Editor's Blog1 min ago
Is this a good David and Goliath story?
48 Answers
Three years ago I noticed that my local pharmacy (then Alliance) was selling magnetic bracelets. I wrote to the manager, pointing out that I would expect a shop up the road called Beyond The Senses to sell such things since they also peddle magic crystals, tarot cards, psychic sessions and the like, but such quackery was hardly the thing for a responsible pharmacy. I received no reply.
When Boots took over Alliance I started again with their big chief of pharmceuticals at their Nottingham HQ. He never deigned to answer me himself but passed me to a succession of staff members who, over a year or more, tried in turn to fob me off. I contacted The British Pharmaceutical Association who told me their retailing rules and the MHRA to ask whether the ludicrous medical claims made by the manufacturers of these bracelets were in breach of the law. After a long wait they said that the result of their investigation had, by EU edict, to remain confidential!
I was about to reply to that nonsense when…
…out of the blue came a letter from Boots saying that in view of the manufacturer’s claims they were withdrawing the bracelets from sale once present stocks had expired. So I had won!
To those tempted to tell me to get a life and get out more, please don’t bother. And to the inevitable question as to whether I am now going to tackle homeopathy and the like, I say – only if my doctor’s surgery or my local chemist starts to promote such charlatanism. It is one thing for the quacks themselves to con the gullible, quite another for the medical and pharmaceutical professions to do so.
I now sit back and await your plaudits, your congratulations, your gasps of admiration, your offers to have my baby, and so on. But please don’t embarrass me by overdoing the hero-worship. I’m a shy person really.
When Boots took over Alliance I started again with their big chief of pharmceuticals at their Nottingham HQ. He never deigned to answer me himself but passed me to a succession of staff members who, over a year or more, tried in turn to fob me off. I contacted The British Pharmaceutical Association who told me their retailing rules and the MHRA to ask whether the ludicrous medical claims made by the manufacturers of these bracelets were in breach of the law. After a long wait they said that the result of their investigation had, by EU edict, to remain confidential!
I was about to reply to that nonsense when…
…out of the blue came a letter from Boots saying that in view of the manufacturer’s claims they were withdrawing the bracelets from sale once present stocks had expired. So I had won!
To those tempted to tell me to get a life and get out more, please don’t bother. And to the inevitable question as to whether I am now going to tackle homeopathy and the like, I say – only if my doctor’s surgery or my local chemist starts to promote such charlatanism. It is one thing for the quacks themselves to con the gullible, quite another for the medical and pharmaceutical professions to do so.
I now sit back and await your plaudits, your congratulations, your gasps of admiration, your offers to have my baby, and so on. But please don’t embarrass me by overdoing the hero-worship. I’m a shy person really.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Pharmacists are in the middle of a serious rebranding exercise, attempting to position themselves as "the medical professional on the high street".
How does it help their professionalism when attempting to answer a query about, say, overdosing on a homeopathic remedy? How does it help their image to be selling expensively packaged water and sugar pills with a huge markup?
Boots is the most respected high street pharmaceutical chain in the UK.Their own chief pharmacist, at a recent House of Commons Science and Medicines Select Committee enquiry into homeopathy, admitted that there was no credible clinical evidence in support of homeopathy, nor any plausible biological mechanism by which homeopathy could work at all!
Zacs seems to think those of us that challenge the peddling of therapies completely devoid of any plausible biological mechanism or clinically relevant, controlled trials are unaware of the placebo effect. I would far rather that the public get proven remedies with a biologically active ingredient, since then they will get a pharmacological benefit PLUS the benefits of placebo - And it wont cost them as much either.
The harm in allowing such remedies shelfspace in reputable pharmacies is that it promotes quackery, sanctions the effective ripoff of the gullible, and reinforces anti-scientific attitudes.I wish more of the public would be like Chakka, and challenge this sort of pseudo medicine when they find it.
How does it help their professionalism when attempting to answer a query about, say, overdosing on a homeopathic remedy? How does it help their image to be selling expensively packaged water and sugar pills with a huge markup?
Boots is the most respected high street pharmaceutical chain in the UK.Their own chief pharmacist, at a recent House of Commons Science and Medicines Select Committee enquiry into homeopathy, admitted that there was no credible clinical evidence in support of homeopathy, nor any plausible biological mechanism by which homeopathy could work at all!
Zacs seems to think those of us that challenge the peddling of therapies completely devoid of any plausible biological mechanism or clinically relevant, controlled trials are unaware of the placebo effect. I would far rather that the public get proven remedies with a biologically active ingredient, since then they will get a pharmacological benefit PLUS the benefits of placebo - And it wont cost them as much either.
The harm in allowing such remedies shelfspace in reputable pharmacies is that it promotes quackery, sanctions the effective ripoff of the gullible, and reinforces anti-scientific attitudes.I wish more of the public would be like Chakka, and challenge this sort of pseudo medicine when they find it.
-- answer removed --
Zac - I was very clear in what I wrote, and you still argue a strawman.
