Starrfall on 22/6/2009 at 13:48
I hate the new decongestant(s) so much! I'm pretty sure everyone does. The same sort of thing happened to me about a year ago or so, I was sick and bought some combo over the counter drug and it had the crappy new one and it was so subpar. Now if I really need a decongestant I use spray because I'm not buying that crap. The downside there is that you need to be a little careful in how you use it.
Has this just started in the UK? Pseudoephedrine was made request-only a few years ago here, and then a little later the brand name meds switched in the new crappy decongestant, probably because they were losing sales by forcing people to go to the counter and by taking out the pseudoephedrine the products could go back on the shelves.
Goddamn meth labs :mad:
ps: I like how sudafed called the old one "decongestant" because thats what it actually did but the new one is only "congestion relief" because it doesn't actually decongest but you might get a placebo effect or something and maybe feel a little better.
d0om on 22/6/2009 at 13:53
Well I haven't bought any for ~4 years so it could have happened in the mean-time. This is just the first time I have noticed.
I think its completely unacceptable to sell different drugs under the same name with such similar packaging.
I don't think Pfzier would get away with selling "Viagra(TM)" containing say, aspirin instead, so why should they get away with selling Sudafed consisting of a different drug?
ps: yeah, that's what I was thinking. One actually works and one is just a placebo :(
Paz on 22/6/2009 at 14:03
There's a decent Frontline documentary which touches on some of the attempts to CRACK DOWN on Sudafed (and similar) to reduce the meth problem: (
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/)
It's been a while since I saw it, but I believe it goes into detail about the series of lame compromises and difficulties that led to this current half-half policy; where you're just annoying people who want some Sudafed and not really tackling the meth issue at all.
But then I like Frontline because the guy who does all their voiceover is so soothing ahhhhh
D'Juhn Keep on 22/6/2009 at 14:30
The decongestant's packaging person looks a lot happier. QED
I can't imagine the problem with people making meth lies with someone going into a chemist and asking for 200 packs of Sudafed, so why try to solve it that way? Thanks for letting us know about this d0om as I'm just getting a cold and will now go and get some decent Sudafed. And turn it into meth, obviously.
d0om on 22/6/2009 at 14:38
Looking slightly deeper into it, you can manufacture pseudoephedrine from Benzaldehyde, yeast, and glucose. (Which is how they make it industrially.)
I'm sure some simple fermentation and purification is completely beyond the organised meth-lab making criminal gangs who then modify it into meth, right? Or, you know, just buying it in India/China.
When your normal citizens suffer blocked up sinuses in a vain effort to stop illegal drugs, don't you think something has gone very, very wrong?
Paz on 22/6/2009 at 14:40
I think meth producers were just getting in touch with the relevant people and going 'uhhhh yeah hi, i'm a chemist can i have 500 packets please.'
And things being what they are nobody really checked.
demagogue on 22/6/2009 at 14:42
Quote Posted by d0om
I think its completely unacceptable to sell different drugs under the same name with such similar packaging.
I was under the impression that this was ubiquitous. The other thing that happens is you get the same drug under very different packaging, sometimes at a greater price, so you'd do better to buy the cheap version of exactly the same thing.
I don't think, as a technical matter, it can rise to the level of consumer fraud unless it absolutely doesn't do what the consumer buys it for, but then you couldn't package it as a drug at all. It's just that if you're very particular about exactly what you want, you need to read the fine print. That's always the company's go-to argument ... everything is clearly on the label if the consumer would just read the small print. Similar looking packaging is only an issue for trademark theft, because it's about branding, not function.
d0om on 22/6/2009 at 15:06
The problem is that drugs normally have two names, a "generic" name and a proprietary (or trade) name.
Eg Viagra and Sildenafil.
Only Pfizer are allowed to call their drug Viagra, but once it is off-patent anyone can sell Sildenafil, or invent their own trade name for it.
Sudafed and Pseudoephedrine I assumed was a similar situation, and according to the table on (
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec02/ch017/ch017a.html) at least one drugs company agrees with me.
It is therefore unacceptable to "re-purpose" a trade name for another drug, since doctors can prescribe drugs by either name depending on if they want to specify a particular manufacturer or not. (IE if they were bribed by a drugs company or not)
I have submitted a complaint to Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) so hopefully they will help in my quest for decent decongestant drugs or at least force them to rename the new one.
demagogue on 22/6/2009 at 15:39
Lots of brands have multiple drug lines, especially with common cold stuff. Tylenol Cold, Alka-seltzer Plus Cold, Sudafed Cold & Cough ...
And this is one reason companies try so hard to distinguish the brand from the product, why they'll insist on calling it Sudafed-brand decongestant and not Sudafed the decongestant.
Is it just the similar-looking packaging you don't like?
It's beyond obvious that they're using the power of the brand to pull (bait & switch) people to a new product. But that's what branding is all about; it's pretty much the point as long as it's not to the level of false labeling. What you're talking about is that it's gone to the level of some kind of fraud where somebody buys "Sudafed Congestion Relief" under the false impression that it's going to ... what? ... relieve their congestion?
I perfectly sympathize with you that it's a swarmy practice; everybody has been caught off guard by buying a brand thinking it's something familiar but then it's something unexpected you don't want. I just don't think it's quite to the level of fraud until they're really selling you something that doesn't do what it says, especially when it still says right on the label what it does.