Imagine for one scary moment that you’ve just been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition.

Would you like fries with that? Photo:Herald Sun

In shock you walk out of the doctor’s office with a script for a medication to treat your new illness and into the local pharmacy.

As you nervously wait for your script to be filled you notice that the pharmacist has not only prepared your medication, but has also grabbed a bottle of Blackmores vitamin pills off the shelf after looking at their computer screen and she puts both bottles into your hand.

Willing to try anything to deal with your newly diagnosed medical problem you walk straight off to the cash register to pay.  After all, the nice young woman in the white coat clearly reckons the vitamins would help.

Thankfully this scenario is never going to happen.  For one, APESMA knows that most pharmacists would never offer any product that wasn’t scientifically proven to help an individual patient anyway.

But the really troubling thing is that the ‘Pharmacy Owners Guild’* clearly thought otherwise. 

And the scenario above is exactly what the Pharmacy Owners Guild wanted when it recently brokered a deal to prompt the 94 per cent of pharmacies using their computer system to routinely upsell Blackmores’ products alongside medications for serious medical conditions.

When talking about the deal the Chief Executive of Blackmores even lauded it as the “Coke and fries” to sell alongside serious medications.

It’s a disgusting way to champion a new scheme to exploit people during a highly vulnerable time of their lives.

But the move was supported by sharemarket analysts who said the pharmacy owners would benefit from “increased commercial focus on their non-dispensary offering”.

Unfortunately the analyst didn’t say what would happen to the household budgets of patients struggling with the cost of possibly unnecessary vitamin tablets on top of the new medical bills and the new cost of medications. But thanks to a strong community campaign we exposed the serious problems this commercial deal creates for patients and professional pharmacists alike.

Pharmacists are highly skilled professionals and they reacted angrily when they were told that the Pharmacy Owners Guild wanted them to sell more vitamin products.

For many of them it was the final straw. And the Blackmores deal is just one symptom of how much the pharmacy profession is being torn apart by industry forces much more interested in profits than patients.

This pressure often comes from pharmacy owners represented by the Pharmacy Guild.

And despite their weak denials the Guild was deliberately trying to generate profit out of the reputation that pharmacists have worked hard for. To use marketing terminology it is trying to cash in on the pharmacists ‘brand’.

According to a recent poll pharmacists are the sixth most trusted profession in Australia out of a list of 45.

But this will slip if pharmacists are seen to be pushing products upon those that don’t want them, don’t need them and cannot afford to pay for them.

Patients that have just been diagnosed with serious medical conditions deserve proper and tailored medical advice and not be subject to marketing tricks dreamt up by the Pharmacy owners Guild.

Unfortunately in the lust for new ways to make profits the Pharmacy Owners Guild could have permanently damaged the standing of individual pharmacists in our community.

Shortly after the Guild’s “Coke and fries” deal was announced an APESMA member and pharmacist was abused in the street by a passer-by who saw a pharmacy logo on his bag.

“I suppose you’re just going to flog me some Blackmores products,” the man said disdainfully.

Needless to say this wouldn’t have happened if the Pharmacy Owners Guild had properly considered the repercussions of its grubby deal and how it might affect pharmacists around Australia.

I have had to repeatedly remind people that it wasn’t the pharmacists who entered into this deal – it was the Guild that represents the owners of pharmacies.

Now that the Guild has backflipped on implementing this grubby plan it has arrogantly refused to admit that it compromised the integrity of professional pharmacists instead blaming “media reporting of the endorsement which was ill-informed and inflammatory.”

And this is the rub; the Guild is evidently all too keen to embrace a similar deal in the future, as long as pharmacists and the media don’t get wind of it.

That’s why we are calling on everyone to keep a close watch out for the next deal that comes along, for patients’ sake and for the sake of this great health profession.

* The real name, of course, is just the Pharmacy Guild. But we wanted to make it really clear that it was the pharmacy owners, not the pharmacists themselves who were responsible for this deal.

82 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Nick says:

      06:27am | 07/10/11

      My guess is that the next iteration of the deal will have more “deniability” built into it.  The “problem” here was that a specific company was so obviously intended to benefit and there weren’t enough weasel words about proven efficacy, customer choice etc.  Well done by the true pharmacists and the media for letting us know about this so we can protect ourselves from similar deals in the future.

    • Fog Badger says:

      06:45am | 07/10/11

      A spectacularly stupid move by the Guild. Damage done.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      11:41am | 07/10/11

      Spot on. Just turned in ther professional integrity. Who would trust them now?

