No refund on phenylephrine

[ballzac]

So earlier this year I bought two packets of Sudafed PE, of which the only 'active' ingredient is phenylephrine. Prior to purchasing, I did not know a lot about phenylephrine. I thought that it probably wouldn't be as effective as pseudoephedrine, but expected it to have some degree of proven efficacy. After buying it, I started doing some research using scientific journal databases such as isi web of knowledge. Pharmacology is not my area, but it seems to me that there is no consensus in the medical community that phenylephrine has any efficacy as a decongestant at the prescribed dosage. In fact, the overwhelming majority of research papers have found phenylephrine to be no better than placebo at the approved dosage.

I decided that there is no point in using this product if it is no better than a placebo, so today I went back to Chemist Warehouse with both packets and the reciept, for my $32 refund. I explained to the lady at the counter why I wanted to return them, and she called someone else to the counter. The second lady told me that they have a 7 day return policy so I couldn't get a refund. I told her that I thought this policy should not extend to products that do not work, and she told me I'd have to talk to the pharmacist at the back of the store.

I went to the back and told the pharmacist the whole story. She told me that there was plenty of research out there showing that phenylephrine is effective. I asked her if she had a reference to a specific paper, as I would be really interested in reading it. She said she didn't know a specific paper, but "I'm sure they're out there." She also told me that the TGA wouldn't have approved the drug if it did not work, and I suggested that perhaps there were political reasons for this. She shrugged. She told me that lots of people have found that it works for them. I said that lots of people find lots of things "work for them" but I expect pharmaceutical sold in a pharmacy to be scientifically proven to work.

She told me that I had left it way to long to bring them back, and I responded that I did not want to bring them back hastily without thoroughly looking at the research. She suggested that next time I do my research prior to purchasing.

I feel that I should have gotten a refund. I also expected that I would, even if they thought my reason was a little unusual. What do people think?

[El Presidente Hillbillios]

of course you should get a refund if what you have bought is not fit for purpose, and for you it obviously isn't

[Uncle. S]

That is so incredibly frustrating. Half the time its the only available choice, and the other half you are the filthiest junky piece of shit they have seen all day just for asking for a product that works.

I don't know if it's ok to name the store you got it from, but that's really bad customer service from them.

[ballzac]

It was Chemist Warehouse Malvern. I have absolutely no problem with the way I was treated. The pharmacist seemed a little apprehensive, as she was probably expecting me to get angry or something, but she was polite nonetheless. However, what ever happened to "the customer is always right"? I think I would have gotten the refund with a smile and apology had it been a small independent pharmacy and I had talked to the owner.

I have contacted consumer affairs about this and provided them with four recent research papers that were published in respected medical journals.

[ballzac]

See papers by:

Eccles, 2006

Hendeles&Hatton, 2006

Horak et al, 2009

Hatton et al, 2007

It is surprising that there is so little research on this drug, considering its universal acceptance as a replacement for pseudoephedrine. I could find one paper that makes claims to the contrary:

Kollar et al, 2007

The authors are all employees of GlaxosmithKlein, CHPA, and Wyeth. Evidence cited is the report by the FDA which itself cites only unpublished research as evidence for their findings. Research by GlaxoSmithKlein was also cited in this paper.

The FDA have political reasons for making claims as to the efficacy of phenylephrine, and in light of their findings, GlaxosmithKlein, CHPA, and Wyeth have commercial reasons for supporting these claims. I could find no papers published in respected journals by authors free from conflicts of interest that agree with these findings.

[Auxin]

She suggested that next time I do my research prior to purchasing.

Well at least she did say one intelligent thing Theres a cute saying I once heard: "Lifes short, Go slow" the implication being if you dont properly research and think things out you'll be prone to wasteful mistakes.

Since the aussie government puts significant cash into medical care they should have some department that actually evaluates evidence for drugs to make sure they work as claimed. This isnt the only one thats equal to or scantly better than placebo. Flu shots arent much better than getting ample vitamin D and exercise but the world spent enough on them last year to end starvation.

The Coryphantha genus has numerous species with variously O and N methylated (and in some cases desoxy) epinephrine derivatives. Has anyone ever tried low doses of them for antihistamine effects? I know K trout tried to get entheogenic effects from C. macromeris once (which contains 2-(3,4-dimethoxyphenyl)-2-hydroxy-N,N-dimethylethylamine) and ended up with several days long odd ass bad-amphetamine-analog-like effects. If theres ephedrine/epinephrine-like compounds in that genus that can last several days it might be worth a look. Several Coryphanthas even have a phenylephrine isomer in which the hydroxy group is on carbon 4 instead of 3. The naturally occuring phenylephrine isomer couldnt have been patented, maybe thats how they got the idea to patent phenylephrine.. 'cause undisclosed researched showed effectiveness in the natural isomer?

