Week 15 Response - Experts Misleading the Populus

in #week-153 years ago (edited)

"What is an example of an expert that abused their power of falsely presented data for their own benefit?" - Question presented by @dilucadomain


Pharmaceutical corporations often receive a large amount of flack from the populous for taking advantage of patients with overpriced drugs. One could argue for the protection of pharmaceutical patents to protect investments in research and continuation of profit for these companies as I have done in a previous post.


Where I take issue with these companies in the amount of revenue they generate, but rather with some of the maneuvers they make to get that money, misleading consumers along the way. Many won't look into studies of pharmaceutical companies as they fear that it takes a high amount of expertise to interpret the scientific literature, but in some cases spotting the deception of these companies is rudimentary - even to an untrained chemist or scientist.

For instance take the drugs Effexor (venlafaxine) and Pristiq (desvenlafaxine). I recently did a research project on these two Serotonin and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRIs) for a medicinal chemistry course, and when comparing the two structures I was struck at how similar they were... with desvenlafaxine only replacing one residue with an OH rather than a OCH3.
image.png
[Venlafaxine]
image.png
[Desvenlafaxine]
Comparing these two images, we can easily see that the only difference between the two drugs is the very top portion. This small change was made in 2006 by Wyeth pharmaceuticals to create a new patent so that they would be able to continue to monopolize the market of SNRIs, as their patent on Effexor was set to expire. Medicinal chemistry experts at the company and within the Food and Drug Administration were entirely knowing of how minor the change was between these two compounds. Wyeth was just betting on people not looking into the structure of each of the drugs and comparing them when they were prescribed them, just hoping that people would pay for the newer drug -- as we often equate newer with better.

Similar examples throughout the pharmaceutical industry are commonplace. Switching enantiomers of molecules to patent them as new drugs, transitioning from Magnesium to Calcium salts, or selling things as succinates rather than salts are other common patent maneuvers that secure the profits of a company for years to come. The thing is, data is not falsified, and their practices are not dishonest - they are just hoping poeple don't look at the data, but rather trust the experts. With a little personal research and not entirely trusting the experts with our health and our wallets, one could potentially save a lot of money for essentially the same drug.


More sinister examples of experts conning are sadly also commonplace. In the 2021 film Dopesick viewers are taken through the development of OxyContin by the company Purdue Pharma. One main goal in development was to change the perception on pain by the populous. People needed to believe that their pain was chronic, that it was lifelong to justify daily dosage of such a powerful opioid agonist. Changing this mentality though again secures profits for these companies. All the while patients were forming a dependence and addiction to the drug, resulting in a huge number of overdose deaths and the so called "opioid epidemic" ravaging our country.


The end message here is that we, as individuals, need to be cognizant of the motivations of corporations and experts, respecting their knowledge and prowess, but being skeptical of the power that lays at their feet. A good practice is to try to delve into the mindset and motivation behind a product or service. Putting yourself in the seller's position helps provide enhanced perspective that can give insight into their true end goals. I am sure that other examples of deception can be cited across many domains, industries, and governmental institutions. Medication is simply just one example I am able to cite and provide evidence for, but skepticism of expert power must be maintained across many different sections of our lives.