• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Oxycontin fraud

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,714
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
http://static.latimes.com/oxycontin-part1/

This is a really important article and I suggest eveyone becomes familiar with it. The pharma industry is corrupt and it has no problem killing people for a few bucks.

The article is really long, but here are some highlights

But OxyContin’s stunning success masked a fundamental problem: The drug wears off hours early in many people, a Los Angeles Times investigation found. OxyContin is a chemical cousin of heroin, and when it doesn’t last, patients can experience excruciating symptoms of withdrawal, including an intense craving for the drug.

The problem offers new insight into why so many people have become addicted to OxyContin, one of the most abused pharmaceuticals in U.S. history.

.....

In a 1992 submission to the Patent Office, the company portrayed OxyContin as a medical breakthrough that controlled pain for 12 hours “in approximately 90% of patients.” Applying for a separate patent a few years later, Purdue said that once a person was a regular user of OxyContin, it “provides pain relief in said patient for at least 12 hours after administration.”

....

Over the last 20 years, more than 7 million Americans have abused OxyContin, according to the federal government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health. The drug is widely blamed for setting off the nation’s prescription opioid epidemic, which has claimed more than 190,000 lives from overdoses involving OxyContin and other painkillers since 1999.

....

OxyContin taken at 12-hour intervals could be “the perfect recipe for addiction,” said Theodore J. Cicero, a neuropharmacologist at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and a leading researcher on how opioids affect the brain.

Patients in whom the drug doesn’t last 12 hours can suffer both a return of their underlying pain and “the beginning stages of acute withdrawal,” Cicero said. “That becomes a very powerful motivator for people to take more drugs.”

.....

Purdue developed OxyContin as a cure for pain — and for a financial problem.

The company’s owners were the Sacklers, a New York family of physicians and philanthropists who bought Purdue in 1952. By the late 1980s, the patent on its main source of revenue, a morphine pill for cancer patients called MS Contin, was running out. Executives anticipated a massive loss of revenue as generic versions drove down the price of MS Contin, according to internal company correspondence from the period.

The company was focused on finding a new moneymaker. In a 1990 memo, Robert F. Kaiko, vice president for clinical research, laid out why it was important to develop a second painkiller.

“MS Contin may eventually face such serious generic competition that other controlledbless-release opioids must be considered,” Kaiko wrote.

Purdue already had developed a technique to stretch a drug’s release over time. In MS Contin, the technique made morphine last eight to 12 hours. Kaiko and his colleagues decided to use it on an old, cheap narcotic, oxycodone.

....

Dr. Curtis Wright, who led the agency’s medical review of the drug, declined to comment for this article. Shortly after OxyContin’s approval, he left the FDA and, within two years, was working for Purdue in new product development, according to his sworn testimony in a lawsuit a decade ago.

....

By the third year, sales were more than double MS Contin’s peak, according to sworn testimony by a Purdue executive. By the fifth, OxyContin was generating annual revenue of more than $1 billion. Sales would continue to climb until 2010, when they leveled off at $3 billion.

Purdue’s owners, the Sackler family, were already rich — the family name adorns a wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and several galleries in the British Museum. The success of OxyContin brought a whole new level of wealth. Forbes magazine last year estimated the Sacklers’ worth at $14 billion, which, the magazine noted, put the family ahead of American dynasties such as the Mellons and Rockefellers.

....

In another study of 87 cancer patients, “rescue was used frequently in most of the patients,” and 95% resorted to it at some point in the study, according to a journal article detailing the clinical trial.

....

OxyContin’s impact on the practice of medicine was similarly transformative. Other drug companies began marketing their own narcotic painkillers for routine injuries. By 2010, one out of every five doctor’s visits in the U.S. for pain resulted in a prescription for narcotic painkillers, according to a Johns Hopkins University study.

OxyContin accounted for a third of all sales revenue from painkillers that year, according to industry data.

.....

The U.S. Justice Dept. launched a criminal investigation, and in 2007 the company and three top executives pleaded guilty to fraud for downplaying OxyContin’s risk of addiction. Purdue and the executives were ordered to pay $635 million. The case centered on elements of Purdue’s marketing campaign that suggested to doctors that OxyContin was less addictive than other painkillers.