Its pretty bad.. when I was a kid we had to be creative finding new ways to get high because of funky ass laws.. these days one has to be creative finding new ways to get efficacious medicine because of funky ass laws.

[Chiral]

She's right you should have researched your data before your purchase...seriously that's the way it is..if you are going to buy something then it's up to the buyer to research prior to purchase, having said that most customers aren't SAB'ers either and have the initiative to do so..but if you where buying a car and just went and picked and paid for one then decided some months later that you didn't want it because you read some banter on a forum that showed potential faults then I mean really...you couldn't expect a refund, even if you have not even driven it...poor example I spose but the old saying "buyer beware" comes to mind here.

FWIW, pretty much all Chemists have 7 day money back return policy, you should have found that out as it would be written on the receipt or be a sign inside the store.

[ballzac]

She's right you should have researched your data before your purchase...seriously that's the way it is..if you are going to buy something then it's up to the buyer to research prior to purchase, having said that most customers aren't SAB'ers either and have the initiative to do so..but if you where buying a car and just went and picked and paid for one then decided some months later that you didn't want it because you read some banter on a forum that showed potential faults then I mean really...you couldn't expect a refund, even if you have not even driven it.

 

If I bought, say, a Daewoo car and then found out that it has no engine, I would expect a full refund if I took it back within 5 years. We are not talking about some "banter on a forum" or "potential faults". I am talking about scientific evidence that the product does not work. I totally agree that, for my own sake, I should do more research before purchasing things, but that does not change the fact that they should be held liable for products they sell for a specific purpose. If someone gets sick because a product contains toxins and there is no warning on the label, they have grounds for compensation, regardless of whether they did prior research or not. This kind of thing is nowhere near as extreme, but the responsibility to provide accurate information still lies with the company that is selling the product.

FWIW, pretty much all Chemists have 7 day money back return policy, you should have found that out as it would be written on the receipt or be a sign inside the store.

 

Just because they have such and such policy, doesn't mean they have a legal right to enforce the policy. I'm surprised at how many people think they have no rights just because there is a sign saying they have no rights. It's like warranties: people pay extra for longer warranties, when you would usually find that the longer warranty lies within the period of implied warranties anyway. What is the implied warranty on a pharmaceutical?

[ballzac]

Under Australian law, you have a right to a refund if the

goods:

• are faulty;

• are unfit for their purpose (they don’t do what they

are supposed to do);

• do not match the description or sample you were

shown;

• have defects that were not obvious or were not

brought to your attention when you bought them; or

• were bought on the basis of misleading information.

Refunds under this right are unconditional. No

handling or administration fees can be charged.

To seek a refund:

• Return the goods in a reasonable time after buying

them. No specific timeframe is given in Australian

law.

• Do not lose, destroy or damage the goods.

• You may be asked to provide proof of purchase.

The best way to do this is to show your store receipt,

credit card or bank statement which shows details of

the purchase.

Source: http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/information_for_visitors/your_consumer_rights/consumer_information_visitors_australia/Documents/0997%20Consumer%20rights%20v3.pdf

[ballzac]

FWIW, pretty much all Chemists have 7 day money back return policy, you should have found that out as it would be written on the receipt or be a sign inside the store.

 

BTW, it is not only unenforcible, it is illegal to have a sign saying "no refunds", even if the sign refers only to 'sale' items (http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/xfw/729.htm), yet how often do we see such signs? It is possible that this 7 day policy is also illegal. If Australian law states no specific time period, then why does Chemist Warehouse have the authority to decide what is a 'reasonable' period of time?

[ballzac]

Unacceptable refund signs

Signs reading "NO REFUNDS" are illegal because they mislead customers about their rights. Similarly signs or other advertisements that set time limitations or other conditions on returning goods may be misleading, such as: "No refunds after 7 days", "Refunds on unworn items only" or "We will exchange or repair or give credit notes only". Refund signs with disclaimers in small print may also be misleading because customers may not see them.

 

Source: http://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/CA256EB5000644CE/page/Shopping+Trading+%26+Pricing-Refunds-Refund+policies?OpenDocument&1=920-Shopping+Trading+%26+Pricing~&2=140-Refunds~&3=030-Refund+policies~

Edited March 14, 2010 by ballzac

[Chiral]

So did you try them...?

Did they work or not work...?

you don't know do you so your evidence is just data you collected online and you have absolutely no idea if they work on you or not...

You can't back to a chemist saying this product doesn't work if you haven't actually tried it.

[ballzac]

You can't back to a chemist saying this product doesn't work if you haven't actually tried it.

 

Do you have a reference for this? I have provided plenty of evidence supporting my position. No I didn't try it as I don't believe there is a point. I also don't think that using it and finding my sinuses less congested would be evidence that it actually works. How would I know that my sinuses were not going to clear up anyway? That is why clinical trials exist. I also feel that using some of the product would lessen my chances of a refund instead of increasing them.

