Sci/Tech Purdue Pharma pleads guilty

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

Shinkicker

For what it's worth
Jan 30, 2016
7,976
10,915
$8 billion?

Holy shit!

Lawyers getting all that or does it go to the families?
The $8 billion is a federal legal case. In a separate civil case $225 million or so was awarded.

Some money is supposed to go to states to compensate for expenses incurred for opioid addiction/treatment. Not sure how much of what will go to families (if any).


The owners took a deal. They took $10 billion for themselves. Agreed to pay the government $8 billion in fines AND turned the company over to the government. The company will continue to provide OxyContin. The US government is now in the opiod drug dealing business.
 

Hauler

Unknown Member
Feb 3, 2016
28,336
39,069
The $8 billion is a federal legal case. In a separate civil case $225 million or so was awarded.

Some money is supposed to go to states to compensate for expenses incurred for opioid addiction/treatment. Not sure how much of what will go to families (if any).


The owners took a deal. They took $10 billion for themselves. Agreed to pay the government $8 billion in fines AND turned the company over to the government. The company will continue to provide OxyContin. The US government is now in the opiod drug dealing business.
Well thank god for that.
Now that the gov't is in charge I'm sure it will be handled much more responsibly.
 

Bones Nose

I’m bitchmade and scared to death of @fifthscallop
Jun 13, 2016
15,248
24,033
I wanna see the sackler family get 20 years each in a maximum security state prison
 

Splinty

Shake 'em off
Admin
Dec 31, 2014
37,166
75,858
Is it their fault their drug was handed out by "doctors" indiscriminately?
yes.

In 1980 an editorial was posted in the New England Journal of Medicine.


1603405898052.png

TO THE EDITOR
Recently, we examined our current files to determine the incidence of narcotic addiction in 39,946 hospitalized medical patients1 who were monitored consecutively. Although there were 11,882 patients who received at least one narcotic preparation, there were only four cases of reasonably well documented addiction in patients who had no history of addiction. The addiction was considered major in only one instance. The drugs implicated were meperidine in two patients,2 Percodan in one, and hydromorphone in one. We conclude that despite widespread use of narcotic drugs in hospitals, the development of addiction is rare in medical patients with no history of addiction.

Jane Porter
Hershel Jick, M.D.
Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program Boston University Medical Center, Waltham, MA 02154

Purdue used THAT and repeated it out of context for 20 years.
Can you imagine 101 words being the basis for billions of sales, an opioid crisis, and an industry of lies? It's insane they even considered doing it.

Here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er78Dj5hyeI



They did this over and over but that is the most egregious and their most cited.

Why egregious?
1> not a study
2> inpatients controlled setting limited duration of use
3> a single retrospective review of medical records from one hospital

Purdue then applied that LETTER TO THE EDITOR that was only meant to imply a single point that opioids likely have a safe place inpatient (they do and that's actually where they still have their best and safest usage) and used it in every marketing imaginable (watch video above) selling doctors that their were low risks for addiction with oxycontin usage.

All the while they were aware of the opposite being true.

When doctors operate as pill mills or even prescribe otherwise ethically but do not do enough to prevent overdose, they have been held civilly AND criminally liable. This is no different. It is not within the bounds of industry standards at all.

Purdue pushed a product with lies about its safety. They made billions for decades on death and addiction, lying about their known qualities the entire time.
 

George Thoros

Funder God
Oct 17, 2015
23,555
33,398
yes.

In 1980 an editorial was posted in the New England Journal of Medicine.


View attachment 18257




Purdue used THAT and repeated it out of context for 20 years.
Can you imagine 101 words being the basis for billions of sales, an opioid crisis, and an industry of lies? It's insane they even considered doing it.

Here:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er78Dj5hyeI



They did this over and over but that is the most egregious and their most cited.

Why egregious?
1> not a study
2> inpatients controlled setting limited duration of use
3> a single retrospective review of medical records from one hospital

Purdue then applied that LETTER TO THE EDITOR that was only meant to imply a single point that opioids likely have a safe place inpatient (they do and that's actually where they still have their best and safest usage) and used it in every marketing imaginable (watch video above) selling doctors that their were low risks for addiction with oxycontin usage.

All the while they were aware of the opposite being true.

When doctors operate as pill mills or even prescribe otherwise ethically but do not do enough to prevent overdose, they have been held civilly AND criminally liable. This is no different. It is not within the bounds of industry standards at all.

Purdue pushed a product with lies about its safety. They made billions for decades on death and addiction, lying about their known qualities the entire time.
Yea but I mean, you guys should really have know opium is addictive.
 

Shinkicker

For what it's worth
Jan 30, 2016
7,976
10,915
Yea but I mean, you guys should really have know opium is addictive.
In the 90's pain was declared the fifth vital sign. So controlling a patient's pain was considered a must.

In the hospital setting controlling a patient's pain, solely from the patient's point of view, is directly correlated to scores, grants, and funding.

(Sidenote: I believe the hydrocodone people lined pockets to get pain declared the fifth vital sign rather than a symptom.)
 

George Thoros

Funder God
Oct 17, 2015
23,555
33,398
In the 90's pain was declared the fifth vital sign. So controlling a patient's pain was considered a must.

In the hospital setting controlling a patient's pain, solely from the patient's point of view, is directly correlated to scores, grants, and funding.
And outside the hospital setting like Splinty @Splinty is talking about?
 

Shinkicker

For what it's worth
Jan 30, 2016
7,976
10,915
And outside the hospital setting like Splinty @Splinty is talking about?
In order to receive federal payments from Medicare or Medicaid programs, a health care organization must meet the government requirements for program participation, including a certification of compliance with the health and safety requirements called Conditions of Participation (CoPs). Options exist for meeting CoPs: 1) A survey may be conducted by a state agency on behalf of the federal government or 2) a survey by a national accrediting organization such as the Joint Commission that has been recognized by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).


One of the survey questions for hospitals is about pain control. I don't see why it would have been different for regular doctors. At least until they started opening pain clinics and having doctors refer patients there for pain control of a chronic nature.

Good question though. Splinty @Splinty ?