• Opioïdes aux Etats-Unis : Walmart, Walgreens et CVS condamnés à verser 650 millions de dollars Le Temps
    https://www.letemps.ch/monde/opioides-aux-etatsunis-walmart-walgreens-cvs-condamnes-verser-650-millions-d

    Les pharmacies de Walmart, Walgreens et CVS ont été condamnées mercredi par un juge fédéral en Ohio, dans le nord des Etats-Unis, à verser 650,6 millions de dollars à deux comtés de cet Etat, Lake et Trumbull, a annoncé le cabinet d’avocats qui a défendu les deux comtés, The Lanier Law Firm.

    Cette somme permettra de « financer des programmes d’éducation et de prévention et de rembourser les agences et organisations pour les frais encourus pour gérer la crise », a-t-il ajouté. Walmart a annoncé dans un communiqué son intention de faire appel, dénonçant un procès « truffé d’erreurs juridiques et factuelles ».

    Les trois géants de la distribution aux Etats-Unis, qui avaient distribué massivement des antidouleurs dans ces deux comtés, avaient été jugés coupables en novembre.

    « Une épidémie de drogue soutenue par la cupidité des entreprises »
    Les avocats des deux comtés dans l’Ohio étaient parvenus à convaincre le jury que la présence massive d’opiacés constituait bien une nuisance publique et que les pharmacies y avaient participé en ignorant pendant des années des signaux d’alarme sur des prescriptions suspectes.

    Les responsables des comtés « voulaient simplement être dédommagés du fardeau d’une épidémie de drogue soutenue par la cupidité des entreprises, la négligence et le manque de responsabilité de ces chaînes pharmaceutiques », a commenté leur avocat, Mark Lanier, cité dans le communiqué.

    Les chaînes de pharmacies estiment que les pharmaciens ne font que respecter des ordonnances légales rédigées par des médecins, qui prescrivent des substances approuvées par les autorités sanitaires. Certaines parties avaient conclu des accords avec les comtés de Lake et Trumbull pour mettre fin aux poursuites en échange de versements financiers. C’est le cas des chaînes de pharmacies Rite Aid et Giant Eagle.

    Des distributeurs jugés responsables pour la première fois
    C’était la première fois que des distributeurs de médicaments, et non pas des producteurs, étaient jugés responsables dans cette crise sanitaire à l’origine de plus de 500 000 morts par overdose en 20 ans aux Etats-Unis, et qui a donné lieu à une myriade de procédures lancées par des collectivités.

    La condamnation de producteurs d’opiacés sur la base de lois sur les nuisances publiques a cependant connu des revers, en Californie et en Oklahoma. L’été dernier CVS, Walgreens, Rite Aid et Walmart avaient accepté de verser 26 millions de dollars au total à deux comtés de l’Etat de New York.

    Lire aussi : Crise des opioïdes aux Etats-Unis : l’indécent ballet des groupes pharma https://www.letemps.ch/opinions/crise-opioides-aux-etatsunis-lindecent-ballet-groupes-pharma

    #McKinsey #oxycodone #naloxone #opioides #sackler #big_pharma #santé #fentanyl #opiacés #addiction #opioïdes #drogues #drogue #pharma #usa #santé_publique #etats-unis #purdue_pharma #oxycontin #carfentanil #overdose #Walmart #Walgreens #CVS

    • Le groupe Purdue Pharma :
      Selon une enquête du New Yorker, le groupe aurait réalisé près de 35 milliards de dollars de bénéfice grâce au seul OxyContin entre 1996 et 2019.

      Un plan prévoit désormais le versement de 6 milliards de dollars à titre d’indemnisation à plus de 140 000 victimes directes qui avaient porté plainte, ainsi que des collectivités.

  • Opioïdes, l’insurmontable crise aux Etats-Unis - 107 000 morts par overdose en 2021 Valérie de Graffenried

    Nouveau record américain : 107 000 morts par overdose en 2021. La responsabilité des entreprises pharmaceutiques et médecins qui prescrivent des antidouleurs trop facilement est montrée du doigt.

    Comment ne pas être pris de vertige ? En mai, les autorités sanitaires américaines annonçaient un nouveau « record » : 107 000 morts par overdose en 2021, 15% de plus que l’année précédente. L’équivalent, en moyenne, d’une personne toutes les cinq minutes. La spirale infernale ne s’arrête pas. Si les chiffres augmentent chaque année, la hausse était encore plus marquée entre 2019 et 2020 : +30%. Malgré les efforts de prévention, de lutte contre les trafiquants de drogues ou de distribution plus large de naloxone, qui permet de « ressusciter » une personne en train de faire une overdose via un spray nasal ou une injection, ce mal qui ronge la société américaine peine à se résorber. La pandémie n’a fait qu’aggraver la situation. . . . . . . . . .

    La suite payante, le lien : https://www.letemps.ch/monde/opioides-linsurmontable-crise-aux-etatsunis

    #McKinsey #oxycodone #naloxone #opioides #sackler #big_pharma #santé #fentanyl #opiacés #addiction #opioïdes #drogues #drogue #pharma #mafia #usa #santé_publique #etats-unis #purdue_pharma #oxycontin #carfentanil #overdose #constipation

  • Teva : 117 millions de dollars pour solder les litiges liés aux opioïdes en Floride Par Ricky Ben-David - Time of Israel
    https://fr.timesofisrael.com/teva-117-millions-de-dollars-pour-solder-les-litiges-lies-aux-opio

    Teva Pharmaceuticals, filiale américaine du géant israélien des médicaments génériques Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, versera à l’État de Floride 117 millions de dollars en règlement des litiges liés aux opioïdes et fournira des traitements pour la dépendance aux opiacés, d’une valeur de 84 millions de dollars.

    La Floride a conclu un accord similaire avec CVS Health Corp. et CVS Pharmacy Inc., qui verseront 484 millions de dollars à l’État ainsi qu’à un certain nombre d’autres défendeurs, pour un total de 860 millions de dollars, accord de Teva inclus.

    Selon l’accord conclu avec Teva, les 117 millions de dollars seront versés à la Floride sur une période de 15 ans et des doses de Narcan (sous forme de spray nasal au chlorhydrate de naloxone) seront mises à disposition pendant 10 ans, a détaillé la société dans un communiqué mercredi.


    Une semaine plus tôt, Teva avait conclu un accord pour régler des litiges du même ordre dans le Rhode Island, pour un montant de 21 millions de dollars. L’accord comprenait également la fourniture de médicaments génériques – des doses de Narcan et de buprénorphine naloxone, un opioïde en comprimés connu sous le nom de marque Suboxone – pour traiter la dépendance aux opioïdes et aider à la guérison, pour une valeur totale de 78,5 millions de dollars.

    Teva a également fait l’objet de procédures judiciaires en Louisiane, en Californie, au Texas et à New York, qu’elle a choisi de traiter séparément. Ces poursuites font suite aux accusations selon lesquelles Teva et d’autres fabricants de médicaments comme Johnson & Johnson, Endo International et Allergan d’AbbVie auraient employé des techniques de marketing trompeuses minimisant les risques de dépendance aux opioïdes.

    L’État de Louisiane a affirmé que Teva et d’autres sociétés pharmaceutiques « se sont livrées à un marketing frauduleux en ce qui concerne les risques et avantages des opioïdes sur ordonnance, ce qui a contribué à alimenter la crise des opioïdes en Louisiane ». Teva a conclu un règlement de 15 millions de dollars avec cet État en septembre.

    Fin décembre, dans l’un des rares verdicts rendus parmi les milliers de poursuites judiciaires enregistrées à l’échelle nationale en matière d’analgésiques, un jury de la banlieue de New York a statué que Teva Pharmaceuticals avait activement contribué à la crise des opioïdes. Le jury avait conclu que la société pharmaceutique avait joué un rôle dans ce que l’on appelle légalement une « nuisance publique », avec des conséquences mortelles. Teva avait déclaré à l’époque qu’elle « n’était pas du tout d’accord » avec le verdict et qu’elle prévoyait de faire appel.

    Le procès de New York de 2019 contre Teva, société réputée pour ses médicaments génériques, s’était concentré sur Actiq et Fentora, deux médicaments de marque à base de fentanyl approuvés pour des patients atteints de cancer. Teva les aurait recommandés à plusieurs reprises, plus largement, et pour d’autres types de douleurs, dans une « stratégie de marketing trompeuse et dangereuse », a indiqué la plainte.

    Teva s’est déclarée intéressée par la négociation d’un accord global, comme l’ont fait d’autres sociétés pharmaceutiques impliquées.


    La société a déclaré mercredi que les règlements ne constituaient « pas un aveu de responsabilité ou une preuve d’actes répréhensibles, et qu’elle continuerait à se défendre devant les tribunaux dans les États où nous n’avons pas conclu d’accord ».

