Judge for Yourselves Website--Sackler/Purdue Family Alleges False Narrative

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

drusso

Full Member
Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
Joined
Nov 21, 1998
Messages
13,059
Reaction score
7,590


"The website, called Judge for Yourselves, claims that the family and the company it owns, Connecticut-based Purdue Pharma, are victims of a smear campaign by lawyers seeking to profit from a “strategically invented false narrative” that the firm’s high-strength prescription painkiller, OxyContin, drove an epidemic that has ultimately claimed more than 500,000 lives over the past two decades."

Members don't see this ad.
 
Lawyers certainly try to win their cases. Superficially (i know very little about the case), it seems to me that blaming the Sacklers for the opioid epidemic is sort of like blaming the owners of ArmaLite for gun related violence in the USA. My own opinion is that if the medications had warnings about addiction that came with them there is no liability on the Sackler's part. And if ArmaLite products came with a warning that guns can be dangerous, no liability there either. Same for motorcycles, airplanes, parachute schools, W.W. rafting adventures, tobacco, alpine skiing. Was trying to think of something that can kill you that does not come with a warning ...sex, running shoes, backyard swimming pool?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Lawyers certainly try to win their cases. Superficially (i know very little about the case), it seems to me that blaming the Sacklers for the opioid epidemic is sort of like blaming the owners of ArmaLite for gun related violence in the USA. My own opinion is that if the medications had warnings about addiction that came with them there is no liability on the Sackler's part. And if ArmaLite products came with a warning that guns can be dangerous, no liability there either. Same for motorcycles, airplanes, parachute schools, W.W. rafting adventures, tobacco, alpine skiing. Was trying to think of something that can kill you that does not come with a warning ...sex, running shoes, backyard swimming pool?
You should read into it more. Suppose said company knew full well their addictive potential, and instead aggressively marketed them as not addictive, and funded advocacy groups to call into question the whole idea of addiction to prescription opioids. That’s what happened with the Sacklers.
 
You should read into it more. Suppose said company knew full well their addictive potential, and instead aggressively marketed them as not addictive, and funded advocacy groups to call into question the whole idea of addiction to prescription opioids. That’s what happened with the Sacklers.
What did the product insert say. That is a legal document. What a drug rep says is...similar to what a car salesman says. If you believe everything a salesman tells you then you are naive. If Mr. Ford says Ford cars are the best do you believe him? Personally i laughed at drug reps. Sometimes to their face. No wonder they never gave me anything...
 
What did the product insert say. That is a legal document. What a drug rep says is...similar to what a car salesman says. If you believe everything a salesman tells you then you are naive. If Mr. Ford says Ford cars are the best do you believe him? Personally i laughed at drug reps. Sometimes to their face. No wonder they never gave me anything...
A drug representative is a representative of the company, if they are stating as fact that their drug is not addictive then yes we believe them and they should be severely punished for lying to us point blank
 
The sacklers are somewhat guilty. the narrative that they "caused" the opioid epidemic is ridiculous. the definitely should pay up -- not exactly sure how much.
 
A drug representative is a representative of the company, if they are stating as fact that their drug is not addictive then yes we believe them and they should be severely punished for lying to us point blank
Whatever the drug rep says is supposed to hold up, similar to a real estate agent, they cannot make false claims or tell you to use the drug off label.
 
