7 ms·

Purdue never prescribed opioids to anyone. They only sold them to hospitals and doctors, after the FDA let them do it. Not sure what message punishing them is s

Purdue never prescribed opioids to anyone. They only sold them to hospitals and doctors, after the FDA let them do it. Not sure what message punishing them is supposed to send? But I get it. Someone dies and it’s the drug dealers fault, and punishing them will make everyone feel better. Except it doesn’t do anything about the actual problem (opioid addiction). It feels to me like the elation here is because the Sacklers are rich and people really don’t like that, rather than any sort of victory in combating opiate addiction.

Retric 7y ago
They lied about the drugs which they actively marketed to doctors. That’s far more than just manufacturing and opened them up to significantly increased liability.
- loeg 7y ago
  After 2001? The lying in marketing, over the period 1995-2001, was already litigated in 2007.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Yes, though they used intermediaries. https://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/a/a/aaa7536a-6db3-4192-b943-364e7c599d10/818172D42793504DD9DFE64B77A77C0E.5.22.19-who-purdue-report-final.pdf https://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/a/a/aaa7536a-6...
MegaButts 7y ago
I do not believe that Purdue is innocent of anything, and I would love for more evidence to be brought forward to a court of law. https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/22/abbott-oxycontin-crusade/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/22/abbott-oxycontin-crusade...
jrochkind1 7y ago
The Sackler's $13 billion could be used to do quite a lot about the actual problem.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  I think you underestimate the size of the problem. But again, the Sackler's are only 8% of the problem. So if you go after them, and the owners and stockholders of the companies that provided the other 92% of opioids, and the doctors who wrote the prescriptions in bad faith, you probably come up with an amount of money that could make a dent.
luckydata 7y ago
You're wrong. Purdue actively misled healthcare professionals and the public about the risks of Oxycontin. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/world-health-organization-parroted-purdues-deceptive-opioid-claims-report-says/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/world-health-organiz...
rosser 7y ago
Please remember that Purdue were the ones who marketed Oxycontin on the premise of one dose for 12-hour pain relief. When they learned doctors were prescribing it for eight hours, they tried to "re-train" them to use the "proper" (read: their) dosing recommendation, because there were cheaper drugs with six of eight hour doses. Sure, the doctors made the prescriptions, but you, and I, and everyone who thinks honestly about it for two and a half seconds realizes that no matter what the recommendation is, enough people who are in bad enough pain to be prescribed oxy will take it when they need it, recommendation be damned, that to have issued that recommendation in the first place was an act of bad faith. They marketed the drug on a lie in order to get doctors to prescribe it, which fueled — if not created — an epidemic, which has killed tens of thousands of people. Their hands are not clean, here.
- buildzr 7y ago
  > that recommendation in the first place was an act of bad faith. This seems a bit of a stretch to me. The doctors prescribed it, even given readily available research, the FDA approved it, knowing full well this was a risk. Those are the guilty parties here. Purdue filled their role just fine, they just happened to be making an opiate and so they're getting chased for it now because China is dumping fentanyl. Pretty ridiculous really.
  - simonh 7y ago
    According to the congressional report: “Purdue Pharma used front organizations and sponsored research to deceive the World Health Organization and corrupt global public health policies” If that is true and public policy was corruptly manipulated , how can you claim that this is all ok because it was allowed by public policy?
    - rjf72 7y ago
      I do not agree with him, but I think you're making a much more salient point indirectly. Public policy that can be readily manipulated by bad actors (as the drug industry is certainly full of) should not be used as the final say for anything. Systems need to be able to tolerate: corruption, false information, and true but misleading information. Our regulatory systems in general seem to struggle with any of the above. If "health authorities" (to avoid naming any particular organization) can only effectively screen out good actors inadvertently engaged in bad behavior, then they're effectively useless - because bad actors do exist, and they're vastly more dangerous than the former.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Retric 7y ago

They lied about the drugs which they actively marketed to doctors. That’s far more than just manufacturing and opened them up to significantly increased liability.

loeg 7y ago
After 2001? The lying in marketing, over the period 1995-2001, was already litigated in 2007.
- Retric 7y ago
  Yes, though they used intermediaries. https://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/a/a/aaa7536a-6db3-4192-b943-364e7c599d10/818172D42793504DD9DFE64B77A77C0E.5.22.19-who-purdue-report-final.pdf https://katherineclark.house.gov/_cache/files/a/a/aaa7536a-6...

MegaButts 7y ago

I do not believe that Purdue is innocent of anything, and I would love for more evidence to be brought forward to a court of law. https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/22/abbott-oxycontin-crusade/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/22/abbott-oxycontin-crusade...

jrochkind1 7y ago

The Sackler's $13 billion could be used to do quite a lot about the actual problem.

bilbo0s 7y ago
I think you underestimate the size of the problem. But again, the Sackler's are only 8% of the problem. So if you go after them, and the owners and stockholders of the companies that provided the other 92% of opioids, and the doctors who wrote the prescriptions in bad faith, you probably come up with an amount of money that could make a dent.

luckydata 7y ago

You're wrong. Purdue actively misled healthcare professionals and the public about the risks of Oxycontin. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/world-health-organization-parroted-purdues-deceptive-opioid-claims-report-says/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/world-health-organiz...

rosser 7y ago

Please remember that Purdue were the ones who marketed Oxycontin on the premise of one dose for 12-hour pain relief. When they learned doctors were prescribing it for eight hours, they tried to "re-train" them to use the "proper" (read: their) dosing recommendation, because there were cheaper drugs with six of eight hour doses. Sure, the doctors made the prescriptions, but you, and I, and everyone who thinks honestly about it for two and a half seconds realizes that no matter what the recommendation is, enough people who are in bad enough pain to be prescribed oxy will take it when they need it, recommendation be damned, that to have issued that recommendation in the first place was an act of bad faith. They marketed the drug on a lie in order to get doctors to prescribe it, which fueled — if not created — an epidemic, which has killed tens of thousands of people. Their hands are not clean, here.

buildzr 7y ago
> that recommendation in the first place was an act of bad faith. This seems a bit of a stretch to me. The doctors prescribed it, even given readily available research, the FDA approved it, knowing full well this was a risk. Those are the guilty parties here. Purdue filled their role just fine, they just happened to be making an opiate and so they're getting chased for it now because China is dumping fentanyl. Pretty ridiculous really.
- simonh 7y ago
  According to the congressional report: “Purdue Pharma used front organizations and sponsored research to deceive the World Health Organization and corrupt global public health policies” If that is true and public policy was corruptly manipulated , how can you claim that this is all ok because it was allowed by public policy?
  - rjf72 7y ago
    I do not agree with him, but I think you're making a much more salient point indirectly. Public policy that can be readily manipulated by bad actors (as the drug industry is certainly full of) should not be used as the final say for anything. Systems need to be able to tolerate: corruption, false information, and true but misleading information. Our regulatory systems in general seem to struggle with any of the above. If "health authorities" (to avoid naming any particular organization) can only effectively screen out good actors inadvertently engaged in bad behavior, then they're effectively useless - because bad actors do exist, and they're vastly more dangerous than the former.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]