Bereaved Mom Recasts Purdue On Wikipedia
28 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // November 7th, 2008 // 9:12 am
We all know how Wikipedia works - the definitions and descriptions can be changed by the public at large. Now, Marianne Skolek has defined Purdue Pharma for all the world to see - and in her view, her recent entry helps to set the record straight about its OxyContin marketing.
Skolek, you see, holds Purdue responsible for the 2002 death of her 29-year-old daughter, who was prescribed the painkiller for a herniated disk and wound up dying of heart failure, leaving behind a 6-year-old son. And she remains unsatisfied with a plea deal last year in which Purdue Pharma and three present and former execs agreed to pay $634.5 million to settle charges related to deceiving docs about the potential for abusing OxyContin. No one went to jail (back story).
And so she has spent the last few years dogging Purdue execs. As she writes on Wikipedia: The execs “were sentenced to 400 hours of community service at a drug rehab facility and were put on probation. Their actions have resulted in scores of deaths and addictions in every state in the country. Marianne Skolek, Activist for Victims of OxyContin and Purdue Pharma continues in her efforts to further expose them for their criminal activities.
“Skolek recently filed a complaint with the FDA and Attorney Generals throughout the country against Purdue Pharma for their marketing to pregnant women for pain in pregnancy. In addition, the FTC and FDA have had a complaint lodged against Purdue Pharma by Skolek for their marketing for the undertreatment of pain in infants and pediatric patients. These marketing ploys will result in an epidemic of addiction and death in the most vulnerable of people - pregnant women and infants and children. In her complaints, Skolek has accused Purdue Pharma of criminal marketing tactics.” (full entry was here)
Of course, Purdue can arrange to have this deleted, but meanwhile, her message is getting out there. A different sort of Wikipedia change briefly immersed pharma last year, by the way, when AstraZeneca found itself in the middle of a scandal after someone at the drugmaker omitted a line about its Seroquel antipsychotic and links to suicidal thoughts and behavior in teenagers (back story).
UPDATE: Purdue deleted Skolek’s changes within 24 hours.
Lynn Locascio
Keep it up Marianne, all that suffer from this deadly plague applaud you and appreciate all you do. For today my son is still clean after climbing and scratching his way out of a deep dark oxy hell hole, no thanks to Purdue Pharma.
Now, we spend our spare time trying to get Fla to pass a PMP bill just so we can regulate the distribution of this highly addictive drug. Our legislative tells us there is “no money” every year. Purdue should pay for this so we can once again try in live in a world that is not infected with oxy abuse/addiction.
THANK YOU MARIANNE!
Chris MacDonald
Ed, I’ve just blogged this story (including quoting you) over at the Business Ethics Blog:
Bereaved Mom Sings Oxycontin Blues on Wikipedia
The blog entry also has a screen-cap of the Purdue Wikipedia page, so that people can see Ms. Skolek’s edits even if they get undone at some point.
Sophie
Good for you, Marianne. What a good idea. I have spoken out numerous times at the FDA and in the media against Lilly, which lied, hid the lethal side effects, and killed my son with its still-on-the-market drug Zyprexa. My son died of profound hyperglycemia - a side effect about which we had been given no warning. Not by the doctor, the drug rep, the label, - Lilly back then , and still, denying the metabolic complications of this drug. I have tried every which way but how to get Lilly execs indicted and sent to prison. It seems this just isn’t done. At least the federal AG has a criminal charge against them for misdemeanor, and the Connecticut AG a criminal RICO charge.
There must be justice when greed results in horrible death.
Lana Keeton
Dear Marianne,
All pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers should be charged with criminal marketing tactics.
There is so much deception in drugs, their risks, their complications and all the horrifying things that drugs and medical devices do to thousands of Americans EVERY SINGLE DAY.
Then these gigantic multi billion dollar pharmaceutical companies hide behind federal preemption, warning labels, the FDA, hordes of attorney firms and continue to destroy lives.
All of these companies are criminals in the guise of legitimate business.
Keep up your good work!!!
For myself, and a group of mesh sufferers, we have created Truth in Medicine to stop the use of petroeleum based synthetic surgical mesh used for hernia repair, pelvic floor disorder and bladder suspension for both men and women.