....

Boosting the dosage could extend the duration to some degree, but it didn’t guarantee 12 hours of relief. Higher doses did mean more money for Purdue and its sales reps. The company charged wholesalers on average about $97 for a bottle of the 10-milligram pills, the smallest dosage, while the maximum strength, 80 milligrams, ran more than $630, according to 2001 sales data the company disclosed in litigation with the state of West Virginia. Commissions and performance evaluations for the sales force were based in part on the proportion of sales from high-dose pills.

A West Virginia supervisor told one of his highest performing sales reps in a 1999 letter that she could “blow the lid off” her sales and earn a trip to Hawaii if she persuaded more doctors to write larger doses.

In an August 1996 memo headlined “$$$$$$$$$$$$$ It’s Bonus Time in the Neighborhood!” a manager reminded Tennessee reps that raising dosage strength was the key to a big payday.

.....

A separate study underwritten by a Purdue competitor, Janssen Pharmaceutica, reached a similar conclusion. Researchers surveyed chronic pain patients treated with OxyContin and reported that less than 2% said the drug lasted 12 hours and nearly 85% said it wore off before eight, according to a 2003 journal article detailing the research.

.....

While Purdue’s litigators were working in courthouses around the country to fend off civil suits, its regulatory attorneys in Washington, D.C., made a blunt admission to the FDA: The 12-hour dosing schedule is, at least in part, about money.

....

Their final reason: It was better for business.

“The 12 hour dosing schedule represents a significant competitive advantage of OxyContin over other products,” the lawyers wrote.

....

In the fivebless-minute presentation, Egilman accused Purdue of ignoring its own science for financial reasons and sending patients on a dangerous roller coaster of withdrawal and relief.

“In other words,” he said, “the Q12 dosing schedule is an addiction producing machine.”

Egilman noted that he had reviewed confidential Purdue documents and sealed testimony of company executives through his work as an expert witness. But, he said, because of court orders sought by Purdue, he was barred from revealing what he’d read in those documents or giving them to the FDA.

Tl;dr: pharma created drug that doesn't work as approved (fraud) and is more addictive than its competitors in spite of claims otherwise (fraud), but the drug still on the market after contributing to thousands of deaths.

This is the current state of the FDA and pharma industry.....a bunch of lies...... with dead bodies in its wake....
 

Beargryllz

New member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
2,719
MBTI Type
INTP

Forever

Permabanned
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
8,551
MBTI Type
NiFi
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Huh I never got an inkling of addiction when I was perscribed oxycontin lol

#drugresistant
#dontdodrugskids
 

swordpath

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
10,547
MBTI Type
ISTx
Enneagram
5w6
The pharmaceutical companies are the real drug mafia and way more dangerous than any street dealer.
 

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,714
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The pharmaceutical companies are the real drug mafia and way more dangerous than any street dealer.

I struggle to determine which industry is the worst. Insurance is horrible, with health insurance especially bad. Financial services is evil. Tech is the devil. Hospitals are leeches. Oil companies are awful. Food companies are killing us.

But pharma may be the absolute worst of them all.....
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Given that pharmaceutical is my field, and I am getting my PhD in organic chemistry, it's my duty to point out that drugs are not inherently evil, and it is not the scientists that are the problem. Nor is it the research. The issue largely stems from upper level management and the marketing departments within the industry (which isn't inherently evil either). Their focus is (rightfully so) on the bottom dollar. In this industry, the scientists have little to no say over what compounds they work on developing. A group could be years into a synthesis, almost finished, and they could get a notice saying "oh we are ditching this project. Stop working on it we have something else to do". It's really unfortunate because the scientists and clinical scientists are the most knowledgeable on these matters, yet they don't really get to vouch for their work; they can only speak of it in the contexts of results. That's how science works, but it's very easy for the bottom dollar to twist that.

