A Richmond, Virginia, doctor named Torino Jennings is accused of signing up to 100,000 illegal prescriptions for the muscle relaxant Soma, as well as other drugs, over the past five years. The prescriptions are illegal because he issued them on behalf of an online pharmacy no prescription, without first examining the patients in person.

Many rogue online pharmacies aren’t technically “no prescription” pharmacies. They have physicians, like Jennings, who write prescriptions for patients based on what are called “remote consultations.” While the standards of remote-consultation pharmacies are generally higher than those of pharmacies that require no prescription, they do not meet the safety standards that you deserve — and should demand — as a patient.

Sometime back, the Washington Post ran a background check on remote-consultation physicians and reported –

A Colorado doctor had a history of alcohol abuse. An Arkansas doctor was being treated for bipolar disorder and drug dependency. A Florida doctor had twice been cited for providing inadequate care to elderly patients, one of whom died. A Texas doctor was under investigation by the FBI for suspected Medicare fraud and later committed suicide. A California doctor was disciplined for operating under a fictitious name. A North Carolina doctor had held 22 jobs in five years

When it comes to prescription requirements, there are three kinds of online pharmacies — two of which are both illegal and potentially dangerous:

1. No Prescription Pharmacies. Some Web sites will sell you prescription drugs (including controlled substances) without a prescription, a practice that is illegal in the United States. As PharmacyChecker.com warns:

Ordering from such sites is exceedingly risky to your health and could lead to unauthorized use of your credit card and/or identity theft.

2. Remote-Consultation Pharmacies. Some consumers wish to purchase drugs without having to visit a physician in person — either for convenience, to save money, or (in some cases) to obtain medications they might otherwise be unable to obtain. Remote-consultation pharmacies prescribe medications based on the patient’s self-reported medical history. Explains PharmacyChecker:

U.S. states have different laws on what constitutes a valid doctor-patient medical consultation. As an advisory, the American Medical Association and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have issued statements asserting that remote consultations are a substandard medical practice when there is no prior doctor-patient relationship, one established by an in-person physical exam.

3. Pharmacies Licensed by the U.S. or Canadian Government. Licensed online pharmacies require you to provide an original prescription, obtained from an in-person meeting with your physician. Licensed online pharmacies include major national chains, neighborhood pharmacies, and mail-order fulfillment centers in the United States and Canada.

The eDrugSearch.com database only includes licensed pharmacies that require an original doctor’s prescription, based on an in-person consultation.

The Health On the Net (HON) Foundation is a non-profit organization created by the Geneva Ministry of Health in Geneva, Switzerland. It was founded in 1995 to help both consumers and medical professionals find reliable sources of health information online.

Toward this end, the HON Foundation established the HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) for health and medical Web sites. eDrugSearch.com is proud to carry the HONcode seal on our site. As the foundation’s Web site explains:

The Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct for medical and health Web sites addresses one of Internet’s main healthcare issues: the reliability and credibility of information. The Health On the Net Foundation has elaborated the Code of Conduct to help standardise the reliability of medical and health information available on the World Wide Web.

The HONcode … defines a set of rules to … hold Web site developers to basic ethical standards in the presentation of information [and] help make sure readers always know the source and the purpose of the data they are reading.

To be certified by the HON Foundation to carry the HONcode seal on your Web site, you must submit your Web site for review. The foundation reviews Web sites to ensure they abide by the following eight principles:

1. Authoritative. Any medical or health advice provided and hosted on this site will only be given by medically trained and qualified professionals unless a clear statement is made that a piece of advice offered is from a non-medically qualified individual or organisation.

2. Complementarity. The information provided on this site is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between a patient/site visitor and his/her existing physician.

3. Privacy. Confidentiality of data relating to individual patients and visitors to a medical/health Web site, including their identity, is respected by this Web site. The Web site owners undertake to honour or exceed the legal requirements of medical/health information privacy that apply in the country and state where the Web site and mirror sites are located.

4. Attribution. Where appropriate, information contained on this site will be supported by clear references to source data and, where possible, have specific HTML links to that data. The date when a clinical page was last modified will be clearly displayed (e.g. at the bottom of the page).

