New shipment arrival, of face masks.
Available now for same day dispatch.
4 x 50 packs for $100, free freight!
Discount automatically applied at checkout.
ARTG 340206
http://tga-search.clients.funnelback.com/s/search.html?colle…
3-Ply Face Mask 4x 50 Pack $100 Delivered @ Tradies Workwear
63
AssociatedTradiesWorkwear on 19/08/2020 - 17:53 tradiesworkwearshop.com.au (480 clicks)
Last edited 20/08/2020 - 12:57 by 2 other users
Last edited 20/08/2020 - 12:57 by 2 other users
Related Stores
closed Comments
Three things, in order of importance:
1) Your statement that these are TGA Approved contravenes the code and needs to be removed from the deal title:
(Edit: AND removed from your website)
Promoting a product as "TGA approved", or including other government endorsements, whether it is included in the ARTG or not, is a violation of the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code.
https://www.tga.gov.au/face-masks-and-respirators-are-regula…2) Although they're probably similar to approved surgical grade masks, there is nothing on your website (or the box?) which suggests these have been tested and approved as "surgical grade". Quick guide here: https://smartairfilters.com/en/blog/comparison-mask-standard…
3) There is no detail on your website which shows the mask construction eg does it have the middle melt-blown layer?
Happy to revoke my neg when these are addressed.
Sick of seeing vendors claiming masks are TGA Approved yet provide no evidence of certification.
Minimal information on country of origin.You are being very unfair.
I just googled the brand and found the certification.Link? There may be a mask standard on the box but we can't see it. A CE "stamp" is meaningless in this case. It's possible/probable that these are decent masks but the claims need to be backed up or removed.
https://www.ebs.tga.gov.au/servlet/xmlmillr6?dbid=ebs/PublicHTML/pdfStore.nsf&docid=4B3CC7F141AF0B82CA2585B200423A53&agid=(PrintDetailsPublic)&actionid=1
An ARTG listing is not proof of a product's adherence to any standard, it simply allows a product to be classified and sold in Australia, and places responsibility on the "sponsor" to meet claims regarding the product. The TGA does not check individual products/claims.
In this case the mask is described as:
GMDN 35177 Mask, surgical, single use
Intended Purpose A disposable device worn over the nose and mouth to prevent the transmission of airborne particlesLet's clear up what the ARTG is and does. Fron the TGA website:
https://www.tga.gov.au/searching-australian-register-therape…."The publicly accessible version of the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) is the reference database of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). It provides information on therapeutic goods that can be supplied in Australia.
Please note: the ARTG is a record of the contents and classification details of therapeutic goods. It is not intended to provide guidance, advice or recommendations on those goods.
If a therapeutic good is not entered on the ARTG, it cannot be supplied in Australia. There are special circumstances where individuals can access unapproved therapeutic goods. For more information see: Access to unapproved products.
These lists may be out of date/incomplete but ZhuoDun does not appear to be in either the 'white list' of internationally certified suppliers, which are verified by local commerce authorities for medical products and/or non-medical PPE as per the TGA links under Amendment to Chinese export regulation.
So if I was buying and thought the surgical claim was critical then I'd still be looking for a link to the certification/proof.
The mask photo is a stock image from the internet. I would not trust anyone selling a mask with a generic mask image then claiming it to be TGA approved or surgical grade.
You are alleging the OP isn't selling Zhuodun brand (brand according to the image). Ok and good to give us that information if that is the case, but you need to be certain before making the claim.
Never made that claim. But as I said I would not trust anyone using a generic stock image of a mask.
It's not a generic stock image. It's a brand. What part of that don't you understand ?
Neg away. Doesn't subtract your comment on 'generic stock image' was a lie.
@redcreek200: There's no evidence either way. My money's on a stock mask image, albeit probably an accurate one.
In your first post you claimed this:
I just googled the brand and found the certification.
I asked for a link. Any reason you haven't provided one?
@[Deactivated]: It was claimed OP was selling a product different to the image. Do you support that claim ? If so, please provide proof, otherwise it looks like a smear.
@redcreek200: Nobody has claimed that anywhere as far as I can see. My last and previous comments in regards to this product are self-explanatory.
On the other hand your deflection suggests you've told a porkie about certification so you might care to either clarify or apologise for misleading Ozbargainers.
Last chance saloon. For the third and final time. Do you or do you not have a link to back up your claim that you just googled the brand and found the certification? Simple question.
@[Deactivated]: Last chance, pal.
Are you supporting the post (that this is a reply to and you've hijacked) that the OP is selling a product that is not the brand displayed ?@redcreek200: Juvenile nonsense.
I've answered your question already but since you appear not to understand simple English I'll spell it out again
No-one on this thread has suggested anywhere that Tradies Workwear and Safety is selling anything other than the product advertised.
On the other hand someone on this thread appears to have fed us bovine manure. The question is why and only he/she can answer that.
@[Deactivated]: You still didn't answer the question, pal. Why do you support gamemaster's claim/assertion (this comment you're replying to) that OP's product is unrelated to the image. That is the assertion.
His words: "The mask photo is a stock image from the internet. I would not trust anyone selling a mask with a generic mask image. @Gamemaster (and you) seem to indicate that OP cannot post an image of the product they are selling or alternatively
OP is misrepresenting what he is selling.If you claim the 2nd, you need evidence.
@redcreek200: Comprehension's not your strong point eh PAL? Unless you're a primary school kid with learning difficulties it shouldn't be difficult for you to comprehend what I've stated. Perhaps you could phone a friend?
I've already drawn my conclusions - your continued inability to provide evidence for your claim made it easy- but out of interest, based on this thread where would you put yourself on the honesty gradient?
@redcreek200: No personal attack, simply stating what is clear from your responses and responding to your obvious provocation. Here's another straw for your back.
Since you've been unable to relocate the link you claimed to have seen re certification, is there any reason why the company listed on the box isn't in the Chinese TGA lists I've linked above?
Just fyi (in case you actually interested in the product - insert sarcasm emoji here) I've asked the deal poster to confirm the structure of these masks. Not sure why - they might simply be too busy - but no response has been forthcoming. To their credit they have removed reference to TGA Approved. If they are surgical masks as advertised then their structure should be simple enough to confirm. The single mask image on the website can be found all over the internet. It doesn't guarantee anything about the quality, nor does 3 layers of material for that matter. Surgical masks have a particular structure. I'll leave you to find out what that is when your fav search engine is back online.
@[Deactivated]: Still, you go off topic and deflect (troll?) This comment (gamemaster's) you hijacked is about his assertion the OP is selling something other than the product imaged. You appear to be following me to continue a comment thread from elsewhere.
@redcreek200: Following you from where? Do you have multiple nics?
Nothing off topic about asking you to verify your comment. If you can't, just apologise for making a mistake and move on.
gamemaster's comment is simple to understand, you've chosen to misinterpret it. At this point there is zero actual evidence that the masks are any more than simple multi-layered cloth. They MAY well be surgical grade (whether accredited or not) but unless someone credible verifies that it has the required characteristics then his cynicism is justifiable.
@redcreek200: Ah I see what your last sentence was referring to now, thought the modus operandi was familiar. Give dom my best. :-)
@redcreek200: Lol . You have at least two nics on this website, probably more, and it's long odds on that dom03 is one of them. Found out how to disinfect N95 masks yet?
@[Deactivated]: @possumbly, rereading my last post, I think it's too critical.
Seriously, let's both drop it and move on.
So you know, though, this is my only acct here. No point in having 2. Up to you to believe it or not, but that is the case.Anyway, have a nice day. We have a difference in opinion - that's all. Let's move on.
Nothing like a good head sock.