Vaccines don't cause autism (duh)

[Regulator75]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Don't look at his Facebook page...he still doesn't get it.(3 more kids to boot) .there is a nice rant against the CBC article...

Too late, looked at it earlier this morning.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

No trying to be inflammatory, but don't you sell this naturopathic garbage in your Pharmacy?

Yes. The question is valid, I don't take offense.

1) I don't have a say in what goes on my shelf. If I did, I'd remove it

2) I feel good that I have the opportunity to talk to people when they're considering it.

3) It also allows a dialog with people who normally wouldn't ask my advice


In the end though, is rather not have it in here

[rubecube]

I read the guy's facebook page. He's a complete idiot.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

1) I don't have a say in what goes on my shelf. If I did, I'd remove it

Wait, you want a store where you decide exactly what people are allowed to buy?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I read the guy's facebook page. He's a complete idiot.

And it's always the idiots who are so certain of themselves, literally too dumb to see the holes in their thought process, as they say, ignorance is bliss.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by zamler

Wait, you want a store where you decide exactly what people are allowed to buy?

No, he wants a store where he's allowed to decide what he wants to sell. Feel free to buy whatever you want.

[Knut]

Street Pharmacist has to hope that the changes come from a federal level. So stricter regulations etc.

Shoppers, RExall etc are going to stock it because they make money on it and people purchase it.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Dan02

No, he wants a store where he's allowed to decide what he wants to sell. Feel free to buy whatever you want.

You win the semantics award of the year well done.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Street Pharmacist has to hope that the changes come from a federal level. So stricter regulations etc.

Shoppers, RExall etc are going to stock it because they make money on it and people purchase it.

It's a little more than that though. Street's Pharmacy doesn't hurt by not offering a full range of products like a bigger chain will. If customers don't elect to get what "pharmacy products" they're looking for, they'll simply stop coming. I have herbal products I'll never sell before it expires, but image is important. For example, Susie is a mom of two young boys. She prefers homeopathic drops for teething because she thinks mother nature lives her little ones. If I don't have them, she likely will get them elsewhere along with her $1000 per year in make up, Advil for her sore shoulder, etc, etc.

It's a little more grey (at least economically) than just "they sell them to make money" .

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by zamler

You win the semantics award of the year well done.

That's not semantics. There's a fundamental difference there

[polak]

Oh man his FB is even more ridiculous. In his big rant about how the article was apparently skewed, he doesn't actually have a retort for anything. Not a single line in it explained his side of the story. It's basically just laughing at the writer for not knowing enough about his nuts and berries.

"We wouldn't use maple syrup! that's just sugar! noob"

Super.... then what did you use you child killing ######!?

And then all of his friends coming to his side... just stupid people breeding stupidity. God I hate people like that.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by polak

"We wouldn't use maple syrup! that's just sugar! noob"

It was maple syrup infused with ground up unicorn testicles and a splash of leprechaun sweat. duh.

[polak]

Oh man, and all his big pharma posts...

Big pharma didn't kill your son. You did.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's not semantics. There's a fundamental difference there

I was talking about a hypothetical in your store, not you restricting a certain product to everyone in general. Which is obvious in my post.

[Dan02]

I am very confused by what you're attempting to convey here.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by polak

Oh man, and all his big pharma posts...

Big pharma didn't kill your son. You did.

Make sure you make a donation to defence fund.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by zamler

I was talking about a hypothetical in your store, not you restricting a certain product to everyone in general. Which is obvious in my post.

Ah. I think I understand.

I actually have a store, but as the franchisee, I have to maintain the agreed upon image which includes carrying these products. Not a hypothetical store as you were presuming

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

It's a little more than that though. Street's Pharmacy doesn't hurt by not offering a full range of products like a bigger chain will. If customers don't elect to get what "pharmacy products" they're looking for, they'll simply stop coming. I have herbal products I'll never sell before it expires, but image is important. For example, Susie is a mom of two young boys. She prefers homeopathic drops for teething because she thinks mother nature lives her little ones. If I don't have them, she likely will get them elsewhere along with her $1000 per year in make up, Advil for her sore shoulder, etc, etc.

It's a little more grey (at least economically) than just "they sell them to make money" .

It's bit more black & white ethically though. The bottom line is that Pharmacies are benefiting economically by peddling snake oil and legitimizing naturopaths/homeopaths/etc, while their customers suffer financially, and sometimes physically through medical negligence (like this case). This is hypocritical for a place that should represent a bastion of healthcare, but I guess business trumps that.

Full respect to your original answer. You clearly see the issue and have made steps to do what you can to temper the problem. Does your professional pharmacist organization share a similar stance as you?

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Ah. I think I understand.

I actually have a store, but as the franchisee, I have to maintain the agreed upon image which includes carrying these products. Not a hypothetical store as you were presuming

You said:

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

1) I don't have a say in what goes on my shelf. If I did, I'd remove it

Which is a hypothetical, if you had a choice you'd remove certain products. But that begs the question, what products would you allow and why? Would you research every product yourself and make a judgement? Would you remove certain products based on your gut or your beliefs or hunches or because of something you read the other day?

I think the current structure where you sell products allowed by your franchisee (and government oversight) is much more acceptable than you deciding yourself what you consider safe don't you?

Originally Posted by Dan02

I am very confused by what you're attempting to convey here.

Clearly.

[old-fart]

Jail would be appropriate for these wacky jobs. Hopefully the courts step in and protect their other innocent children from these morons.