5 ms·

Like most drugs, opioids are easy to demonize, at least up until you or someone close to you depends on them. It's naive to assume that the industry dislikes t

Like most drugs, opioids are easy to demonize, at least up until you or someone close to you depends on them. It's naive to assume that the industry dislikes the focus on the "opioid epidemic". It works to their advantage in a variety of ways, but one of the biggest is the formation and reinforcement of a whole new class of specialized clinicians called "pain management specialists". In Florida for example, a law went into effect this past July that effectively barred any non-pain-management specialists from issuing an opioid Rx that exceeds a 72 hour supply. Even before this law went into effect, the sentiment it conveyed directly impacted the willingness of ordinary docs and medical facilities to reasonably treat pain in persons without a chronic condition that would be handled by a pain management specialist, like postpartum women. My wife was left with only lightweight OTC pain relievers because the hospital said it was too risky to write anything stronger unless there were clear complications. The outcome of the campaign against the "opioid epidemic"? There is now a specialized clique of doctors for the pharmaceutical sales reps to focus their attention on, there are more flurries of codes to bill for, and there is a niche for enterprising doctors to exploit desperate people to make literal millions for themselves while setting their own hours, just like psychiatrists. In fact, the industry is trying to reshape pain management to be the spitting image of psychiatry, which, especially over the last 5 years or so, has become astronomically lucrative for the industry all around. The long and short of it is that restrictive regulation for this type of drug is bad news only for the sick people who depend on their medication to function. It will be much harder and much more expensive to get and keep a steady stream of the drugs that allow them to work and live a semblance of a normal life, all so the incumbent political dynasty has a talking point in the next election cycle. But, err, yeah, let's write off anyone who sees this as a pro-pharma shill...

biehl 8y ago
> But, err, yeah, let's write off anyone who sees this as a pro-pharma shill... ACSH does not seem like “anyone” but rather a documented pro-any-paying-industry-shill...
- tomcam 8y ago
  Did you actually read the article? Did you actually look at any of the statistics it discusses?
  - biehl 8y ago
    Yes. And even if it was sensible article with a solid purpose (it is not), that does not change the basic reputation of ACSH.
  - devwastaken 8y ago
    Information and 'data' can be found to support nearly anything aslong as one lacks the integrity and honesty of due diligence. If there is a history of manipulating information, you now have to completely check and verify all resources. Doing this takes a good deal of knowledge in that field to properly work with, and those that do know what they're doing aren't going to be heard. Given that I know the resource manipulates information, and that I am not privey to the information presented, but that there's plenty of resources that don't manipulate information that are contrary to this article, yes, I'm going to believe those until there's good reason not to.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    This gish gallop is a well known technique of disinformation designed to give the air of authenticity. All of those graphs look truthy, and it would take someone a couple of hours to go through all of them (especially because the submitted article doesn't bother to link to many of the sources) and discover the truth. Look at some of the sources - the Herald Dispatch? And look at the dishonest way it's rpesenting some of the data. There's a graph titled "Drugs involved in US Overdose Deaths, 1999 to 2017" and the article says this graph is trying to tell us that pills prescribed by doctors are the real problem and that the graph is hiding fentanyl. But look at the source: https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o... That graph has this text (missed out by the article) "Drugs Involved in U.S. Overdose Deaths* - Among the more than 72,000 drug overdose deaths estimated in 2017*, the sharpest increase occurred among deaths related to fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (synthetic opioids) with nearly 30,000 overdose deaths. Source: CDC WONDER " That's not hiding the fentanyl deaths.
SiempreViernes 8y ago
Following the first link "The Opioid Epidemic In 6 Charts Designed To Deceive You" I reach an article from 2017 that in its second paragraph states: > ...despite the fact that the "evidence" contained in the recommendations had been carefully scrutinized[sic] and found unsupportable by FDA scientists. where "found unsupportable by FDA scientists" is a link to a document from 2013 that reads in part > FDA has carefully reviewed PROP's Petition and the numerous comments submitted to the public dockets by government entities, medical societies, healthcare providers, patients, and other members of the public. For the reasons described in detail in this response, the Petition is granted in part and denied in part. Curious how "found unsupportable" turned out to be "granted in part" in the source, no? This being the very first link investigated, and the error being intentional deception, I think it provides quite powerful validation of the ACSH's reputation as a shill.

biehl 8y ago

> But, err, yeah, let's write off anyone who sees this as a pro-pharma shill... ACSH does not seem like “anyone” but rather a documented pro-any-paying-industry-shill...

tomcam 8y ago
Did you actually read the article? Did you actually look at any of the statistics it discusses?
- biehl 8y ago
  Yes. And even if it was sensible article with a solid purpose (it is not), that does not change the basic reputation of ACSH.
- devwastaken 8y ago
  Information and 'data' can be found to support nearly anything aslong as one lacks the integrity and honesty of due diligence. If there is a history of manipulating information, you now have to completely check and verify all resources. Doing this takes a good deal of knowledge in that field to properly work with, and those that do know what they're doing aren't going to be heard. Given that I know the resource manipulates information, and that I am not privey to the information presented, but that there's plenty of resources that don't manipulate information that are contrary to this article, yes, I'm going to believe those until there's good reason not to.
- DanBC 8y ago
  This gish gallop is a well known technique of disinformation designed to give the air of authenticity. All of those graphs look truthy, and it would take someone a couple of hours to go through all of them (especially because the submitted article doesn't bother to link to many of the sources) and discover the truth. Look at some of the sources - the Herald Dispatch? And look at the dishonest way it's rpesenting some of the data. There's a graph titled "Drugs involved in US Overdose Deaths, 1999 to 2017" and the article says this graph is trying to tell us that pills prescribed by doctors are the real problem and that the graph is hiding fentanyl. But look at the source: https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/o... That graph has this text (missed out by the article) "Drugs Involved in U.S. Overdose Deaths* - Among the more than 72,000 drug overdose deaths estimated in 2017*, the sharpest increase occurred among deaths related to fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (synthetic opioids) with nearly 30,000 overdose deaths. Source: CDC WONDER " That's not hiding the fentanyl deaths.

SiempreViernes 8y ago

Following the first link "The Opioid Epidemic In 6 Charts Designed To Deceive You" I reach an article from 2017 that in its second paragraph states: > ...despite the fact that the "evidence" contained in the recommendations had been carefully scrutinized[sic] and found unsupportable by FDA scientists. where "found unsupportable by FDA scientists" is a link to a document from 2013 that reads in part > FDA has carefully reviewed PROP's Petition and the numerous comments submitted to the public dockets by government entities, medical societies, healthcare providers, patients, and other members of the public. For the reasons described in detail in this response, the Petition is granted in part and denied in part. Curious how "found unsupportable" turned out to be "granted in part" in the source, no? This being the very first link investigated, and the error being intentional deception, I think it provides quite powerful validation of the ACSH's reputation as a shill.