The complications and deaths from Gynecare/Ethicon’s TVT Prolene polypropylene bladder suspension tape are life altering in the worst way. These supposedly “minimally invasive” procedures are life threatening procedures for non life threatening conditions.
We are making progress. The FDA issued the following a public health warning on October 20, 2008.
You have given me a great idea to change the definition of these medical device makers on Wikipedia!!!
God bless you and and protect you and give you the strength to continue the fight!
Lana Keeton
Founder, Truth in Medicine
Plaintiff Pro Se, Case #06-21116, Lana C. Keeton vs. Gynecare Worldwide,Ethicon, Inc and Johnson & Johnson, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
miamiblog@bellsouth.net
http://www.theladyisachamp.blogspot.com
http://www.truthinmedicine.us.com
http://www.lanakeeton.com
Mary Starrett
Marianne,
What a price you paid, what a price your daughter and her little boy paid.
Thak you for turning your grief to the rage that fuels change.
God bless your efforts.
Mary Starrett
Marianne Skolek
http://www.businessethics.ca/blog/purdue-wiki-Oct7.jpg
Purdue Pharma did delete my reference to their criminal marketing in Wikipedia. Above is the link to Wikipedia before Purdue Pharma deleted my reference to charges I had lodged against them. Thank you Chris MacDonald for saving it for me.
Marianne Skolek
Activist for Victims of OxyContin and
Purdue Pharma - a criminally convicted pharmaceutical company
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/10/business/11drug-web.html?ex=1336536000&en=9cc24d9d766e92a6&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
I testified against Purdue Pharma before the U.S. Senate
http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=2905&wit_id=6612
908-285-1232
mskolek@aol.com
http://www.oxydeaths.com
ertgyhujik
Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your POV and attempting to do so is an abuse of the site.
Chris MacDonald
Marianne:
You’re more than welcome.
The link you posted won’t work (since the link you posted is on THIS site rather than MY site, and my hosting service limits that sort of indirect linking).
Folks wanting to see it will have to go to my page, and then click on the link there.
Regards,
Chris.
Compliance Analyst
“All pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers should be charged with criminal marketing tactics. ”
A strong and dangerous comment….
I guess I better not try to work to better people’s lives…
truthman30
People power..
:)
Well done Marianne
:)
Anne PME
Marianne:
Thanks for all of your hard work on this.
You might be interested in knowing that Purdue Pharma consultant Rudy Guiliani has been hired by Ranbaxy Laboratories. Former US Attorney turned Purdue consultant Jay P. McCloskey has been hired by the State of Maine to defend certain Maine officials from allegations stemming from their role in the Maine Medicaid mail order pharmacy PIN Rx.
Funded with grants from federal agencies (earmarks?), PIN Rx ran through their line of credit within six months of opening. In an attempt to stem the losses and provide cash flow to pay the bills, the public - private Medicaid pharmacy began dispensing Internet prescriptions, including Internet prescriptions of controlled drugs like Oxycontin.
Within two years of granting them a license, the Maine Board of Pharmacy and Maine AG’s Office successfully brought charges against the PIN Rx pharmacists and PIN Rx (the pharmacy), but did not bring charges against either of the two drug wholesalers. The pharmacy board cannot bring charges against a pharmaceutical company.
As far as anyone knows, the DEA is still investigating.
As for
Jim
To Ertgyhulik
If Ms. Skolek posted only facts and one of the facts that she posted involved the criminal conviction of Purdue Pharmacy executives she is not posting her POV. Meanwhile if there is any abuse of the site I submit it was Purdue who commited the abuse by deleting a public fact.
Compliance Analyst
I will agree with you when the pharmaceutical industry gets out of the business of promoting marginally beneficial drugs or drugs that have demonstrated no benefit whatsoever (see Zetia).
Compliance Analyst
I was more commenting on the “all pharmaceutical and medical device companies”. I happen to work for a generic pharmaceutical company and hate to be lumped in with the same group of “big pharma” that continues to skirt the gray area of proper and ethical marketing. People online love to make all encompassing comments that simply aren’t true. To demoniize an entire industry based on the few is rather dangerous and unfair.
Lana Keeton
Dear Compliance Analyst,
What is dangerous and unfair is the DAILY USE of Americans as GUINEA PIGS.
Pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers know when they sell a product that people will die and lives and families and homes will be destroyed.