A drug representative is a representative of the company, if they are stating as fact that their drug is not addictive then yes we believe them and they should be severely punished for lying to us point blank
Hmmm. What do you think about politicians lying to us point blank? Anyway my position is that drug reps are full of feces and it is demeaning to the medical profession to listen to them. But hey...go ahead and take their advice. I am not judgmental. //But the fact is, if hospitals allow salespeople to educate their doctors, they aren’t prioritizing patients’ health. The case of the painkiller Vioxx is an example of what can go wrong in such a system. The Food and Drug Administration approved Vioxx in May 1999. Just one year later, the VIGOR study revealed a fivefold increase in heart attacks and strokes among individuals taking the drug. Despite these data, Merck’s salespeople were instructed to keep selling the drug and deflect questions about adverse events. The company doubled down on marketing, spending more to advertise Vioxx than Pepsi, Nike, and Budweiser spent on their products combined. By the time Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004, 100 million prescriptions had been filled for it, representing $1.5 billion in sales and an estimated 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks associated with its use.//https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/01/sales-reps-drug-companies-hospitals/
Whatever the drug rep says is supposed to hold up, similar to a real estate agent, they cannot make false claims or tell you to use the drug off label.
Having been involved in a little bit of real estate litigation once, i can assure you that what the real estate agent said or did not say is conjecture. What is important is what is in writing. Unless you are smart enough to make a recording...
 
Hmmm. What do you think about politicians lying to us point blank? Anyway my position is that drug reps are full of feces and it is demeaning to the medical profession to listen to them. But hey...go ahead and take their advice. I am not judgmental. //But the fact is, if hospitals allow salespeople to educate their doctors, they aren’t prioritizing patients’ health. The case of the painkiller Vioxx is an example of what can go wrong in such a system. The Food and Drug Administration approved Vioxx in May 1999. Just one year later, the VIGOR study revealed a fivefold increase in heart attacks and strokes among individuals taking the drug. Despite these data, Merck’s salespeople were instructed to keep selling the drug and deflect questions about adverse events. The company doubled down on marketing, spending more to advertise Vioxx than Pepsi, Nike, and Budweiser spent on their products combined. By the time Vioxx was withdrawn from the market in 2004, 100 million prescriptions had been filled for it, representing $1.5 billion in sales and an estimated 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks associated with its use.//https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/01/sales-reps-drug-companies-hospitals/

Having been involved in a little bit of real estate litigation once, i can assure you that what the real estate agent said or did not say is conjecture. What is important is what is in writing. Unless you are smart enough to make a recording...
I think the point was not that we always take drug reps at their word but that we shouldn’t give them or their companies a free pass for misrepresenting their products.
 
Purdue seized on the "work" or Portenoy and Passik to continue the false narrative that patients who took precscription opioids did not get addicted, nor did they have overdose if it was prescribed.cchiang

this has been litigated in multiple courts.

a summary from Wikipedia because otherwise, it would be tmi:
In May 2007, the company pleaded guilty to misleading the public about OxyContin's risk of addiction and agreed to pay $600 million (equivalent to approximately $749M in 2020) in one of the largest pharmaceutical settlements in U.S. history. The company's president (Michael Friedman), top lawyer (Howard R. Udell), and former chief medical officer (Paul D. Goldenheim) pleaded guilty as individuals to misbranding charges, a criminal violation and agreed to pay a total of US$34.5 million in fines.[43][44] Friedman, Udell, and Goldenheim agreed to pay US$19 million, US$8 million and US$7.5 million, respectively. In addition, three top executives were charged with a felony and sentenced to 400 hours of community service in drug treatment programs.[45]

On October 4, 2007, Kentucky officials sued Purdue because of widespread OxyContin abuse in Appalachia. A lawsuit filed by Kentucky then-Attorney General Greg Stumbo and Pike County officials demanded millions in compensation.[46] Eight years later, on December 23, 2015 Kentucky settled with Purdue for $24 million.[47]

In January 2017, the city of Everett, Washington sued Purdue based on increased costs for the city from the use of OxyContin as well as Purdue not intervening when they noted odd patterns of sale of their product, per agreement in the 2007 suit noted above. The allegations say Purdue did not follow legal agreements to track suspicious excess ordering or potential black market usage. The suit says false clinics created by unscrupulous doctors used homeless individuals as 'patients' to purchase OxyContin, then sold it to the citizens of Everett.[48][49][50]

The black market sale of the drug out of legal pharmacies based in Los Angeles with distributions points in Everett is also said to be part of the experience of the city according to the suit. No intervention was made by Purdue to contact the DEA for years despite knowing of the practice and the overuse and sale of their product. The suit asks for a yet to be determined reimbursement related to costs of policing, housing, health care, rehabilitation, criminal justice system, park and recreations department, as well as to the loss of life or compromised quality of life of the citizens of Everett directly.[48][49][50]