    • Retired Soldier says:

      06:59am | 07/10/11

      It isn’t just the problem of the “witch doctor” brews and lotions they attempt to flog to their customers. There is a bigger problem developing with Generic Medicine. It appears there are many drug companies all vying for a slice of the market with different shapes, size and colour of the original brand name drug, It also appears there are huge discounts being offered to the local chemists to stock these ever changing drugs and not to stock the original. Older (and some younger) patients are becoming confused with the constant change of the generics because the dispensing agency is only selling and supplying the cheapest variety with the biggest profit margin. The chemist will use the line that this is a government initiative and it well may be the case however, when the original decision was made, the generics closely resembled the original in ever way. That is now history and sooner than later someone is going to become seriously ill or worse by taking the incorrect medication because of the greed of the local chemist whom they trust to look after them. Generics are fine but we should insist they closely resemble the original in shape, size and colour. The profit margins for chemist should never be an issue with patients.

    • marley says:

      07:30am | 07/10/11

      I don’t follow your argument.  I don’t care if the original pill is red and round, and the generic is blue and oval, so long as the dosage is the same and quality controls on manufacture are adequate. I assume the Therapeutic Goods Administration monitors the latter, so this seems to me to be a non-issue.

    • Chris_D says:

      07:53am | 07/10/11

      I’m not 100% but I’m about 99% sure that the whole point of selling generic brands is because it is a cheaper alternative for the same active ingredient.  You shouldn’t be asking for a shape, size and colour of medicine.drug, you should be asking for either a name or a type (probably on a script anyway), and there may well be several cheaper options available.  Then the choice of which to purchase is yours.

    • Nick says:

      08:09am | 07/10/11

      Marley, I think the issue is that some patients use visual cues to check that they are taking the correct type and dose of medication so get confused when “3xred/oval + 2xsmall/blue/round” becomes an invalid algorithm.  If the appearance of a pill was standardised along with the doseage and medication type then this wouldn’t be an issue.  My elderly mum needs many pills each day and I know she struggles with this sometimes.

    • Sara Somewhere says:

      08:15am | 07/10/11

      “It also appears there are huge discounts being offered to the local chemists to stock these ever changing drugs and not to stock the original”

      Very, very wrong. Original brands charge a premium, as opposed to discounting the generics. Stores MUST stock the original brand of the drug, and must provide it if that’s what you want. If the drug is covered on the PBS (and most are) then prices are fixed, and the pharmacy makes the same no matter which brand they give you. And if your pharmacy changes which generics they stock on a whim, go somewhere else, because most don’t.

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      09:04am | 07/10/11

      Retired Soldier “That is now history and sooner than later someone is going to become seriously ill or worse by taking the incorrect medication…Generics are fine but we should insist they closely resemble the original in shape, size and colour.” -

      I don’t understand what you’re getting at. My dad takes umpteen number of medication a few times a day for a heart and lung condition - he reads the box to know which pill is which - he doesn’t go by the shape, size and colour of the pill to identify it. You would only have yourself to blame if that’s the process you use to identify your medication.

    • James1 says:

      09:20am | 07/10/11

      How are different colours and shapes confusing?  I think of medicines in terms of their pharmaceutical ingredients, rather than what colour they are.  As such, I take the amoxycillin, not “the green one” or “the red one”.  You would have to be pretty simple to get confused over something as superficial as the colour.  After all, the doctor doesn’t write “the triangle-shaped blue-green pills, twice a day after food” on your script.  Also, the boxes and bottles they come in have very clear instructions written on them - instead of getting confused by a profusion of squares, rectangles, circles and triangles in all the colours of the rainbow, you could just read the label.  Its really not hard.

      This has to be the first time I have seen a consumer complaining about getting a cheaper product because it comes in a different colour or shape, even though that is entirely irrelevant to its efficacy or otherwise.

    • Rosinki says:

      09:35am | 07/10/11

      I’ve worked in pharmacy for five years and there is a problem with the branding of drugs. The elderly are particularily brand loyal and often don’t know the actual drug name (the active ingredient) so they will always insist on ‘original’ brand because quite often the leading brand is written first on their perscription.

      When trying to switch them to a generic brand quite often they will be asked if they want the ‘pharmacists preferred brand’. Another tactic employed to exploit the ‘brand’ of the pharmacist.

      Generics brands are used in hospitals so the patient doesnt have the choice of brand but I never hear people complaining about not recieving their preferred brand in hospital. I think trying to sell ad-ons and the increase in discount pharmacy has reduced the credibility of service in pharmacy. Damn Pharmacy Guild! They also pay Pharmacy Assistants less than the Retail Industry Award rate (in S.A. anyway).

