9 ms·

> The owner of the company, when pressed to admit some measure of culpability, infamously answered, "We have been supplying a legitimate professional demand and

> The owner of the company, when pressed to admit some measure of culpability, infamously answered, "We have been supplying a legitimate professional demand and not once could have foreseen the unlooked-for results. I do not feel that there was any responsibility on our part." Could be a statement made by a drug company owner in the late 1930s, or an autocratic-government-friendly exploit broker in the early 2020s. Plus ça change.

mannykannot 4y ago
Richard Sackler in 2021: his family and Purdue Pharma are not to blame for US opioid crisis. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/us/purdue-pharma-richard-sackler-testifies-opioid-bankruptcy/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/us/purdue-pharma-richard-sack...
- anonym29 4y ago
  Any doctor who believed in addiction-proof opiates wasn't worth their salt to begin with. Opiates are opiates. Any consumer who took opiates and got addicted has exactly one person to blame - themselves for being uninformed. I love recreational drugs, and I've had back problems that required more than NSAID's alone, but I've never taken opiates, and I never will until I'm ready to die, because I know just how awesome they are. Blaming the manufacturer for opiate deaths is like blaming manufacturers for firearm deaths, rather than the shooters.
  - loceng 4y ago
    If you follow Gabor Mate and his understanding, you aren't prone to addiction if there isn't underlying trauma or suffering, possibly that you're unaware of and haven't processed yet. I've had many dozens of procedures where afterward I need an opiate prescription. I try to only take them for as long as necessary, usually no more than 2 days, because I know an extra 12-24 hours does start to get into mild withdrawal for me. The fearful scenario you're painting more sounds like when someone shoots up an opiate directly into their veins. More recently however I've had different procedures, surgeries, the prior being stem cell treatments - and I've needed to take opiates up to 4-5 days due to post surgery pain. But these surgeries reduced my pain so much that the mild withdrawal was the same or less than when I was used to just taking them for 2 days. What I actually wanted to is that as the pain in my body reduced (from whatever procedure I was getting done), then the withdrawal was easier, less present - arguably as there was returning into less pain in my body as the opiates wore off. I'm talking about physical pain above, but physical and emotional pain share the same pathways - and if someone isn't actually properly grounded, connected, to their body, and its sensory, they may not realize how much pain their body is actually signalling, and then I imagine opiates could quickly become a problem for someone. TL;DR: Opiates aren't actually that great unless you're in pain - though that's supposing you're taking the actual medicinal use level dose - and not taking 4-10x+ recommended; I can't speak to that.
  - quesera 4y ago
    > Any consumer who took opiates and got addicted has exactly one person to blame - themselves for being uninformed. You greatly overestimate the reasoning abilities of suffering humans. Manufacturer promotes, doctor prescribes, patient ingests. Doctors should know better than to assume that the mfr is motivated only by the patients' well-being, but the patient should be able to trust their doctor. In some cases, the medical team does not ask you whether you want opioids. Are you going to get "NoOps" tattooed on your forearms and butt where the IVs might be placed during your unconsciousness? This has nothing to do with firearms.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      >This has nothing to do with firearms. Way to completely miss the point. That's an analogy that explains that manufacturers can't reasonably be held responsible for the actions of independent consumers. The manufacturer didn't make that decision, the consumer did. Now you can argue that the manufacturer was manipulative in effort to achieve greater profit, and thus has partial liability, but do we collectively feel as angry at Facebook for all the suicides that were influenced from deliberate psychological manipulation campaigns the company performed to shift people's feelings? If so, where's the outrage? Sacklers are an easy target because people hold bias against "old rich white conservatives". I hear more people complaining about this than I hear complaining about 3M & DuPont, who have managed to put small amounts of a known carcinogen in the bloodstream of about 99.9% of the population of the entire planet with PFOA/PFOS in Teflon & related chemicals, and then proceeded to basically change 1 atom in the molecule and create an entirely new product that thus far appears to be identically harmful (GenX) after PFOA was banned - and spun off a holding company to sell that product to completely shield themselves from legal culpability. Where's the outrage at that? Statistically speaking, DuPont harmed you, the Sacklers didn't. Why the popular anger at one and popular indifference towards the other? Answer: people are stupid. Stupid doctors trusted an untrustworthy company. Stupid patients trusted their stupid doctors. They're mad at themselves for falling for something that dumb. Also so stupid that many who were harmed by DuPont but not harmed by the Sacklers don't even realize that fact.