5. Justifiability. Any claims relating to the benefits/performance of a specific treatment, commercial product or service will be supported by appropriate, balanced evidence in the manner outlined above in Principle 4.

6. Transparency. The designers of this Web site will seek to provide information in the clearest possible manner and provide contact addresses for visitors that seek further information or support. The Webmaster will display his/her E-mail address clearly throughout the Web site.

7. Financial disclosure. Support for this Web site will be clearly identified, including the identities of commercial and non-commercial organisations that have contributed funding, services or material for the site.

8. Advertising policy. If advertising is a source of funding it will be clearly stated. A brief description of the advertising policy adopted by the Web site owners will be displayed on the site. Advertising and other promotional material will be presented to viewers in a manner and context that facilitates differentiation between it and the original material created by the institution operating the site.

HONcode-certified Web sites generally carry the seal on their home page. You can get confirmation of the certification simply by clicking the seal, which should take you to the site’s certification page on the HON Foundation Web site. For example, here’s ours.

When the topic of Americans buying drugs from Canadian pharmacies comes up, one company whose name is rarely mentioned is Google. That’s odd to me, since (1) Google is such a news magnet, and (2) without Google, far fewer Americans would be buying their prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies.

Big Pharma despises Google for explicitly permitting licensed Canadian pharmacies to advertise to U.S. consumers through its AdWords network — a tacit endorsement of cross-border medication sales. For some time now, Big Pharma and its proxies have been waging a secret campaign to force Google to stop allowing Canadian pharmacies to advertise through AdWords.

Google’s AdWords program (working in partnership with PharmacyChecker.com) has been highly effective in screening out rogue pharmacies and not allowing them to use AdWords. You can rest assured that any Canadian pharmacy you see in a Google ad is a legitimate pharmacy licensed by the Canadian government.

But — and this truly is a rich irony — the FDA now says that Big Pharma itself is abusing AdWords.

Google and Canadian Drugs

First, some background. It would be easy enough for Google to say no to ads from Canadian pharmacies (it certainly doesn’t need the revenues). But instead, Google chooses to team with a well-respected verification authority, PharmacyChecker.com, to screen pharmacies to ensure that only those licensed by the Canadian government are allowed into the Google ad network.

Since Google’s CEO has campaigned for Democratic candidates, it’s not a stretch to conclude that the company is projecting a public-policy position on the issue of drug reimportation — although I’ve never seen a statement by the company on the issue. Either that, or it could simply be a nod to the Web’s libertarian tradition.

Whatever the case, Big Pharma doesn’t like what Google is doing, and they’re trying to stop it. In today’s pro-reimportation political climate, you might think this effort would be quixotic. However, you should never underestimate the power of Big Pharma money to influence public policy — and to turn the screws on other companies, even one as mighty as Google.

Fortunately, the Google-PharmacyChecker relationship seems solid — and the result, in terms of the quality of online pharmacy advertising on AdWords, speaks for itself.

Big Pharma’s AdWords Deceptions

The same can’t be said for Big Pharma’s own AdWords ads, however.

According to Search Engine Land:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sent letters to a number of pharmaceutical manufacturers to alert them that they were in violation of acceptable marketing practices in relation to their paid search marketing campaigns.

The basic gist of the letter is that when these pharmaceutical companies advertise on Google they are a.) not providing the risks associated with the drugs and b.) not including their “established name.”…

Hey, Big Pharma — maybe it’s time to stop worrying about Google’s Canadian pharmacy ads, and to start worrying about your own?

Nah, that makes too much sense.

One reason these companies are working to get their ads placed directly on bloggers’ sites is that, in many cases, Google won’t accept them because they don’t meet its standards. It doesn’t surprise me that some of the advertisers referenced in the Computerworld piece were online pharmacies.