    • Justin says:

      07:11am | 07/10/11

      They need a system that prompts them to slap you if you try to buy Horny Goat Weed or Fat Blaster Max.

    • Retired Soldier says:

      08:36am | 07/10/11

      Marley the issue is with the constant change in the shape, colour and size etc and not the Generic medication. Until you are reliant on such medication you will never understand that many people become used to taking one standard drug over many years and now are being forced to accept different brands with different appearance, shapes and colours many times a year. This is confusing to the old and some young people who take multiple tablets in order to either stay alive or improve their quality of life. Whist you are unable to follow my argument those who are dependent on normal routines over many years are constantly complaining to chemists about the regular changes. Until you are in a position to need such drugs then you will never understand the problems associated with the providers greed.

    • malohi says:

      09:16am | 07/10/11

      They already do,
      The counter staff metaphorically slap you and tell you you’re mad for not ordering fat blaster II EX plus alpha.Now with double potency.

    • James1 says:

      09:22am | 07/10/11

      A good alternative to becoming confused over changing shapes is to read the box, RS.  That is my advice to you - read boxes and bottles rather than just looking at shapes.

      There.  Problem solved.

    • JuzzyD says:

      09:32am | 07/10/11

      Its hard to get a decent fat burner. Uncouplers are dangerous and for the most part of dubious legality.

      A wise man once said, simple solutions work, complex solutions sell. For the most part, people are just too damn lazy to believe proper nutrition is key.

    • JuzzyD says:

      09:28am | 07/10/11

      Did you even bother to read the piece? Anyone who did knows they said No. The piece focusses on the bull sized bollocks these assholes in the guild must have to try and exploit the pharmacists for a quick few bucks.

    • David says:

      07:40am | 07/10/11

      A big case in point is the bullshit product COQ10 which is peddled when one is prescribed statins .
      This coenzyme is in a lot of the food we eat and the so called evidence that it has to be taken as a pill is absolute CRAP .

    • Emma says:

      07:57am | 07/10/11

      Hang on a minute - dont’ you have to be a Pharmacist to own a Pharmacy?

    • Smith says:

      08:14am | 07/10/11

      Can’t see why. You don’t have to be a doctor to own a medical centre, as evidenced by Geoffrey Edelstone, back in the 80’s. You just have to employ doctors appropriately skilled and licenced. Edelstone was a businessman before he was any sort of doctor.

    • marley says:

      08:18am | 07/10/11

      @Emma - that’s my understanding, but of course not all pharmacists are pharmacy owners.  I think the article is making a distinction between the wishes of the pharmacists, many of whom are employees, and the guild which seems to be acting on behalf of those pharmacists who are owners, rather than in the interests of pharmacists as a whole.

      And while I’m at it, why can only pharmacists own a pharmacy, when our local pharmacist owns a medical clinic?

    • Ben C says:

      08:28am | 07/10/11

      @ Emma

      Not that I’m aware of - my understanding is that you must have a qualified pharmacist registered with your pharmacy - can be an employee.

      Anyone else that can shed some light?

    • Rose says:

      09:10am | 07/10/11

      A pharmacy must be owned by a pharmacist. That law is driving Coles and Woolies crazy as it means that they cannot buy into pharmacies. As I understand it the agreement between govt and pharmacy is reviewed every 5 years and the big 2 are constantly trying to get the law changed.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:14am | 07/10/11

      Emma, you need to have a Pharmacist on your board, I think.  They do not need to be the ‘owner’, but you certainly need one on staff in order to run it.

    • marley says:

      09:41am | 07/10/11

      Ok, here’s what the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia says”

      “State and Territory pharmacy legislation requires that pharmacies be owned only by registered pharmacists.”

      So yep, it seems thatg a pharmacist can own a medical practice, but a doctor can’t own a pharmacy.  Go figure.

    • Old Cobber says:

      11:14am | 07/10/11

      It’s time to bust open the money hungry Chemist cartel.

    • Rose says:

      11:18am | 07/10/11

      One of the concerns I have is that many pharmacies are now owned by pharmacists who no longer work in the pharmacy itself. These pharmacist have joined others and in many cases own 10 or more (usually more, and usually ever increasing) and have lost track of the role of the pharmacist in people’s lives. I worked for a few years for two pharmacists who owned 2 pharmacies, and then continued to work in the pharmacy after it was bought by a group of pharmacists who own more than 30 pharmacies. An incredibly different experience, same pharmacy, very different focus.
      My recommendation to everyone is, if possible, pick one pharmacy, one you are comfortable with and as much as possible only use them. They will quickly be aware of your history, your needs and your personal preferences. They will be happy to then help you with such things as owing scripts, PBS tracking (to make sure you don’t miss out on the free list) and other little things that make your life easier. You will develop a level of trust with the pharmacist and the pharmacist (if you picked one carefully) will be loathe to risk losing your custom by trying to oversell with stuff you don’t need.

