81–90 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most opiod deaths are from fentanyl. Most fentanyl comes from China, not perscription medication.
75% of opioid/opiate addicts started with pills. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871348
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not true, the Sackler families have already put up $4 billion dollars of their own money as part of one settlement in this and they're still being sued by others not part of the settlement. There's also a criminal investigation into members of the Sackler family.
There was a criminal investigation into Epstien as well. Look what happened to him. They even got his dead mans switch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you both.
that is, the important thing is directing resources at preventing and treating opioid addictions and ODs, and if there's any justice the entire Sackler family fortune would be used to do so. Fortunately, these two goals are not in conflict, the Sackler's have a net worth upwards of $13 billion, which would be quite helpful resources to direct at preventing and treating opioid addiction and health effects.
But also the Sacklers are only like 8% of the problem. All the rest of the opioids, (92%), came from other companies. So, theoretically, if we confiscated all of the wealth of all of the owners and stockholders in all of these companies we'd get the money we need to at least ameliorate some of the carnage. Because we'd have at least 90% more than we'd have by just confiscating the Sackler wealth alone.
All that's just theory though. I don't even know if it's possible to hold ownership responsible? Because wouldn't that put people who buy stock in whatever company at risk if the company was doing something sufficiently untoward?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Purdue never prescribed opioids to anyone. They only sold them to hospitals and doctors, after the FDA let them do it. Not sure what message punishing them is supposed to send? But I get it. Someone dies and it’s the drug dealers fault, and punishing them will make everyone feel better. Except it doesn’t do anything about the actual problem (opioid addiction). It feels to me like the elation here is because the Sackl…
Please remember that Purdue were the ones who marketed Oxycontin on the premise of one dose for 12-hour pain relief. When they learned doctors were prescribing it for eight hours, they tried to "re-train" them to use the "proper" (read: their ) dosing recommendation, because there were cheaper drugs with six of eight hour doses. Sure, the doctors made the prescriptions, but you, and I, and everyone who thinks honestl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Purdue never prescribed opioids to anyone. They only sold them to hospitals and doctors, after the FDA let them do it. Not sure what message punishing them is supposed to send? But I get it. Someone dies and it’s the drug dealers fault, and punishing them will make everyone feel better. Except it doesn’t do anything about the actual problem (opioid addiction). It feels to me like the elation here is because the Sackl…
The Sackler's $13 billion could be used to do quite a lot about the actual problem.
But again, the Sackler's are only 8% of the problem. So if you go after them, and the owners and stockholders of the companies that provided the other 92% of opioids, and the doctors who wrote the prescriptions in bad faith, you probably come up with an amount of money that could make a dent.
Looks like they got a golden escape hatch. Sounds like this arm of the company will end up controlled by a government trust. The best outcome would probably be the government running the operation at break even, lowering costs, and heavily regulating how much product it could give to hospitals.
The best outcome would be directing resources at preventing and treating opioid addiction, not at punishing the drug manufacturer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most opiod deaths are from fentanyl. Most fentanyl comes from China, not perscription medication.
75% of opioid/opiate addicts started with pills. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24871348
With the Sackler family funneling out money prior to this, is there any chance a judge would refuse the bankruptcy?
With the Sackler family funneling out money prior to this, is there any chance a judge would refuse the bankruptcy?
All the self-payments ("funneling out") the public knows about were years before the lawsuits. Unless you know something the rest of us don't...
I'm pretty sure that was obvious to many people. But it was probably especially obvious to the people lying about it to make billions of dollars.