101–109 of 109 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happened to all that money they made? I find it hard to believe they can spend that much money.
No no, they still have the money, they just didn't want to pay a big fine so they paid a small one instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that maybe then you too should be mad at the Sacklers. They intentionally and knowingly deceived the market that opioids were safe. Had they not done that maybe the opioid epidemic would not have happened and you could still have access to the medicine that you are grateful for. Please do read up on how horrible they are.
do you have a reference to just how bad they were? I'd like to learn more. This whole sackler thing has been scaring me shitless because as a biochemist thinking about going back into biochemistry, my brain runs around in circles about how badly a small bit of uncertainty could be turned around in circles to screw me over, even if I believed what I did was in the best interest of most people (like what happened to Me…
Here's an excerpt from a recent New Yorker article:
The 2007 case was not supposed to end the way it did. For four years, prosecutors in the Western District of Virginia gathered evidence on Purdue, subpoenaing millions of documents. They found a widespread pattern of illegal misconduct in which Purdue systematically misled doctors (and the general public) about the risks associated with OxyContin. In September, 2006, the prosecutors detailed their damning evidence in a hundred-and-twenty-page memo, suggesting that the wrongdoing at Purdue was so pervasive, and so consistent, that it could have been authorized only by the company’s leaders. This memo, an internal government document, was not made public until August, 2019, when the Times published excerpts of it showing that the prosecutors had intended to bring felony charges against three top Purdue executives: Michael Friedman, Howard Udell, and Paul Goldenheim. The full memo, which I have reviewed, describes the Sacklers as “The Family” and notes that the company was owned and controlled by the brothers Mortimer and Raymond Sackler and their heirs. (The heirs of a third Sackler brother, Arthur, sold their interest in the company prior to the introduction of OxyContin.) The company “trained its sales representatives” to use “false and fraudulent” claims about OxyContin, the memo states. The prosecutors noted that the three executives they intended to charge “reported directly to The Family.”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-sackler-familys...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TL;DR: I think it is reasonable to blame Purdue for the reduced access to opioids we are now stuck with. Purdue caused more addiction to occur, which in turn caused reduced access to the opioids that existed prior to the creation of Purdue's nuisance product. Also, perverse incentives caused by the patent and licensing system motivated them to make OxyContin unnecessarily addictive in it's formulation and dosing sche…
I think it might be even worse than that, that everything they did rolled back pain care. Law enforcement was already on a moralizing crackdown on pain doctors in the 90s and 2000s, and any ground that was gained in justifying pain care in that context was then stomped on by Purdue. It's one thing if they burned their own bridges, but to burn the bridges of all of your customers is a new level in retail aggression. "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While you're clearly in pain and vindictive for lack of access to effective treatment, putting "crisis" in quotes like it's a manufactured epidemic with no real impact is extremely disingenuous. In 2018 ~130 people died every day in the US overdosing on opioids[1]. I'm sure they're effective for you but if people are not responsible enough to be trusted taking them without killing themselves then you might as well be…
OxyContin/oxycodone (30mg tablet) 2002 8.8 million pills 2011 781.5 million pills The US didn't experience a massive increase of numbers of people in pain.
Again I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's not possible to know from the context in your post alone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Genuinely curious the alternative you would suggest. I think people can still access opioids legally, albeit much less easy than before. There are plenty of treatment options and the right answer isn’t to let drug addicts keep on ruining their own lives and the people around them. The train has to slow down and people have to get off the train. Granted, the government can do much more to help people get treatment and…
Determine people who have opioids prescribed without a real need. Wean them off gradually, using known programs for quitting opioids. Work with them as with patients, for once they are addicts, they are the suffering party. Make the makers / prescribers which acted in bad faith to foot the bills. They made the damage, let them pay for repairing it.
Also what of punitive action against the makers / prescribers would you expect? I think the article hits on the perceived justice lack of justice against the Sackler family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
do you have a reference to just how bad they were? I'd like to learn more. This whole sackler thing has been scaring me shitless because as a biochemist thinking about going back into biochemistry, my brain runs around in circles about how badly a small bit of uncertainty could be turned around in circles to screw me over, even if I believed what I did was in the best interest of most people (like what happened to Me…
Prosecutors have been going after Purdue and the Sackler's for over a decade now. Forty seven states have sued Purdue pharma over the opioid crisis with twenty nine of those states specifically naming members of the Sackler family in the suits. So if you want primary documents, you have more than you can read. Here's an excerpt from a recent New Yorker article: The 2007 case was not supposed to end the way it did. Fo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. I do believe what they did was quite evil, and they should be disgorged of all profits - and if that bankrupts them then all the better. While 8.3bn is still not the 11bn they made in profits, it's still significantly more than 225mn. The headline is misleading.
Incorrect- the family has already drained $10.7B from the company and are only being fined $225M themselves- they are not responsible for any other portion of the $8.3B. The family will lose control of the company in bankruptcy but they knew this was coming and drained it ahead of time. DoJ is letting them get away with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. I do believe what they did was quite evil, and they should be disgorged of all profits - and if that bankrupts them then all the better. While 8.3bn is still not the 11bn they made in profits, it's still significantly more than 225mn. The headline is misleading.
They, personally , are paying 225 million. The company, of which they likely will not retain control, is settling for ~8billion. Importantly, the company itself DOES NOT HAVE THAT MUCH MONEY. It is expected to pay it off over time, assuming it remains solvent. The Sacklers, on the other hand, have drained nearly 10 billion dollars from the company account into their personal estate, and are retaining all but 225 mill…