This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1.
Building on post #58 rather than restating it.
What I would want before treating Language barriers in accessing as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
Post #59 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.
Regulatory position dates: a regulatory position is only current as of when it was written. Rechecking is prudent, especially if you saw it months ago.
Regional practice around what a pharmacy will and will not do varies enormously and is not deducible from the regulatory position.
This has been discussed before and I could not find the thread, so, again.
The reason Language barriers in accessing keeps being re-asked is that the answer is conditional and people quote it without the condition. It is not that the answer is unknown.
Taking post #62 at face value and following it one step further.
On Language barriers in accessing: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.
Good question, well framed, and I would like to see it answered properly.
Reading back through the Language barriers in accessing threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
The question underneath Language barriers in accessing is usually "how would I tell?" rather than "what is true?", and that one has a method attached to it.
Write down what you would expect to see under each hypothesis before you collect anything. If they predict the same observation, collecting it will not help.
Language matters for finding primary sources. The authoritative document is usually not in English and the translation usually is not authoritative.
It took me longer than it should have to see that.
I had written a reply contradicting post #67 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
What I would tell a new member reading about Language barriers in accessing for the first time: the confident posts are not the reliable ones, and the reliable ones are longer.
The strongest argument against my own position on Language barriers in accessing, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
Grateful for the specificity. Vague answers to this question are what sent me looking.
Summaries lag badly in this area. Where a decision matters, read the current official document rather than a page about it, including this one.
I am describing what is, rather than arguing for what should be.
Where I part company with post #71, and it is a narrow parting.
Language barriers in accessing sits at the boundary between what this community can usefully discuss and what it cannot, and I think it falls on the discussable side, narrowly.
Post #75 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.
Trying to state the Language barriers in accessing position in a way that someone who disagrees would recognise as fair, because I do not think the version in this thread passes that test.
Having read the whole Language barriers in accessing thread before replying: the question in the first post has not actually been answered yet, and three of us have answered a nearby one instead.
Sensible. I would want the same detail before I acted on it either.
Post #79 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
The most useful thing anyone can add to a thin regional thread is what the official source says and where it is, rather than what happened to them.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.
Language matters for finding primary sources. The authoritative document is usually not in English and the translation usually is not authoritative.
Worth checking against a second source before it gets quoted onward.
Small methodological point on Language barriers in accessing: repeating a measurement is cheap and resolves most of what is being argued about here at no cost to anyone.
On post #82 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Where I would push back on the Language barriers in accessing consensus is the confidence, not the direction. The direction looks right. The confidence is borrowed.
I had written a reply contradicting post #82 and deleted it. Here is what survived.
Both are useful and they are different contributions. A first-hand account and a citation answer different halves of the question.
That is all the detail I have. Someone else will have more.
Careful with the language on Language barriers in accessing. "Not detected" and "not present" are different findings and the first is a statement about the method.
On Language barriers in accessing the community has more anecdote than the confidence in this thread implies, and I include my own contribution in that.
Where a compound is approved under a different trade name in another market, searching the local name finds documents the English name does not.
Language barriers in accessing: I have looked for the primary source twice and failed twice. Either it does not exist or it is somewhere I do not know to look, and I would like to know which.