    • Cynicised says:

      02:02pm | 07/10/11

      Hear hear Rose. We’ve used the same pharmacy for many years. He knows us on sight, has watched our kids grow and knows our medical histories (which are unfortunately extensive, with major allergies and asthma in the family). In fact, I have recently had cause to be even more grateful to him because he picked up a mistake on a script written after family member’s discharge from hospital, queried it with the treating physician and then dispensed the correct medication. That’s a true professional and frankly, that’s the only kind of health care person I want dealing with my family.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:15am | 07/10/11

      Hey Blackmores:

      Do you know what they call an alternative medicine that works?

      Medicine.

      That your snake oil is even allowed to be sold in pharmacies is a disgrace.

    • marley says:

      11:16am | 07/10/11

      Well, to be fair, some of their products are fine.  Vitamins and the like - and actually, an opthalmologist advised my better half to get one of their products for macular degeneration.  I think the thing is, there’s no way of knowing just by looking at them, which of their products are “medicine” and which are not.

    • Trevor says:

      09:17am | 07/10/11

      Why the surprise?

      Welcome to the Capitalist utopia.

    • Lee-Anne says:

      09:28am | 07/10/11

      If Woolworths and Coles can sell vitamins and painkillers, why can’t pharmacists sell Blackmores also? Blackmores has been around for at least 30 years and the use of vitamins for at least the lifetime of the human race. How many recommend glucosamine and fish oil for joint pain? Or taking vitamin C and rubbing on a chest rub based in menthol and eucalyptus oil to reduce symptoms of colds etc?

      As for generic brands, the pharmacist brand are usually effective. However, from experience, the Home Brand version, although they carry the same active ingredient, are ineffective. Maybe it is a reverse placebo effect ie: I don’t like Home Brand cheap and nasty so they don’t work for me. It is also possible the filler used in the Home Brand variety is not as efficient a carrier of the medication.

      Every pharmacy I enter in WA offers a selection of drugs, make-up, hair products, shoes, hats, vitamins, bandages, jewellery and gift ware. The obvious point is a pharmacy is a shop licensed to sell prescription medication. All Woollies and Coles need to do is find a way to also sell prescription medication and pharmacists may well find themselves in dire straits.

      All of that aside, the argument is moot as the Guild bowed to its members. Maybe the almighty dollar won there. How would a Guild survive financially if all its members walked?

    • maloh says:

      10:14am | 07/10/11

      Blackmores vitamn c may be good for a pirate to ward of the scurvy. That’s about it.

    • marley says:

      11:19am | 07/10/11

      It’s not an issue of whether pharmacists can sell Blackmores products - they already do.  It’s an issue of “upselling” Blackmore’s products, some of which have dubious evidence of health benefits,  to people who don’t necessarily need them.

    • Shane* says:

      02:33pm | 07/10/11

      Actually Molah, Vitamin C is one of the only supplements to have proven efficacy. Taking it BEFORE you have a cold has been shown to reduce the severity and duration of your cold, to a degree. St John’s Wort also has some proven efficacy, since it helps with depression (but comes with the added bonus of completely effing with some prescription meds including the pill).

      Other than those two… you’re pretty hard pressed finding something that an obective researcher or doctor would actually recommend. We live in Australia. We get 99.99999% of what we need simply by eating three square meals a day. Children starving on the Horn of Africa might benefit from vitamin supplements. For us, it’s just ego.

    • Kate says:

      04:02pm | 07/10/11

      I actually think it’s better for pharmacies to sell vitamins than Woolies or Coles. Some vitamins have bad side effects when combined with other vitamins or prescription medications. A pharmacist or pharmacy assistant is trained to ask the patient these questions, a checkout worker is not.
      The issue here, as marley stated, is that pharmacists shouldn’t feel compelled to push vitamins onto customers who don’t want or need them.

    • Craig of North Brisbane says:

      12:38pm | 07/10/11

      Insightful.

    • a highly skilled salesman says:

      09:49am | 07/10/11

      “Pharmacists are highly skilled professionals”

      I know, that’s why when I see them, they are drying / crushing plants and compounding ingredients in order to mix concoctions of drugs.