    Plusieurs sociétés pharmaceutiques et distributeurs font face à des milliers d’accusations de la part des autorités étatiques et locales, qui les tiennent pour responsables de la crise de dépendance et surdose aux opioïdes qui a frappé les États-Unis. Selon les Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), la crise sanitaire aurait coûté la vie à près de 500 000 Américains depuis 1999.

    À travers tout le pays, autorités locales, États, tribus amérindiennes, syndicats, districts scolaires et autres groupes d’intérêts poursuivent l’industrie pharmaceutique sur la question des analgésiques.

    Le mois dernier, Johnson & Johnson et trois grands distributeurs (AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health et McKesson) ont conclu un accord global d’une valeur de 26 milliards de dollars en règlement des procès ouverts les impliquant dans la crise des opioïdes.


    Teva faisait initialement partie de ce collectif qui, en 2019, avait proposé un règlement de l’ordre de 48 milliards de dollars, composé pour Teva de 250 millions de dollars en espèces et 23 milliards de dollars en fourniture de médicaments.

    L’accord global de 26 milliards de dollars a finalement été conclu sans Teva, qui a traité les poursuites au fil de l’eau, incapable de proposer davantage de liquidités, du fait d’une dette de plus de 20 milliards de dollars, comme l’avait expliqué le PDG de Teva, Kåre Schultz, en juillet dernier.

    À la mi-décembre, un juge fédéral avait rejeté l’accord de grande envergure du fabricant d’OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, visant à régler des milliers de poursuites en matière d’opioïdes.

    #téva #pharma #fraude #santé #big_pharma #médicaments #opioides #OxyContin #analgésiques #industrie_pharmaceutique #sackler #corruption #covid-19 #santé_publique #médecine #big-pharma #opioïdes #opiacés #Purdue_Pharma #Johnson&Johnson #Endo_International #Allergan #AbbVie #AmerisourceBergen #Cardinal_Health #McKesson #marketing

  • An Astounding List of Artists Helped Persuade the Met to Remove the Sackler Name | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-astounding-list-of-artists-helped-persuade-the-met-to-remove-the-sackl

    For nearly five decades, the Met Gala, among the fashion world’s most significant events, has been held in the Sackler Wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, a dramatic space featuring a wall of glass, a sleek reflecting pool, and the ancient Egyptian Temple of Dendur. Prior to this year’s gala, in September, the museum’s C.E.O., Daniel H. Weiss, gave an interview to Time, in which he was asked about the name of the wing. In recent years, controversy has engulfed the Sackler family, as revelations emerged that much of the fortune of two of the Sackler brothers, Mortimer and Raymond, and their company, Purdue Pharma, was derived from the sale of OxyContin, a painkiller that helped to precipitate the opioid crisis. (I first wrote about the Sacklers in a 2017 article for the magazine, and have since published a book about them, “Empire of Pain.”) In May, 2019, the Met had announced that it would refuse any future donations from the Sacklers. But now, Weiss indicated, the museum was considering a further step. Asked if the name of the Sackler Wing might be gone in six months, he replied that an answer could come “a lot sooner.”

    On Thursday, the Met released a short statement saying that “seven named exhibition spaces in the Museum, including the wing that houses the iconic Temple of Dendur, will no longer carry the Sackler name.” It was not the first museum to take such action (the Louvre had already done so), nor was it the first major American institution (Tufts University took the name down in 2018, followed by New York University last year). But the Met is in a class of its own. Not only is it the premier art museum in the United States, it is the museum with which the Sackler family has the longest history. It was also the site of the first dramatic protest by the photographer Nan Goldin and her advocacy group, Prescription Addiction Intervention Now (PAIN), which has sought to shame museums into ending any association with the Sackler name.

    After all, for institutions that rely on the generosity of donors, this process of un-naming is a deeply vexing issue. As Weiss told the Times, in 2019, “We are not a partisan organization, we are not a political organization, so we don’t have a litmus test for whom we take gifts from based on policies or politics.” A few years ago, someone who worked at the Met joked to me that, if the museum were to start purging donors on the basis of their corporate social responsibility, it might soon find itself with no donors left. Philanthropic gifts that are bestowed in exchange for naming rights should not be confused with charity; these are business deals, and any prospective donors in the future may wonder about the security of their investment, in the event that at some point a company pleads guilty to criminal charges or a family name falls into disrepute. So, for the Met to remove the name in this manner marked a very bold and decisive step—and one that the museum could not have taken without a great deal of legal consultation.

    Behind the scenes, the museum was also under pressure from a constituency that it could not ignore: artists. This fall, Nan Goldin and her allies prepared a letter to the Met’s board of trustees urging the removal of the Sackler name. The Met “is a public institution dedicated to art, learning and knowledge,” they argued. “Honoring the Sackler name on the walls of the Met erodes the Met’s relationship with artists and the public.” Given the fact that Purdue Pharma has twice pleaded guilty to federal criminal charges, and considering the staggering death toll of the opioid crisis, they suggested, “This is a situation of force majeure.”

    Because of Goldin’s prominence in the art world, and the moral vigor of her campaign, she was able to assemble an astounding list of signatories, featuring many of the most significant living artists, among them Ai Weiwei, Laurie Anderson, Maurizio Cattelan, Jim Dine, Jenny Holzer, Arthur Jafa, Anish Kapoor, William Kentridge, Cindy Sherman, Brice Marden, Ed Ruscha, Richard Serra, and Kara Walker.

    #Patrick_Radden_Keefe #Opioides #Sackler #Musées #Philanthropie #Met

  • 100 000 morts en un an : les Etats-Unis dépassés par la crise des opioïdes Hélène Vissière (Washington) 05/12/2021
    https://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/amerique-nord/100-000-morts-en-un-an-les-etats-unis-depasses-par-la-crise-des-opioides_21

    En ce mardi matin, ils sont une petite poignée devant le camping-car de Family and Medical Counseling Service, Inc., ou FMCS, stationné dans un quartier noir de Washington. Cette ONG échange les seringues usagées et fournit diverses aides aux toxicomanes. « Avant, quand on arrivait, il y avait foule, c’était de longues files d’attente, explique Tyrone Pinkney, l’un des responsables. Mais aujourd’hui tellement de gens sont morts... » A Washington, comme ailleurs aux Etats-Unis, c’est une véritable hécatombe. 

    Plus de 100 000 Américains ont succombé à une overdose entre avril 2020 et avril 2021, soit plus que le total combiné des décès causés par les accidents de la route et par les armes à feu. Les chiffres sont vertigineux : les morts par overdose ont crû de près de 30 % par rapport à l’année précédente, et plus que doublées depuis 2015. Deux tiers d’entre elles sont dues aux opioïdes de synthèse, principalement le fentanyl. 


    Un agent de l’agence américaine de lutte contre la drogue (DEA) examine des médicaments confisqués contenant du fentanyl, le 8 octobre 2019 dans un laboratoire de New York - afp.com/Don Emmert

    Cet analgésique 100 fois plus puissant que la morphine et beaucoup moins cher, fabriqué par des trafiquants et vendu via les réseaux sociaux ou dans la rue, est souvent mélangé subrepticement à la cocaïne, à l’héroïne ou à de faux comprimés d’OxyContin, de Percocet, d’hydrocodone ou de Xanax, médicaments normalement vendus sur ordonnance. 

    Selon la DEA, l’agence fédérale de lutte contre la drogue, 42 % des pilules testées en contenaient au moins 2 milligrammes, une dose potentiellement mortelle. Et le consommateur, lorsqu’il les achète, croit souvent qu’il s’agit de vrais médicaments et ne sait donc pas ce qu’il ingère. En 2016, le chanteur Prince est mort d’une overdose accidentelle. Selon le procureur, il pensait prendre un cachet de Vicodin pour soulager des douleurs à la hanche. Il avalait en fait du fentanyl. 

    La crise des opioïdes n’est pas nouvelle. A la fin des années 1990, les compagnies pharmaceutiques ont vanté, à coup d’énormes campagnes marketing, les mérites de l’OxyContin pour le mal de dos, l’arthrite, la fibromyalgie (affection chronique, caractérisée par des douleurs diffuses persistantes) et toutes les autres douleurs chroniques. Cette pilule miracle s’est révélée très addictive et moins efficace qu’annoncé. Et des milliers de mères de famille, d’adolescents et de retraités, à qui leur médecin avait prescrit de l’OxyContin pour une sciatique, une rage de dents ou une fracture, se sont retrouvés accros sans le savoir. 


    Lorsque les autorités américaines ont commencé enfin à réglementer l’accès à ces médicaments, l’effet a été catastrophique. Les consommateurs se sont rabattus sur les comprimés au marché noir, souvent contrefaits, avant de se tourner vers l’héroïne et les opioïdes synthétiques à partir de 2013. Comme Colton. « Je n’avais jamais pris de drogue de ma vie », raconte ce grand Noir qui travaille pour FMCS. A la suite d’une blessure, on lui prescrit du Percocet et d’autres antidouleur. « Je suis devenu peu à peu totalement dépendant, et je suis passé à l’héroïne. » Aujourd’hui, il s’en est sorti, mais sa femme, elle aussi accro à la suite d’un accident de voiture, est morte d’une overdose l’an dernier. 