They intentionally harm people with their drugs and devices. They put it in their direct to consumer ads with people running in fields and smiling all the while the voice over talks about the fatalities and debilitating effects of their products.
Or they don’t tell all the risks and complications on their package inserts.
Or they pay doctors thousands and thousands of dollars in medical consulting fees to influence other doctors to prescribe and/or use drugs or medical devices. Illegally I might add. Congressman Charles Grassley is currently exposing that on a regular basis.
Or they pay for Continuing Medical Education (CME) of doctors to the tune of $1.2 billion dollars a year ( half of the total spent each year) and don’t tell doctors the true risks and complications of their own products and/or omit other treatments that would be more effective.
Or they pay millions to elect State Supreme Court Justices to overturn judgments against them from the lower courts.
If you want to know MORE of the facts about your industry, please read “Our Daily Meds” by Melody Petersen. It is documented with 68 pages of reference.
Perhaps since you work for “a generic pharmaceutical company with ethics” [as I have no idea who you are and you choose to remain anonymous, I have no idea if you do operate based on ethics and are not skirting the gray area of proper and ethical marketing], perhaps you would be in a position to influence Big Pharma to stop their malicious use of marketing. That help would be greatly appreciated!
Based on thousands and thousands of hours of research, I stand behind my statement…
“All pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers should be charged with criminal marketing tactics.”
Big Pharma thinks they are invisible and that their criminal use of marketing tactics is unknown to the American Public. Think again!
Big Pharma may not tell the truth but there are people out there like Marianne Skolek and thousands of others who are fighting every day to be heard. God bless them!
We can not change what has happened to each of us. We will stop others from being harmed.
Lana Keeton
Founder, Truth in Medicine
Plaintiff Pro Se, Case #06-21116, Lana C. Keeton vs. Gynecare Worldwide,Ethicon, Inc and Johnson & Johnson, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
miamiblog@bellsouth.net
http://www.theladyisachamp.blogspot.com
http://www.truthinmedicine.us.com
http://www.lanakeeton.com
Compliance Analyst
“Pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers know when they sell a product that people will die and lives and families and homes will be destroyed.” When our company sells a medication, we are hoping that it will better peoples lives. There are inherent risks with any medication. One is taking in a toxin every time drugs are taken, the same thing can be applied to drinking and smoking. It is impossible to know how every drug compound will interact with every single person as everyone’s blood chemistry is different. And it would be asinine to think that companies are “intentionally” (as you seem to have stated above) trying to kill off patients. These are the same people that drug or device companies make money off of.
I agree that the marketing of drugs is currently not ideal. A tightening of standards for marketing needs to be addressed at some point within the FDA.
As for me doing something within my own industry, my position within my company is making sure that we are making drugs that meet the highest standards of the GMPs. It is the role of the FDA to make sure that companies are marketing drugs correctly, though industry should be doing more to police itself.
In the end, we can certainly jail the entire industry for making medications or devices…that way all the companies will go bankrupt, no one will make medications, and people won’t live as long.
Guest
Anyone who talks about pharmaceutical companies enough to abbreviate the term to ‘pharma’ obviously has a few screws loose.
Anon
Ah, an ad hominum attack.
Yes anyone who raises issues about certain classes of drugs should be labeled as crazy and dangerous. That’s a great way to destroy someone’s credibility.
Perhaps one or more individual pharmaceutical companies are scared?
See comments under:
http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/11/pharma-plans-ads-to-attack-obama-drug-plan/
and
http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/11/preemption-now-available-on-dvd/
Guest
I got two words for ya:
Personal Responsibility…
Enough said.
Lisa Van S
Guest,
Have a real name?… Personal Responsibilty!.. Screws Loose, a real name would add “some” credibilty to what you have to say. “Pharma” and their apologists have only themselves to blame for the countless harm to patients.
Purdue,.. they sure are living up to the word chicken.
Anon.
Personal responsibility. I love it.
Susan in the following comment
http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/11/preemption-now-available-on-dvd/#comment-381463
suggests drug company CEOs should take some personal responsibility.
Guest
So did the executives put a gun to her daughter’s head and force her to overdose?
If not, then take some personal responsibility.
P.S. No way I’m going to use my real name with all you wacko conspiracy theorists hanging around.
Anon.