      Oh wait, no I don’t, I see them reaching for a box of pills that comes from a drug manufacturer. and was prescribed by a doctor.  It is only logical that they would reach for any additional pre-packaged “products” that increase their bottom line.
      Tell me about the highly skilled professional bit again

    • malohi says:

      10:21am | 07/10/11

      I know right? and what’s with GPs, all I see mine do is use the headphone thing on my chest and print up a script- pfft any idiot could do that.

      And my barrister mate, he just talks. My 3 year old can do that.
      I mean, I am not with him all the time, but I think it is a safe assumption that is all his job entails is what I see in my 3 minute dealings with him.

      Skilled professionals? yeah right.

    • Bio Logic says:

      10:33am | 07/10/11

      Bingo. That’s why retail pharmacy never interested me as a career. Hospital pharmacists, however, are highly skilled professionals that do more than flog perfume and homy peds., not that I went down that path either.

    • Brendan says:

      10:44am | 07/10/11

      I agree.  smile

      Maybe I could say more, but bottom line…I agree.

    • Ben C says:

      11:53am | 07/10/11

      What is this, bag the professional?

      I’ll agree that retail pharmacy doesn’t seem like hard work, but the pharmacists that are dispensing the drugs to you at the pharmacy, they are just as happy inside a lab as they are behind the counter. The reason you don’t see them doing lab work behind the counter is because the counter is not a safe environment to be doing any lab work. This “drying/crushing plants and compounding ingredients” work must be done in clean, sterilised environments.

      @ malohi

      You underestimate what your GP or barrister do. If you think any idiot could do what they do, how about you go and do it yourself? Go and grab a stethoscope, see what you can work out from that. Or go and defend yourself in court.

      Don’t underestimate what professionals do. The training and study they have done allows them to work out in 5 or 10 minutes what it would take you 5 or 10 days to work out.

    • malohi says:

      12:27pm | 07/10/11

      Ben C,
      It was [blatant] sarcasm. Coincidentally I have a law degree and will be sitting the gamsat in 2012, if that quells your abhorrence.

    • Ben C says:

      12:43pm | 07/10/11

      @ malohi

      My apologies indeed, God knows how many times I’ve not picked the blatant sarcasm.

      Mind you, as a professional myself, I don’t tolerate the bashings of “a highly skilled salesman”.

    • a highly skilled salesman says:

      01:29pm | 07/10/11

      Professional bullshit artist and not very good at it you are.

    • Ben C says:

      03:11pm | 07/10/11

      @ a highly skilled salesman

      Say what you will about me buddy, I’ll cop criticism when it’s warranted. Hand on my heart, no bullshitting from my end, I should’ve been able to pick up malohi’s sarcasm, but it went straight over my head.

      As for your original comment, you’re just one of the many customers who just want to walk in and walk out, no need to ask for any additional assistance. That’s not a problem, but don’t denigrate their work because you only see them grabbing a box. Their work goes well beyond that, and requires many hours out of work keeping up to date with developments in the world of medicine.

      Now, unless you’re going to tell me that you were also being sarcastic (I could pick yours out, especially that first sentence), show some more appreciation for a pharmacist’s work and the effort they’ve put in to get there.

    • skepdad says:

      11:16am | 07/10/11

      I lost respect for pharmacists a long time ago, when I started seeing homeopathic products in their stores.

      Selling things just because people want them isn’t a good enough excuse.  It’s unethical to leverage their public perception of authoritativeness in medicine to flog snake oil.

    • IT says:

      12:35pm | 07/10/11

      Its a real tragedy that the chemist has gone from a respected and trusted member of the community, to a witch doctor that sells magic and voodoo. I feel embarrassed for the pharmacists who have this put upon them by the pharmacy owners.

      In my local chemist, the magic section is nearly as big as the science section now.

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      01:04pm | 07/10/11

      Homeopathic remedies are snake-oil in your opinion. I’ve had eczema for thirty years and tried everything. Homeopathic remedies have been the only thing that works - 100% rash free.

    • marley says:

      01:42pm | 07/10/11

      I don’t believe there’s ever been a successful clinical trial of a homeopathic remedy.  If they were held to the same standards as pharmaceutical products, they’d be out business.

    • hot tub political machine says:

      02:11pm | 07/10/11

      If they’d passed a clincal trial they wouldn’t be complementary medicine anymore…...they’d be medicine.

    • marley says:

      02:35pm | 07/10/11

      @hot tub - I know.  That’s why they’re not medicine.

    • Shane* says:

      02:36pm | 07/10/11

      MadKat, the plural of anecdote is not data. Correlation is not causality.

