CIPA & Legit Script conflicts

[evilfantasy]

http://www.cipa.com/fraudulent-sites/

At the bottom of the page it says:

NOTE: hxxp://www.thecanadianpharmacy.com is a member of CIPA and a licensed Canadian pharmacy. You will always see this name in the URL line and it will not change like the sites mentioned above.

While at http://www.legitscript.com/pharmacies/validate

thecanadianpharmacy.com is an Unapproved Internet Pharmacy
Website Summary

URL: hxxp://www.thecanadianpharmacy.com

Approval Status: UNAPPROVED (since 05/02/2012)

Hopefully everyone is aware that each country has different laws and labeling a business as a rouge under US laws that is not in the USA should be taken into serious consideration when mass-rating these websites.

[Jazspeak]

Re: "...each country has different laws and labeling a business as a rouge under US laws that is not in the USA should be taken into serious consideration..."

Yes, this has been an issue with WOT ratings for as long as I have been a member.

However, when it comes to the global sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products then it would be wise for site owners to make every effort to acquaint themselves with the various national laws and voluntarily block specific country IPs so that the products are only available in countries where those products are legal. If US WOT members can't access those sites then they can't (or shouldn't) rate them, although that would also mean that members would have to actually verify whether or not the sites and products are accessible rather than just using blacklists to boost their WOT activity scores.

[evilfantasy]

<quote user="jazspeak">
However, when it comes to the global sales and distribution of pharmaceutical products then it would be wise for site owners to make every effort to acquaint themselves with the various national laws and voluntarily block specific country IPs so that the products are only available in countries where those products are legal. If US WOT members can't access those sites then they can't (or shouldn't) rate them, although that would also mean that members would have to actually verify whether or not the sites and products are accessible rather than just using blacklists to boost their WOT activity scores.[/quote]

Good idea. Or at least use a disclaimer for those entering the website warning visitors from other countries that the laws are not the same and they need to check with the FDA before considering a purchase.

Look. I neither support or condemn the FDA. The FDA and the Pharmaceutical industry are as "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Business t=_self]Big Business[/url]" as they come. They have a HUGE interest in keeping all sales and production local. The FDA makes a living off of the Pharmaceutical industry and they both not only want but NEED outside suppliers made out to be seen as dangerous supply chains.

Again, I neither support or condemn the FDA. But like government they do have to be watched or they will get out of control.

[Jazspeak]

<quote user="evilfantasy">
"...use a disclaimer..."
[/quote]

If only people would read such things...which reminds me of an episode of [url=http://www.southparkstudios.com/ t=_self]South Park[/url] in which characters found themselves having fallen foul of the EULA that they hadn't read before agreeing to the terms and conditions.

BTW, the South Park Studios link above is an excellent example of being country-specific. The site to which I linked won't work in the UK but a pop-up appears stating: "Sorry UK and Ireland. Due to copyright and other legal restrictions, South Park content from this site cannot be viewed in your country. [url=http://www.southparkstudios.co.uk t=_self]Click here for SouthParkStudios.co.uk[/url]"

Edit: The South Park episode I recalled above was Episode 1 of Season 15 titled, Human Centipad (featuring Steve Jobs).

[alphacentauri]

"Unapproved" and "rogue" are two different things with LegitScript. An "unapproved" pharmacy is one that is legal in its own country, but which is shipping into the US against US law, i.e., smuggling. You may wish to order from them, knowing that you are violating the law, but that the drugs are as good as any within the country of origin. If you drove to Canada and filled a script at their pharmacy and drove back with a personal supply, it would be completely legal.

A "rogue" pharmacy is not in compliance with the laws of the country is claims to work within. They may claim to be Canadian, but may ship drugs from Asia that have not met Canadian quality standards. If you choose to order from them, the drugs won't even pass through Canada on their way to you, at least not legally. Again, it's your choice, but the risks are greater.

CIPA, being Canadian, is not going to have problems with a Canadian pharmacy meeting the laws of Canada. An American organization like LegitScript, is going to have trouble with a Canadian pharmacy violating the laws of the US.