      - quesera 4y ago
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    You seem to be unaware of the lengths Perdue went to obfuscate and mislead about where the line between responsible and dangerous use lies. Motive matters, and there is no reasonable doubt here.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      - mannykannot 4y ago
        The thing about motive is that even if it depends on being able to persuade other people to act in a way that is against their interests, that does nothing to mitigate it.
        anonym29 4y ago
        mannykannot 4y ago
        Putting aside what I think of those ethics, you are no longer discussing anything remotely relevant to the Perdue case and the role of motive in it.
        anonym29 4y ago
        mannykannot 4y ago
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > Any consumer who took opiates and got addicted has exactly one person to blame - themselves for being uninformed. This is a reprehensible point of view. Consumers can't be expected to place their personal medical judgements above that of their doctors and their government's regulatory agencies. We in fact attack them 24 hours a day if they do, and call them stupid selfish traitors under the mind control of foreign powers whose only goal is to foment strife and destroy our unity and world leadership through the corruption of our soul, the science, and the facts. Besides that, people have to work and they don't have time to independently determine if their cellphones will give them brain cancer. They rely on experts and authorities to tell them, on the morning news, as they run out of the door on the way to work.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      Tell that to the millions of victims of medical malpractice. Doctors make mistakes just like everyone else. You might attack people for having a healthy skepticism of both doctors and deeply corrupt government regulatory agencies that have a revolving door with big business - I encourage it. Most people work 8-10 hours and sleep about 8 hours. That leaves a lot of time to perform a perfunctory reading of the Wikipedia article on the drug you were just prescribed before taking it. Go look at the very first (2002) version of the wikipedia page for Oxycodone, for crying out loud. This drug was publicly known as dangerous and addictive on what is probably the most accessible source of information for common people since 2002 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxycodone&oldid=10679 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxycodone&oldid...
      - gus_massa 4y ago
        Can I agree with both of you? Reading the info from Wikipedia is difficult if you have no chemistry education. For complex cases I read Wikipedia and also obscures sites of Internet with a huge bag of salt on the side of the screen, but it's difficult. My recommendation is to get a second opinion (from a real medical doctor) and perhaps a third, and sometimes more. For normal people a pill looks innocuous enough to take the medical advice at face value. Anyway, opioids have a long history to get my spider sense is tingling, even before the recent 10 year events.
  - Joker_vD 4y ago
    > Blaming the manufacturer for opiate deaths is like blaming manufacturers for firearm deaths, rather than the shooters. Columbian cartels whole-heartedly agree. They're just manufacturing and shipping the stuff, they don't make you buy and use it! Stop the war on drugs, legalize over-the-counter opiates, inform the consumers, and in five years you won't recognize the society — that's how drastically it will improve^! ^ "improve" here means "change", and may include both positive and negative improvement. Void where applicable.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      100% agreed, full stop.
      - User23 4y ago
        Barely over a century ago you could walk into any pharmacy in America and buy a vial of cocaine and some heroin no problem, with a pint of whiskey to wash it down. It was precisely on account of rampant drug abuse and the resultant social ills that we got drug control. Of course the modern regime somehow manages to combine the worst outcomes of both permissiveness and prohibition. We now have junkies overrunning our public spaces while a draconian enforcement regime manages to trample our civil rights without providing any social benefit.
        anonym29 4y ago
        Ergo the need to legalize. It's not that drug abuse is good or that we ought to encourage it, it's that criminalizing it only makes the situation worse without solving the original problem. Criminalization is an entirely unnecessary added harm, while simultaneously failing to deliver on the premise of the justification for it.
        User23 4y ago
        I mostly agree with you, but observe that public drug abuse is already de facto decriminalized in our major cities. Clearly decriminalization is no magic bullet either. I don’t propose any kind of one size fits all solution because I don’t think any such thing exists. I do think that if there is a policy solution, it will necessarily involve demand reduction[1], social services, and yes in some cases putting addicts into some kind of custodial managed living environment. All of that being tailored to the needs and resources of each particular locale. Practically speaking those treatment centers be a jail or an involuntary hospital, but ideally it would look a lot more like a nice rehab facility with incentives for fostering recovery. Edit: [1] I intentionally left out supply reduction, because I think we have sufficient evidence that it is impracticable.