    « Il faut arrêter de prescrire frénétiquement des opioïdes par ordonnance »
    Ces analgésiques de synthèse ont une autre conséquence dramatique. Ils causent des ravages même chez ceux qui n’utilisent pas d’opioïdes. En février, Mia Gugino, une étudiante de Las Vegas de 17 ans, a pris un soir une pilule d’ectasy mêlée à son insu à du fentanyl. A midi, quand son père est entré dans sa chambre, elle était mourante. « Un seul comprimé peut tuer », a résumé le responsable de la police locale. On en trouve même dans la marijuana. Depuis juillet dans le Connecticut, 39 individus ont fait une overdose après avoir fumé de l’herbe. 

    L’épidémie faisait déjà rage avant la pandémie, mais l’isolement, la dépression, l’accès limité aux traitements et surtout au naloxone, un antidote à l’overdose, ont exacerbé la crise. Assis dans le camping-car de l’association FMCS, Terrence Cooper, un autre coordinateur, est très pessimiste. « C’est tragique. Le Covid a dopé le marché de la drogue. Les gens veulent du fentanyl, car c’est mieux pour se défoncer. On a perdu plein de patients qui ont rechuté parce que leur organisme n’était plus prêt à tolérer une substance aussi forte. On mène une lutte très dure et sans fin. » 

    Le fentanyl est très facile à produire, et rapporte à ses producteurs bien plus que la cocaïne ou l’héroïne. Il vient principalement de Chine - sous forme de composant ou de produit fini - et est acheminé au Mexique, où les cartels le récupèrent et le transportent clandestinement aux Etats-Unis, le plus souvent en petites quantités, ce qui complique son interception. 

    L’épidémie d’overdoses est « une crise nationale » qui « ne cesse de s’aggraver », affirme Anne Milgram, patronne de la DEA. L’administration Biden a prévu 2 milliards de dollars dans son plan de relance économique et 11 milliards supplémentaires dans le projet de budget pour améliorer prévention et traitement, et distribuer davantage de naloxone et de tests rapides pour aider les toxicomanes à détecter des traces de fentanyl dans leurs produits. 

    Des mesures « insuffisantes » pour le Dr Andrew Kolodny, de la Brandeis University, l’un des premiers à avoir mis en garde contre les dangers de ces analgésiques. « Il faut arrêter de prescrire frénétiquement des opioïdes par ordonnance. Il faut ensuite faciliter l’accès aux traitements comme la buprénorphine, qui soigne la dépendance, mais celle-ci reste chère et compliquée à obtenir. » Il milite pour la mise en place d’un grand programme sur le modèle de celui créé pour le sida, où les médicaments étaient accessibles à tous. « C’est une urgence de santé publique », conclut-il. D’autant que de nouvelles drogues - le protonitazène et l’isotonitazène - encore plus puissantes que le fentanyl et qui exigent une plus forte dose d’antidote en cas d’overdose sont en train d’arriver sur le marché. 

    #Johnson_&_Johnson #opioides #sackler #big_pharma #purdue_pharma #oxycontin #addiction #opioïdes #santé #pharma #purdue #opiacés #etats-unis #drogue #opioids #mundipharma #santé_publique

  • Etats-Unis : l’accord à 26 milliards sur les opiacés prêt pour la prochaine étape
    https://www.letemps.ch/economie/etatsunis-laccord-26-milliards-opiaces-pret-prochaine-etape

    Trois distributeurs américains de médicaments et le laboratoire Johnson & Johnson ont reçu le soutien d’assez d’Etats pour passer à la prochaine étape de l’accord lié aux opiacés. Ils ont accepté en juillet de payer 26 milliards de dollars pour solder des litiges.

    Ce règlement à l’amiable doit leur permettre d’éviter des milliers d’actions en justice intentées par des Etats américains et collectivités locales qui accusent les entreprises d’avoir un rôle dans cette crise sanitaire, à l’origine de plus de 500 000 morts par overdose en 20 ans aux Etats-Unis.

    #AmerisourceBergen, #Cardinal_Health et #McKesson ont, dans un communiqué commun, expliqué avoir reçu le feu vert de 42 des 49 Etats qui les poursuivaient, ainsi que du district de Washington, la capitale, et de cinq territoires américains.

    Le laboratoire pharmaceutique Johnson & Johnson a indiqué dans un message séparé être aussi prêt à passer à la prochaine étape prévue dans l’accord. « Ce règlement ne constitue pas une admission de responsabilité ou d’acte répréhensible et l’entreprise continuera de se défendre contre tout litige que l’accord final ne résout pas », a souligné la société.

    Aux collectivités locales de se prononcer
    Johnson & Johnson, qui fait partie des laboratoires accusés d’avoir alimenté la crise en produisant des opiacés, a confirmé en juin avoir arrêté la production et la vente de ces substances. Les distributeurs de médicaments sont, eux, accusés d’avoir fermé les yeux sur des commandes d’opiacés suspectes.

    Selon les termes négociés, le versement des 26 milliards de dollars (23,7 milliards de francs) - qui doivent permettre aux Etats et collectivités de financer les traitements rendus nécessaires par ce fléau - dépend du nombre d’Etats américains qui valideront l’accord.

    Chaque Etat participant a maintenant jusqu’au 2 janvier pour demander à leurs collectivités locales respectives si elles veulent aussi être parties prenantes à l’accord. Si les conditions sont remplies, l’accord entrera en vigueur « 60 jours après que les distributeurs auront déterminé qu’il y a une participation suffisante pour procéder », détaille le communiqué.

    S’il se confirme, l’accord sera le plus important de l’épique et complexe bataille juridique engagée par les Etats et collectivités américaines pour faire payer les entreprises.

    #Johnson_&_Johnson #opioides #sackler #big_pharma #purdue_pharma #oxycontin #procès #addiction #opioïdes #santé #pharma #purdue #opiacés #etats-unis #drogue #opioids #mundipharma #marketing #McKinsey

  • Painkiller: Everything you need to know about new Netflix series
    https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/entertainment/a37270981/painkiller-netflix-series-cast-plot-release-date-trailer

    What is Painkiller about?

    Painkiller will focus on the opioid crisis that has gripped America since the 1990s.

    Speaking about how the series will explore the crisis, show creator Newman said: “A tragedy decades in the making, the opioid crisis has become one of the most devastating public health crises of our time. Unlike other drug epidemics, born from underground manufacturing and covert smuggling, this epidemic began by prescription–dispensed by doctors, approved by government regulators and promoted by a family-owned pharmaceutical giant that made billions while betraying the trust of patients and the public.”

    #Patrick_Radden_Keefe #Opioides #Sackler #Painkiller

  • Ebene Magazine – Certains membres de la famille Sackler critiqués pour des liens avec des opioïdes | EBENE MAGAZINE
    https://news.ebene-magazine.com/ebene-magazine-certains-membres-de-la-famille-sackler-critiqus-
    https://i2.wp.com/news.ebene-magazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Ebene-Magazine-Certains-membres-de-la-famille-Sackler-critiqueacutes-pour-des

    Le nom Sackler est peut-être partout, a déclaré Keefe, mais il est étrangement absent de la société qui les a rendus riches. « Eh bien, pour moi, c’était le paradoxe qui a lancé tout ce projet », a-t-il déclaré. « C’est une fortune dont la grande majorité provient de cette société, Purdue Pharma, qui n’a pas leur nom. »

    Purdue Pharma, propriété privée de certains membres de la famille Sackler, est le fabricant de médicaments qui a développé et commercialisé le puissant analgésique OxyContin. La société a été accusée d’avoir contribué à déclencher l’épidémie d’opioïdes qui a tué près d’un demi-million de personnes dans ce pays au cours des deux dernières décennies.

    Et pourtant, pendant une grande partie de ce temps, les Sackler – l’une des familles les plus riches d’Amérique (telle que compilée par le magazine Forbes) – ont largement évité l’examen public du rôle qu’ils auraient joué.

    Ils font maintenant l’objet du nouveau livre de Keefe : « Empire of Pain : The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty » (Doubleday).

    « Isaac Sackler, le patriarche originel, il perd en quelque sorte sa chemise dans la dépression », a déclaré Keefe. « Et il convoque ses trois fils auprès de lui, et il dit :« Le plus important est le bon nom de famille, ce bon nom de famille. Si vous perdez une fortune, vous pouvez toujours en faire une autre. Mais si vous perdez votre bonne réputation, vous ne pourrez jamais le récupérer. ‘ »

    Les trois frères – Mortimer, Raymond et Arthur – sont devenus médecins. Mais c’est le plus âgé, Arthur, qui s’est fait le premier nom (et sa fortune) en tant que pionnier de la publicité.

