Boots on the back foot re homeopathy

[Asolepius]

You might like this little dialogue. I picked up a Boots own brand homeopathic product yesterday, and marched up to the pharmacy counter.

Me: Do you realise the packaging for this homeopathic product is illegal? The product licence is marked PL, but you are only allowed HR, or PLR which is a licence of right.

Boots pharmacy technician: Mumble mumble

Me: And what do you think about the ethics of selling products which have been shown to be useless?

Boots pharmacy technician: That’s debatable.

Me: No it isn’t. Have you looked at scientific evidence, for example the Cochrane database?

Boots pharmacy technician: I can vouch personally for the effectiveness of homeopathy.

Me: That is not evidence. I am talking about properly controlled clinical trials.

Boots pharmacy technician: Well that’s the problem with trying to test something which has nothing detectable in it.

Me: It certainly is a problem for a product which has no detectable effect.

Boots pharmacy technician: Well you asked my opinion and I have given it.

Me: No, I asked you whether you think it’s ethical to sell a product which has no scientific basis.

Boots pharmacy technician: I’m not going to answer that.

Me: I didn’t think you would. Good evening.


I think I might send this to Boots head office. What do you all think?

PS: I didn't see the joke in my title until I reread it!
For non-UK readers, Boots is a big pharmacy retail chain.

 

[StoatBringer]

I think you should indeed take it higher. It's been annoying me for a while that Boots is flogging snake-oil, right next to the dispensing pharmacy counter.

I suspect you'll the old "well, people want it so we sell it" reply, however.

Oh, and could you explain the PL, HR, PLR terms as I've not heard of them before?

 

[moopet]

I've emailed Boots before about this sort of stuff. They include homeopathic hayfever tablets in their "Alternatives" range, but in the leaflet it says that homeopathic medicines should not be considered an "alternative" to conventional medicines. I thought this was a particularly poor choice of naming scheme, then.
They also don't always even list the "potencies". It's very slipshod, and you'll get the standard reply, if anything.

 

[Asolepius]

I think you should indeed take it higher. It's been annoying me for a while that Boots is flogging snake-oil, right next to the dispensing pharmacy counter.

I suspect you'll the old "well, people want it so we sell it" reply, however.

Oh, and could you explain the PL, HR, PLR terms as I've not heard of them before?

This will take a bit of explanation. When the UK's Medicines Act came into force in (I think) 1972, no medicines had licences. It was considered not feasible to get all existing medicines to do clinical trials to prove efficacy and safety, so anything already on the market was given a `licence of right', ie it was assumed it worked. Anthying new had to provide full data and apply for a licence. Thus all the existing homeopathic stuff got licences of riight, with numbers prefixed PLR. These are allowed to bear indications on the packaging. Any new homeopathic products after that point, are not allowed to claim indications, and have licences prefixed. You will of course have already guessed that there are very few of the latter. Why would anyone bother, when they can legally carry on telling lies on their packaging and stick to a PLR licence?

Worse than this, it is now proposed to reform the licensing scheme and allow `limited' indications on new homeopathic product packaging, without the need to prove anything. But then this government does have problems in recognising truth.

 

[drfrank]

You might like this little dialogue. I picked up a Boots own brand homeopathic product yesterday, and marched up to the pharmacy counter.
...

You're my hero

 

[Blue Wode]

I think I might send this to Boots head office. What do you all think?

I’d say go for it, although I suspect that the company might be just as unforthcoming about the validity of the licensing of its homeopathic remedies as it has been about the evidence for them.

In the recent past, the Project Manager at Boots (who is responsible for the range of homeopathic medicines) has made it quite clear that “due to confidentiality” the company won’t share any information concerning research. Also, don’t be surprised if you’re referred to the British Homeopathic Association’s website “for further information on the efficacy of this type of medicine”. Read on…

http://www.randi.org/jr/200509/090905these.html#1

 

[Mongrel]

You're my hero

I've done retail and whilst the "fight against homeopathy" is good picking on a poorly paid and overworked Pharmacy Technician is a bit off especially as giving you the answer you're looking for could result in a poor bonuses or a 'talking to'. Boots use the "I've never had a retail job" mystery shoppers, who think that there's no excuse for 'Welcoming customers to the queue' or 'smiling all the time', even when theres 40 people in the queue and has been for half an hour and since this is obviously more important than no mistakes or getting items out as quickly as possible....

Pharmacies will continue to sell **** like this as long as
1) Legislation allows them to
2) The general public want it
3) They're still making a profit on it

 

[Asolepius]

I've done retail and whilst the "fight against homeopathy" is good picking on a poorly paid and overworked Pharmacy Technician is a bit off especially as giving you the answer you're looking for could result in a poor bonuses or a 'talking to'.