In May 2018, six states—Florida, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas—filed lawsuits charging deceptive marketing practices, adding to 16 previously filed lawsuits by other U.S. states and Puerto Rico.[51][52] By January 2019, 36 states were suing Purdue Pharma. Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey complains in her lawsuit that eight members of the Sackler family are "personally responsible" for the deception. She alleges they "micromanaged" a "deceptive sales campaign."[53]

In March 2019, Purdue Pharma reached a $270m settlement in a lawsuit[54] filed by Oklahoma, which claimed its opioids contributed to the deaths of thousands of people.[55][56]

In August 2019, Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family were in negotiations to settle the claims for a payment of $10-$12 billion. [57] The settlement would include a Chapter 11 filing by Purdue Pharma, which would be restructured as public beneficiary trust and the Sackler Family would give up any ownership in the company. Addiction treatment drugs currently developed by the company would be given to the public cost-free. All profits of Purdue would henceforth go to the plaintiffs in the case. On top of that, the Sackler family would contribute $3 billion in cash. The family would also sell Mundipharma and contribute another $1.5 billion from the sales proceeds to the settlement. However, the Sackler family would remain a billionaire family and would not be criminally charged for contributing to the opioid crisis.[58] On September 2019, the office of the New York Attorney General accused the Sackler family of hiding money by wiring at least $1 billion from company accounts to personal accounts overseas.[59][60]

In October 2020, Purdue agreed to an $8 billion settlement that includes a $2 billion criminal forfeiture, a $3.54 billion criminal fine, and $2.8 billion in damages for its civil liability. It will plead guilty to three criminal charges, and it will become a public benefit company under a trust that is required to consider American public health. The Sacklers will not be permitted to be involved in the new company.[61]
 
Purdue seized on the "work" or Portenoy and Passik to continue the false narrative that patients who took precscription opioids did not get addicted, nor did they have overdose if it was prescribed.cchiang

this has been litigated in multiple courts.

a summary from Wikipedia because otherwise, it would be tmi:
Porter and Jick. Referenced a bit too much....
 
Watch this movie on HBO. It goes into detail how the Sacklers essentially paid off an FDA official to clear the approval process for OxyContin among other things they did to mislead the public and physicians regarding its safety profile. It’s a really good documentary that should be required viewing for those who were trained during the “Fifth Vital Sign” era.

 
What did the product insert say. That is a legal document. What a drug rep says is...similar to what a car salesman says. If you believe everything a salesman tells you then you are naive. If Mr. Ford says Ford cars are the best do you believe him? Personally i laughed at drug reps. Sometimes to their face. No wonder they never gave me anything...

Sure. This is what the original product insert said. Of course, it doesn't say it anymore now.

“Delayed absorption as provided by OxyContin tablets, is believed to reduce the abuse liability of a drug.

The FDA approval also allowed Purdue to market OxyContin as being able to be prescribed daily (not PRN) on-label for non-cancer chronic pain when they had provided essentially no evidence the OxyContin was safe or effective in the long term. They also provided no evidence to support their claim above that delayed absorption reduced abuse liability in the long term in any way.


"The FDA generally requires at least 2 randomized controlled trials demonstrating clear efficacy for a proposed indication.24 Yet it approved extended release oxycodone based on only one adequate and well-controlled study, a 2-week clinical trial in osteoarthritis patients"

There's evidence in Purdue Pharma recorded depositions that they worked closely with the FDA on writing the product insert and label for Oxycontin, borderline illegal (if not outright illegal) activity. They later hired Curtis Wright, who was the director at the FDA for pain medication at the time OxyContin was approved, a year after he left the FDA for a 400k/year gig doing...something.


Purdue Pharma had a long history of shady marketing techniques before this but the whole OxyContin approval and marketing process really takes the cake.
 
Top