    « Arthur devient une sorte de Don Draper de la publicité médicale », a déclaré Keefe. « C’est cet incroyable pionnier visionnaire qui conçoit toutes ces nouvelles façons de vendre des médicaments, et plus particulièrement de vendre des médicaments aux médecins. »

    Moriarty a demandé, « Vous écrivez dans le livre que la première fortune Sackler a été construite sur Valium. Il n’a pas créé ce médicament, il est juste de la publicité ? »

    « Juste de la publicité. Mais quand il a négocié son accord pour ce faire, il a dit : » Ecoutez, je veux avoir une série de bonus croissants en fonction de la quantité de drogue que vous vendez. » Le valium devient alors la drogue la plus rentable au monde, et ainsi, il le rend fabuleusement riche. « 

    #Patrick_Radden_Keefe #Sackler #Addiction_sur_ordonnance #Opioides

  • HBO & Alex Gibney Making Opioid Crisis Documentary ‘The Crime Of The Century’ – Deadline
    https://deadline.com/2021/02/hbo-alex-gibney-documentary-opioid-the-crime-of-the-century-1234690970

    Un documentaire sur la crise des opioides, avec une série de noms bien connus de celles et ceux qui ont lu « Addiction sur ordonnance » de Patrick Radden Keefe.

    HBO is reuniting with Emmy and Oscar winning filmmaker Alex Gibney for the two-part documentary The Crime of the Century, which will explore Big Pharma and government regulations over the reckless distribution and abuse of synthetic opiates. The Crime of the Century will debut on HBO and be available to stream on HBO Max in May.

    The doc will explore the origins and fallout of the opioid epidemic which has resulted in half a million deaths from overdoses in this century alone.

    With the help of whistleblowers, insiders, newly-leaked documents, exclusive interviews and access to behind-the-scenes investigations, and featuring expert input from medical professionals, journalists, former and current government agents, attorneys and pharmaceutical sales representatives, as well as sobering testimony from victims of opioid addiction, Gibney’s exposé will posit that drug companies are in fact largely responsible for manufacturing the very crisis they profit from, to the tune of billions of dollars and thousands of lives.

    Related Story
    Hallmark Channel Brass Give Progress Report On On-Screen Representation Following Criticism & Top Executive Change

    Specifically, the doc will zero in on family-owned Purdue Pharma which produced the highly addictive drug OxyContin. Purdue worked closely with the FDA to get the highly profitable pain medication approved for wider use, promoting its safety without sufficient evidence, and creating a campaign to redefine pain and treatment. When government regulators or Justice Department officials tried to mitigate the wrongdoing, Purdue Pharma and companies like Cardinal-Health that were huge opioid distributors would settle the cases, keep the details private and continue on unabated.

    Gibney previously made such HBO docs such as The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley and Going Clear: Scientology & the Prison of Belief. Gibney writes, produces and directs The Crime of the Century.

    Contributing to Part One of The Crime of the Century are: author Patrick Radden Keefe; opioid specialist Dr. Andrew Kolodny; former Purdue sales rep. Mark Ross; addiction specialist Dr. Anne Lembke; Life Tree pain clinic founder Dr. Lynn Webster; Roy Bosley, whose wife died of an opioid overdose; author and New York Times reporter Barry Meier; primary care physician Dr. Art Van Zee; former Department of Justice official Paul Pelletier; and EMT Giles Sartin.

    #Opioides #Patrick_Radden_Keefe #Sacklers

  • Sacklers Face Furious Questions in Rare Testimony on Opioid Epidemic - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/17/health/opoids-sacklers-purdue-testimony.html

    Les salauds ont un visage. Mais leur bouche ne sert qu’à évacuer du vent.

    By Jan Hoffman

    Dec. 17, 2020

    Members of Congress on Thursday hurled withering comments and furious questions at two members of the billionaire Sackler family that owns Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, seeking to use a rare public appearance to extract admissions of personal responsibility for the deadly opioid epidemic as well as details about $10 billion that records show the family withdrew from the company.

    The hearing, before the House Oversight Committee, offered a highly unusual opportunity for the public to hear directly from some members of the family, whose company is a defendant in thousands of federal and state lawsuits for misleading marketing of OxyContin, the painkiller seen as initiating a wave of opioid addiction that has led to the deaths of more than 450,000 Americans. Eight members of the family have been individually named in many state cases.

    The singularity of the Sacklers’ appearance on Thursday was underscored by the likelihood that they may never testify in open court, because the ongoing bankruptcy proceedings and nationwide litigation may resolve in settlements rather than trials. Despite millions of dollars in legal expenses racked up by plaintiffs and Purdue alike — and the company’s subsequent filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in September 2019 — one obstacle to resolution persists: the refusal of the Sacklers to be held personally or criminally responsible and to turn over substantial portions of their fortune.

    During the tense, nearly four-hour hearing, David Sackler, 40, and his cousin, Dr. Kathe Sackler, 72, who both served on the company’s board for years, testified remotely and largely sidestepped would-be booby traps and deflected blame to “management” and independent, nonfamily board members.

    Or, as Mr. Sackler said, “That’s a question for the lawyers.”

    In the absence of direct admissions of responsibility by the Sacklers — or by Dr. Craig Landau, Purdue’s chief executive since 2017, who also testified — committee members used their questions to highlight the most egregious actions over the years by the company and by Mr. Sackler’s father, Dr. Richard Sackler, a hands-on executive during the cresting period of the epidemic.
    Editors’ Picks
    The 20 Phrases That Defined 2020
    We Know How to Curb the Pandemic. How Do We Make People Listen?
    What Can America Learn From South Africa About National Healing?

    In particular, they explored the actions that followed a 2007 federal fine of nearly $635 million that the company and three executives paid after pleading guilty to federal criminal charges of “misbranding.” The settlement included no admission of liability by any of the Sacklers.

    The committee chairwoman, Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York, asked Mr. Sackler whether in 2008, after the company’s federal settlement, the family was concerned about state investigations. Mr. Sackler denied knowing that investigations had been mounting.

    But then Ms. Maloney read from an email exchange between Mr. Sackler and other relatives in 2007, just a week after that settlement. Referring to courtroom activity, he wrote: “We’re rich? For how long? Until which suits get through to the family?”

    Last month, Purdue pleaded guilty to three felonies involving kickbacks and fraud related to promotion of its opioid and failure to report aberrant sales. The Justice Department settled with the company for $8.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties, and family members for $225 million in civil penalties. The Sacklers did not admit any wrongdoing. The amount they paid represents about 2 percent of the family’s net worth.

    Maura Healey, the attorney general for Massachusetts, the first state to name individual Sacklers in litigation, said that the Sacklers want “special treatment.” In a letter to the House committee she wrote: “If we let powerful people cover up the facts, avoid accountability, or create a government-sponsored OxyContin business — that’s not justice. This time, we have to get it right.”

    #Opioides #Sackler #Purdue_Pharma

  • The Sacklers Destroyed My Family
    https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a34590930/sacklers-opioid-addiction-essay

    On November 24, 2020, an alert popped up on my phone. Purdue Pharmaceuticals had pled guilty to federal criminal charges with an $8.3 billion settlement. The dollar amount seemed significant, but when I dug a bit further, I learned the Sackler family, who owns Purdue and has been accused of causing the opioid abuse crisis by marketing OxyContin as safe and nonaddictive, has so far escaped with no criminal charges. The vast majority of their wealth—as one of the world’s richest families—remains intact.

    I have followed the Sacklers for years, tracking the lawsuits against them as mine suffered from opiate abuse. In 2017, I read “The Family That Built an Empire of Pain,” Patrick Radden Keefe’s longform piece in The New Yorker on the role the Sackler family played in addicting millions of Americans. Keefe lays out an unprecedented wave of criminal activity Purdue began in the early 1990s, using kickbacks and fraudulent marketing to saturate the market with its products.

    Around the time Purdue’s marketing campaign was picking up steam, a doctor wrote my mother a prescription for opioids. She has been addicted, on and off, ever since. I cannot prove it, but I strongly suspect the doctor who wrote my mother that prescription—and the subsequent doctors who renewed it or wrote new ones—were influenced by Purdue’s corrupt, illegal marketing. Purdue’s reach extended past the doctor’s office and the prescribing pad: To this day, my mother believes the lies Purdue told her doctors and repeats them as articles of faith.

    Not one member of the Sackler family has ever faced criminal charges for their role in opiate epidemic. Under the latest settlement with the Department of Justice, the Sacklers were not even required to testify under oath, protecting the full extent of their crimes from public view. The Trump Administration’s Justice Department charged no one—not one single person—with the felonies Purdue Pharmaceuticals committed. Corporations are not only people in this country, but when convenient, apparently employ no one who can be held responsible for their misdeeds. The Sackler family name will remain on the Met and on the halls of the Ivy League institutions I clawed my way into all those years ago, while families like mine will have no justice.

