Slashdot Mirror
OxyContin Billionaire Patents Drug To Treat Opioid Addiction (cbsnews.com)
Richard Sackler, the billionaire businessman behind Purdue Pharma, has patented a new drug to help treat opioid addiction (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). The news of the patented form of buprenorphine, a mild opioid that is used to ease withdrawal symptoms, comes as Colorado's attorney general is suing the OxyContin creator for profiting from opioid addictions. Some now believe that Sackler and his family, who owns Purdue Pharma, will be trying to profit from the antidote. The Washington Post reports: The lawsuit claims Purdue Pharma L.P. and Purdue Pharma Inc. deluded doctors and patients in Colorado about the potential for addiction with prescription opioids and continued to push the drugs. And it comes amid news that the company's former chairman and president, Richard Sackler, has patented a new drug to help wean addicts from opioids. "Purdue's habit-forming medications coupled with their reckless marketing have robbed children of their parents, families of their sons and daughters, and destroyed the lives of our friends, neighbors, and co-workers," Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman said Thursday in a statement. "While no amount of money can bring back loved ones, it can compensate for the enormous costs brought about by Purdue's intentional misconduct."
The lawsuit states that Purdue Pharma "downplayed the risk of addiction associated with opioids," "exaggerated the benefits" and "advised health care professionals that they were violating their Hippocratic Oath and failing their patients unless they treated pain symptoms with opioids," according to the statement from the Colorado attorney general's office. But Purdue Pharma "vigorously" denied the accusations Friday in a statement to The Washington Post, saying that although it shares "the state's concern about the opioid crisis," it did not mislead health-care providers about prescription opioids. "The state claims Purdue acted improperly by communicating with prescribers about scientific and medical information that FDA has expressly considered and continues to approve," a spokesman for Purdue Pharma said in the statement. "We believe it is inappropriate for the state to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the regulatory, scientific and medical experts at FDA." The report makes note of the patent's description, which acknowledges the risk of addiction associated with opioids and states that the drug could be used both in drug replacement therapy and pain management.
The lawsuit states that Purdue Pharma "downplayed the risk of addiction associated with opioids," "exaggerated the benefits" and "advised health care professionals that they were violating their Hippocratic Oath and failing their patients unless they treated pain symptoms with opioids," according to the statement from the Colorado attorney general's office. But Purdue Pharma "vigorously" denied the accusations Friday in a statement to The Washington Post, saying that although it shares "the state's concern about the opioid crisis," it did not mislead health-care providers about prescription opioids. "The state claims Purdue acted improperly by communicating with prescribers about scientific and medical information that FDA has expressly considered and continues to approve," a spokesman for Purdue Pharma said in the statement. "We believe it is inappropriate for the state to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the regulatory, scientific and medical experts at FDA." The report makes note of the patent's description, which acknowledges the risk of addiction associated with opioids and states that the drug could be used both in drug replacement therapy and pain management.
You misunderstood him/her. That anecdote was an introduction to the topic, and an explanation of a narrow escape. It was not a claim of expertise.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
After a recent operation the first thing they did in the recovery room is shoot me full of opioids and I'm in commie Europe. When I went home I got a small number of oxycodone tablets for if things went off the deep end and the NSAIDs became useless (as they tend to do for serious pain). What's supposed to be the alternative?
After a recent operation the first thing they did in the recovery room is shoot me full of opioids and I'm in commie Europe. When I went home I got a small number of oxycodone tablets for if things went off the deep end and the NSAIDs became useless (as they tend to do for serious pain). What's supposed to be the alternative?
CBD. Cannabidiol. People primarily associate marijuana with THC, which is the euphoria-inducing drug, but the other piece of marijuana is CBD, which is one, if not the most effective and non-addictive painkiller available.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
That's where medical marijuana is finding its niche. People who need pain relief get CBD; you can get patches, ointments, tinctures, sublingual drops, pills, or vape pens. People who want to replicate opiods get CBD with a bit of THC. People with panic attacks, PTSD, mental disorders, etc get THC. The ratio of the chemical formulation provided depends on your symptoms.
Its no surprise that anti-marijuana research and lobbying is primarily funded by big pharma - its competition.
It probably wasn’t an allergic reaction. Opioids make some people itch intolerably. Not allergic at all, though.
More likely, you are the shill. Doctors are feeling increasing pressure (again) not to prescribe opiates even where they are clearly called for.
Go away popo, you're neither qualified nor licensed to make this decision.
Drugs in general, and opiods in particular, are not the problem. Drug abuse is a symptom of deeper issues like isolation, depression, and hopelessness. It's literally self-medicating. This is not an epidemic among healthy, well-adjusted adults with stable incomes and functional social support networks. There is some of that, to be sure, but not an epidemic. It's impoverished areas of the country among people who have given up and feel left behind that are hardest hit. And again, drug abuse is a symptom of that.
The overwhelming majority of people don't become addicted to their prescription painkillers. All available evidence supports this. Of course corporations are greedy, and they need regulation, but opiods are the best treatment currently available for pain management, and if you've ever needed them, you know they are the difference between agony and relief. Limiting their availability or doctors' ability and discretion in prescribing only harms people who genuinely need them. Addicts will find a way regardless. Should we have support systems in place for those who do? Absolutely. But demonizing the supply side misses the point entirely.
For some reason, most people understand that brewers and distillers -- despite their much heavier advertising and glamorizing of alcohol than, say, opioid manufacturers of fentanyl -- don't create alcoholics, and that prohibition just made the problem worse, but everyone wants to believe that it's completely different this time. Because opiods. Yes, it's a compelling and easy-to-believe story that "big pharma" is responsible, but it doesn't really make sense at the end of the day. If manufacturers and prescribers were responsible, we might expect to see people with the most access to healthcare and the most dollars to spend have the most problems as a percentage of the respective demographics, but the reverse is true.
Nobody wants to talk about the socioeconomic drivers of addiction, because it means a) admitting a problem with the social structure in our country, b) it's hard to generate the same emotion and outrage about underprivileged segments of society as a story about a big bad enemy does and c) it's a much more difficult problem to solve.
I came across this in looking for supporting data, and it seems to be a good description of the real problem: https://tonic.vice.com/en_us/a...
See also:
https://jamanetwork.com/journa...
https://www.drugabuse.gov/abou...
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere