Drug discovery today: no molecules required
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last fifteen years, numerous peer-reviewed journals published articles about the incredible properties of so-called release-active “drugs” (RADs).1–24 It is claimed that these “drugs” are effective against tick-borne encephalitis, influenza, hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome, meningococcal meningitis, herpes, HIV, and other viral and bacterial infections, diabetes, erectile dysfunction, sleep disorders, obesity, chronic inflammatory joint diseases, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, chronic cerebral ischemia, benign prostatic hypertrophy, alcoholism, allergies, and many other health problems.18 25 In addition, it was publicly announced that they would provide new opportunities to overcome antibiotic resistance and significantly improve the prospects for the treatment of certain forms of cerebral palsy, schizophrenia, and stroke.26 Surprisingly, these innovative “drugs” contain no active molecules and can be considered a new brand of homeopathy. This indicates one of two possibilities: either we are at the brink of a revolution in medicine or that something went wrong with research published in numerous academic journals. We argue that the latter explanation is more likely and that this conclusion has severe implications for the scientific and healthcare enterprises. Release-active ‘drugs’ (RADs)1–24 are manufactured by a single Russian company called OOO ‘NPF ‘Materia Medica Holding’ (MMH).25 26 According to the original patent by its founder and CEO Epstein et al ,27 these preparations consist of ‘ activated forms of ultra-low doses of antibodies conventionally designated as potentiated (dynamised) antibodies (by analogy with the terminology used in homeopathic literature) for treatment of various pathological syndromes ’. The problem is that typical dilutions of the active ingredient are so high (from 1:1024 to 1:101991) that no molecules of the initial antibodies should be present in the ‘drug’ itself. The inventors claim that although the ‘drugs’ activity ‘ originates from the initial substance, it does not depend on its negligible …
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.013 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".