    #Opioides #Sackler #OxyContin #Addiction_Ordonnance #Patrick_Radden_Keefe

  • OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma pleads guilty to criminal charges | Reuters
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-purdue-pharma-opioids-plea/oxycontin-maker-purdue-pharma-pleads-guilty-to-criminal-charges-idUSKBN2842
    https://static.reuters.com/resources/r/?m=02&d=20201124&t=2&i=1542326960&r=LYNXMPEGAN1JN&w=800

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Purdue Pharma LP pleaded guilty to criminal charges over the handling of its addictive prescription painkiller OxyContin, capping a deal with federal prosecutors to resolve an investigation into the drugmaker’s role in the U.S. opioid crisis.

    Members of the billionaire Sackler family who own Purdue and previously sat on the company’s board were not part of Tuesday’s court proceedings and have not been criminally charged. They agreed in October to pay a separate $225 million civil penalty for allegedly causing false claims for OxyContin to be made to government healthcare programs such as Medicare. They have denied the allegations.

    Purdue’s plea deal carries more than $5.5 billion in penalties, most of which will go unpaid. A $3.54 billion criminal fine is set to be considered alongside trillions of dollars in unsecured claims as part of Purdue’s bankruptcy proceedings.

    Purdue earlier settled separate Justice Department civil claims, agreeing to a $2.8 billion penalty also expected to receive little financial recovery in the drugmaker’s bankruptcy case.

    The plea deal and other related settlements have come under fire from Democrats on Capitol Hill calling for Purdue and its owners to face more severe consequences for their alleged roles in the opioid crisis.

    The company reaped more than $30 billion from sales of OxyContin over the years, enriching Sackler family members, according to U.S. and state officials. Since 1999, roughly 450,000 people have died in the United States from opioid-related overdoses, according to U.S. data.

    Purdue, which filed for bankruptcy protection last year here under an onslaught of litigation, has proposed settling thousands of lawsuits in a deal it values at more than $10 billion. That is contingent on donations of opioid reversal and addiction treatment medications it has under development and a $3 billion cash contribution from the Sacklers, who would cede control of Purdue.

    #Opioides #Sackler #A_gerber

  • Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family’s Plan to Keep Its Billions | The New Yorker
    https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-sackler-familys-plan-to-keep-its-billions

    Many pharmaceutical companies had a hand in creating the opioid crisis, an ongoing public-health emergency in which as many as half a million Americans have lost their lives. But Purdue, which is owned by the Sackler family, played a special role because it was the first to set out, in the nineteen-nineties, to persuade the American medical establishment that strong opioids should be much more widely prescribed—and that physicians’ longstanding fears about the addictive nature of such drugs were overblown. With the launch of OxyContin, in 1995, Purdue unleashed an unprecedented marketing blitz, pushing the use of powerful opioids for a huge range of ailments and asserting that its product led to addiction in “fewer than one percent” of patients. This strategy was a spectacular commercial success: according to Purdue, OxyContin has since generated approximately thirty billion dollars in revenue, making the Sacklers (whom I wrote about for the magazine, in 2017, and about whom I will publish a book next year) one of America’s richest families.

    But OxyContin’s success also sparked a deadly crisis of addiction. Other pharmaceutical companies followed Purdue’s lead, introducing competing products; eventually, millions of Americans were struggling with opioid-use disorders. Many people who were addicted but couldn’t afford or access prescription drugs transitioned to heroin and black-market fentanyl. According to a recent analysis by the Wall Street Journal, the disruptions associated with the coronavirus have only intensified the opioid epidemic, and overdose deaths are accelerating. For all the complexity of this public-health crisis, there is now widespread agreement that its origins are relatively straightforward. New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, has described OxyContin as the “taproot” of the epidemic. A recent study, by a team of economists from the Wharton School, Notre Dame, and RAND, reviewed overdose statistics in five states where Purdue opted, because of local regulations, to concentrate fewer resources in promoting its drug. The scholars found that, in those states, overdose rates—even from heroin and fentanyl—are markedly lower than in states where Purdue did the full marketing push. The study concludes that “the introduction and marketing of OxyContin explain a substantial share of overdose deaths over the last two decades.”

    Arlen Specter, then a Republican senator from Pennsylvania, was unhappy with the deal. When the government fines a corporation instead of sending its executives to jail, he declared, it is essentially granting “expensive licenses for criminal misconduct.” After the settlement, Purdue kept marketing OxyContin aggressively and playing down its risks. (The company denies doing so.) Sales of the drug grew, eventually reaching more than two billion dollars annually. The fact that, thirteen years after the 2007 settlement, Purdue is alleged to have orchestrated another criminally overzealous campaign to push its opioids suggests that Specter was right: when the profits generated by crossing the line are enormous, fines aren’t much of a deterrent.

    Ne jamais oublier la corruption

    The Sacklers have long maintained that they and their company are blameless when it comes to the opioid crisis because OxyContin was fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration. But some of the more shocking passages in the prosecution memo involve previously unreported details about the F.D.A. official in charge of issuing that approval, Dr. Curtis Wright. Prosecutors discovered significant impropriety in the way that Wright shepherded the OxyContin application through the F.D.A., describing his relationship with the company as conspicuously “informal in nature.” Not long after Wright approved the drug for sale, he stepped down from his position. A year later, he took a job at Purdue. According to the prosecution memo, his first-year compensation package was at least three hundred and seventy-nine thousand dollars—roughly three times his previous salary. (Wright declined to comment.)

    But, at the time, Purdue was being sued by forty-five other states, and David Sackler offered to resolve all the cases against the company and the family in a single grand gesture. A wave of headlines reported the news: “PURDUE PHARMA OFFERS $10-12 BILLION TO SETTLE OPIOID CLAIMS.”

    This seemed like a significant figure, but the headlines were misleading. According to a term sheet in which attorneys for the Sacklers and Purdue laid out the particulars of this proposed “comprehensive settlement,” the Sacklers were prepared to make a guaranteed contribution of only three billion dollars. Further funds could be secured, the family suggested, by selling its international businesses and by converting Purdue Pharma into a “public benefit corporation” that would continue to yield revenue—by selling OxyContin and other opioids—but would no longer profit the Sacklers personally. This was a discomfiting, and somewhat brazen, suggestion: the Sacklers were proposing to remediate the damage of the opioid crisis with funds generated by continuing to sell the drug that had initiated the crisis. At the same time, the term sheet suggested, Purdue would supply new drugs to treat opioid addiction and counteract overdoses—though the practicalities of realizing this initiative, and the Sacklers’ estimate that it would represent four billion dollars in value, remained distinctly speculative.

    When the attorneys general refused to consent to the deal, the Sacklers followed through on their threat, and Purdue declared bankruptcy. But, significantly, the Sacklers did not declare bankruptcy themselves. According to the case filed by James, the family had known as early as 2014 that the company could one day face the prospect of damaging judgments. To protect themselves on this day of reckoning, the lawsuit maintains, the Sacklers assiduously siphoned money out of Purdue and transferred it offshore, beyond the reach of U.S. authorities. A representative for Purdue told me that the drugmaker, when it declared bankruptcy, had cash and assets of roughly a billion dollars. In a deposition, one of the company’s own experts testified that the Sacklers had removed as much as thirteen billion dollars from Purdue. When the company announced that it was filing for Chapter 11, Stein derided the move as a sham. The Sacklers had “extracted nearly all the money out of Purdue and pushed the carcass of the company into bankruptcy,” he said. “Multi-billionaires are the opposite of bankrupt.”

    You might think that this would leave open the possibility of future suits brought by states, but Drain has signalled a desire to foreclose those as well, maintaining that a blanket dispensation is a necessary component of the bankruptcy resolution. In February, he remarked that the “only way to get true peace, if the parties are prepared to support it and not fight it in a meaningful way, is to have a third-party release” that grants the Sacklers freedom from any future liability. This is a controversial issue, and Drain indicated that he was raising it early because in some parts of the country it’s illegal for a federal bankruptcy judge to grant a third-party release barring state authorities from bringing their own lawsuits. The case law is evolving, Drain said.

    The Trump Administration has paid lip service to the importance of addressing the opioid crisis. Bill Barr, Trump’s Attorney General, has said that his “highest priority is dealing with the plague of drugs.” In practice, however, this has meant rhetoric about heroin coming from Mexico and fentanyl coming from China, rather than a sustained effort to hold the well-heeled malefactors of the American pharmaceutical industry to account. Richard Sackler once boasted, “We can get virtually every senator and congressman we want to talk to on the phone in the next seventy-two hours.” Although the Sacklers may now be social pariahs, the family’s money—and army of white-shoe fixers—means that they still exert political influence.