Another part of the problem is the doctors who prescribe these medications. They are not always on top of the literature, and it's unfortunate to say that many general practitioners are usually years behind on new medications. It's A LOT of work to keep up with, because the field is constantly evolving at a very high rate. I have to take two medications for bipolar II disorder, and they are effectively life savers for me. One of them (Latuda) is a new antipsychotic and it's proven to be an essential tool in keeping me healthy. I really don't like when people knock antipsychotics as being bad, because they aren't. They wouldn't be prescribed to aid in mental disorders if they didn't meet the standards required. The over-prescription problem is due to doctors trying to stretch beyond what the clinical data says. It's ironic, but a part of the problem with antipsychotics is hesitancy with new medications. Psychiatrists tend to stick with older line medications due to them being well known. The side effects and long term effects of them take years to establish, and many err on the side of caution to not prescribe new line medications, when the literature data speaks to them being more effective.

There is a reason why anti-psychiotics are over-prescribed off label though. The receptors that anti-psychotics work on is typically D, 5HT, and α. Those three function with dopamine, serotonin, and norepiephrine, which are the primary neurotransmitters associated with mood and thought (among other things). There are others, but those are the primary receptors that go erratic in mental disorders such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective, and bipolar disorder (this is a very simplistic explaination but it gets the job done). It turns out that patients with depression (in particular refractory depression- depression that doesn't respond to antidepressants) have defects with similar receptors. The working theory is they have issues with 5HT receptors. However, a small number of depressed patients don't respond to 5HT modulating medications. It's thought that these patients might have different forms of depression that are not currently labeled within the DSM-V, or have a different disorder entirely. Regardless, they get prescribed anti-psychotics in the hope that it can modulate their mental ailments. Often, it works. A co-worker of mine is an example of this too (has refractory depression that wasn't stabalized until she went on several anti-psychotics).

It's really a complex matter. Anti-psychotics, pain medications. It's really important to remember that this is the best we got. I see a lot of people getting up in arms over saying or thinking "big pharma is blocking research, and these pills don't fix us!". That's simply not true. It's REALLY REALLY difficult to come up with magic bullet medications. The closest thing we ever came to with that is statins, which to date is the biggest financial windfall for the pharmaceutical industry, largely because there are so few side effects and so many people can benefit from it. The reason medications have side effects is because it's DREADFULLY difficult to make molecules bind exactly what they are supposed to.

I'll use anti-psychotics as an example again. One of the core receptors they work on is dopamine receptors (D). They function as antagonists, which means they block dopamine receptors. The working theory is that in many individuals with psychotics symptoms have too high of activity of dopamine receptors (among other things but this is the focus of the discussion right now). Block the receptor, and the problems can be alleviated. The problem is dopamine has multiple functions. It's not just associated with psychiatric things. It's also associated with motivation, mood, and movement. It's a near impossible feat to effect one of those jobs without effecting another. This is why high doses of antipsychotics can result in a "zombie like person" where they don't move much. They can exbit symptoms of parkinsons disease. Why? Because parkinsons is the result of blocked or underactive D receptors.

Billions of dollars are poured into pharmaceuticals because it's a MASSIVE problem. A true gordian knot. It's not some conpsiracy or evil thing. It's got problems, and it's because of financial interest, but it's getting better every day. We have come SO far, and continue to.

I found this advert recently, and THIS is how you need to promote the pharmaceutical industry.


/soapbox
 

Lillita

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
40
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
514
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I agree with a lot of what you had to say [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION], but think being aware of the ugly side, both intentional and not, is important too.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
I agree with a lot of what you had to say [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION], but think being aware of the ugly side, both intentional and not, is important too.

Oh absolutely. There needs to be a critical eye on everything. Generally I speak up for the other side in these discussions because the public perception of the pharmaceutical industry is more negative than it deserves. I encounter too many people that look at it through a similar lens to people who are anti-vaccine. If we want to be critical, we also need to be fair.

As I said in my post the issue lies within the upper management and their hesitancy to change when something is a financial windfall. However, that isn't something we can easily address. We need to start at the bottom. In the case of opiates it became a problem in hindsight. For decades these medications were the best thing we knew for pain management, and it wasn't until after many many years the downstream problem of addiction became apparent. Addiction potential was known, but it wasn't know how big of a societal problem until it came to pass. It badly sucks, and it's a problem that needs to be solved. The first line I believe is to establish regulation on who can prescribe it, and when. By and large it's the large majority of individual who are prescribed pain medications that have now issues. The small minority needs to be addressed though.