[evilfantasy]

<quote user="alphacentauri">
"Unapproved" and "rogue" are two different things with LegitScript. An "unapproved" pharmacy is one that is legal in its own country, but which is shipping into the US against US law, i.e., smuggling. You may wish to order from them, knowing that you are violating the law, but that the drugs are as good as any within the country of origin. If you drove to Canada and filled a script at their pharmacy and drove back with a personal supply, it would be completely legal.
[/quote]

Excellent description.

[evilfantasy]

I'm not trying to bash LegitScript. Just pointing out that regulations are not the same in different countries and that must be taken into consideration when rating websites. Not just pharmacies.

<quote user="superhero58">They regulate laws, and enforce them and as for the Pharmaceutical industry, they create and discover new medications I do hope that they are big because it takes money, a lot of it to regulate and invent new products[/quote]

Your making my point for me in regards to the FDA. The FDA makes their money on regulations. That's how they get their hands into the pockets of whoever/whatever they are regulating. The FDA is a branch of the government. I have seen many of our political views in different topics. They are all very different but I do think we would all agree to never trust a political entity 100%. They like everyone else need to be scrutinized and questioned. Politicians and different branches of government are not exactly angels. They need these regulations to keep their jobs.

In the bigger picture I do believe they have our best interest in mind. That does not mean I agree with everything the FDA says and the regulations they enforce.

[url=http://articles.latimes.com/1995-03-09/news/mn-40656_1_nicotine-addiction t=_self]FDA Chief Calls Nicotine Addiction a 'Pediatric Disease'[/url]
[url=http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/UCM213265.pdf t=_self]Drug addiction is a treatable disease[/url] (Warning, link opens a PDF file)

Drug addiction is a treatable disease? Yep! But only when the treatment is FDA approved and regulated.

[evilfantasy]

Don't get too worked up over this man. It isn't worth stressing over

<quote user="http://www.cipa.com/about/">Each CIPA pharmacy member is licensed and regulated by the government for safety. Additionally, CIPA was selected to be the official verifying organization for all pharmacies that wish to advertise on Bing and Yahoo! in Canada.[/quote]

Both LegitScript and CIPA are under the scrutiny of their respective governments.

All of the facts need to be in the open and labeling a pharmacy as rouge when someone in that country may legally use them needs to be taken into consideration. That's the point I was trying to make. I didn't introduce the FDA into this topic and I never singled out anyones political views.

I digress...

[PharmacyChecker]

If you're interested, there is an interesting NY Times op-ed that discusses recent research about online pharmacy safety and law. It specifically mentions CIPA and LegitScript, as well as PharmacyChecker and NABP: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/opinion/the-wrong-way-to-stop-fake-drugs.html.

The point made by the author of the NY Times article is that Americans who buy medication from credentialed online pharmacies, foreign and domestic, are not putting their lives in jeopardy by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the contrary. Americans who are struggling to afford medication can greatly benefit from the credentialed foreign online pharmacies which have much lower prices.

The same issues covered here were also discussed last year on this forum: http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/13596-online-pharmacy-ratings-undermine-wot-credibility-and-uninsured-americans. I began this forum with an uncommonly long discussion and a title that could have been less provocative. But a lot of good points were made by contributors. :

[evilfantasy]

<quote user="pharmacychecker">
The same issues covered here were also discussed last year on this forum: http://www.mywot.com/en/forum/13596-online-pharmacy-ratings-undermine-wot-credibility-and-uninsured-americans[/quote]

I have only scanned through that topic. There is a lot of information to digest and it was posted when I was taking a break from the Internet so it's new to me.

Although, the very first line of that topic is exactly what I was trying to get across by creating this topic.

<quote user="pharmacychecker">WOT shows a poor reputation score for the most reputable international online pharmacies, thus calling into question its system for helping people determine which sites they can and cannot trust.[/quote]

There are people from a lot of countries using WOT. Those of us who do a lot of rating and have access to the MRT have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible when it comes to giving red ratings. Especially when done so en masse.

Ultimately I don't care WHO tells me something is true or false. If I see conflicting information from those who should know the real truth it simply makes me question the entire system and wonder why the conflict of interest happening between two companies striving towards the same goal.