Homeopathic overdose protest in Boots

close
more_vert
Merrick M
Merrick Jan 29, 2010 12:36:14
Replying to dave clarkson

dave clarkson wrote:
They also sell other products such as 'complementary medicines' - as well as perfumes, reading glasses, food, photographic materials and insect repellent.
Not on the pharmacy bit erroneously labelled as being efficacious for medical conditions they don't. Sell them in shops - preferably the sweets counter given they're just sugar - but having them in the pharmacy making unfounded claims for their medical effectiveness is misleading and dangerous.

dave clarkson wrote:
Where have they said they are 'useless'?
Paul Bennett, Boots' Professional Standards Director and Superintendent Pharmacist, gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on 25 November.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc45-i/uc4502.htm

He conceded there was no evidence to say homeopathy was effective beyond placebo but it 'was about consumer choice'

dave clarkson wrote:
People have choices. Some people believe they work.
Yes. Would that make it OK for a pharmacy to sell cola for post-sex vaginal douching as a contraceptive? After all, some people think it works. Would Boots sell paper condoms?

As Evan Harris said to the Boots guy at the Commons:

"If someone believed that paracetamol was efficacious in preventing heart disease and the paracetamol said on it "this can be used to prevent heart disease" you would not be happy and I am sure Jayne Lawrence would not be happy with that. So what is it about homeopathy which does not give you qualms when they make claims which you say you do not believe stand up? No-one is saying you should not sell them and you should not sell them as certified as safe and well-manufactured and the box says what is in it, which is nothing - that is fine - but do you not have qualms about selling things that have assertions on about clinical effectiveness that do not have evidence behind them and evidence that you do not believe?"

D dave clarkson
dave clarkson Jan 29, 2010 20:03:55
Replying to Merrick

" but having them in the pharmacy making unfounded claims for their medical effectiveness is misleading and dangerous."

...they've never made claims for or against their effectiveness. They're just as much in the dark about the effectiveness as you or I. That's not to say they can't supply them upon the data they do have about them to people who want them and believe they work for themselves. Surely it's your GP who should be responsible for giving the advice you need. If that's ineffective then that's a problem.

"Paul Bennett, Boots' Professional Standards Director and Superintendent Pharmacist, gave evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on 25 November."

I'm not here to defend Mr bennett but where did he use the word 'useless'?

"Would that make it OK for a pharmacy to sell cola for post-sex vaginal douching as a contraceptive? After all, some people think it works. Would Boots sell paper condoms?"

Pepsi or Rola Cola?
Pharmacists are not your doctor -they prepare what your GP prescribes.
Don't forget that pharmacies will also give people GSK's Seroxat (Paroxetine) if prescribed by the GP - one of the most controversial drugs in recent years and one which has been known to lead to suicides in some instances but also has had countless claims of ineffectiveness. This drug was approved by the FDA in 1992.
Is this another grey area? Who's ultimately responsible?

8)

Like all websites everywhere, we use cookies.