You see, Google has strict guidelines for the advertising it will accept from online pharmacies. As
the company’s advertising policy states:

Google AdWords requires all online pharmacy advertisers and affiliates in the U.S. and Canada to be members of the PharmacyChecker Licensed Pharmacy Program. Additionally, ad campaigns for prescription drugs can only target the U.S., U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands), and/or Canada; these ads will not be displayed in other countries. To be fair to all of our pharmacy advertisers, we make no exceptions. If you aren’t granted a PharmacyChecker ID, we won’t be able to run your ads.

Like Google, eDrugSearch.com only accepts member pharmacies that are approved by PharmacyChecker. We ensure that member pharmacies have been properly licensed by their provincial or state governments.

The fly-by-night online pharmacies are shut out of Google (as well as the Yahoo! and Microsoft ad networks, which have similar policies), so they advertise by whatever means they can — by sending you spam e-mails, tricking bloggers into running their ads on their sites, and in 100 other nefarious ways.

If an online pharmacy’s ad is approved by Google, you can be pretty confident the pharmacy is OK. If it’s not, be wary.

1. Haggle.
2. Check for discounts.
3. Complain more.
4. Read the fine print.
5. Do your homework and get second opinions.
6. Get help.
7. Save for a rainy day.
8. Plan for retirement.
9. Maintain your car.

Go here for the full article.

To become a smarter consumer of prescription drugs, we encourage you to get help by doing your homework at eDrugSearch.com, and to read the fine print before buying a prescription medication from any online pharmacy that’s not in the eDrugSearch.com system.

Remember: being a smart drug consumer is important to both your wallet and your health.

Got this one in the inbox today. It just screams credibility, doesn’t it?

I’m sure we don’t need to remind our readers of this, but just in case a new visitor doesn’t already know this: NEVER RESPOND TO A SPAM SOLICATION OF ANY KIND OVER THE INTERNET — ESPECIALLY FROM AN ONLINE PHARMACY! You’re putting both your money and health at risk if you do.

Happy holidays, everyone.

In the face of Congress’ apparent bumbling of the $700 billion financial bailout package, I’m glad to know that something useful can still emerge from the lawmaking process.

H.R. 6353 is named for Ryan Haight (pictured), who died of an overdose of Vicodin after ordering the pills over the Internet without a prescription. (You can read more about Ryan here.)

You can read the full text of the legislation here; here’s a summary of its provisions:

• Amends the Controlled Substances Act to prohibit the delivery, distribution, or dispensing of controlled substances over the Internet without a valid prescription. Exempts telemedicine practitioners.
• Defines “valid prescription” as a prescription that is issued for a legitimate purpose by a practitioner who has conducted at least one in-person medical evaluation of the patient.
• Adds definitions to the Controlled Substances Act relating to online pharmacies and the issuance of prescriptions over the Internet.
  Imposes registration and reporting requirements on online pharmacies.

• Authorizes the Attorney General to issue a special registration under this Act for telemedicine practitioners.
• Increases criminal penalties involving controlled substances in Schedules II, IV, and V of the Controlled Substances Act.
• Authorizes states to apply for injunctions or obtain damages and other civil remedies against online pharmacies that are deemed a threat to state residents.

Keep in mind that licensed Canadian pharmacies do not ship controlled substances into the U.S., so this act applies to rogue pharmacies, both in the U.S. and worldwide. We applaud the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act — because the more that is done to protect Americans against rogue pharmacies, the more they will look to the many benefits that legitimate online pharmacies have to offer.

When you’re on the right side of an argument, people with a vested interest in defeating you will try almost anything to win. So it is with the big-money opponents of Canadian drug reimportation, who have been pulling out all the stops to convince Americans that buying medications from properly licensed Canadian pharmacies is unsafe.

The No.1 tactic that Big Pharma-backed groups are currently using is to employ clever rhetoric to lump licensed Canadian pharmacies in with dangerous rogue pharmacies — criminal organizations that operate in the shadows.

We’ve obviously written on this topic before, but over the weekend it hit close to home — as John Horton, former Bush White House aide and founder of a Web site called LegitScript — called into question the practices of one of our member pharmacies, CanadaDrugs.com. You can see Horton’s charges in the comments here.

