Peroxiclear recall

This is so ridiculous. Bausch and Lomb has been getting complaints about this for over 2 YEARS. They've had all the time in the world to fix this... and then the FDA pops into Greenville and catches them with their trousers down, so now this. Great way to be proactive!

http://www.healio.com/optometry/business-of-optometry/news/online/%7B46d49969-0ad9-4dee-ae6f-120be0eb05b4%7D/bausch--lomb-recalls-peroxiclear

 

When it rains, it pours. Basically, it would be costly to address the issue when it was first reported by consumers. So, they must have calculated the value of the lawsuits/returns to the profitability, if they don't get caught, and determined that they can afford to continue business as usual. FDA will eventually get you at the end. Even thought they're undermanned these days, they usually have thick folders of problems for almost everything organically derived.

 

This is a non-issue.

As a user of PeroxiClear as well as store-bought brands of peroxide, store-bought brands have much worse tolerances and those of us who use the product are used to cheaper alternatives. This is more of a comfort thing. I will explain.

The issue has to do with the quality of the neutralizer inside the case. The neutralizer is a round piece of plastic inside the case which is coated with gold or silver particles. These react with the peroxide and make it effervesce. That effervescent bubbling is also neutralizing the peroxide while cleaning your contacts.

Store-brand generic peroxide kits have neutralizers that aren't that great. They have low-quality tolerances. The cases aren't that great, either. They leave a lot of peroxide left over. They often irritate your eyes when you put your contacts in. So, generally, one would spray his or her contacts with saline solution to make sure they're washed. It's good to do, anyway. Then, no problem.

PeroxiClear has much, much better tolerances. My experience has been that, if you're in a rush, you don't even need to wash your contacts afterward with saline. You can just pop them in your eye.

I have very sensitive eyes, but I've never had a problem with PeroxiClear. This is why I pay extra for PeroxiClear and not generic, store-brand kits. I am very brand loyal to PeroxiClear precisely because of the better case and the likelihood that I can pop in my contacts without irritation. It might be better in other ways, as well, but those are my main deciding factors.

My feeling is that this is more of a quality control thing. If I am buying B+L, I expect to not be disappointed like I am with the store-bought generic brands.

Source: I'm not an employee and I have no relation to the company; I'm a customer who has used PeroxiClear every day for several years.

 

Got news for you friend, generic brands ARE THE SAME THING AS THE NAME BRANDS. They're just repackaged to give you the illusion of choice. whether they're a repackage of clear care or Peroxiclear, I don't know. But they're the same.

and it's platinum, and Valeant has known for a long time now there's somethign wrong with them. Instead they have tried to shift blame on the consumer, by assuming it's something to do with them applying makeup or smoking, etc. When compliance with Lens care practices of The main competitor, Alcon, is 100%. They didn't want to own up to the fact that their product has significant issues.

 

I used the Walgreen's Peroxide, which, after I checked, is generic Alcon ClearCare. My eyes are irritated with the generic. They're usually okay with branded ClearCare.

For the 100% you claim -- nonsense. The problems with peroxide not being neutralized in the generic Alcon system was why I originally bought PeroxiClear in the first place.

Like I said, I still haven't had problems with PeroxiClear.

 

With all due respect, just going off of the statistics. I'm glad Peroxiclear worked for you(though it'll be off the shelves for at least 12 months), but n=1 doesn't necessarily represent the base of Peroxiclear users as a whole.

Here's where I'm getting 100 percent from.
http://optometrytimes.modernmedicine.com/optometrytimes/news/comparison-one-step-peroxide-systems

It's definitely not the customer's fault. Matter of fact, Bausch will tell you the recall was a result of internal testing when, in fact, it is in response to an FDA visit we had recently.

 

This was an interesting read. Thanks for sharing this industry article regarding the biology of how it works and the differences between the products.

One thing I learned from that article is that we consumers are very loyal to our peroxide systems over the old multi-purpose system, and we usually don't go back to the previous way.

I read these pharma forums and watch people dumping on their employers, regardless of who the employer is. It's nice to learn something once in a while.