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    You think the average consumer has an education in biochemistry and pharmacy science? I’d like to visit the version of America you are living in.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      Is the implication that one needs a postgraduate degree in biochemistry to understand that "opiates are addictive" - in a country where almost everyone has instant 24/7 access to almost all of human knowledge ever recorded? If that's your argument, it's a miracle these people didn't die earlier from drinking bleach, thinking it was a tasty beverage.
      - arrosenberg 4y ago
        If doctors and television were promoting it as heavily as they did opiates, people would absolutely die from it. People got very sick during COVID from trying bleach and ivermectin because a reality TV star told them to. Again, your America sounds amazing, I’d love to visit someday.
        anonym29 4y ago
        Out of curiosity, do you have any sources on people getting more ill from ivermectin than from COVID, or any sources of anyone actually trying to consume, ingest, or inject bleach?
        arrosenberg 4y ago
        It is irrelevant whether or not people got more ill from taking Ivermectin (though many did get sicker from delaying actual treatment in favor of horse dewormer). Your argument was the consumers should be responsible for discerning a good course of treatment from a bad one. The use of Ivermectin to treat a viral disease is completely inline with the assertion that the average American has no education on this stuff, and will take what the TV and trusted figures tell them to.
      - 4y ago
  - spamizbad 4y ago
    I think you overestimate doctors. In the early aughts I was prescribed vicodin (which I didn't take) and made a joke "I hope I don't get addicted to these" and my doctor laughed and said "These aren't like opium or heroin. They're non-habit forming if used as directed" I suspect the "if used as directed" was doing a lot of work.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      Right, because what else goes together like "most addictive class of drugs known to man" and "unlikely to be abused"?
  - jotm 4y ago
    You... Really don't. I will say that you should try some only if you're desperate, but I wasted over a decade of my life suffering and thinking illegal stimulants like meth and amphetamine will make me a retarded addict... But they didn't. I quit drinking and fixed anxiety and depression with GHB and pregabalin. I can quit them in several days. Zero problems Afterwards (except bring back to my old self). I fixed my attention/energy problems with aPVP, methamphetamine and amphetamine. Now using the latter because it's super cheap and available and the former two have too many side effects. But they're all useful in a pinch. Heroin? GHB feels better! I also hate cannabis which most people love. All I'm saying is the effects are actually different by person and dosage. But falling into a binge is easy and I know many people can't get out of it.
  - jandrese 4y ago
    I can see doctors being deceived by the drug company marketing. I mean how are they supposed to know that the huge pharmaceutical company is outright lying to them? But it should be obvious pretty quickly that their patients are getting addicted to these supposedly non-addictive drugs. There was a serious failure of public policy not to pull those drugs once it became clear that they were causing more harm than the drugs they were replacing. One suspects regulatory capture delayed action on this issue. Either that or there was a "well, at least it isn't Heroin" mentality, but maybe that just made the problem worse since doctors would have at least thought twice before prescribing Heroin.
  - bgribble 4y ago
    There was a period of time (00's) when it was hard to get out of an episode of medical treatment for any kind of injury or pain complaint without a script for Vicodin in your hand. You had to actively refuse them at every turn. This was bad medicine, implemented by oblivious (or complicit) docs, pushed by bad practices by drug companies. Don't blame the patient.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    > Any consumer who took opiates and got addicted has exactly one person to blame - themselves for being uninformed. Let's see how you feel after you've been in a serious car accident, then. Heaven forfend such a thing should happen, but I'm prepared to bet you'd be hitting the fentanyl as hard as you possibly could.
    - anonym29 4y ago
      I want to thank you for helping me gain some perspective here. I was thinking seriously about the hypothetical scenario you described, and it occured to me that I might be imposing an unrealistic standard on the typical consumer, informed by my unique lived experiences, and what may amount to a subject matter knowledge on opiates that exceeds what the typical consumer can be reasonably expected to have.
tyingq 4y ago
Grünenthal's apology for Thalidomide in 2012, 50 years after it was removed from the market, included this statement: “Grünenthal acted in accordance with the state of scientific knowledge and all industry standards for testing new drugs that were relevant and acknowledged in the 1950s and 1960s.”