Horton specifically states that CanadaDrugs.com “isn’t getting its drugs from Canada, but in fact from Turkey, which is a transshipment point for counterfeit or adulterated drugs.”

Remember what I was saying about clever rhetoric? This is a brilliant example of it, because it insinuates that CanadaDrugs.com is doing something wrong — without a shred of evidence to support this insinuation.

Here are the facts, as per CanadaDrugs.com and PharmacyChecker, the highly respected verification authority that approves pharmacies to be part of Google’s advertising network:

• CanadaDrugs.com operates a fully licensed Canadian pharmacy.
• CanadaDrugs.com is a marketing portal that allows consumers to place orders with licensed dispensaries around the world. When you view the detail for a product page, it clearly states which dispensary will be filling the order for that particular package.
• CanadaDrugs.com works with companies like U.K. Pharmacy Services, which is based (and licensed) in the U.K. to fill orders for medications based in the European Union.
• U.K. Pharmacy Services dispenses medications under U.K. pharmaceutical laws and regulations that oversee the safety and efficacy of the dispensing practices and products sold to consumers. Turkish medications are dispensed in some cases, as is consistent with U.K. pharmaceutical law and in keeping with the standards of practice for U.K. pharmacies. This has been a common practice in the U.K. for many years, and is regulated by the British government.
• PharmacyChecker ensures that all CanadaDrugs.com dispensaries are duly licensed in their respective jurisdictions and that CanadaDrugs.com follows guidelines to ensure the safety of online consumers purchasing pharmaceutical products.

In summary: You have nothing to fear from CanadaDrugs.com, according to PharmacyChecker and according to the Canadian government.

John Horton also mentions the case of RxNorth, which is an odd one. My understanding is that RxNorth was never charged with a single crime and that the medication lot number that supposedly included counterfeit drugs was never identified by the FDA. RxNorth was never shut down, either. In fact, it was sold to CanadaDrugs.com.

Andrew Strempler, the founder of RxNorth and a licensed pharmacist, has certainly never hidden in the shadows, either. He’s been a public figure for years, profiled in the New York Times, Fortune and the Wall Street Journal. He’s easy to find if the authorities have evidence that he’s done something wrong; you can track him down through his LinkedIn profile or his blog if you’d like.

One final point: John Horton strongly suggests that Canadian authorities don’t particularly care whether the drugs its pharmacies ship to U.S. residents are safe or not. In other words, the licensing process that Canadian provincial governments use to approve and regulate online pharmacies is a sham.

Does anyone buy this argument? If so, remember: There is not, to my knowledge, a single documented instance of a U.S. consumer being harmed by the wrong drug, or an adulterated drug, shipped by a properly licensed Canadian pharmacy. This is pretty amazing — especially when you consider that even U.S. pharmacies make mistakes from time to time.

Oh boy — here we go again.

Hey, I know there are a lot of rogue pharmacies out there. That’s why I started eDrugSearch.com — to help people avoid rogue pharmacies. But there are licensed, legitimate online pharmacies out there, too — and it’s not fair to consumers to scare them away from the Internet as an avenue for purchasing prescription drugs.

If you know what you’re doing, it’s relatively easy to be safe when you buy prescription drugs online. Here are two ways:

1. Use eDrugSearch.com, which only permits prescreened, licensed pharmacies in its database.
2. If you would rather search on your own, follow these five tips.

The main problem I have with the Forbes piece is that it suggests that virtually all online pharmacies don’t require prescriptions, sell counterfeit medications, and send you spam e-mails. Then it suggests that these same pharmacies are spending lots of money in search marketing and other forms of advertising on the Web. Both of these assertions are patently false.

For an online pharmacy to advertise through Google AdWords, for example, it must meet specific criteria that includes verification of its licensing by PharmacyChecker. Online pharmacies that send spam e-mails and distribute counterfeit medications need not apply.

The article is another bit of alarmism compliments (directly or indirectly) of Big Pharma’s PR machine — which is fighting tooth and nail against both access to Canadian drugs by U.S. consumers and the preferred means of this access, the Internet.

Don’t believe the hype.