 

Bottom line. Getting peroxide in the eye is not a good thing. (possible short and long term damage). It is not just a comfort issue. Of course there may be feelings of discomfort if the eye tissue is being damaged by getting peroxide in the eye.

When people develop ocular issues later in life they do not necessarily know what the underlying cause is. Chronic doses of peroxide in the eye every day probably does not help a person that is developing an ocular problem. (cataracts, glaucoma, dry eye, retinal problems)

The FDA did the right thing by encouraging a recall. (based on the previous threads) -- The long term harm to the consumer by this probably will never be known unless PeroxiClear customers are monitored for ocular health issues the rest of their lives and the development of ocular problems are compared to people that did not get peroxide in their eyes daily for 2 years.

Thank you to the FDA for catching this issue and making sure the products sold to the customer are safe.

 

What credentials do you have to say peroxide is not a good thing. Doctors recommend these to their patients. You saying they don't know what they're doing? Clean and Clear is still on the shelves, why not recall all peroxide products if it's bad?

 

The amount of thinly-veiled short-sellers here trashing the company and knowing nothing about pharma is too damn high.

 

You don't know what you're talking about. when the system works properly, there is virtually little to no peroxide left. the problem lies with the little disc not neutralizing the peroxide. There is no evidence that it contributes to cataracts, glaucoma, or the other issues you've stated. That is baseless conjecture. And the FDA did not catch this. Bausch did, they just responded too slowly. You should read the recall. It doesn't result in long-term damage.

 

+1. Peroxide is an effective system... when the neutralization works...

 

Recall was due to people getting peroxide in their eyes. Peroxide is toxic. It must be neutralized prior to it going into the eyes of the customer. If the product does not work -- in the case of PeroxiClear it has to be recalled because of the toxicity peroxide has to ocular tissue. PeroxiClear did not neutralize the peroxide appropriately so had to be recalled.

 

From the company website" If the residual hydrogen peroxide is above product specification the user of the product could experience temporary symptoms of burning/stinging, irritation, red eye and in rare circumstances other more serious health consequences."

You will have to call the company for them to let you know what the " more serious health consequences" are.

 

This is what happens when you don't neutralize-

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/06/12070189-eye-burns-linked-to-misuse-of-clear-care-contact-lens-cleaner?lite

thus proper neutralization is important

 

No way man

 

I complained about PeroxiClear because I used it for over a year and now I am unable to wear my contacts. I have complained for a year now and nothing has been done! Even my eye doctor said I have had healthy eyes for the seven years she has been my eye doctor and now I can't even wear contacts. We need more people to complain, so they need to pay out for the damages that they have caused! I know I am not the only one!

 

If you received elevated levels of peroxide in your eyes do to the failure of the product to neutralize the highly toxic chemical then you likely have a case. The main thing to overcome is the company defending that it is just a comfort issue and that chronic doses of peroxide are not toxic. It is likely that the company never performed a one year chronic dosing in the eye of peroxide at elevated levels. Therefore the failure to model a condition that you received by the product may be the main focus of the case. Also, you ophthalmologist would likely have to testify of how your eyes were healthy (could wear contact lenses) and then unhealthy (no longer could wear contact lenses) after the use of Peroxiclear.

 

I would think that the burden of proof for safety should be with the manufacturer of the product. Because a one year human clinical study of high daily instillations of peroxide in the eye would never be approved due to concerns of possible toxicity to the eye no (direct) proof of safety for your particular situation could be made. Also, not all of the bottles may have been defective. So for your condition you may have received the defective bottle whereas others received product that was OK. The people who could claim harm are the people like you who may have received defective product and have developed an ocular condition that is intolerance to the use of contact lenses. Although not a sight damaging effect still should not have happened if the company adequately tested the product.

How much compensation you should receive for this would have to be determined in the courts. There are probably a number of people who also have your condition and did not put two and two together that it may have been a recalled product that caused the problem. It is also possible that you happened to receive the worst case defective product and are the only one that was harmed by the product.

If you are pretty certain that the recalled product is the cause of your current condition you may win your case as the company could not prove that the most defective product produced in the hands of a consumer for one year of use would not be harmed by constant daily high doses of peroxide.