The idiot probably thought God had set it all up to test his faith. Idiots always think everything is about them.

(October 18, 2018 at 7:11 pm)Reltzik Wrote: .... I might be a newbie here, but I'm getting the sneaking suspicion from somewhere that Huggy isn't exactly the most honest and trustworthy individual on these boards.

Mainly he is just full of shit and desperate to protect his god.

Odd that he never seems to wonder why his "god" needs protection.

(October 18, 2018 at 11:01 pm)Joods Wrote: Your dishonesty and failure to admit that you provided misleading information during a discussion.

Still trying to argue semantics?

My response was to you claiming the drug was available over the counter, for which you provided no source.

You claimed that misoprostol wasn't a controlled substance.

(October 18, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Joods Wrote: This would have been credible information except that you made the assumption that misoprostol is a controlled substance. In some areas, it could even be sold over the counter under other names.

If it is only available by prescription, that sounds like control to me...

Now did I post information irrelevant to the U.S.? sure, but tell me exactly what it changed in regards to needing a prescription?

(October 18, 2018 at 10:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 18, 2018 at 7:11 pm)Reltzik Wrote: .... I might be a newbie here, but I'm getting the sneaking suspicion from somewhere that Huggy isn't exactly the most honest and trustworthy individual on these boards.

Based on?

Well since you asked...

You cast doubt on her story on the basis that she wouldn't be inconvenienced when there were so many other pharmacies within 2 miles, when the linked story explicitly stated that the pharmacist refused to transfer the prescription.

You also questioned the timing of her getting the prescription weeks after the (first) miscarriage, when some quick research easily explained why that was.

You then cited US law regarding the transfer of schedule 3, 4, and 5 drugs. When challenged on the subject of whether misporostol ws a controlled substance, you linked an information page saying that misoprostol was schedule 4.... in South Africa. You left out the part about it being about South Africa. It took very little fact-checking to discover that the information page was about South Africa... because that was at the bottom of the very page you linked. Misoprostol is NOT listed on the DEA's list of controlled substances. (Scroll down to page 12 of the pdf to see where it would be listed, and isn't, between Midazolam and MMB-CHMICA.) Again, this is very quick research to do.

You said that pharmacies don't HAVE to transfer the prescription, yet this company policy explicitly required pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions on religious grounds must either hand the prescription off to someone in the same shop or transfer the prescription. Again, this was easy research to do.

You then attempted to reframe what your point was, suggesting that the pharmacist refused to transfer the prescription out of simple laziness, but again in the linked story the pharmacist explicitly cited his status as a Catholic as part of the reason for his refusal. Also, your reframing was one under which it makes no sense for you to have linked US law, South African drug scheduling, distance to nearby pharmacies, or time delay between miscarriage and prescription.

You also implied that requiring a prescription makes misoprostol a controlled substance. This is simply untrue. Controlled substances refers specifically to substances assigned to a schedule (ranked from 1 to 5) under the system established by the Controlled Substances Act. Drugs requiring prescriptions are covered by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, and include many drugs that are not scheduled under the CSA. Again, this is easy research to do.

At every step of the way you declined to retract or even acknowledge previous errors.

Nearly all of these are the sort of honest mistakes that people can make. Or it could be the result of deliberate deception. No way for me to tell for sure, though your nonsensical reframing that was completely at odds with your previous posts has me leaning towards the idea that something hinky is going on.

But all right, I'll be generous. I shall suppose that every step of the way you honestly believed the points you were putting forward and that your reframing was out of step with your previous points because, oh, I dunno, you let yourself get derailed or something. Fine. It's possible. Yet even with that level of generosity, we would still have your posts repeatedly lacking in the most basic of fact-checking, your points consistently wrong on most crucial elements, and you contributions universally not something to be trusted or relied upon.

In short, be it deliberate or by a bizarrely negligent failure to do even the most basic of research, pretty much everything you've said in this thread is untrustworthy.

(October 19, 2018 at 12:03 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 18, 2018 at 11:01 pm)Joods Wrote: Your dishonesty and failure to admit that you provided misleading information during a discussion.

Still trying to argue semantics?

Given your dishonesty regarding this thread, you hardly stand in the position to discuss semantics. Posting misleading (also called lying to serve your own purpose) information damages your credibility regarding this subject. Whenever someone posts links proving you wrong, you fail to actually read the necessary information in order to have a proper discussion.

Quote:My response was to you claiming the drug was available over the counter, for which you provided no source.