mannykannot 4y ago

Richard Sackler in 2021: his family and Purdue Pharma are not to blame for US opioid crisis. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/us/purdue-pharma-richard-sackler-testifies-opioid-bankruptcy/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/20/us/purdue-pharma-richard-sack...

anonym29 4y ago
Any doctor who believed in addiction-proof opiates wasn't worth their salt to begin with. Opiates are opiates. Any consumer who took opiates and got addicted has exactly one person to blame - themselves for being uninformed. I love recreational drugs, and I've had back problems that required more than NSAID's alone, but I've never taken opiates, and I never will until I'm ready to die, because I know just how awesome they are. Blaming the manufacturer for opiate deaths is like blaming manufacturers for firearm deaths, rather than the shooters.
- loceng 4y ago
  If you follow Gabor Mate and his understanding, you aren't prone to addiction if there isn't underlying trauma or suffering, possibly that you're unaware of and haven't processed yet. I've had many dozens of procedures where afterward I need an opiate prescription. I try to only take them for as long as necessary, usually no more than 2 days, because I know an extra 12-24 hours does start to get into mild withdrawal for me. The fearful scenario you're painting more sounds like when someone shoots up an opiate directly into their veins. More recently however I've had different procedures, surgeries, the prior being stem cell treatments - and I've needed to take opiates up to 4-5 days due to post surgery pain. But these surgeries reduced my pain so much that the mild withdrawal was the same or less than when I was used to just taking them for 2 days. What I actually wanted to is that as the pain in my body reduced (from whatever procedure I was getting done), then the withdrawal was easier, less present - arguably as there was returning into less pain in my body as the opiates wore off. I'm talking about physical pain above, but physical and emotional pain share the same pathways - and if someone isn't actually properly grounded, connected, to their body, and its sensory, they may not realize how much pain their body is actually signalling, and then I imagine opiates could quickly become a problem for someone. TL;DR: Opiates aren't actually that great unless you're in pain - though that's supposing you're taking the actual medicinal use level dose - and not taking 4-10x+ recommended; I can't speak to that.
- quesera 4y ago
  > Any consumer who took opiates and got addicted has exactly one person to blame - themselves for being uninformed. You greatly overestimate the reasoning abilities of suffering humans. Manufacturer promotes, doctor prescribes, patient ingests. Doctors should know better than to assume that the mfr is motivated only by the patients' well-being, but the patient should be able to trust their doctor. In some cases, the medical team does not ask you whether you want opioids. Are you going to get "NoOps" tattooed on your forearms and butt where the IVs might be placed during your unconsciousness? This has nothing to do with firearms.
  - anonym29 4y ago
    >This has nothing to do with firearms. Way to completely miss the point. That's an analogy that explains that manufacturers can't reasonably be held responsible for the actions of independent consumers. The manufacturer didn't make that decision, the consumer did. Now you can argue that the manufacturer was manipulative in effort to achieve greater profit, and thus has partial liability, but do we collectively feel as angry at Facebook for all the suicides that were influenced from deliberate psychological manipulation campaigns the company performed to shift people's feelings? If so, where's the outrage? Sacklers are an easy target because people hold bias against "old rich white conservatives". I hear more people complaining about this than I hear complaining about 3M & DuPont, who have managed to put small amounts of a known carcinogen in the bloodstream of about 99.9% of the population of the entire planet with PFOA/PFOS in Teflon & related chemicals, and then proceeded to basically change 1 atom in the molecule and create an entirely new product that thus far appears to be identically harmful (GenX) after PFOA was banned - and spun off a holding company to sell that product to completely shield themselves from legal culpability. Where's the outrage at that? Statistically speaking, DuPont harmed you, the Sacklers didn't. Why the popular anger at one and popular indifference towards the other? Answer: people are stupid. Stupid doctors trusted an untrustworthy company. Stupid patients trusted their stupid doctors. They're mad at themselves for falling for something that dumb. Also so stupid that many who were harmed by DuPont but not harmed by the Sacklers don't even realize that fact.