    According to three attorneys familiar with the dynamics inside the Justice Department, career line prosecutors have pushed to sanction Purdue in a serious way, and have been alarmed by efforts by the department’s political leadership to soften the blow. Should that happen, it will mark a grim instance of Purdue’s history repeating itself: a robust federal investigation of the company being defanged, behind closed doors, by a coalition of Purdue lawyers and political appointees. And it seems likely, as was also the case in 2007, that this failure will be dressed up as a success: a guilty plea from the company, another fine.

    In a statement to The New Yorker, a representative for the families of Raymond and Mortimer Sackler denied all wrongdoing, maintaining that family members on Purdue’s board “were consistently assured by management that all marketing of OxyContin was done in compliance with law.” The statement continued, “Our hearts go out to those affected by drug abuse and addiction,” adding that “the rise in opioid-related deaths is driven overwhelmingly by heroin and illicit fentanyl smuggled by drug traffickers into the U.S. from China and Mexico.” At “the conclusion of this process,” the statement suggested, “all of Purdue’s documents” will be publicly disclosed, “making clear that the Sackler family acted ethically and responsibly at all times.”

    The states have asserted in legal filings that the total cost of the opioid crisis exceeds two trillion dollars. Relative to that number, the three billion dollars that the Sacklers are guaranteeing in their offer is miniscule. It is also a small number relative to the fortune that the Sacklers appear likely to retain, which could be three or four times that amount. As the March filing by the states opposed to the deal argued, “When your illegal marketing campaign causes a national crisis, you should not get to keep most of the money.” What the Sacklers are offering simply “does not match what they owe.”

    Nevertheless, in absolute terms, three billion dollars is still a significant sum—and the Sacklers have made it clear that they are prepared to pay it only in the event that they are granted a release from future liability. It may be that the magnitude of the dollars at stake will persuade Drain, the Justice Department officials on the case, and even the state attorneys general who initially rejected the Sacklers’ proposal to sign off. The problem, one attorney familiar with the case said, is that “criminal liability is not something that should be sold,” adding, “It should not depend on how rich they are. It’s not right.”

    #Opioides #Sackler #Patrick_Radden_Keefe

  • Patrick Radden Keefe, Addiction sur ordonnance. La crise des antidouleurs - Recension
    https://journals.openedition.org/questionsdecommunication/21839

    L’article principal du journaliste d’investigation, Patrick Radden Keefe, montre comment la famille Sackler, créatrice et propriétaire de l’entreprise Purdue Pharma, s’est constituée et a mis sur le marché en 1995 son antidouleur phare, l’OxyContin, en affirmant qu’il n’était pas addictif. Prescrit largement par les médecins non alertés sur ses risques potentiels, des décennies plus tard, la situation sanitaire aux États-Unis est jugée dramatique : « 70 500 décès par overdose en 2017, des milliers de familles en détresse, les services sociaux et de secours débordés » (quatrième de couverture). Ce tableau d’une hécatombe de morts violentes et d’une large dépendance d’une partie de la population américaine n’est bien sûr pas imputable à cet unique produit et cette seule entreprise ; ils ne constituent qu’une facette du phénomène dans la mesure où d’autres molécules sont vendues et consommées sur le marché des antidouleurs, là-bas comme ailleurs dans le monde. Toutefois, l’auteur établit précisément que ce marché des antidouleurs a pu s’étendre et s’installer, d’une manière pionnière, grâce aux compétences complémentaires des frères Sackler à l’origine de l’entreprise. La promotion et la communication (considérée mensongère ici) ont été dès l’entame les fers de lance de leurs activités, au-delà de l’activité classique de pharmacie. Depuis lors, l’entreprise Purdue Pharma, comme les autres sur ce marché pharmaceutique très lucratif, s’est construite au fil des décennies une image de marque forte et surtout une image sociale et scientifique honorable « en finançant des universités et des musées, comme le Louvre à Paris » (quatrième de couverture de l’ouvrage). Au moment de la publication de l’article, Yale par exemple disposait d’un institut de biologie et de sciences physiques portant le nom de deux membres de la famille créatrice de cette entreprise…

    #Patrick_Radden_Keefe #Sackler #Addiction_ordonnance #C&F_éditions

  • Who Profits from the Opioid Crisis? Meet the Secretive Sackler Family Making Billions from OxyContin - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGITecuBEHQ

    https://democracynow.org - This week, President Donald Trump’s nominee for drug czar, Republican Congressmember Tom Marino, had to withdraw from consideration after a Washington Post/”60 Minutes” investigation found he led a drug industry-backed effort to pass a law that weakened the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s ability to crack down on addictive opioids. Meanwhile, calls are growing to look at the major pharmaceutical companies that have fueled the opioid crisis. A new investigation by Esquire magazine reveals how the secretive Sackler family, owners of the company that invented OxyContin, downplayed the risks of addiction and exploited doctors’ confusion over the drug’s strength. We speak with Christopher Glazek, the Esquire reporter behind the story.

    #Opioides #Sackler #Conflit_opinion

  • Sackler Family Members Fight Removal of Name at Tufts, Calling It a ‘Breach’ - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/us/sackler-opioids-tufts.html

    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Two weeks after Tufts University became the first major university to remove the Sackler name from buildings and programs over the family’s role in the opioid epidemic, members of the family are pushing back. A lawyer for some of the Sacklers argued in a letter to the president of Tufts that the move was unjustified and a violation of agreements made when the school wanted the family’s financial help years ago.

    The letter described Tufts’s decision to remove the name as “contrary to basic notions of fairness" and “a breach of the many binding commitments made by the University dating back to 1980 in order to secure the family’s support, including millions of dollars in donations for facilities and critical medical research.”

    Institutions that have accepted financial support from the Sacklers have in recent months faced growing cries to distance themselves from the family.

    The forceful response by Sackler family members now may be seen as a signal to other institutions amid a flurry of announcements by major cultural organizations that they would no longer take donations from the family. The response also raised complicated legal questions about what room institutions have to unilaterally remove a donor’s name long after a gift has been accepted.

    Several institutions that have received major support from the Sacklers, including Yale University, Tate, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, said this year that they would no longer accept gifts from some or all Sackler family members.

    But decisions by major institutions to remove the Sackler name from existing facilities have been rare. This year, the Louvre in Paris removed the name from a wing that had been known since 1997 as the Sackler Wing of Oriental Antiquities. In that case, however, the Louvre said that its naming agreements lasted only 20 years.

    #Sackler #Opioides #Jean-Foutres

  • The company that makes OxyContin could become a ’public trust’ – what would that mean?
    http://theconversation.com/the-company-that-makes-oxycontin-could-become-a-public-trust-what-w

    Purdue Pharma, which makes OxyContin and other potentially addictive prescription opioids, has declared bankruptcy. It’s also facing thousands of lawsuits for its leading role in creating the opioid crisis.

    The company is trying to reach a broad settlement with the many jurisdictions now suing. The settlement it’s proposing would transform the company from a profit-seeking privately held company into a “public beneficiary trust” that serves the public good.

    I study the history of prescription drugs. Although there are some recent efforts to establish nonprofit drugmakers to help make certain pharmaceuticals more readily available, I know of no historical precedent for a big drugmaker like Purdue becoming a nonprofit public health provider.

    But two similarly ambitious efforts to build alternatives to the profit-driven pharmaceutical model during and immediately after World War II suggest the potential limits of how well this arrangement might work.

    By all accounts, the new trust would be a for-profit entity. Indeed, profits from continued sales of pain medicines like OxyContin and addiction treatment medications like buprenorphine and naloxone – estimated by Purdue to be up to US$8 billion per year – are crucial as the “payment” Purdue is offering to compensate the public for the company’s share of the costs of the opioid crisis.

    In other words, to achieve its mission, the new Purdue would have to pursue profits just like the old Purdue. And since all pharmaceutical companies officially declare themselves to be dedicated to serving the public good, how different would it really be?

    Then, too, the new trust would still be Purdue Pharma, a company with a well-entrenched culture of maximizing sales and profits even as the opioid crisis grew. One could make a credible case that Purdue’s innovations – the “value” it brought to the table – were not related to any special therapeutic breakthrough in the drugs it developed but instead lay in its genius with marketing these products.

    I can see why it is tempting to be excited about the prospect of a new public-benefit trust devoted to addressing addiction.

    But for this proposed arrangement to make sense, Purdue would need the tools and expertise required to pursue a radically different mission than it was designed to serve. And history does not offer much assurance that isolated public-sector and nonprofit drugmakers can make a big difference in a pharmaceutical system designed for and powered by profit.

    #Purdue_pharma #Sackler #Opioides

  • Watch Richard Sackler Deny His Family’s Role in the Opioid Crisis — ProPublica
    https://www.propublica.org/article/watch-richard-sackler-deny-his-familys-role-in-the-opioid-crisis

    Des vidéos (répugnantes) de Richard Sackler répondant au procureur du Kentucky. Les yeux clairs des assassins tant décrit par les romans et les chansons.

