> If the faulty drugs were even 50% as effective as good drugs, then more lives were probably saved by shipping them. The problem is that there is no way to find those people who would have been priced out and offer them the maybe-50%-effective-maybe-deadly drugs.

Huh? You are assuming that they are effective at all and, even worse, let’s assume that it is 50% effective intended drug dose what the hell is in the other 50%?! Does it cause cancer or lead to other disease? Is it innocuous? Frequently contaminants are really not. Look up Chanticleer, Metformin, ranitidine just in the last couple of years.

These aren’t expired medications. They are ineffective at an overly generous best and likely dangerous.

These also aren’t street dealers where you are okay if 50% is coke and 50% is flour.

No pharma company is your friend. They can be useful, sure.

Is your argument really "we should let people take dangerous and potentially deadly pharmaceuticals to reduce costs." Because I agree that would reduce cost by dropping demand.... Because the people taking them would be dead.

A bad batch of a drug or precursor does not conform to standards is no good in a safety-critical industry. We are looking at generic drugs, it's not like you have a batch of polyethylene from the pilot plant which does not conform to any standard, and you send it off to SE Asia for use in cheap plastic toys.