      There may be a number of factors (including placebo effect) for the reduction in your symptoms, but I can categorically guarantee you that spraying a few pumps of water under your tongue is not one of them.

    • JuzzyD says:

      03:26pm | 07/10/11

      It’s not medicine if it’s not treating something either. Supplements such as multi-vitamins are great if like me you eat a repetitive diet of chicken, vegetables and brown rice.

      There are many sports supplements that are not medicine, but they are banned in professional competition. If they were just snake oil, they wouldn’t be banned would they?

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      03:53pm | 07/10/11

      Shane * - “the plural of anecdote is not data. Correlation is not causality” - nah, your kidding, well strike me down with a feather -

      I didn’t spray water under my tongue - and you can categorically guarantee - I’m interested to know what are your qualifications are?? And saying placebo effect is the easy way out.

      My mother also uses celery tablets to bring the arithitis down in her hands - they work a treat -

      I’m not saying you can cure disease and illness with homeopathy but it can ease some ailments. Have an open mind. Alot of medicines came from things in nature anyway -

    • hot tub poltical machine says:

      03:57pm | 07/10/11

      Juzzy - yes there are plenty of things you can put into your system that affect it profoundly which are not medicine. If you’re really lucky they may even be safe.

    • skepdad says:

      05:07pm | 07/10/11

      @ MadKat “Homeopathic remedies are snake-oil in your opinion.”

      No, snake oil per the finding of every properly conducted scientific trial.

      Do you actually know what homeopathy is?  Have you looked into it? My wife bought home homeopathic lollipops from the chemist one day, which were advertised as flu remedies for kids.  I encouraged her to do some independent research as to the principles of homeopathy and the results of the scientific trials, and a few days later she tossed the lollipops in the bin and we laughed at how gullible people are when they don’t have the facts.  She’s a smart woman, but she was taken in by charlatans.

      Homeopathy is simply a pseudo-scientific scam.  it is likely (according to probability) that there are literally zero molecules of active ingredient in any properly prepared homeopathic product.  That is to say that any ingredient has been diluted to less than one molecule in 6.022x10^23 molecules. 

      This is the rough equivalent of taking a tablespoon of your active ingredient and throwing it into the ocean, giving it a bit of time to circulate, then randomly taking one drop of the ocean and dropping that on a lactose tablet. And remember homeopaths believe that the more dilute a substance is, the more powerful it is.  They claim that water has a memory of the substance that was dissolved in it.

      These are the actual claims of homeopathy, I’m not making this up.

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      07:33pm | 07/10/11

      skepdad - yes I do actually know what homeopathy is as my sister is one. I know about the diluted water so your long boring description was in vain. I didn’t take the water as I’ve already said in my previous post. Homeopathy is not all about that.

      In my case the pills I took worked - whatever people want to say after 30 years of trying every treatment out there for severe eczema it worked 100%. I had no rash for 9 months. I did it a second time and it worked again. It wasn’t placebo.

      “it is likely (according to probability) that there are literally zero molecules of active ingredient” - how probable. I work with probabilities and statistics everyday and likely isn’t a measure we use a random event happening. Has someone actually done a probability analysis on this subject ??

    • skepdad says:

      12:49am | 08/10/11

      I’ll humour you MadKat for the benefit of others, though I know that your mind is set and facts don’t really seem to interest you.

      Let’s start with a molar solution of say Carbon, which homeopaths have decided is a remedy for poor self image among other things, including being associated with the astrological sign Capricorn.  That would be 12.0107 grams of pencil lead dissolved in a litre of water, or 6.022x10^23 Carbon atoms.

      Homeopaths attest (as MadKat’s sister will no doubt confirm) that their remedies get stronger the more you dilute them.  A typical dilution is referred to as 30C, or 200C for the really “potent” ones.  “C” is a 1 in 100 dilution.

      So take 10ml of your original liter solution, then dissolve that 10ml into another 990ml of pure water.  That’s 1C.  Of the 6.022x10^23 atoms of carbon that were in the original molar solution, the 1C solution has 6.022x10^21 atoms.  Still a lot of atoms.

      At 2C you have 6.022x10^19 atoms of Carbon.  Keep diluting (remember this makes it stronger) and at 10C you have 6.022x10^3 atoms of Carbon left (or, in other words, 6,022 atoms).

      At 11C, 60 atoms. At 12C, 0.6 atoms.  That is to say, that there is a 60% chance of a single atom of Carbon remaining in the 1 liter of solution at 12C.