Well if NAMI (largely funded by the pharmaceutical industry) gets its way for forced medication, what’s the practical difference between a gun and a court order. Especially where the Treatment Advocacy Center (also funded by NAMI’s founder (Stanley)) has advocated lying in these court procedings.
The part about advocating lying in court can be verified on the PsychRights websight run by Jim Gottstein the Zyprexa whistleblower.
It also looks like a lot of this is based on the Stanley’s son having a manic episode back in ~ 1988. Now he advocates that everybody should be forced to be medicated just because it worked for him, without regard if they are harmed or not.
Amazing the harm you can do if you have money.
Lisa Van S
Guest,… My Dear. Their are a lot of Pharma folks who come to this site, they may throw a quick jab here and there, and I respect them for that, and others have taken a moment to be gracious. You give the decent folk in Pharma a bad name by attacking a mother of a dead child. You need to grow up,.. or just shut up.
Lisa Van S
Mariann,
A GSK (Pediatric) Paxil Clinical Trial Investigator had been indicted on 55 counts of fraud, 15 of those counts involved Paxil.In April a jury found her guilty on 39 counts and She is facing upto 10 years in jail. Never give up hope.
Marianne Skolek
Lisa — Thanks — I will never give up as long as Purdue Pharma markets to the most vulnerable of people — pregnant women and infants and pediatric patients. Purdue Pharma never disappoints me — they are criminals in every sense of the word.
Lana Keeton
Amen! They have to be held accountable.
Lana Keeton
p.s. Guest, you should wash your mouth out with soap. How dare you be so disrespectful of Ms. Skolek and her daughter.
You are obviously an IT person being paid by one the pharmaceutical companies. You spend your days trying to clean up the digital dirt about your company and divert the attention away from the truth.
You make personal attacks on the individuals posting, not on the content of the posts. Such an old tactic, “the best defense is a good offense.”
Ms. Skolek will win her fight because she has God and the truth on her side!
Lana Keeton
“Guest
November 14th, 2008
12:39 pm
Anyone who talks about pharmaceutical companies enough to abbreviate the term to ‘pharma’ obviously has a few screws loose.”
SO DOES “ANYONE” INCLUDE THE LOS ANGELES TIMES?
SEE BELOW>>>
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-peterson27jan27,0,4463511.story
From the Los Angeles Times
“A bitter pill for Big Pharma”
Overdependence on ‘blockbuster’ drugs is taking a toll on the industry.
By Melody Petersen
January 27, 2008
The strategy that has made the pharmaceutical industry one of the wealthiest and most powerful on Earth is finally starting to betray it.
Beginning in just a few weeks, and continuing over the next several years, some of the biggest-selling and most profitable drugs in history will lose their patent protection. When the 20-year patent on a drug expires, its sales plummet because other companies can sell generic versions for a fraction of the price.
Merck, for instance, will lose its patent on Fosamax, the top-selling osteoporosis medicine, on Feb. 6 — and can expect to see a swift decline in its $3 billion in annual sales. Then, later this year, Johnson & Johnson is expected to lose its monopoly on Risperdal, the $4-billion-a-year antipsychotic drug. The greatest loss of all will be suffered by Pfizer, the maker of Lipitor, the bestselling drug in the world. The $12-billion cholesterol-lowering pill is expected to go generic as early as 2010.
Of course, it was no secret that these patents would expire. Everyone in the industry knew that time would run out on these monopolies. The real problem is that the industry’s scientists have hit a dry spell. They are not discovering enough new drugs to replace the aging standbys. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved just 19 new medicines, according to preliminary data, the fewest since 1983.
Moody’s, the bond-rating company, sounded the warning on Wall Street last fall. The firm said the financial outlook for the wildly profitable pharmaceutical industry had turned sour. Some companies, the firm said, faced the loss of as much as half their revenues. The Wall Street Journal followed up on the report last month with a front-page story headlined “Big Pharma Faces Grim Prognosis.”
Lost in all the hand-wringing on Wall Street is a recognition of how the industry got itself into this fix in the first place. For 25 years, the drug industry has imitated the basic business model of Hollywood. Pharmaceutical executives, like movie moguls, have focused on creating blockbusters. They introduce products that they hope will appeal to the masses, and then they promote them like mad. The strategy has created not only Fosamax and Lipitor but Prozac for depression, Nexium for heartburn and Viagra for sex.