Oh dear, I feel like a total cad . But I had already tried talking to the pharmacist in this shop, a while back, who in answer to the ethics question said that "this is currently under debate within the profession". It's not a question of picking on anyone, if you are in the front line you must expect to be shot at. I'm sure that's what the Tommies expected when they went over the top at the Somme. This was not just a till girl, this was someone claiming technical knowledge. If Boots wants to present people like that, they should tell them what evidence really is. It would not take them very long to do that - but then they would not be able to sell all this rubbish with any conviction, so they won't do it.

 

[andycal]

I've already approached Boots on the selling of copper bracelets. You just get a reply back saying "People say they are effective therefore we sell them".

At the end of the day, Boots aren't there to be helpful and honest, they're just there to sell stuff.

A sad state of affairs, but I doubt anything will change.

Actually, scratch that, if their labelling is illegal, then I suppose you've got something. Sock 'em.

 

[Mongrel]

if you are in the front line you must expect to be shot at...

I've always thought that's an odius attitude (from both retail and helpdesk experience) why should you give that person grief because of corporate policy? Not everyone can afford to quit a job because of principle, especially one that offers flexible shifts, discount schemes and training for nationally recognised certification.

If Boots wants to present people like that, they should tell them what evidence really is. It would not take them very long to do that - but then they would not be able to sell all this rubbish with any conviction, so they won't do it.

Once again - corporate policy, a quick peek at their corporate report (here) shows one Pharmacist, the rest seem to be swappable directors, HR people and marketing drones. Boots is a large company that wants to make a lot of money, if people are stupid enough to want homeopathic remedies then they want people to buy them from Boots.

 

[Asolepius]

I've always thought that's an odius attitude (from both retail and helpdesk experience) why should you give that person grief because of corporate policy? Not everyone can afford to quit a job because of principle, especially one that offers flexible shifts, discount schemes and training for nationally recognised certification.

Oh come now, I'm not asking anyone to quit a job, I'm just politely asking them what they think. It's hardly intolerable to answer a reasonable question. Actually I'm asking them a question that I hope might make them think, which can only be a good thing for their career if they start to do it. I don't go so far as a good friend recently went (he's a rather eminent professor), by going into Pret a Manger and demanding non-organic milk with his coffee.

 

[UrsulaV]

I recall with some amusement a conversation I had with my own pharmacist (a lovely man) when I'd come in to pick up some prescripitions.

Me: "Say, I need to get my cholesterol down. Do do any of these work?" <wave hand at counter of herbal supplements, remedies, et al>

Him: "No! Don't waste your money! The trials never come out worth anything. We have to have 'em here because all the other stores do, and I can't get 'em to take 'em down, but I wouldn't spend a dime on the stuff. Here! Have some pamphlets about real medicines!"

Five minutes later, with an armful of information, after he'd suggested asking my doctor about a coupla drugs that had been on the market long enough to make sure people weren't dropping dead at the five year mark, I went on my way.

I got the impression I'd hit a hot-button issue there, but it was a nice contrast to what you usually hear about anyway.

 

[Mongrel]

Oh come now, I'm not asking anyone to quit a job, I'm just politely asking them what they think. It's hardly intolerable to answer a reasonable question. Actually I'm asking them a question that I hope might make them think, which can only be a good thing for their career if they start to do it. I don't go so far as a good friend recently went (he's a rather eminent professor), by going into Pret a Manger and demanding non-organic milk with his coffee.

Ok, polite questions are good. Unfortunately I think you were asking too much of the PT, when it comes to licensing the most they'll normally need to know is GSL, P or POM. Working in the front line for a large corporation often doesn't allow for much personal opinion when it means going up against profit or the potential to not get a good bonus this year because you've offered your non-corporate opinion on a high profit item to the wrong person (customers don't like being told they're wrong). There's also the, quite reasonable IMO, assumption that the packaging is correct for items, they have departments that deal with this sort of thing both for marketing and legal purposes, they're the people to complain to.

The other points are just a personal 'big red button' for me

Front line staff are often the worst paid and least appreciated in any company. Forever trying to make intangible goals set by people who've never set foot near a till at Christmas when there's a queue 3 times round the store and it's obviously your fault that you've run out of the latest Teletubbies gift set that their snot nosed little brat absolutely must have or it's the end of the world Whilst front line staff recieve the majority of the abuse it's not their job to get shot, thinking like that will almost always get you put on the ***hat list.