 

No. Your response to me was because I called you out for posting US law regarding schedule 2 - 5 drugs, with schedule 5 being the mildest of these classifications. Schedule 5 drugs still include some percentage of narcotics, of which the drug we are talking about does not. So you still provided misleading information in order to serve your own agenda. When I showed you that you were wrong, you shifted your goal posts to include drug information only relevant to South Africa and even then - you were wrong. 

Quote:You claimed that misoprostol wasn't a controlled substance.

It wasn't a claim. it was a fact and I provided you with information on that, which I'm sure you didn't bother to read, because you knew you were wrong. I'm not going to keep repeating myself simply because you choose to be obtuse about it.  

(October 18, 2018 at 12:34 pm)Joods Wrote: This would have been credible information except that you made the assumption that misoprostol is a controlled substance. In some areas, it could even be sold over the counter under other names.

If it is only available by prescription, that sounds like control to me...

Now did I post information irrelevant to the U.S.? sure, but tell me exactly what it changed in regards to needing a prescription?[/quote]

Plenty. Depending on what name the drug is under (there are 8 different names), depends on whether or not it can be found OTC (2 of the 8). Again - a point that you will refuse to acknowledge even when I point out a link for you, which I won't because.... You didn't bother reading the information to the links I did provide so far, so you'll apply the same amount of ignorance to any other links I give you. 

You ride my ass for not citing a source, but since you were so gung-ho about intentionally providing misleading info and citing US law that doesn't apply to this particular drug, given it lacks any narcotics, then you could have easily found the information yourself.

(October 19, 2018 at 2:27 am)Reltzik Wrote:

(October 18, 2018 at 10:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Based on?

Well since you asked...

You cast doubt on her story on the basis that she wouldn't be inconvenienced when there were so many other pharmacies within 2 miles, when the linked story explicitly stated that the pharmacist refused to transfer the prescription.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/10...600714002/

Quote:She called her hometown Meijer pharmacy about three-and-a-half hours away in Ionia to see whether the pharmacist there would be willing to fill the prescription for her. He had difficulty retrieving the prescription from the Petoskey store, but was finally able to do it.

(October 19, 2018 at 2:27 am)Reltzik Wrote: You also questioned the timing of her getting the prescription weeks after the (first) miscarriage, when some quick research easily explained why that was.

No, she waited after her SECOND miscarriage.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/2018/10...600714002/
The first miscarriage

Quote:Complications soon followed, and Peterson found herself in the emergency room in June. There, she was told she had been about nine weeks pregnant with twins, but had miscarried one. The other fetus, the hospital doctors told her, was a molar pregnancy and not viable.

The second miscarriage

Quote:She was buoyed by the news that she was still pregnant, and that there was still a chance she could have a healthy baby.

Nearly two more weeks passed.

"I had really bad morning sickness and was really fatigued, and then one day it all just went away," she said. "I thought it was alarming."

She went to her obstetrician to get checked out.

"They did a viability scan and unfortunately, there was no detectable heart rate," she said. The fetus had died.

She's clearly still in her hometown at this point and it's HER decision to wait it out without using meds.

Quote:Peterson's doctor laid out three options:

   
• Wait and see whether her body would be able to completely miscarry without any intervention.
   
  
• Try the drug misoprostol to help move the miscarriage along.
     
  
• Schedule a procedure called dilation and curettage, which is commonly called a D&C, to surgically empty the uterus of any remaining fetal tissue.
  

She chose the least invasive option, and wanted to see what her body could do on its own. When the process took longer than expected, her doctor prescribed the misoprostol to ensure that Peterson would complete the miscarriage and wouldn't develop an infection.

So is it unreasonable to ask why wait till you leave town to try and get the medication?

(October 19, 2018 at 2:27 am)Reltzik Wrote: You then cited US law regarding the transfer of schedule 3, 4, and 5 drugs.  When challenged on the subject of whether misporostol ws a controlled substance, you linked an information page saying that misoprostol was schedule 4.... in South Africa.  You left out the part about it being about South Africa.  It took very little fact-checking to discover that the information page was about South Africa... because that was at the bottom of the very page you linked.  Misoprostol is NOT listed on the DEA's list of controlled substances.  (Scroll down to page 12 of the pdf to see where it would be listed, and isn't, between Midazolam and MMB-CHMICA.)  Again, this is very quick research to do.

Judy was saying that the drug was available over the counter, she has yet to cite sources that corroborate that (for use in the purpose stated).

I already admitted that the source I cited was irrelevant to the US in terms of scheduling, it wasn't intentional. Still according to other sources it can only be obtained legally by medical prescription.

The scheduling isn't the point, the point is whether or not it can be obtained without a prescription, as Judy claimed, got it?