    - quesera 4y ago
- mannykannot 4y ago
  You seem to be unaware of the lengths Perdue went to obfuscate and mislead about where the line between responsible and dangerous use lies. Motive matters, and there is no reasonable doubt here.
  - anonym29 4y ago
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      The thing about motive is that even if it depends on being able to persuade other people to act in a way that is against their interests, that does nothing to mitigate it.
      - anonym29 4y ago
        mannykannot 4y ago
        Putting aside what I think of those ethics, you are no longer discussing anything remotely relevant to the Perdue case and the role of motive in it.
        anonym29 4y ago
        mannykannot 4y ago
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > Any consumer who took opiates and got addicted has exactly one person to blame - themselves for being uninformed. This is a reprehensible point of view. Consumers can't be expected to place their personal medical judgements above that of their doctors and their government's regulatory agencies. We in fact attack them 24 hours a day if they do, and call them stupid selfish traitors under the mind control of foreign powers whose only goal is to foment strife and destroy our unity and world leadership through the corruption of our soul, the science, and the facts. Besides that, people have to work and they don't have time to independently determine if their cellphones will give them brain cancer. They rely on experts and authorities to tell them, on the morning news, as they run out of the door on the way to work.
  - anonym29 4y ago
    Tell that to the millions of victims of medical malpractice. Doctors make mistakes just like everyone else. You might attack people for having a healthy skepticism of both doctors and deeply corrupt government regulatory agencies that have a revolving door with big business - I encourage it. Most people work 8-10 hours and sleep about 8 hours. That leaves a lot of time to perform a perfunctory reading of the Wikipedia article on the drug you were just prescribed before taking it. Go look at the very first (2002) version of the wikipedia page for Oxycodone, for crying out loud. This drug was publicly known as dangerous and addictive on what is probably the most accessible source of information for common people since 2002 - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxycodone&oldid=10679 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxycodone&oldid...
    - gus_massa 4y ago
      Can I agree with both of you? Reading the info from Wikipedia is difficult if you have no chemistry education. For complex cases I read Wikipedia and also obscures sites of Internet with a huge bag of salt on the side of the screen, but it's difficult. My recommendation is to get a second opinion (from a real medical doctor) and perhaps a third, and sometimes more. For normal people a pill looks innocuous enough to take the medical advice at face value. Anyway, opioids have a long history to get my spider sense is tingling, even before the recent 10 year events.
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  > Blaming the manufacturer for opiate deaths is like blaming manufacturers for firearm deaths, rather than the shooters. Columbian cartels whole-heartedly agree. They're just manufacturing and shipping the stuff, they don't make you buy and use it! Stop the war on drugs, legalize over-the-counter opiates, inform the consumers, and in five years you won't recognize the society — that's how drastically it will improve^! ^ "improve" here means "change", and may include both positive and negative improvement. Void where applicable.
  - anonym29 4y ago
    100% agreed, full stop.
    - User23 4y ago
      Barely over a century ago you could walk into any pharmacy in America and buy a vial of cocaine and some heroin no problem, with a pint of whiskey to wash it down. It was precisely on account of rampant drug abuse and the resultant social ills that we got drug control. Of course the modern regime somehow manages to combine the worst outcomes of both permissiveness and prohibition. We now have junkies overrunning our public spaces while a draconian enforcement regime manages to trample our civil rights without providing any social benefit.
      - anonym29 4y ago
        Ergo the need to legalize. It's not that drug abuse is good or that we ought to encourage it, it's that criminalizing it only makes the situation worse without solving the original problem. Criminalization is an entirely unnecessary added harm, while simultaneously failing to deliver on the premise of the justification for it.
        User23 4y ago
        I mostly agree with you, but observe that public drug abuse is already de facto decriminalized in our major cities. Clearly decriminalization is no magic bullet either. I don’t propose any kind of one size fits all solution because I don’t think any such thing exists. I do think that if there is a policy solution, it will necessarily involve demand reduction[1], social services, and yes in some cases putting addicts into some kind of custodial managed living environment. All of that being tailored to the needs and resources of each particular locale. Practically speaking those treatment centers be a jail or an involuntary hospital, but ideally it would look a lot more like a nice rehab facility with incentives for fostering recovery. Edit: [1] I intentionally left out supply reduction, because I think we have sufficient evidence that it is impracticable.
