2) Is there a secret handshake or QR code we should be using to separate this new sort of "good doctor" whos prescriptions are good from these "bad but qualified doctors" whos prescriptions are bad? I have naively gone all these years believing that qualified doctors could prescribe treatments but it seems that there is some uncertainty on that point. How would you separate the two without relying on your own opinion?
3) If we are relying on our own opinion anyway and doctors can't agree, why is it the case that patients with the prescription can't make their own decisions based on their own risk tolerances?
4) Doesn't the prescribing doctor have a better understanding of the patients needs and situation than a pharmacist? The pharmacist isn't exactly doing an in-depth interview to make their decision, they stand at a counter and hand out drugs.
I'd put it to you that the behaviour of this hypothetical pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription ... is pretty poor. Verging on outrageous.
2) Who said anything about picking good/bad doctors? The prescription and the patient are what's being evaluated. A good doctor can make mistakes; a bad doctor can write plenty of reasonable prescriptions worth filling.
3) Because we've tried that as a society. It's where the term "snake oil salesman" originated. We decided correctly that it was a sucky setup.
4) My pharmacist has caught a drug interaction my doctor didn't. They likely have a more accurate record of what I'm currently taking, as well. You seem to be mixing up pharmacists and pharmacy techs; perhaps a visit to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmacist would be appropriate.
And even at the time large metaanalysis studies were saying it was useless
But more importantly, medicine isn't in the business of selling sham cures. People can always take homeopathic cures or vitamin D if they want that.
Well now I'm getting conflicting messages about its safety, compared to the user I originally responded to:
> It has virtually no negative side-effects, over 40 years of safety track record, and is safely taken prophylactically for other uses around the world. Its efficacy has yet to be proven and there are conflicting studies on this, but its safety is not disputable.
But regardless we come back to my original point - should it be handed out like candy just because they asked for it? Especially when its efficacy was questionable?