I am very well aware of the placebo effect.I am aware that pretty much any medical intervention offers some sort of placebo benefit. I would rather the public are offered a remedies offering an active biological ingredient PLUS the placebo effect.
If high street pharmacists wish to offer homeopathic remedies and other quackery to the public, then it should be sold in a section labelled "remedies with no biologically plausible mechanism, nor active ingredient". Perhaps they can be bought from your local Bodyshop, or Holland and Barretts, instead.
Can you tell me how a pharmacist can offer medical advice to a patient querying the dangers of an overdose of a homeopathic remedy and still keep a straight face or any professional credibility?
I am very against the idea of homeopathic quactitioners making a fortune from water, shaken but not stirred, and sugar pills that offer no active biological ingredients
I am very well aware of the placebo effect.I am aware that pretty much any medical intervention offers some sort of placebo benefit. I would rather the public are offered a remedies offering an active biological ingredient PLUS the placebo effect.
If high street pharmacists wish to offer homeopathic remedies and other quackery to the public, then it should be sold in a section labelled "remedies with no biologically plausible mechanism, nor active ingredient". Perhaps they can be bought from your local Bodyshop, or Holland and Barretts, instead.
Can you tell me how a pharmacist can offer medical advice to a patient querying the dangers of an overdose of a homeopathic remedy and still keep a straight face or any professional credibility?
I am very against the idea of homeopathic quactitioners making a fortune from water, shaken but not stirred, and sugar pills that offer no active biological ingredients
You make a good point LazyGun but labelling the remedy with 'no biological plausible mechanism, nor active ingredient' would defeat the purpose of a placebo effect for most people? Because the bracelet say is available in the chemist is already some way to believing that research has been carried out on it. Besides at this moment I'm not too keen on the Pharmacist rebranding exercise as the 'medical professional on the high street'. I think the medical advice they are already allowed to give is enough and they continue to direct people to the doctor?
But I speak without any medical knowledge, just a normal person on the street.
But I speak without any medical knowledge, just a normal person on the street.
-- answer removed --
Zac - Are you just wilfully misreading my posts?
My position is this - ALL interventions have a placebo effect. Taking a product with some biologically active, pharmaceutically active ingredient means that the patient gets that benefit PLUS the placebo = How clear do I have to be? We are not talking novel diseases here - there is a conventional, biologically active remedy for every homeopathic one that is being offered.
Boots know perfectly well that these products have no clinical benefit apart from placebo - but they are willing to charge the earth for water or sugar pills.Such cynical endorsement of woo and faux medicine only confers a fake legitimacy on homeopathy as a whole, leading to homeopathic remedies being actively offered for such potentially serious diseases as Malaria, or sugar pills being offered as a viable alternative to vaccines.
Homeopaths wish that they and their 18th century remedies to be afforded equal status to regular doctors and proven medicine. Fine. let them produce the clinical evidence showing the beneficial evidence!
As it stands, people are in essence being ripped off, buying pharmacologically inactive products with the connivance of a respected high street brand.
Such antiscientific and evidence free remedies should have no place in a modern pharmacy. If there is a demand, let the health shops and nutriwoo stores sell them, preferably with a "no proven efficacy" label on them so it is more difficult to rip the public off
My position is this - ALL interventions have a placebo effect. Taking a product with some biologically active, pharmaceutically active ingredient means that the patient gets that benefit PLUS the placebo = How clear do I have to be? We are not talking novel diseases here - there is a conventional, biologically active remedy for every homeopathic one that is being offered.
Boots know perfectly well that these products have no clinical benefit apart from placebo - but they are willing to charge the earth for water or sugar pills.Such cynical endorsement of woo and faux medicine only confers a fake legitimacy on homeopathy as a whole, leading to homeopathic remedies being actively offered for such potentially serious diseases as Malaria, or sugar pills being offered as a viable alternative to vaccines.
Homeopaths wish that they and their 18th century remedies to be afforded equal status to regular doctors and proven medicine. Fine. let them produce the clinical evidence showing the beneficial evidence!
As it stands, people are in essence being ripped off, buying pharmacologically inactive products with the connivance of a respected high street brand.
Such antiscientific and evidence free remedies should have no place in a modern pharmacy. If there is a demand, let the health shops and nutriwoo stores sell them, preferably with a "no proven efficacy" label on them so it is more difficult to rip the public off
-- answer removed --
I remember this saga Chakka, but you never posted the outcome. Congratulations. The problem with selling such 'remedies' is that since major companies like Boots are deemed trustworthy, these products could be assumed to carry some sort of endorsement, and that could encourage people to use them instead of either buying a tested remedy, seeing a doctor, or even speaking to the pharmacist about the ailment.
By the way, as much as I admire you Chakka, I really don't want to have your baby. My husband wouldn't like it - and I doubt Mrs C would be too impressed either. :o)
By the way, as much as I admire you Chakka, I really don't want to have your baby. My husband wouldn't like it - and I doubt Mrs C would be too impressed either. :o)
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.