responsibly? I didn't get it for everything...

I've had absyss's before... they are easy to spot as they stick out from the jawline along the side of your face.

There's a big difference between some pain and a buildup of pressure trying to bulge outwards. From your response... I doubt you've felt the difference...

I'd have to be constantly popping them to get addicted... It's not that often that I would use them... and when I last used'em.. I think I only needed 2 doses of it... but that was quite a while ago and can't remember what for now...

If you really had a dental abscess you would need a course of antibiotics to clear it in the vast majority of cases..

Dravokivich · 30-08-2010 1:22pm

ebixa82 wrote: »

If you really had a dental abscess you would need a course of antibiotics to clear it in the vast majority of cases..

I know... I was explaining how you'd quickly see that solphadine would be a waste of time with the earlier example you mentioned...

Soon to need a prescription for Nurofen/Solphadine/etc?

Comments