6 ms·

> Purdue made billions from OxyContin, a widely available painkiller that fueled the opioid epidemic

7thaccount 2y ago
It's more complicated than that. They knew it was killing people and turning thousands (millions) into addicts and they kept pushing doctors to use it at all costs. I'd recommend the John Oliver special on it.
- hedora 2y ago
  They also designed it to be more addictive. The recommended dosage and timing causes the patients to repeatedly experience minor withdrawal during normal use, which is a standard technique for conditioning someone into being an addict. All of this is documented in emails that were presented as evidence in court.
  - elzbardico 2y ago
    They learned it from the tobacco industry probably.
    - ARandomerDude 2y ago
      Is there a recommended dosage and timing from the tobacco industry?
      - elzbardico 2y ago
        It was in jest. But part of the problem with nicotine that helps to lead to addiction is its short half-life. If you are a smoker you experience several episodes of abstinence throughout the day, so you lit just another one.
      - dns_snek 2y ago
        Yes - sort of. Many of the additives found in cigarettes are designed to increase the rate of absorption of nicotine. This gives you a distinct rush within seconds of consumption, as well as a more pronounced crash that triggers intense cravings. That's very different from the effects of (freebase?) nicotine typically found in e-cigarettes which is slower to absorb and doesn't have a noticeable crash.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Designed it knowingly to be more addictive WHILE producing physician literature that denied or downplayed addiction risk.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Why are doctors so easy to manipulate? They learn about addiction in medical school. Why would they believe a pharmaceutical company saying "...oh but this opioid is not addictive..."
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - logicchains 2y ago
    >Why would they believe a pharmaceutical company saying "...oh but this opioid is not addictive..." Because the pharma company offered them direct or indirect benefits for doing so. Doctors are just as human and just as susceptible to financial incentive as anybody else, that's why for decades there were doctors advertising the health benefits of smoking.
  - LordKeren 2y ago
    It’s easy to overlook that OxyContin was very effective. Even a doctor acting in good faith was likely to prescribe the drug— because it worked well. It really did help people struggling with pain management. The downside, of course, was that Purdue pharma was knowingly misleading doctors on the addictiveness of the drug. Also the amount of doctors that were willing to turn a blind eye to the clear signs of addiction is very worrying.
    - radlad 2y ago
      > Also the amount of doctors that were willing to turn a blind eye to the clear signs of addiction is very worrying. No disagreement, but I think it's worth considering how stigmatized addiction is in our society. I expect many patients would hide any signs of addiction from their doctors - especially since it might result in losing their supply of OxyContin, or worse, their career.
      - LordKeren 2y ago
        Yes, whole heartedly agree. The social impact of addiction and the ostracism of those suffering with addiction has undoubtedly only made this situation worse. I was more leaning towards doctors/pharmacies that were operating as pill mills - I.e. the handful of regions in the Appalachias where there were more scripts for Oxy than there were people in the county
- sparklingmango 2y ago
  Additionally, I recommend the book Empire of Pain for an excellent deep dive into the Sackler family and how they essentially created the opioid epidemic. You'll be infuriated as you read it.
  - CaptainZapp 2y ago
    +1 An amazing read and I also highly recommend it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Pain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Pain
  - iamacyborg 2y ago
    Having read that, I still find it shocking when I see their names on various donor plaques in big British museums.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- tiffanyh 2y ago
  What responsibility does the FDA have in this? (genuinely curious, not trolling)

It's more complicated than that. They knew it was killing people and turning thousands (millions) into addicts and they kept pushing doctors to use it at all costs. I'd recommend the John Oliver special on it.

hedora 2y ago
They also designed it to be more addictive. The recommended dosage and timing causes the patients to repeatedly experience minor withdrawal during normal use, which is a standard technique for conditioning someone into being an addict. All of this is documented in emails that were presented as evidence in court.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  They learned it from the tobacco industry probably.
  - ARandomerDude 2y ago
    Is there a recommended dosage and timing from the tobacco industry?
    - elzbardico 2y ago
      It was in jest. But part of the problem with nicotine that helps to lead to addiction is its short half-life. If you are a smoker you experience several episodes of abstinence throughout the day, so you lit just another one.
    - dns_snek 2y ago
      Yes - sort of. Many of the additives found in cigarettes are designed to increase the rate of absorption of nicotine. This gives you a distinct rush within seconds of consumption, as well as a more pronounced crash that triggers intense cravings. That's very different from the effects of (freebase?) nicotine typically found in e-cigarettes which is slower to absorb and doesn't have a noticeable crash.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Designed it knowingly to be more addictive WHILE producing physician literature that denied or downplayed addiction risk.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Why are doctors so easy to manipulate? They learn about addiction in medical school. Why would they believe a pharmaceutical company saying "...oh but this opioid is not addictive..."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- logicchains 2y ago
  >Why would they believe a pharmaceutical company saying "...oh but this opioid is not addictive..." Because the pharma company offered them direct or indirect benefits for doing so. Doctors are just as human and just as susceptible to financial incentive as anybody else, that's why for decades there were doctors advertising the health benefits of smoking.
- LordKeren 2y ago
  It’s easy to overlook that OxyContin was very effective. Even a doctor acting in good faith was likely to prescribe the drug— because it worked well. It really did help people struggling with pain management. The downside, of course, was that Purdue pharma was knowingly misleading doctors on the addictiveness of the drug. Also the amount of doctors that were willing to turn a blind eye to the clear signs of addiction is very worrying.
  - radlad 2y ago
    > Also the amount of doctors that were willing to turn a blind eye to the clear signs of addiction is very worrying. No disagreement, but I think it's worth considering how stigmatized addiction is in our society. I expect many patients would hide any signs of addiction from their doctors - especially since it might result in losing their supply of OxyContin, or worse, their career.
    - LordKeren 2y ago
      Yes, whole heartedly agree. The social impact of addiction and the ostracism of those suffering with addiction has undoubtedly only made this situation worse. I was more leaning towards doctors/pharmacies that were operating as pill mills - I.e. the handful of regions in the Appalachias where there were more scripts for Oxy than there were people in the county
sparklingmango 2y ago
Additionally, I recommend the book Empire of Pain for an excellent deep dive into the Sackler family and how they essentially created the opioid epidemic. You'll be infuriated as you read it.
- CaptainZapp 2y ago
  +1 An amazing read and I also highly recommend it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Pain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Pain
- iamacyborg 2y ago
  Having read that, I still find it shocking when I see their names on various donor plaques in big British museums.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
tiffanyh 2y ago
What responsibility does the FDA have in this? (genuinely curious, not trolling)