Talk:Counterfeit medications

Untitled
I edited "when methamphetamine is sold as LSD," replacing LSD with cocaine. The point remains and is much more valid, cocaine does often contain impurities such as methamphetamine, but saying that methamphetamine is sold as LSD is just absurd. The dose for LSD is in the hundreds of micrograms, blotter paper does not hold very much but it works for LSD, the dose required for methamphetamine is much higher. The rumor of LSD laced with methamphetamine is as old as the strychnine rumor, and both make no sense when actually looked into. The article is in a huge need of citations. 24.236.165.168 (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed inappropriate reference
I removed the reference "Counterfeit Drugs: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" by Outterson and Smith because the author is completely wrong with the basic definition of the term 'counterfeit'. These authors have claimed Canadian drugs are counterfeit by virtue of them coming from Canada. The definition of counterfeit is "medication that deceptively represent its origin, authenticity or effectiveness". If the labels on the Canadian drugs honestly state that they are from Canada, received approval from the Canadian government for use by Canadian patients, and meet all other Canadian regulations for labeling, then those drugs aren't counterfeit.

That doesn't necessarily mean the law supports the importation of Canadian drugs into the US. That may be in violation of other laws. However, this Wiki page is about counterfeit pharmaceuticals, not for discussing all aspects of the US health care system. DivaNtrainin (talk) 12:33, 07 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of definition of counterfeit drugs
In response to RIsheehan's questioning the factual basis for the statement "Generic drug products or drug products whose only violation is that of patent laws are not counterfeit drug.", you need to look at the definition of generic drug products and counterfeit drugs. Counterfeit drugs are simply drugs that are intentially labelled or represented differently than what they actually are. From the Wiki page for generic drugs: A generic drug is a drug which is produced and distributed without patent protection. If a generic drug is labelled with accurate information (i.e. correct drug name, active ingredient, strength, lot number, expiry date, and legal responsible agent), then it is not a counterfeit. If a generic drug is intentially mislabelled with incorrect information, then it could be a counterfeit. In fact, the World Health Organization recognizes that counterfeit generic drugs do exist and are on the market. WHO: Substandard and counterfeit medicines

For example, Pfzer owns the patent for Viagra, who's active ingredient is sildenafil. If a competing company, say GlaxoSmithKline, chooses to create a generic version of viagra and then represents it with accurate drug name, drug strength, lot number, date and clearly represents it as their own product and not as Pfzer's, then it wouldn't be a counterfeit. If Viagra had exceeded its patent protection and GlaxoSmithKline gets approval from the US FDA for its generic drug product, then its legal and non-counterfeit. If viagra had not exceeded its patent protection and GlaxoSmithKline hadn't gotten approval for its product from the US FDA, then as long as it was represented as GlaxoSmithKline's product, it wouldn't be a counterfeit. However, this product couldn't be put on the market because it violated other laws. DivaNtrainin (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Steroids weren't counterfeit
". In 2012, tainted steroids killed 11 people near Boston and sickened another 100. "

The steroids weren't counterfeit. They were tainted, but they were legitimate.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/11/24/victims-of-compounding-pharmacys-tainted-steroids-face-mounting-frustration/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.70.197 (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Homeopathic products
I would like to open a discussion on how to include homeopathic products in this article. Right now, homeopathic products are mentioned in the second sentence in this article like this:

A counterfeit drug may contain inappropriate quantities of active ingredients, or none, may be improperly processed within the body (e.g., absorption by the body), may contain ingredients that are not on the label (which may or may not be harmful), or may be supplied with inaccurate or fake packaging and labeling, as is the case with homeopathic products.

However, I am suggesting that we remove "as in the case with homeopathic products." and add a statement in the second paragraph that says something like "Although there is debate whether homeopathic products contain any active ingredients and are effective, they are typically not classified as counterfeit medication." Homeopathic products identify themselves as homeopathic products and often list the dilution amount. Some countries even license them. This isn't a debate regarding the effectiveness of homeopathic products or whether they should be licensed. It is a question as to whether these products best fits the definition of counterfeit. When I read the debate on homeopathic products, the debate isn't on whether it is counterfeit or not. Critics are not arguing that some homeopathic products are legitimate (i.e. non-counterfeit) and some are not. However, if someone were to argue that the debate over homeopathy has now moved to counterfeit or not-counterfeit, that may help shape the wording of this article.

Remember, the point of Wikipedia is to describe the debate. Not to take a position on the debate itself.DivaNtrainin (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)