I feel that the assertion that reference is unimportant to be telling.
Also I feel you failed to note that there are other medicines that ALREADY appear within the BTWC (Biological & Chemical Warfare Convention) element of the WMD definition e.g. succinylchloline. Medical use does not preclude a chemical from being considered a WMD. So it's evident just how much you researched before responding. NOTHING. Or maybe that's a bit too technical for you. BOTOX, one of the most widely used agents in cosmetic surgery is is botulinum neurotoxin... also listed in the BTWC.
Since Russian special services used a (thusfar not conclusively proven) mixture of fentanyl derivatives with fatal conseuences, although not explicitly listed, carfentanil could already be considered a WMD. Certainly you CANNOT legally obtain carfentanil without first obtaining a DEA licence even if you add the word 'Zoo' to you mailing address.
Now I have had call to actually READ these conventions because for one project the highest-yielding synthesis used phosphorous pentasulfide which isn't explicitly listed but IS subject to the Convention's verification measures 'due to it being a phosphorus-containing unscheduled discrete organic chemical (DOC)'. So in short, a LOT of chemicals are actually covered by the BTWC I mean THOUSANDS.
Yes, faking of academic papers does happen but experimental data is provided along with a detailed description of the methodology applied to obtain said data so ANYONE is free to repeat the experiments. It HAPPENS. I believe it was Carl Segan who first noted 'exceptional results need exceptional proof' so the bolder the claim, the closer other researchers will look. I should add that if a repeated experiment yields different results, the first people the latter experimentalist will contact is the original research team (and yes, there have been cases in which original teams quickly retracted papers themselves - which may or may not indicate intentional fraud) but in my experience, they will do their best to work with later researchers in case the latter made an mistake or if an original work fails to address a detail.
I think the most famous example I can give is when a team published a paper showing cyclohexanone to act as a catalyst. When repeated many year later, the same catalytic activity was not observed and it turrned out that 2,3-cyclohexenone was a minor impurity found in even Rectapure cyclohexnone at the time the original work took place but decades later, suppliers had found a facile route to remove said impurity. So everyone acted in good faith and the result was a discovery that turned out to be far more valuable than the original work. That the cyclohexENONE is the co-catalyst.
The above case? Google FOGBANK. The US military spent about twelve years trying to refurbish it's nuclear weapons but the interstage had different physical properties to the original material and that 2,3-cyclohexenone was why they failed for so long. But was that fraud? Or do we think it's a lack of documentation and loss of institutional knowledge? Most mistakes are not malign.
But intentional fraud is actually quite unusual because it doesn't matter if an experiment proves or disproves a hypothesis - both results are equally valuable. In fact, if one takes on Karl Popper's philosophy to heart, experimentation can never PROVE anything, only DISPROVE it. An accidental mistake in a paper is generally not detremental to a researchers career. A crime of omission at worst. But intentional fraud can, does and has ended the careers of some extremly high profile researchers. Jan Hendrik Schön is a high-profile example and HOW he was able to commit fraud was investigated and written up. Put simply, he was a nice guy and scientists being people were more liable to trust someone they actually liked. Apparently the keystone of his strategy was to simply agree with everyone - because it's a human bias to have place more trust in people who will be unfailingly supportive than to people who are critical. But you need to read that one to see how the trick was done.
Also, why not spend a little time looking at:
www.retractionwatch.com
That way at least even you will get a basic understanding of how accidental errors and reproductions are by far the most common reason for retraction. It is a TINY number when the number of papers published is considered. Intentional fraud is very unusual because discovery is career-ending and possibly more importantly to some academics, it sullies their legacy. Because it calls into question ALL of their work.
I feel it important to point out that ANYONE can submit a paper to Retraction Watch if they have a valid reason to doubt the work. I know I have.
In the specific case of buprenorphine, the difference is that the ORIGINAL aim of buprenorphine therapy was to detoxify those dependent on opioids. But later works focus much more on the abstainance rate of clients continuing with buprenorphine therapy. But many people have pointed out why long-term use of buprenorphine comes with some pretty hefty issues such as emergency analgesia not being available and the slightly nebulous nature of it's metabolite, norbuprenorphine (toxic) to mention two, but in this thread others have pointed to other issues.
So yes, carfentanil HAS appear on the market in North America and if people are pushed into taking buprenorphine for extended periods, an opioid that will overcome the blockade isn't just a preference but a requirement so in fact it could fetch a premium. I don't know because I don't touch non-prescribed medications. I did say that many of the nitazenes are novel but to the best of my knowledge, the prototype (etonitazene) has a significantly higher MOR affinity than buprenorphine. So again, likely to benefit from increased (required) use of buprenorphine. Or at least here in the UK, courts can sentence people to DTOs (drug treatment orders) so not finding buprenorphine in urine sample would land someone back in court as fast as finding H.
As I pointed out, in an uncontrolled market, Grisham's Law will ALWAYS prevail so carfentanil and nitazenes (both already on the street) are only going to benefit from the over-prescribing of buprenorphine. As I stated - opioid detoxification is rarely impossible. It's retaining sobriety that is far harder. But you now just have people dependent on HUGE doses of buprenorphine - which being legal and with so many patents issued for novel formulations is the most profitable model. But it does seem that people given high doses of buprenorphine for extended periods will develop dependency so while I value the fact it may save lives, essentially turning out millions of buprenorphine addicts is not an optimal outcome.
But I always endevour to provide an answer to problems which is why I suggested that thienorphine WILL blockade carfentanil and while I'm almost sure that it shares many of the same issues as buprenorphine, there are only a few quite obscure opioids that would displace it from the MOR. I sincerely doubt that BU72 is likely to turn up on the street - it's not an open-chain compound and it contains several chiral centres. I believe I even pointed out that a KEY benefit of carfentanil is that it's achiral. So is vanila fentanyl and so are nitazenes. So while there are fentanyl derivatives even more potent than carfentanil, they also contain several chiral centres and if one manages 100% yield in every synthetic step by some miracle, the final chiral resolution would remove 87.5% of the product... which means not only is it synthetically much harder but the cost will be very high if most is discarded.
Don't judge the honesty of others by your own standards and don't confuse having read a few books with actual experience. Because it SHOWS.
www.nature.com
