In the world of pharmacy we have evolved from basically a practice that dealt in compounded prescriptions of herbal substances at an affordable cost to a plethora of synthetic drugs supported by dubious evidence.
And it has happened in my lifetime.
My query is that if we have a situation where so-called solid evidence exists for a drug why haven’t we reached a state of near-perfection where a lesser number of drugs are needed to treat a patient.
Why is it that patients, particularly those who are chronically ill, are turning up with a range of 5-15 prescription items, each item with its own penchant for delivering unanticipated drug interactions and a plethora of side effects that patients have to accept as “normal”, or accept a new drug to manage the new adverse events

To the extent that we have long past the point of “good” prescribing to that of over-prescribing, which in turn, has spawned a new service in pharmacy called de-prescribing.

None of the above represents the result of good science, particularly as these medicines have now been tainted as more being the result of the corrupt marketing of drugs rather than the result of ethical research.

And why do we have a range of people in the medical profession beating the drum against complementary medicines, a large number performing very well for patients and originally listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme with nil or a modest co-payment, and affordable to all involved?

Why is it that organisations that have recently emerged that purport to protect medical science do not seem to ask any questions about the efficacy and safety of mainstream medicines?
Yet they will pursue practitioners of other modalities to the extent of using their influence to be disruptive in any way possible.
Perhaps it is because many members of this group (with their first name being “professor” or some other academic title) are recipients of grant monies from Big Pharma, directly or indirectly, and they provide the basic evidence reports that are massaged into the papers delivered through medical journals or through medical “thought leaders” through education events.

And it seems to be infecting some pharmacists who are criticising their fellow pharmacists for supposedly not selling evidence-based nutraceuticals and associated products (even though evidence does exist).
That would have to be linked with the fact that over 60 percent of Australians now take complementary medicines with the market share rising each year.
A dangerous phenomenon indeed because these substances may hold back a prescription for a drug marketed by manufactured evidence.
Those particular pharmacists would have more credibility if they concentrated on giving their own patients informed consent with each prescription item – if they can genuinely trust the official evidence databases.

Organisations such as described do not have the moral authority to conduct campaigns that resemble the “black ops” of the CIA, and you would have to think that there is an alternative agenda running other than the one that is cleverly promoted.

Where does the smoking gun exist pointing to death and destruction in human health, in the modalities under attack?
The answer is that there is no smoking gun within those modalities being disrupted but there is certainly one within mainstream medicine.
In total, the death, injury and health disruption inflicted through medical “science” is such that it represents the third cause of death in the US.
But the response to that startling situation is:
“We have a vaccine for that and if you do not comply we will coerce you to do so by influencing legislation to cut off financial benefits being received for a totally different situation.”

In Australian terms, the mandating of vaccines is illegal and is about to be tested in the High Court.
Currently, the Australian government is in breach of six treaties governing the right of an individual to choose not to ingest any chemical substance against their will.
The first of these treaties dates back to the end of World War Two and the inhuman treatment of certain population groups that became unwilling participants in various medical science experiments.

In these times of waning democratic processes with corporate global giants creating pressure for a one world corporate government, another issue arises.
The current treaties that Australia has become a willing participant has culminated in a real “biggie” in the form of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), which will give global corporations real power over the participating sovereign governments in that the treaty will allow and global corporate to sue a sovereign government if it is perceived by that corporate that damage has been caused to intangible assets such as brands, trade marks or goodwill associated with their business operations within a member country.
So the laws enacted against tobacco companies to market their products in a plain wrapper is regarded as an attack brand intellectual assets and Australia has already had to defend its rights in this regard because it is a signatory to another treaty enacted in Hong Kong that has allowed a legal attack by tobacco companies.

It is curious that these treaties are enacted in secret and that are done without any public debate that informs the general population.
How can that happen in a so-called democracy?
And if a treaty, such as the TPPA, can override democratic legislation, why cannot the six treaties that support human rights against forcible ingestion of drugs, not override existing Australian legislation?
A very curious situation and definitely not a very democratic one!
The TPPA seems to be sacrificing Australian health systems to the global corporate interests despite what Australian citizens think.
For example, something does not seem ethical when an Australian prime minister can mandate that all children be vaccinated against the wishes of their parents which creates an instant and protected market for vaccine manufacturers.
Yet that same prime minister and his close family can benefit by selling their interests to a global vaccine company for $200 million a short time later, after the protective legislation is in place
Would that not be thought a conflict of interest situation?

This backdrop might help all pharmacists to understand that their entire business and professional life is under attack.
There will be an orchestrated introduction of global pharmacy conglomerates entering Australia under the guise of “competition” and it could happen within 10 years.
Government has already sold out elements of our health system and Medicare and the PBS have been up for sale already.
Think about it.
If a government has been seen to put an icon like Medicare up for sale, what Australian entity is geared up to replace it?
And is there really a political mandate to sell it.
However, when a conglomerate such as Boots arrives on the scene, it comes complete with its own “patient benefits manager” – a private corporate that acts like a government Department of Health – except that it is paid for by the individual and not spread across all taxpayers.
Obviously, the price is much higher so only the wealthy will be able to afford this system.
So what will happen to all the rest of us?

After the July 2016 election follow any major changes that may come with a coalition win.
As soon as Medicare goes back up for sale, Boots will almost immediately be given access to the Australian market.
Have you thought about how you will adapt, because the loss of Medicare will truly be a game-changer and will impact with force on all of pharmacy.
Those that have begun preparation will survive and thrive – but I fear we will see the demise of up to a quarter of the number of existing pharmacies, mainly in areas of dense population.
There will be no perfect prescription.