    Four years ago this week, Dr. Richard Sackler sat in a conference room at a law office in a Louisville, Kentucky, office park. Lawyers for the Kentucky attorney general’s office were taking his deposition as part of the state’s lawsuit alleging that the family business, Purdue Pharma, illegally marketed the opioid painkiller OxyContin by understating its addictive properties.

    Sackler, who has been at various times Purdue’s president and co-chairman of its board, testified for more than eight hours. The lawyers asked him about his role at the company, what decisions he was involved in and whether he believes Purdue played any part in the opioid crisis that has resulted in more than 200,000 overdose deaths related to prescription drugs since 1999.

    Despite hundreds of lawsuits against Purdue stretching back well over a decade, that August 2015 deposition, which was recorded on video, is believed to be the first time any member of the Sackler family was questioned under oath about their role in the marketing of OxyContin.

    #Opioides #Richard_Sackler #Sackler #Vidéos

  • Inside Purdue Pharma’s Media Playbook : How It Planted the Opioid “Anti-Story” — ProPublica
    https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-purdue-pharma-media-playbook-how-it-planted-the-opioid-anti-story

    In 2004, Purdue Pharma was facing a threat to sales of its blockbuster opioid painkiller OxyContin, which were approaching $2 billion a year. With abuse of the drug on the rise, prosecutors were bringing criminal charges against some doctors for prescribing massive amounts of OxyContin.

    That October, an essay ran across the top of The New York Times’ health section under the headline “Doctors Behind Bars: Treating Pain is Now Risky Business.” Its author, Sally Satel, a psychiatrist, argued that law enforcement was overzealous, and that some patients needed large doses of opioids to relieve pain. She described an unnamed colleague who had run a pain service at a university medical center and had a patient who could only get out of bed by taking “staggering” levels of oxycodone, the active ingredient in OxyContin. She also cited a study published in a medical journal showing that OxyContin is rarely the only drug found in autopsies of oxycodone-related deaths.

    “When you scratch the surface of someone who is addicted to painkillers, you usually find a seasoned drug abuser with a previous habit involving pills, alcohol, heroin or cocaine,” Satel wrote. “Contrary to media portrayals, the typical OxyContin addict does not start out as a pain patient who fell unwittingly into a drug habit.”

    The Times identified Satel as “a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an unpaid advisory board member for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.” But readers weren’t told about her involvement, and the American Enterprise Institute’s, with Purdue.

    Among the connections revealed by emails and documents obtained by ProPublica: Purdue donated $50,000 annually to the institute, which is commonly known as AEI, from 2003 through this year, plus contributions for special events, for a total of more than $800,000. The unnamed doctor in Satel’s article was an employee of Purdue, according to an unpublished draft of the story. The study Satel cited was funded by Purdue and written by Purdue employees and consultants. And, a month before the piece was published, Satel sent a draft to Burt Rosen, Purdue’s Washington lobbyist and vice president of federal policy and legislative affairs, asking him if it “seems imbalanced.”

    Purdue’s tactics are reminiscent of the oil and gas industry, which has been accused of promoting misleading science that downplays its impact on climate change, and of big tobacco, which sought to undermine evidence that nicotine is addictive and secondhand smoke is dangerous.

    Media spinning was just one prong of Purdue’s strategy to fend off limits on opioid prescribing. It contested hundreds of lawsuits, winning dismissals or settling the cases with a provision that documents remain secret. The company paid leading doctors in the pain field to assure patients that OxyContin was safe. It also funded groups, like the American Pain Foundation, that described themselves as advocates for pain patients. Several of those groups minimized the risk of addiction and fought against efforts to curb opioid use for chronic pain patients.

    She has become an influential voice on opioids, addiction and pain treatment. Her writings have been published in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Atlantic, Slate, Health Affairs, Forbes, Politico and elsewhere. She frequently appears on panels, television shows and in newspaper articles as an expert on the opioid crisis and pain prescribing guidelines. “We’ve entered a new era of opiophobia,” she recently told The Washington Post.

    Satel has been a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute since 2000. Among the notable figures who have spent time at AEI are the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and former Trump national security adviser John Bolton. Current fellow Scott Gottlieb returned to AEI this year after serving as commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which approves and regulates prescription drugs like OxyContin.

    Purdue said its annual payments of $50,000 to AEI were part of the institute’s corporate program. That program offers corporations the opportunity to “gain access to the leading scholars in the most important policy areas for executive briefings and knowledge sharing,” according to the institute’s website.

    Purdue’s counterattack against an ambitious investigative series about OxyContin abuse may have contributed to that drop. An October 2003 series in the Orlando Sentinel, “OxyContin Under Fire,” found that Purdue’s aggressive marketing combined with weak regulation had contributed to “a wave of death and destruction.”

    The series, however, was marred by several errors that were detailed in a front-page correction nearly four months later. The reporter resigned, and two editors on the series were reassigned. While acknowledging the mistakes, the newspaper did not retract the series, and its review upheld the conclusion that oxycodone was involved in a large number of the overdoses in Florida.

    Dezenhall Resources, in an email, took credit for forcing the newspaper to issue the corrections. “Dezenhall’s efforts resulted in a complete front-page retraction of the erroneous 5-day, 19-part, front-page Orlando Sentinel series,” Hershow wrote in a 2006 email summarizing Dezenhall’s work for Purdue under the subject line “Success in Fighting Negative Coverage.”

    Purdue officials and the company’s public relations agencies came up with a 13-point plan to generate media coverage of the errors. It included getting a doctor to talk about how the series “frightened and mislead (sic) the people of Florida” and having a pain patient write a newspaper opinion column on the subject. The Sentinel series, one Purdue official wrote to other company executives and Dezenhall’s Hershow, was an opportunity to let the country know about “all of the sensational reporting on OxyContin abuse over the past 4 years. The conclusion: this is the most overblown health story in the last decade!”

    In the six years after Purdue challenged the Sentinel’s findings, the death rate from prescription drugs increased 84.2% in Florida. The biggest rise, 264.6%, came from deaths involving oxycodone. The state became a hotbed for inappropriate opioid prescribing as unscrupulous pain clinics attracted out of state drug seekers. The route traveled by many from small towns in Appalachia to the Florida clinics was nicknamed the “Oxycontin Express.”

    In 2017, 14 years after the Sentinel series was published, the Columbia Journalism Review described it as “right too soon” and said it “eerily prefigured today’s opioid epidemic.”

    Purdue also added Stu Loeser to its stable. The head of an eponymous media strategy company, Loeser was press secretary for Michael Bloomberg when he was mayor of New York City, and he is now a spokesman for Bloomberg’s possible presidential bid.

    Soon after Loeser began representing Purdue, Satel wrote in a 2018 piece for Politico headlined, “The Myth of What’s Driving the Opioid Crisis,” about “a false narrative” that the opioid epidemic “is driven by patients becoming addicted to doctor-prescribed opioids.”

    Loeser told Purdue executives in an email that “we are going to work with AEI to ‘promote’ this so it comes across as what it is: their thoughtful response to other writing.” His team was working to target the Satel story “to land in social media feeds of people who have searched for opioid issues and potentially even people who have read specific stories online,” he added.

    Loeser said in an interview that he didn’t end up working with AEI to promote the story. He said Purdue is no longer a client.

    Une belle bande d’ordures accoquinée avec une brochette de journaux peu regardants (quoique parmi les meilleurs du monde, ce qui est encore plus inquiétant).

    #Opioides #Sackler #Purdue_Pharma #Médias #Fake_news #Conflits_intérêt #Complicités #New_York_Times #Public_relation

  • AP key findings about Mundipharma’s OxyContin sales in China
    https://apnews.com/a9b1324e5b7d4679b5a6d465cea2dd2e

    This Sept. 24, 2019 photo shows 40-milligram Oxycontin tablets sold in China in Hunan province. China fought two wars in the 19th century to beat back British ships dumping opium that fueled widespread addiction. Today, the cultural aversion to taking drugs, in Chinese, literally “sucking poison”, is so strong addicts can be forced into police-run treatment centers. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

    SHANGHAI (AP) — The Sackler family’s opioid empire in the United States is collapsing under an avalanche of litigation over marketing tactics. Their Purdue Pharma company is in bankruptcy, but the family continues to profit from sales of their signature painkiller OxyContin abroad. Sales reps at their international affiliate, Mundipharma, have been chasing profits in China using many of the same tactics that Purdue was forced to abandon in the U.S. as the death toll from opioid overdoses soared, interviews and documents obtained by the AP show.

    Here are key findings from those documents and interviews.

    — Purdue and its executives paid a historic $635 million in legal penalties in the U.S. for misrepresenting OxyContin as less addictive than other opioids and pledged never to do it again. That didn’t stop Mundipharma sales reps from making the same pitch to doctors in China more than a decade later.

    — Mundipharma managers required sales reps to copy patients’ private medical records without consent to better target sales, in apparent violation of Chinese law.