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  You think the average consumer has an education in biochemistry and pharmacy science? I’d like to visit the version of America you are living in.
  - anonym29 4y ago
    Is the implication that one needs a postgraduate degree in biochemistry to understand that "opiates are addictive" - in a country where almost everyone has instant 24/7 access to almost all of human knowledge ever recorded? If that's your argument, it's a miracle these people didn't die earlier from drinking bleach, thinking it was a tasty beverage.
    - arrosenberg 4y ago
      If doctors and television were promoting it as heavily as they did opiates, people would absolutely die from it. People got very sick during COVID from trying bleach and ivermectin because a reality TV star told them to. Again, your America sounds amazing, I’d love to visit someday.
      - anonym29 4y ago
        Out of curiosity, do you have any sources on people getting more ill from ivermectin than from COVID, or any sources of anyone actually trying to consume, ingest, or inject bleach?
        arrosenberg 4y ago
        It is irrelevant whether or not people got more ill from taking Ivermectin (though many did get sicker from delaying actual treatment in favor of horse dewormer). Your argument was the consumers should be responsible for discerning a good course of treatment from a bad one. The use of Ivermectin to treat a viral disease is completely inline with the assertion that the average American has no education on this stuff, and will take what the TV and trusted figures tell them to.
    - 4y ago
- spamizbad 4y ago
  I think you overestimate doctors. In the early aughts I was prescribed vicodin (which I didn't take) and made a joke "I hope I don't get addicted to these" and my doctor laughed and said "These aren't like opium or heroin. They're non-habit forming if used as directed" I suspect the "if used as directed" was doing a lot of work.
  - anonym29 4y ago
    Right, because what else goes together like "most addictive class of drugs known to man" and "unlikely to be abused"?
- jotm 4y ago
  You... Really don't. I will say that you should try some only if you're desperate, but I wasted over a decade of my life suffering and thinking illegal stimulants like meth and amphetamine will make me a retarded addict... But they didn't. I quit drinking and fixed anxiety and depression with GHB and pregabalin. I can quit them in several days. Zero problems Afterwards (except bring back to my old self). I fixed my attention/energy problems with aPVP, methamphetamine and amphetamine. Now using the latter because it's super cheap and available and the former two have too many side effects. But they're all useful in a pinch. Heroin? GHB feels better! I also hate cannabis which most people love. All I'm saying is the effects are actually different by person and dosage. But falling into a binge is easy and I know many people can't get out of it.
- jandrese 4y ago
  I can see doctors being deceived by the drug company marketing. I mean how are they supposed to know that the huge pharmaceutical company is outright lying to them? But it should be obvious pretty quickly that their patients are getting addicted to these supposedly non-addictive drugs. There was a serious failure of public policy not to pull those drugs once it became clear that they were causing more harm than the drugs they were replacing. One suspects regulatory capture delayed action on this issue. Either that or there was a "well, at least it isn't Heroin" mentality, but maybe that just made the problem worse since doctors would have at least thought twice before prescribing Heroin.
- bgribble 4y ago
  There was a period of time (00's) when it was hard to get out of an episode of medical treatment for any kind of injury or pain complaint without a script for Vicodin in your hand. You had to actively refuse them at every turn. This was bad medicine, implemented by oblivious (or complicit) docs, pushed by bad practices by drug companies. Don't blame the patient.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  > Any consumer who took opiates and got addicted has exactly one person to blame - themselves for being uninformed. Let's see how you feel after you've been in a serious car accident, then. Heaven forfend such a thing should happen, but I'm prepared to bet you'd be hitting the fentanyl as hard as you possibly could.
  - anonym29 4y ago
    I want to thank you for helping me gain some perspective here. I was thinking seriously about the hypothetical scenario you described, and it occured to me that I might be imposing an unrealistic standard on the typical consumer, informed by my unique lived experiences, and what may amount to a subject matter knowledge on opiates that exceeds what the typical consumer can be reasonably expected to have.

tyingq 4y ago

Grünenthal's apology for Thalidomide in 2012, 50 years after it was removed from the market, included this statement: “Grünenthal acted in accordance with the state of scientific knowledge and all industry standards for testing new drugs that were relevant and acknowledged in the 1950s and 1960s.”