Only now is it becoming clear that this business model couldn’t work forever. The strategy had a flaw that executives have long ignored: It required extraordinary amounts of promotion at the expense of scientific creativity. To make the strategy work, the drug industry put its marketers in charge; scientists were given a back seat. Is it any wonder that executives at many companies have watched their pipelines of new drugs slow to a trickle?
The story of the industry’s first blockbuster pill — the heartburn drug Zantac — helps illustrate why marketing has long ruled over science inside the big drug companies.
Introduced in 1983, Zantac was not actually a new drug. Glaxo, its maker, simply copied the innovative work done by scientists at a rival company. Those scientists had worked for years before discovering a drug so original that it changed the practice of medicine. Their invention, Tagamet, was the first pill to heal ulcers. Before its introduction, ulcer-plagued patients had few options other than a surgeon’s knife.
Rather than spending money on research to find its own breakthrough drug, Glaxo went after the easy money. Its scientists tweaked the chemical formula of Tagamet so that it was just different enough to secure its own patent. Glaxo then set the price of Zantac as much as 50% higher than Tagamet and poured the extra revenue into a marketing campaign so effective that executives still talk about it. Glaxo promoted Zantac not just for ulcers but for heartburn (or what the company preferred to call the more frightening “gastroesophageal reflux disease”). By 1988, Zantac was the industry’s bestselling drug.
This focus on copycat pills is not terribly different from what movie studios have been doing for decades — seeking mega-profits by promoting the sequel to the sequel of the blockbuster released years before. Hollywood has long understood the magic of marketing. As the late movie producer Joseph E. Levine reportedly explained, “You can fool all the people all the time if the advertising is right and the budget is big enough.”
Drug executives say they must spend as much as $1 billion to promote a drug in its first two years on the market if they want it to become a “mega-brand” that will bring in sales of more than $1 billion a year. This extreme spending on promotion is why the chief executives of today’s drug companies are less likely to be scientists than they are to be marketing gurus, salesmen, lawyers or Harvard MBAs. AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, for instance, are run by men who began their careers as pharmaceutical sales reps. Pfizer became the biggest drug company in the world under the watch of William C. Steere Jr., who started as a Pfizer salesman. Now, Pfizer is piloted by a lawyer who joined the company from McDonald’s.
Some big drug companies even moved marketers into their laboratories. Pfizer, for example, sent marketers to its labs in the 1990s in a program dubbed CRAM, or “Central Research Assists Marketing.” The name made it clear who was calling the shots. “We try to make sure that research is not developing something that no one particularly wants,” Dr. John F. Niblack, Pfizer’s top scientist, explained in 2000.
The pharmaceutical companies have become so clever at promotion that even drugs that work little better than a sugar pill have become mega-sellers. Just look at the heavily prescribed class of antidepressants that includes Zoloft and Paxil. Scientists have performed dozens of clinical trials to test these drugs, and in roughly half of them, the sugar tablet worked just as well or better than the drug. We know this because enterprising researchers recently tracked down data the companies decided years ago not to publish and described it in an article in the New England Journal of Medicine.
The medicines might not always work, but the business model worked miracles for the corporate bottom line. Between 1980 and 2003, the amount Americans spent yearly on prescription drugs rose from $12 billion to $197 billion, creating growth rarely seen in such an established business. While Americans doubled their spending on new autos between those years and tripled what they paid for clothing, they increased their spending on prescription drugs by nearly 17 times.
Patients have not been so lucky. A drug is not like a movie. Each one has potentially deadly risks. In fact, the industry’s blockbuster mentality has helped lead to thousands of needless deaths.
These tragedies have occurred because executives do everything in their power to get doctors to prescribe a newly approved drug to as many patients as possible. Wall Street watches a drug’s first few months of prescriptions just like it focuses on a movie’s opening weekend at the box office. A disappointing launch of a new pill can mean a plunge in the company’s share price and in the value of its executives’ stock options. So early sales are critical.
Even as companies relentlessly promote the new pills, doctors know little about them. A new drug may have been tested in only a few thousand patients before being approved by the FDA, but is swiftly prescribed to millions. Time and time again, new drugs have been found to harm patients in ways not apparent in their early trials.
