Counterfeit Drugs: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When I chose the title, Counterfeit Drugs: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, some of my colleagues at this symposium blanched. They understood counterfeit drugs as Bad and Ugly, but resisted categorizing any counterfeit drug as Good. This article is intended to be provocative, challenging some of the conventional wisdom concerning counterfeit drugs. We start with the fact that reports about the scope of pharmaceutical counterfeiting are remarkably anecdotal rather than empirical. As a professor once chided me, the plural of anecdote is not data. The FDA and the WHO must undertake comprehensive market surveillance to establish the true scope of the counterfeiting problem. We also must speak more clearly about counterfeit drugs, with an improved lexicon. It is misleading to pretend that safe and effective cross-border drugs from Canada are similar to contaminated water passed off as erythropoietin (Epoetin alfa) by criminal gangs. They have quite distinct causes, effects and indicated solutions. Finally, and perhaps most controversially, this article identifies the underlying cause of drug counterfeiting as the legal system of intellectual property laws. We briefly explore alternative systems which would accomplish recovery of R&D expenditures without the patent rents which attract counterfeiting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it