"Graham." wrote in message
...
...when the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, protected
the gullible from quack products like this.
https://www.boots.com/ladycare-magnet-10077359

It's nothing to do with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society.

Despite claims to the contrary pharmacists aren't qualified
to comment on the efficacy or otherwise of any medicine.
The fact that they may do so, is purely incidental.

Their job is to dispense any medicines prescribed by
a qualified doctor in the precise dosages indicated.

Just as barristers aren't qualified to comment on the
"justice" or otherwise, of any jury's decision. Their job
is simply to ensure that the correct legal procedures
and processes have been followed in respect of their
client.

The idea seems to have got about because of the wholesale
adoption of the term "pharmacy" for what simply used to
be called "chemist".

And as chemists are being increasing used as a front line
by the NHS to reduce the strain on GP's, it presumably
was thought a good idea to stress the "fully qualified
pharmacists" angle, rather than that of the possibility
of being dealt with by a totally unqualified, but nevertheless
quite possibly knowledgeable and experienced assistant, in a
chemist's shop.

In the old days where they needed to make up the tablets
themselves there may have been cases where each tablet
needed to contain at least 1/2 grain(32mg) of a substance
to be effective but where a dose of say 2 grains if not
fatal might have had long lasting and harmful side
effects. Where they may have needed to make up a batch
of say 20 such tablets, and where word would soon have
got around of any slip ups.

Similarly today when you collect any prescription medicine
from a pharmacist each individual package will have the
pharmacist's label on it describing exactly what it contains
- the actual drug and the quantity per tablet. Along with the
dosage instruction from the doctor. This ensures that the
prescription outwardly matches what the doctor prescribed.
And also that the contents of the package whatever it says
on the box also match the doctors prescription. So that
they will need to have sourced their supplies from the most
reputable suppliers and manufacturers rather than say
getting the best deals off of the net from some supplier in
Uzbekistan or Peckham. Failure in either respect, if proven
would lose them their licence and renders them liable to
uninsured damages.

Boots have been selling off-the-shelf remedies of all sorts for over
150 years*. Whether all of these were as affective as was claimed is
another matter. The staff working behind the counters have no specific
qualifications as such,* but may make personal recommendations based
either on their genuine experience or simply their sales technique.
But they have no connection with the fully qualified white coated
pharmacists dispensing the prescriptions.

Which isn't to say these roles might not be confused in small
dispensing chemists when the assistant is out to lunch. But here the
recommendations are being made in the role of the local chemist
not the pharmacist.


michael adams

*Its only relatively recently that manufacturers have been prevented
from making outlandish claims about the medicinal benefits of all
sorts of things. Which Boots as the longest established retailer
in the field, will have been happy to trade off.

** Apart from maybe a few days "training" and a general vocational
qualification in retailing maybe.

....