This was heartbreakingly evident in the case of Vioxx, the heavily promoted pain reliever. It was prescribed to more than 20 million patients before Merck pulled it from the market in 2004 because it doubled the risk of heart attack. An FDA scientist estimated that Vioxx might have caused heart attacks or strokes in as many as 139,000 Americans and that 30% to 40% of them died.
At the same time, the blockbuster model has failed to produce drugs that the sick desperately need. For example, executives have shown less interest in medicines like antibiotics that actually cure disease than in those that only treat symptoms. Most blockbusters are pills for conditions such as anxiety, high cholesterol or constipation that must be taken daily, often for months or years. They are designed for rich Americans who can afford to buy them. Medicines for tropical diseases, including malaria, which is devastating the developing world and killing a child every 30 seconds, have never been an industry priority. The poor can’t pay the high prices that a blockbuster demands.
Even medicines for diseases afflicting Americans are not pursued if the number of sufferers is too small.
This became clear when Bristol-Myers Squibb executives announced at a news conference in 2000 that they were embarking on what they called the “MegaDouble” business plan. To enhance the company’s profits, executives ordered its scientists to work only on “mega-blockbusters,” such as Lipitor. Scientists with blueprints for drugs promising a mere $100 million in annual sales had little choice but to box up their work and send it to the warehouse. (And executives are now perplexed about why they don’t have enough new drugs.)
It would be wrong to believe that this is the end of the industry’s wealth and power. Some companies, including Pfizer and Bristol-Myers, are laying off thousands of employees. But these companies have been so profitable for so long that they are merely starting to shed bloated operations. For example, Pfizer executives explained when they began reducing the sales force that they would now have two sales reps call on each physician — down from three or even more.
As some firms struggle, patients will bear the brunt. The prices of brand-name drugs will rise even faster. Promotional campaigns will become more aggressive. Marketers will reintroduce old drugs — modified just enough to secure new patents — and tell us they are new.
Melody Petersen covered the drug industry for the New York Times from 1999 to 2003, and is the author of “Our Daily Meds,” which will be published in March.
Matt
I am a HUGE proponent of personal responsibility. People when choosing to do drug for recreational purposes need to keep themselves in check or just not do drugs at all. It is a completely different story when a company tries to market and sell a medical product or drug while knowingly hiding the effects of the product or drug. The judicial system needs to make examples out of several CEO’s from several industries, in order to cause these people and organizations to start policing themselves. 400 hours of community service doesn’t quite get the point across. The executives still get their salaries and bonuses and probably look at it as a mini vacation.
Now, lets look at the profits the company is directly making off of the drug. So people steal the drug from pharmacies and obtain prescriptions illegally to obtain the drug. Obviously the corporation gets the profits from the illegally prescribed drugs, but they also profit from the theft of the drug from pharmacies. These thefts are often at gun point and may get people killed. Does Purdue Pharma reimburse the pharmacies that are robbed. I am sure they don’t. Again they profit from all movement of these disgusting little pills.
Now for the addicts.
I luckily am not one, but have tried the drug recreationally (1997-1998 time frame). So here is my experience with it. I took pieces of 40 mg pills orally on a couple occasions. It seemed like no big deal so one weekend I bought two 40 mg pills and ate small pieces of them over the course of the weekend. I came down and was sick with withdrawals for the entire following week. This was only after taking the drug between 4-8 times. Here is where my personal responsibility comes in. I have never touched the stuff and am a big advocate against it ever since.
I have seen the town I live in (formerly a nice suburb of Boston) go from heroin free (or very limited use in adult circles) to kids overdosing in middle school bathrooms. Young people think it must be okay because it is prescribed by doctors, so they try it. Quickly it takes hold of them and they are doing anything to get the next pill. When they can’t they turn to heroin. A couple of my friends went down this path and have not returned fully to date, it all started with oxycontin. This drug should be reserved for terminally ill patients.
Oh, I almost forgot the best part people buy illegally drugs used to ween people of of heroin and oxycontin to try to ween themselves off the drugs. Guess who is making money again when this occurs either by the illlegal or legal sale of these drugs. You bet’cha the drug companies!!!!!!!
Lock the CEO’s up now!!!!
I am a Libertarian/Conservative and do firmly believe in personal responsibility for both individuals and organizations.