3 ms·
Precisely - I ignored it out of convenience. OxyContin could grow on trees for all I care - it doesn't matter who made it, and that property doesn't do anything
by AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
Precisely - I ignored it out of convenience. OxyContin could grow on trees for all I care - it doesn't matter who made it, and that property doesn't do anything to strengthen or diminish my argument.
To make the argument you're making, you would have to prove that it doesn't need to exist and was fraudulently made and promoted to deceive, not to help. The problem is that the thing exists, it has a necessary purpose for existing, and by existing it makes the world better for millions of people.
- edmundsauto 6y agoThat doesn’t give the company a free pass on anything else. The drug helped some, it hurt others. In an effort to increase sales, Purdue misled doctors and broke acceptable marketing practices in an effort to indiscriminately increase usage - good and bad. The claim is not that oxy didn’t help. The claim is that it also hurt, Purdue knew this, but ignored it for the sake of profit.