(October 19, 2018 at 2:27 am)Reltzik Wrote: You said that pharmacies don't HAVE to transfer the prescription, yet this company policy explicitly required pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions on religious grounds must either hand the prescription off to someone in the same shop or transfer the prescription.  Again, this was easy research to do.

You then attempted to reframe what your point was, suggesting that the pharmacist refused to transfer the prescription out of simple laziness, but again in the linked story the pharmacist explicitly cited his status as a Catholic as part of the reason for his refusal.  Also, your reframing was one under which it makes no sense for you to have linked US law, South African drug scheduling, distance to nearby pharmacies, or time delay between miscarriage and prescription.

All of what you just stated was part of the same post, so what do you mean by "attempt to reframe"?

That being said, the violation of STORE policy does not make this case lawsuit worthy...

(October 19, 2018 at 2:27 am)Reltzik Wrote: You also implied that requiring a prescription makes misoprostol a controlled substance.  This is simply untrue.  Controlled substances refers specifically to substances assigned to a schedule (ranked from 1 to 5) under the system established by the Controlled Substances Act.  Drugs requiring prescriptions are covered by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, and include many drugs that are not scheduled under the CSA.  Again, this is easy research to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_substance

Quote:A controlled substance is generally a drug or chemical whose manufacture, possession, or use is regulated by a government, such as illicitly used drugs or prescription medications that are designated by law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_D...nistration

Quote:The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is a federal agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments. The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the control and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), cosmetics, animal foods & feed[4] and veterinary products. As of 2017, 3/4th of the FDA budget (approximately $700 million) is funded by the pharmaceutical companies due to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.

(October 19, 2018 at 2:27 am)Reltzik Wrote: At every step of the way you declined to retract or even acknowledge previous errors.

Really?

(October 19, 2018 at 12:03 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Now did I post information irrelevant to the U.S.? sure, but tell me exactly what it changed in regards to needing a prescription?

(October 19, 2018 at 2:27 am)Reltzik Wrote: Nearly all of these are the sort of honest mistakes that people can make.  Or it could be the result of deliberate deception.  No way for me to tell for sure, though your nonsensical reframing that was completely at odds with your previous posts has me leaning towards the idea that something hinky is going on.

But all right, I'll be generous.  I shall suppose that every step of the way you honestly believed the points you were putting forward and that your reframing was out of step with your previous points because, oh, I dunno, you let yourself get derailed or something.  Fine.  It's possible.  Yet even with that level of generosity, we would still have your posts repeatedly lacking in the most basic of fact-checking, your points consistently wrong on most crucial elements, and you contributions universally not something to be trusted or relied upon.

In short, be it deliberate or by a bizarrely negligent failure to do even the most basic of research, pretty much everything you've said in this thread is untrustworthy.

If you go back to my original post, I was simply asking questions about parts of Min's the article that didn't make sense, that was it, I was making no definitive claims about anything.

I hope you keep this same energy about everyone whom you believe is in error...

(October 17, 2018 at 2:35 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If you aren't going to dispense meds, why in the blue fuck would you become a pharmacist in the first place?

To get the freebies that fall under the table?

Quote:You cast doubt on her story on the basis that she wouldn't be inconvenienced when there were so many other pharmacies within 2 miles, when the linked story explicitly stated that the pharmacist refused to transfer the prescription.

If you are expecting Huggy to read you are really setting the bar too high.

He thinks the devil invented reading!

(October 18, 2018 at 11:04 pm)Whateverist Wrote: The idiot probably thought God had set it all up to test his faith.  Idiots always think everything is about them.

Christians are god's little snowflakes, after all.

(October 18, 2018 at 1:23 pm)Joods Wrote:

(October 18, 2018 at 1:06 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: https://www.health24.com/Medical/Meds-an...l-20130927

LOL you're a dumb ass. Trying to pass off information that's intended for use by another continent as if it's relevant to United States Law is just dishonest. Did you really think I wasn't going to notice that your link was for South Africa? 

---

Oh and a schedule four drug in the United States has at least some form of a narcotic in it. The drug in question does not.

It's helpful to know what you're talking about.

https://medshadow.org/resource/drug-clas...-iii-iv-v/

Quote:Schedule V Controlled Substances

Substances in this schedule have a low potential for abuse relative to substances listed in Schedule IV and consist primarily of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics.
Examples of Schedule V substances include: cough preparations containing not more than 200 milligrams of codeine per 100 milliliters or per 100 grams (Robitussin AC, Phenergan with Codeine), and ezogabine.

Oh god I will post a link to this post literally any time Huggy posts something from 4 years ago to prove why someone is wrong in the current conversation.

Joods I lerve you.