OK, I'm done for the evening

 

[Soapy Sam]

I've asked Boots pharmacists for their opinions of homoeopathic preparations too- in several stores. The answers have always been along the lines that - "While there's no medical evidence that these have an effect, many people believe they do and want to buy them. We have an obligation to supply what the public wants."
(I've never actually had the courage to ask for a kilo of Marijuana at this point).
The nature of response varies with the individual and the apparent attitude of the customer. I only ever approach someone who is clearly not busy and I try to at least appear to be genuinely asking advice from a position of ignorance. I can honestly say that none has ever tried to sell me the stuff and they have consistently advised me to consult my GP, which is fair enough.

Maybe Asolepius' approach was more obviously an intellectual challenge to the person to defend her own position- which let's face it- puts us on the defensive.

Email to Boots themselves meet a corporate brush off.
"While there is some debate over the effectiveness of X , we feel an obligation to supply...etc" The same basic line, but with no possibility for discussion.

Boots (the chemist) are shaky financially.The merger with Alliance Unichem is seen as an attempt to regain lost ground in the high street, but maybe a risky one to the core of larger stores. As general stores they are old fashioned and as pharmacies their high street position is threatened by Lloyds and others.
Though the Boots Healthcare International division (their manufacturing arm) did rather better in 05, it was then sold off in October to Reckitt Benckiser.

Right now, I suspect Boots staff are being urged strongly to stock & sell anything that moves. If one's job is on the line, intellectual reservations about a product may be put aside. My personal opinion is Boots pharmacists are between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Mojo]

Boots pharmacy technician: Well that’s the problem with trying to test something which has nothing detectable in it.

 

[Asolepius]

Ok, polite questions are good. Unfortunately I think you were asking too much of the PT, when it comes to licensing the most they'll normally need to know is GSL, P or POM.

Of course I knew full well that I was asking too much. I was just trying to plant a critical seed in someone's mind. It was 6 pm and the store was almost empty. The PT was looking bored behind the counter. A mature woman, not a school leaver. I was not asking her to be an expert on licensing, I expected her to report the matter to management. I honestly don't think she was particularly traumatised by my intellectual assault, and I shall carry on doing it with a clear conscience.

BTW I am very familiar with how Boots front line staff are treated. My daughter worked on the tills for 5 years at weekends and during uni vacations, until last year when she graduated. She was very happy doing it. I shall refrain from a rant about retailers telling lies to customers about what their products do, irrespective of their dire financial straits.

 

[Ladewig]

Oh, and could you explain the PL, HR, PLR terms as I've not heard of them before?

This will take a bit of explanation. When the UK's Medicines Act came into force in (I think) 1972, no medicines had licences. It was considered not feasible to get all existing medicines to do clinical trials to prove efficacy and safety, so anything already on the market was given a `licence of right', ie it was assumed it worked. Anthying new had to provide full data and apply for a licence. Thus all the existing homeopathic stuff got licences of right, with numbers prefixed PLR. These are allowed to bear indications on the packaging. Any new homeopathic products after that point, are not allowed to claim indications, and have licences prefixed. You will of course have already guessed that there are very few of the latter. Why would anyone bother, when they can legally carry on telling lies on their packaging and stick to a PLR licence?

Worse than this, it is now proposed to reform the licensing scheme and allow `limited' indications on new homeopathic product packaging, without the need to prove anything. But then this government does have problems in recognising truth.

PL = Prefix licenced ?
PLR = Pre-existing licence of right ?
HR = Homeopathic remedy ?

 

[Shrinker]

Does anyone have a catalogue of official responses to this question? (ie 'Why do you provide homepathic products?'). I get the feeling that the answer is always 'because people want them', but we often hear the pleading from proponents, 'if they didn't work why are they available on the NHS, at Boots etc...'. A full list showing that clearly none of these establishments are actually endorsing the products would be a good debating tool. Maybe it would help break, or at least illustrate the circular logic going on...

They're on the shelves because people believe they work.
People believe they work because they're on the shelves.

 

[Asolepius]

PL = Prefix licenced ?
PLR = Pre-existing licence of right ?
HR = Homeopathic remedy ?

PL is only for proper medicines that have been fully researched. To be honest I don't know how the letters were derived, only how they are used.

 

[Asolepius]

Does anyone have a catalogue of official responses to this question? (ie 'Why do you provide homepathic products?'). I get the feeling that the answer is always 'because people want them', but we often hear the pleading from proponents, 'if they didn't work why are they available on the NHS, at Boots etc...'. A full list showing that clearly none of these establishments are actually endorsing the products would be a good debating tool. Maybe it would help break, or at least illustrate the circular logic going on...

They're on the shelves because people believe they work.
People believe they work because they're on the shelves.

A rather good idea. Let's try it.