[Chiral]

So why did you buy them in the first place...?

I'm pretty sure we have discussed this product on this board quite a few times in the past, and you may have participated in those threads...I'll dig em up if necessary.

[ballzac]

So why did you buy them in the first place...?

I'm pretty sure we have discussed this product on this board quite a few times in the past, and you may have participated in those threads...I'll dig em up if necessary.

 

I bought it based on the information provided on the packaging that claims it is a decongestant.

Honestly, I don't recall ever participating in such threads. Like I said, I figured that phenylephrine was probably not as effective as pseudoephedrine, and I had probably read information to that effect. I did not, however, realise that phenylephrine is mostly believed to be totally ineffective. Please dig up these threads you speak of. I'm sure I'll end up looking like a right dick, but I don't remember previously knowing that phenylephrine was proven useless. It's pretty easy to read about such and such when it first comes out (particularly something as uninteresting as a decongestant) and then forget what you've read about it.

[ballzac]

*Double Post*

Edited March 14, 2010 by ballzac

[Chiral]

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21094&view=&hl=phenylephrine&fromsearch=1

you didn't take part in this thread, I just assumed you would have read it at the time.

[ballzac]

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21094&view=&hl=phenylephrine&fromsearch=1

you didn't take part in this thread, I just assumed you would have read it at the time.

 

I'm not very interested in stimulants, so I probably circumvented that thread. I don't think I would have thought about it much at the time even if I had read some, as I was not planning on buying non-pseudo tablets. I just did not have the energy at the time to argue about whether I'm a drug manufacturer or not, so I bought them on faith that they had some effect that they were claiming to have.

[ThunderIdeal]

sounds like you are right onto it zac

i hope you see this through with consumer affairs and post back the results

there is even the remote chance that some big change will come from your complaint.

[FancyPants]

Phenylephrine does about as much for me as drinking a glass of water. When I ask for Sudafed or equivalent I'll say the PE stuff doesn't work.

[nabraxas]

if i remember correctly the main reason PE was ineffective was that in small doses most ov it was destroyed by stomach acid before it had a chance to get into the blood stream.

i notice that recently the drug companies have been bringing out & promoting PE inhalers. It would be interesting to know if they are effective.

[Torsten]

I like what you are doing ballzac. The whole PE thing is a politically motivated sham and the consumer is the one getting ripped off. However, I think if you are going to invest this much energy then you might as well take it where it is going to have a wider impact. Complain directly to the TGA. The chemist is right that the TGA has the responsibility to evaluate the safety and efficacy of products and if they allowed an ineffective product onto the market then they must be held accountable.

PE has turned out to be not as harmless as first thought and is causing quite a few problems for people with enlarged prostates for example. Having such a medication so freely available when it clearly has more serious side effects than pseudoephedrine is against TGA policy and this needs to be pointed out to them.

Complaints about a business via 'fair trading' are captured as simply that - a complaint against a business. This will have no effect on the availability of the product. A complaint to the TGA against a product is registered as a direct challenge to that product. The more such challenges exist the more difficult it becomes for the manufacturer to peddle his ineffective crap.

And that's where you should also take your complaint. Vendors don't always have to give refunds for faulty goods, but the manufacturer does. Take the fight straight to them. But make sure your voice gets registered by the TGA first.

[ballzac]

I understand what you are saying Torsten. I also understand that consumer affairs cannot actually do anything. But I think the support of consumer affairs would be helpful regardless of whether I decide to go further with it or not. A complaint against the vendor may also cause them to change the way they operate. In fact the pharmacist seemed genuinely ignorant of the actual data on the efficacy of phenylephrine. Helping the pharmacist to better understand the products they sell can only be a good thing in my opinion, and if the next person who wants to purchase a phenylephrine product is informed of a superior product by the pharmacist, then some headway has been made. This could also have a flow-on effect, due to communication between people in the industry.

Perhaps the end effect will be negligible from this alone, but it is an obvious place to start. While I feel personally justified in my grievance, I think every consumer is justified in complaining to the TGA about this product, so perhaps there should be more of a coordinated effort to expose this debacle.

[Chiral]

I was at work last night and the guy who is working along side me offered me some cold and flu tablets when I told him I had a sore throat, I asked are the old school original formula..?

He looked at me miffed and said what does that mean, I explained to him about the differences between PE and psuedoephedrine...he raised his eyebrows and got the packet out offered them to me,

they were PE, I laughed and said hah these ones don't work no thanks...he said huh, they work for me as was evident by the fact that he had consumed half the packet already.

[ballzac]

Haha, perhaps PE is better for a sore throat than it is for nasal congestion