Hi klhilde,

Agree with you regarding the need to discuss how we define or at least discuss “fake” drugs and the impacts of that for both this site and others seeking sources of supply for treatment.

In the case of the Mesochem branded product you refer to, I would call it as fake regardless of whether it contains Daclatasvir or not.

My point here being that whether the perpetrators have the best intentions in the world or not, by copying the manufacture’s labelling/logos they are misrepresenting or misleading their customers and doing it intentionally. And there are far better ways to assure customers of supply chain integrity such as those modelled by the Fixhepc buyers club.

Why does it matter?

Well, I would assume Rachel will be following this up with other groups that her company has supplied. Hopefully she puts a satisfactory stop to it. Failure to succeed at this and/or ongoing incidents would have the potential to impact who her company is prepared to supply as they will wish to protect their name as a trusted supplier to the large players in the field. And this could mean additional middle men, higher costs and probably considerably reduced access to everyone.

Rachel’s request that Dr James not post pictures of the offending item is also correct in my view as it starves the net of opportunities for confusion of customers or outright fraud by scammers.

Which brings me to how we handle the issue of supply chain integrity and “fake” drugs on this site which I will do in more general terms below:

While in some ways the site could be seen as a support vehicle for the buyers club and its members, the reality is that as a site for hepers with uncensored input, links and a language translator we have a vast and growing international audience who can and will use us to access treatment either via the club if they meet the legal requirements or via links and contacts that we can and do provide. Some of this access and sourcing may come via unorthodox means as you say so we need to be mindful of the following:

Not all of these members/guests will have strong English language skills and some could easily be misled by posts, pictures or links on here that they may believe to be genuine just because of being on this site. For this reason I suggest that we all need to be very clear in our posts that the information we are posting/commenting on/linking to/etc. is not approved and verified by the site as having supply chain integrity unless we are absolutely certain that this is the case. So yes, as you say, it is all about supply chain integrity and I think we need to keep restating this for the benefit of new participants rather than assuming they will “get it” immediately.

Perhaps to assist with this process the mods and founders may like to have a discussion re setting up a locked “verified & approved” section placed prominently in the index section of the forum with appropriate warnings that anything outside this area needs to be viewed as “unsupported”?

Regardless of this and even if the above is implemented, please everyone, give your posts some thought as to whether they could be mistaken for an endorsement of something whether by a newcomer or someone who’s first language isn’t English. (Yes, I know we have a language translator, and like all of them……..it’s rubbish for real meaning!)

Hope this helps and look forward to hearing others thoughts.

G