    — Faced with fast-rising sales targets, OxyContin reps in China sometimes disguised themselves as medical staff, putting on white coats and lying about their identity to visit patients in the hospital.
    ratio
    Youtube video thumbnail
    — Mundipharma aggressively pushed high doses of opioids in China, despite warnings that higher doses carry higher risks of overdose and death. The year after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control said that taking even 33mg of OxyContin a day at least doubles the risk of overdose, Mundipharma ran a campaign to promote sales of 40mg pills in China.

    #Sackler #OxyContin #Marché_mondial #Purdue_Pharma #Mundipharma

  • Amour, gloire et opioïdes – Binge Audio
    https://www.binge.audio/amour-gloire-et-opioides

    Des podcast sur la crise des opioides

    La crise des opioïdes est désormais mondiale : 34 million de personnes en consomment, 27 millions y sont accros, et les morts se comptent par centaines de milliers.

    Cette crise est particulièrement forte aux Etats-Unis, où une famille est considérée comme responsable de cette addiction généralisée : les Sackler, propriétaires des laboratoires Purdue Pharma qui commercialisent l’OxyContin, le médicament à l’origine du problème.

    Retour sur l’histoire de cette famille, milliardaire et mécène, devenue paria.

    #Sackler #Opioides

  • Addicted to Screens? That’s Really a You Problem - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/06/technology/phone-screen-addiction-tech-nir-eyal.html

    Nir Eyal does not for a second regret writing Silicon Valley’s tech engagement how-to, “Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products,” even as he now has a new book out on how to free ourselves of that same addiction.

    In his original manual for building enthralling smartphone apps, Mr. Eyal laid out the tricks “to subtly encourage customer behavior” and “bring users back again and again.” He toured tech companies speaking about the Hook Model, his four-step plan to grab and keep people with enticements like variable rewards, or pleasures that come at unpredictable intervals.

    “Slot machines provide a classic example of variable rewards,” Mr. Eyal wrote.

    Silicon Valley’s technorati hailed “Hooked.” Dave McClure, the founder of 500 Startups, a prolific incubator, called it “an essential crib sheet for any start-up looking to understand user psychology.”

    But that was 2014. That was when making a slot-machinelike app was a good and exciting thing. When “seductive interaction design” and “design for behavior change” were aspirational phrases.

    “Nir Eyal’s trying to flip,” said Richard Freed, a child psychologist who supports less screen time. “These people who’ve done this are all trying to come back selling the cure. But they’re the ones who’ve been selling the drugs in the first place.”

    “I’m sure the cigarette industry said there’s just a certain number of people with a propensity for lung disease,” he added.

    Mr. Eyal said he was not reversing himself. His Hook Model was useful, certainly, and he believed in the tactics. But it was not addicting people. It’s our fault, he said, not Instagram’s or Facebook’s or Apple’s.

    “It’s disrespectful for people who have the pathology of addiction to say, ‘Oh, we all have this disease,’” he said. “No, we don’t.”

    #Médias_sociaux #Addiction #Dopamine #Mir_Eyal

  • Purdue Pharma Warns That Sackler Family May Walk From Opioid Deal - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/health/purdue-sackler-opioid-settlement.html

    Après avoir été maïtres-assdassins, les Sacklers deviennent Maîtres chanteurs. Belle famille.
    Pour tout savoir, un seul livre : « Addiction sur ordonnance » par Patrick Radden Keefe https://cfeditions.com/addiction

    Members of the Sackler family could withdraw their pledge to pay $3 billion as part of a nationwide deal to address the opioid crisis if a bankruptcy judge does not block outstanding state lawsuits against them and their company, Purdue Pharma, Purdue lawyers said in a legal complaint.

    Whether the threat is posturing or real, the move by Purdue, the maker of OxyContin, to inject it into the company’s bankruptcy proceeding could jeopardize the tentative settlement it reached last week with representatives of thousands of local governments that have brought lawsuits against it. Two dozen state attorneys general who have sued the company in their own courts have signed on to the agreement, too.

    The $3 billion to be paid over seven years, plus another contribution the Sacklers would make with the proceeds of the sale of their British drug company, Mundipharma, is a key component of the deal. But all lawsuits must be resolved, the lawyers said.

    The new complaint, filed in bankruptcy court in White Plains on Wednesday night, is aimed at about two dozen states that have not signed on to the settlement and are continuing to pursue cases against both the company and various Sacklers.

    #Sackler #Too_much #Opioides

  • En ciblant Purdue Pharma, « l’appareil judiciaire américain s’attaque au capitalisme débridé »
    https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2019/09/16/en-ciblant-purdue-pharma-l-appareil-judiciaire-americain-s-attaque-au-capita

    Aujourd’hui, face à une crise qui à elle seule a réussi à faire chuter l’espérance de vie aux Etats-Unis, la quasi-totalité des Etats du pays a lancé des poursuites pour réclamer des dédommagements au nom du million de familles touchées par ce fléau. Au total, 2 600 plaintes ont été enregistrées. Pour tenter d’éteindre l’incendie, la société a demandé, dimanche 15 septembre, à être placée sous la protection du chapitre 11 de la loi sur les faillites. Et elle propose une résolution globale spectaculaire : la nationalisation de Purdue.
    Nationalisation des pertes

    Il s’agirait de confier la gestion de l’entreprise et l’ensemble de ses gains futurs à un trust représentant les Etats, l’ensemble des bénéfices leur étant reversés pour financer l’aide aux victimes et la recherche sur la lutte contre l’addiction. La transaction est évaluée à dix milliards de dollars et la famille Sackler a promis d’y ajouter trois milliards. Vingt-neuf Etats et territoires ont accepté la transaction, mais 26 autres s’y opposent formellement, dont celui de New York.

    Ils ne sont pas du tout d’accord avec cette nouvelle version de la privatisation des gains et de la nationalisation des pertes. Car, durant toutes ces années, la famille Sackler a vu sa fortune exploser, pour représenter, selon Forbes, près de 13 milliards de dollars. Elle doit rendre gorge, exigent les procureurs généraux, sortes de ministre de la justice des Etats. D’autant que l’enquête de celui de New York affirme que près d’un milliard de dollars aurait été discrètement envoyé en Suisse pour échapper au fisc.

    #Purdue_Pharma #Opioides #Capitalisme_sauvage #Sackler

  • Tentative opioids settlement falls short of nationwide deal
    https://www.apnews.com/fcb693fee634449cb8a0dc146251b18d

    HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A tentative settlement announced Wednesday over the role Purdue Pharma played in the nation’s opioid addiction crisis falls short of the far-reaching national settlement the OxyContin maker had been seeking for months, with litigation sure to continue against the company and the family that owns it.

    The agreement with about half the states and attorneys representing roughly 2,000 local governments would have Purdue file for a structured bankruptcy and pay as much as $12 billion over time, with about $3 billion coming from the Sackler family. That number involves future profits and the value of drugs currently in development.

    In addition, the family would have to give up its ownership of the company and contribute another $1.5 billion by selling another of its pharmaceutical companies, Mundipharma.

    Several attorneys general said the agreement was a better way to ensure compensation from Purdue and the Sacklers than taking their chances if Purdue files for bankruptcy on its own.

    Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich said the deal “was the quickest and surest way to get immediate relief for Arizona and for the communities that have been harmed by the opioid crisis and the actions of the Sackler family.”

    In a statement after Wednesday’s announcement, the company said that it “continues to work with all plaintiffs on reaching a comprehensive resolution to its opioid litigation that will deliver billions of dollars and vital opioid overdose rescue medicines to communities across the country impacted by the opioid crisis.”

    Even with Wednesday’s development, many states have not signed on. Several state attorneys general vowed to continue their legal battles against the Sacklers and the company in bankruptcy court. Roughly 20 states have sued members of the Sackler family in state courts.

    Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Wisconsin were among the states saying they were not part of the agreement.

    “Our position remains firm and unchanged and nothing for us has changed today,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement.

    “The amount of money that’s being offered in this settlement doesn’t even scratch the surface for what’s needed,” Hampton said. “We want to see Purdue have their day in court. We know more money will come if this case goes to trial.”

    Les ordures sans vergogne :

    On Wednesday, the Sackler family said in a statement that it “supports working toward a global resolution that directs resources to the patients, families and communities across the country who are suffering and need assistance.”

    “This is the most effective way to address the urgency of the current public health crisis, and to fund real solutions, not endless litigation,” it said.

    In March, Purdue and members of the Sackler family reached a $270 million settlement with Oklahoma to avoid a trial on the toll of opioids there.

    A court filing made public in Massachusetts this year asserts that members of the Sackler family were paid more than $4 billion by Purdue from 2007 to 2018. Much of the family’s fortune is believed to be held outside the U.S., which could complicate lawsuits against the family over opioids.

    The Sacklers have given money to cultural institutions around the world, including the Smithsonian Institution, New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art and London’s Tate Modern.

    #Opioides #Sackler #Procès #Accord_amiable