      Now keep going to 30C, or 200C.  Now do you think it’s reasonable to say that it’s “unlikely” that even a single atom remains at 13C (6.022 in 1000 chance), let alone 30C (6.022 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance)?  You ask “How probable? That’s how probable.

      Funny how maths and facts work huh?  Can I get a chorus of ICB on Big Homeo?

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      08:00am | 10/10/11

      Really skepdad - if you copy straight from the Internet you really should reference your material as its not your own - it took me all of 30 seconds to find the Internet article you copied from. Funny how copying straight from the Internet to make it look like you actually know something makes you like dumb, huh?

    • skepdad says:

      12:40pm | 10/10/11

      I referenced a number of sources to check my calculations.  It’s quite difficult to explain the maths in any other way - that is the way it works.  There are no doubt hundreds of internet articles that say similar things in a similar way, because they are the facts.

      Ad Hominem is the refuge of those who know they don’t have a leg to stand on MadKat. More hand waving. More distraction. More ignoring the facts.  Life’s too short to try to educate those who don’t want to be educated. Goodbye.

    • MadKat of Melbourne says:

      07:57am | 11/10/11

      skepdad - I’m not ignoring facts - I’m disagreeing on personal evidence and in my earlier posts I even said that I didn’t take any diluted water. The diluted water is only a part of what homeopathy has to offer. 

      Whatever you say the calculations were copied from other articles and not your own empirical research carried out in a lab on the diluted water, so don’t write like you did it yourself and only referenced articles. You copied the calculations straight off someone elses research. I know how maths and research really works. As I already said I work with economic mathematical calculations everyday. If I reference someone else’s calculations I have to say so.

      Its not “Ad Hominem”. I’m calling you out as a bull-shitter - taking someones elses research and calling it your own.

    • Seth Brundle says:

      11:55am | 07/10/11

      Its reassuring that the pharmacists put their professional integrity ahead of profits.  That is quite a rare attitude these days.  How many others could say they would have done the same in this situation?

    • One very ethical, trustworthy pharmacist says:

      01:17pm | 07/10/11

      Where to start?
      I am a pharmacist. Firstly I’d like to say we are bound by a code of conduct not to do anything unethical like up-selling something we know doesn’t work. We are also autonomous meaning our bosses can’t force us to act unethically. Not every pharmacy uses software from the Guild & even if they are dispensing from Guild software there is nothing forcing pharmacists to even acknowledge ‘pop-ups’ suggesting certain vitamins let alone approach the customer to sell the vitamin.
      Pharmacies can only be owned by pharmacists. No-one who isn’t a pharmacist can have any ownership. This is to stop supermarkets getting in. As for non-practicing owners there is now a mandatory continuing education requirement so all pharmacists maintain clinical skills.
      Not many pharmacists like generics. They create a lot of confusion. Most patients do not have the intellect (or have lost it) to learn their medicines by drug name so they rely on visual cues & trade names. The appearance of medicines also affects nursing home staff & pharmacy staff/pharmacists because of dose administration aids (Webster packs) where medicines are packed into a week’s supply etc. Not all pharmacists are money hungry and alot of us would love to stick to one brand but it is far more complex then you would ever believe (I could write a book on how generics work within the PBS). But do understand that Australia is very strict about generics- they must prove they contain the active ingredient at the right strength. Patient’s have issues with colours, fillers, preservatives etc but the drug itself is the same.
      Lastly, to say that only hospital pharmacists are good is rubbish. Our university training is identical for one. There is an awful lot going on behind the scenes in your community pharmacy that most people couldn’t fathom. I, for one, always have patient care at the top of my mind and my job is often extremely complex. I feel a lot of pressure to get it right as the consequences to a patient could potentially cost my career or worse as I could not live with the guilt if something serious were to occur.

    • LizBriz says:

      03:00pm | 07/10/11

      well written - thank you.  I highly trust the pharmacists at my local chemist shop and cannot imagine any quackery from them.

    • a highly skilled salesman says:

      05:58pm | 07/10/11

      “I feel a lot of pressure to get it right as the consequences to a patient could potentially cost my career or worse”

      Must be tough - reading the doctors scripts and making sure you get what the doctor wrote on the scripts. Gotta admit, if you are a pharmacist and can’t read that IS a problem.

    • marley says:

      08:43am | 08/10/11

      @highly skilled - well, I dunno.  I got a prescription for some very strong steroids and an anti-arthritic medication not so long ago, and the pharmacist spent about 15 minutes explaining how to take them, how to taper off the steroids and why it was important to do so, plus what the physiological impact of the arthritis medication was likely to be and what side effects to watch for.  That’s quite a bit more than my GP or rheumatologist did.  Seemed pretty skilled to me.