I don't believe halting the medication is the solution. It's useful, we simply need to regulate it more scrupulously to when it will be prescribed, and educate people on it. So many doctors prescribe these medications without pointing out the risks, and warning signs. I've had friends given opiate meds and their doctor didn't inform them how they work, what they do, and the addiction potential AT ALL.

The problem with a lot of medications needs to be approached bottom up, not top down. It strikes me like people generally want to do the latter, and all that does is breed hate and or ignorance to an industry.
 

Showbread

climb on
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
2,298
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
3w2
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I agree with a lot of what you had to say [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION], but think being aware of the ugly side, both intentional and not, is important too.

I'm a little confused, and maybe I just didn't read the article closely enough.

If the medication is tolerated well, why not use it for something other than what it was originally created for? I've known people whose depression symptoms have benefitted from adding a really low dose of an atypical anti-psychotic. If they are thoroughly warned of potential side-effects and monitored appropriately, what's the problem?
 

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The pharmaceutical companies are the real drug mafia and way more dangerous than any street dealer.

I think thats a bold statement. Way more than any street dealer? ... Yes, there is some corruption in the pharmaceutical industry as its money-driven, but they have to follow laws and regulations whereas street dealers do not. What you buy at a pharmacy is controlled, and the components are written on the label - You usually have no way of checking what you buy off the street is, other than the word of the dealer...
 

Jaguar

Active member
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
20,647
I think thats a bold statement. Way more than any street dealer? ... Yes, there is some corruption in the pharmaceutical industry as its money-driven, but they have to follow laws and regulations

That may be one of the most naive statements I have ever read in my life.
 

Vasilisa

Symbolic Herald
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
3,946
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
coalesce

I think thats a bold statement. Way more than any street dealer? ... Yes, there is some corruption in the pharmaceutical industry as its money-driven, but they have to follow laws and regulations whereas street dealers do not. What you buy at a pharmacy is controlled, and the components are written on the label - You usually have no way of checking what you buy off the street is, other than the word of the dealer...

I think he means much higher up the chain. Again, I offer the Frontline investigation, it shows how the two coalesce.
 

Lillita

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
40
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
514
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I'm a little confused, and maybe I just didn't read the article closely enough.

If the medication is tolerated well, why not use it for something other than what it was originally created for? I've known people whose depression symptoms have benefitted from adding a really low dose of an atypical anti-psychotic. If they are thoroughly warned of potential side-effects and monitored appropriately, what's the problem?

Your question is predicated on the ideal/intended situation. It's when any of those factors don't hold true for whatever reason that it can be problematic. It happens more than one might want to admit.
 

Showbread

climb on
Joined
Oct 3, 2013
Messages
2,298
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
3w2
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Your question is predicated on the ideal/intended situation. It's when any of those factors don't hold true for whatever reason that it can be problematic. It happens more than one might want to admit.

I think that argument could me made for any drug though, not just one being prescribed off label. Some people have really awful side effects taking thoroughly researched meds for exactly what they were created for. Taking any prescription one has to decide that their current level of discomfort is bad enough that they are willing to risk a bad reaction in order to find something that will make them feel better.
 

SearchingforPeace

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
5,714
MBTI Type
ENFJ
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I think thats a bold statement. Way more than any street dealer? ... Yes, there is some corruption in the pharmaceutical industry as its money-driven, but they have to follow laws and regulations whereas street dealers do not. What you buy at a pharmacy is controlled, and the components are written on the label - You usually have no way of checking what you buy off the street is, other than the word of the dealer...

Drug companies misrepresent the benefits of the drugs, while minimizing the side effects. The Purdue Pharmaceutical case is not unique. Drug companies spend very little on research and massive amounts on marketing and political donations. They are indifferent to human life. Those rare side effects are much more common than advertised. And many newer drugs do not work better than older drugs.

The FDA and related international regulatory agencies are pretty much controlled by the drug companies.....
 
Top