Allow me to respond. I omitted part of my speech. That was precisely my point.
I would not want people to lose their trust in the system, be it the professionals or the general public. When we offer a product for sale in our pharmacies, it is because we think it meets the standards for protecting the public. Of course, we know that there are adverse drug reactions, but that they are not major ones; they are supposed to be minor and acceptable. In fact, patients are informed about them.
What is serious is that products that may lead to death among certain people can get through a gate that we can't imagine. We think that the tests done in advance by the manufacturer should be able to detect that kind of thing. Right now, marketing may be accelerated. Post-market surveillance is being demanded in order to detect problems. However, I do not think it is normal that we wait for deaths to occur before we take action, regardless of where they occur on the continent. Whether there are one, two or three deaths, a red light should flash and we should temporarily suspend the sale of that drug until we have the answer. It is up to the company to provide that, and it should not be the public who pays the price. This is where we want to raise public awareness.
Many products are currently at the pre-marketing stage. They have not been licensed and are sold illegally, in theory, since they are accessible to the public. This year, 64 products were withdrawn from the market. Of these, sixty were contaminated by bacteria, contained toxic heavy metal and had not undergone the pre-marketing process. Post-marketing is all very well, but the pre-marketing rules should also be respected. A product should not be sold if it has not received all the authorizations, all the patents necessary to guarantee its quality to the public.
That is the main message we want to convey, and I think it is important for you to take a look at this.