    • a highly skilled salesman says:

      11:13am | 08/10/11

      marley
      And the doctor that prescribed those drugs didn’t tell you any of those things?
      Bad doctor.

    • marley says:

      12:12pm | 08/10/11

      @skilled - well, maybe he’s not the greatest doctor.  Or maybe, because he happens to be the only doctor in town, and gets about 7 minutes per patient, he doesn’t have 15 minutes to go through the minutiae of drug reactions.  He gives it a once over lightly and relies on the pharmacist to give more detailed advice.  In a way, you could say they operate as a team.  Which is fine with me, since the pharmacist obviously has the knowledge and skills to do so.

    • Cynicised says:

      02:50pm | 08/10/11

      @highly skilled. Read my post above. Doctors canmake mistakes on scripts and a pharmacist who is on the ball will pick them up, that is also part of his job,
      Also do you really have clue as to how many medications are in approved usage by the medical profession (as well as dentistry etc) at the present time? Find yourself a hardback copy of MIMS and five yourself a crash course in pharmacology. To give yourself even a beginning awareness of
      side- effects and possible drug interactions will take you some time. Pharmacists need to have a working knowledge, including correct dosages and methods of administration at their fingertips. Yeah, no skill required at all.
      Dolt.

    • The Cement Head says:

      02:13pm | 07/10/11

      Professional drug pedlars also put customers before profits. Why?
      Addicted customers will always lead to profits!
      OK! I should stick to the script! Sorry!

    • JuzzyD says:

      03:29pm | 07/10/11

      In a not so bright period of my life, pharmacists would no longer provide me with nurofen plus. How’s that for customers before profits? Getting off that stuff was hell.

    • Kika says:

      04:46pm | 07/10/11

      Well my respect to pharmacists went waaaay downhill when I was asked whether I have ever had panadol before… No. Never in my life I have ever had pain so I’ve never taken paracetamol before. Holy Dooley.

    • scumbag says:

      05:06pm | 07/10/11

      Ah, love those Blackmore pills, er I mean the bottles. I throw out the pills, and bring them back later to get a few ml of formaldehyde. Good for preserving sand worms off the beach. Never been refused. On ya Blackmores and the chemist’s.

    • cherry says:

      12:40am | 08/10/11

      and what is wrong with utilising complimentary medicine..what you have cancer and you DONT want to use everything to help you get better. natural medicines have been around since before the pharmaceutical companies came around and the human race managed to survive. secondly, the herbs would conteract and restabilize the toxins from the other drugs and raise the immune system ensuring other pathogens don’t get in…seems like win/win to me.. and would REDUCE polypharmacy…. lol

    • marley says:

      10:46am | 08/10/11

      What is wrong with using complementary medicine? 

      Well, first, unless you consult your doctor, you could be taking something that is going to react badly with real medications. 

      Second, you have no idea whether the stuff works or is just a way to siphon money out of your pocket. 

      Third, you may be taking complementary medicine that doesn’t work instead of real medicine that does - and killing yourself in the process. 

      Fourth, yes, herbal remedies have been around forever - and they did damn all to cure pneumonia or prevent small pox.  Just because something has been around a long time doesn’t mean it works.  Those herbal remedies that actually do work are now called “medicine.” 

      Finally, you claim that your herbs “counteract and restabilize the toxins” and “raise the immune system”  What makes you think that?  Any evidence?

    • cherry says:

      04:22pm | 08/10/11

      it replaces the nutrients that you dont get from nutrition. what you eat is the convention of health..when you don’t input sufficient vitamins etc; your body works under its best thus making you more susceptible to illness… and somebody receiving such harsh treatment from OTHER DRUGS and their illness I don’t see how resupplying the body with its natural needs is harmful

      im not saying take it or don’t take it, but there are benefits, its nature. and most pharmaceutical drugs are derived from nature. There is significant research that suggests natural does work and doesn’t… and it’s parallel to the evidence that suggests “chemist” products are. they do trials on a minority of people..

      and complimentary medicine means in lieu with orthodox treatment not INSTEAD of. that is ‘alternative’ medicine. difference.
      I work in the industry, and it’s not the industry of natural medicine either..

    • rhett says:

      06:36pm | 08/10/11

      true. even the most benign diabetic drugs such as metformin cause a vitamin b12 deficiency, pharmacy drugs strip the natural nutrients, therefore someone receiving such treatment would benefit from a supplement. In combination these therapies are quite effective.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter