$572 Million Decision Against Johnson & Johnson in Landmark Opioid Trial (nytimes.com) 296
An anonymous reader shares a report: A judge in Oklahoma on Monday ruled against Johnson & Johnson, the deep-pocketed corporate giant, and ordered it to pay the state $572 million in the first trial of an opioid manufacturer for the destruction wrought by prescription painkillers. Johnson & Johnson, which contracted with poppy growers in Tasmania, supplied 60 percent of the opiate ingredients that drug companies used for opioids like oxycodone, the state had argued, and aggressively marketed opioids to doctors and patients as safe and effective. A Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, made its own opioids -- a pill whose rights it sold in 2015, and a fentanyl patch that it still produces.
"The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and menace to Oklahomans," Judge Thad Balkman, of Cleveland County District Court, said in delivering his decision. The ruling was a resounding victory for Oklahoma's attorney general, Mike Hunter. The closely watched verdict could be a dire harbinger for some two dozen opioid makers, distributors and retailers that face more than 2,000 similar lawsuits around the country. Johnson & Johnson, one the world's biggest health care companies, said it would appeal. The judge's decision came after two other drug manufacturers that produce opioids, Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceutical, settled with Oklahoma earlier this year for $270 million and $85 million, respectively. In doing so, the companies did not admit wrongdoing. As a consequence, Oklahoma faced the steep climb of pinning the blame for its opioid crisis mainly on just one defendant.
"The opioid crisis is an imminent danger and menace to Oklahomans," Judge Thad Balkman, of Cleveland County District Court, said in delivering his decision. The ruling was a resounding victory for Oklahoma's attorney general, Mike Hunter. The closely watched verdict could be a dire harbinger for some two dozen opioid makers, distributors and retailers that face more than 2,000 similar lawsuits around the country. Johnson & Johnson, one the world's biggest health care companies, said it would appeal. The judge's decision came after two other drug manufacturers that produce opioids, Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceutical, settled with Oklahoma earlier this year for $270 million and $85 million, respectively. In doing so, the companies did not admit wrongdoing. As a consequence, Oklahoma faced the steep climb of pinning the blame for its opioid crisis mainly on just one defendant.
Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then you probably get sick driving a car too since vape juice is basically antifreeze.
And near any candle since most of them contain propylene glycol as well.
Ice cream, too!
And practically any other food, since there's plenty of it in them now days. How are you even alive and not starved to death?
Re:Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you probably get sick driving a car too since vape juice is basically antifreeze.
You might want to get your car checked out. Antifreeze is supposed to stay in the closed loop engine cooling system, not blow in your face while driving.
Re:Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
What products contain anti-freeze? I think you're confusing some of the ingredients, antifreeze (ethylene) is highly toxic. I think there are some 'nature friendly' antifreezes that contain other types of alcohol but they are not quite as effective.
Re:Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:4, Informative)
Due to the environmental issues involved with ethylene glycol, propylene glycol has been substituted by many major brands.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but Blue Bunny cones of any flavor or Edy’s peppermint ice cream and Coldstone Creamery serves 17 different flavours of the ol' prop-gly [thedailymeal.com], as well as whole bunch of other stuff [wikipedia.org] that lots of people put on or into their bodies every day with no apparent health effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, don't worry, the vaping class action lawsuits are but a decade or two away.
Re:Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:4, Insightful)
The nineteen-nineties called... they want their ideas back.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
why? if you stuff a tube of leaves on fire into your face and suck on it, it's your fault if you get cancer, and no one else's.
Re: (Score:3)
and people who get cancer because other people smoke?
and the environmental destruction from the waste?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That how normal insurance works. That has nothing to do with socialized medicine. But thanks for reminding only shallow minded ignorant fools are against it.
Re: Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
What is moral hazard, and how does it impact the rest of us?
Besides on balance; in a socialized health care system whatever treatment a smoker gets (either palliative at the end of their much shortened life, or acute treatment for the heart attack/stroke which also is very likely to shorten their life span) is probably cheaper than keeping someone alive into their 90's with kidney/liver failure, or dementia.
Slightly morbid, but I wonder how the economics would actually play out.
Re: (Score:3)
I did the math for a project around 2000. In Canada, back then at least, smoking was a big money maker. Smokers don't even have to die younger. The amount of tax they contribute is unbelievable.
Re: Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:5, Interesting)
I did the math a couple years ago (for Romania) and the result was that cigarette taxes paid by smokers totaled, on average, 2.5 times the whole national health budget, year-over-year.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're right. You can be uninsured. You can pretend that that's a smart financial decision...but those of us working in health care know that it just makes you dumb as a rock.
Even under "socialist insurance" you can be uninsured. Pay the fine, which is less than the cost of the insurance, and just role the dice on your health. Then we can all laugh when you go bankrupt from medical bills even AFTER you paid the stupid tax for refusing to get insurance. Oh wait...except once you get sick you'll file for char
Re: (Score:2)
I paid the penalty because the insurance needed to avoid the penalty would cost more, and wouldn't actually cover shit.
I paid the penalty, and had the most medical expenses I've ever had, and I was glad not to have that shitty insurance. It would have meant more difficulty getting treatment, and it would have cost more money than being uninsured.
You have to actually do math to figure out if it is a "stupid tax" or if the minimum insurance in a larger "stupid tax."
You obviously haven't actually looked at the
ipv6 (Score:2)
Well I dunno guys... he transitioned to IPv6 he must be pretty sharp.
He's just shy of becoming lain at this point.
Re: Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you don't; that's not a legal policy. You pay the first $6K of the expenses your insurance asks you to pay. You still get the insurance company's negotiated rate on everything. In fact, you're freeloading on all the people who aren't making healthier choices, by virtue of the insurance company negotiating a better rate due to the volume of people they send to the provider.
So good job with your holier-than-us attitud
Re: (Score:3)
That's wrong.
With normal insurance of the non-socialist kind, I can get a price break for being a non-smoker. That's right, I don't have to be in the same pool as suicidal morons.
The ACA allows up to 50 percent more charge for smokers, it's called "tobacco rating". It's a good thing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
...except under the socialized insurance being rammed down our throats in this country... You are responsible for my bad decisions.
Wow. Stupidest comment of the day, right there.
I thought the level of stupid on this site would fall once A/C Nazi boy and his arsehole friends were banned, but no, we now have "socialized insurance idiot".
Better to be responsible for your bad descions (Score:3)
Re: Better to be responsible for your bad descions (Score:2)
Re: Better to be responsible for your bad descions (Score:5, Interesting)
This is what stupid people believe, despite it not being true. When push comes to shove, when your situation becomes bad enough, you turn to help or become a burden in jail after commiting a crime to afford what you need to survive, nevermind stop contributing to the GDP. This is what morons like you simply don't understand. Not only is no person an island, you couldn't be an island even if you tried your best to be one. It just costs less to force you to pay into a risk pool than it does to let you claim that you promise never to become a burden. It just doesn't doesn't happen that way, and it doesn't work that way.
Re: Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:5, Interesting)
except under the socialized insurance being rammed down our throats in this country... You are responsible for my bad decisions.
Lung cancer is an average-cost way to die.
People make this mistake all the time, thinking "X kills people, therefore X is driving up health care costs". Thing is: everyone dies of something, usually something lingering. If you don't die in an accident, a large % of your lifetime health care costs will come in your final year.
People riding motorcycles without helmets, or refusing to wear their seatbelts, are doing a great job of lowering health care costs.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope someone does the same for cigarette companies - if anything, they are worse since they targeted more people.
What rock have you been living under? They hashed that out years ago with the cigarette companies.
Uh, what in the fuck did they hash out? Tobacco is still the most deadly legal product sold to humans today. Over 400,000 Americans still die every year. Over 7 million deaths globally. And yet, the companies rage on, raking in billions every year. Legal settlements did jack shit to that industry.
And as with any action against any mega-corp, fines mean nothing until you assess the actual impact. $572 million sounds like a lot of money, but if they made $20 billion in revenue, then that fucking fine is nothing more than a miscellaneous business expense stemming from a damn good business decision, and one they'll gladly repeat over and over again.
When unethical and immoral behavior is worth it every time, don't expect any other behavior to emerge.
Re: Excellent, now cigarette companies please! (Score:5, Funny)
I detest tobacco but you'd drive anyone to smoke.
$0.05B ??!! WTLF!!! (Score:2)
Re:$0.05B ??!! WTLF!!! (Score:4, Informative)
move your decimal to the right
Re: (Score:2)
VW didn't directly kill anyone yet.
Re:$0.05B ??!! WTLF!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Keep in mind that this is *just* Oklahoma. There are many lawsuits pending both in other states and at the federal level.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the crisis is due to junkies and quack doctors acting as dope dealers, not the makers of a legal drug that has proper legal protocol for its distribution.
Re:$0.05B ??!! WTLF!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The manufactures lied, changed data, targeted people.
That's the problem, you dolt.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a combination of both.
There really *IS* a need for opioid medications, just not for chronic pain management. People become desensitized to opioids, requiring ever higher doses to be effective. For people in end-of-life care, this is not so important as is giving them relief from their systemic pain.
There are other categories of pain relievers for more chronic conditions, where a person is expected to live for most of their life with the condition. The problem is that these are not frequently prescri
Re: (Score:2)
VW, who killed no one with Dieselgate
Out of millions of people who die each year to air pollution, I wonder how many were done in by VW.
Re: (Score:2)
572 million IS OVER half a billion, genius.
Maths (Score:2)
$0.05B is a tiny fraction of what it ought to be
Agreed, it is roughly 8% of what it ought to be. $572 million is 0.572 billion or, to one significant figure, 0.6 billion. That is unless you are using English billions in which case it should be 0.000572 billion and your answer just over 80 times too big.
And who goes to prison? (Score:2)
Nobody? Well. In that case, these people may have to switch employers, but they can simply continue their evil work.
Re: (Score:3)
not Johnson's fault, they sold legal product to people with prescriptions and to doctors and hospitals, and there is legitimate need for opioids. If doctors who act as dope dealers cause their overuse they are liable.
Re: (Score:2)
One doctor so far has gotten justice
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/j... [cbsnews.com]
He should be the first of many.
Just a drop in the bucket for J&J. (Score:2)
Sooooooooo? (Score:2)
They pay next to nothing.
Observe the Stock Price. (Score:2)
JNJ went up today during the market and up again after hours.
The worst case for JNJ is now known and it's not enough to worry anyone that they can continue.
Re: (Score:3)
The worst case for JNJ is now known and it's not enough to worry anyone that they can continue.
Oh this moronic trope again. No, sorry, the stock price goes up because the amount of damage is now known, and it has nothing to do with the stockholders allowing the company to continue doing anything wrong.
Opioids are addictive? *shock* (Score:2)
This is not exactly new news. There's no one alive today who was born after it was figured out that opiate/opioid type drugs were addictive.
So, the people with severe pain... what are they supposed to do? Aspirin? Tylenol? Tequila?
opiates are killers (Score:2)
and the government still keeps marijuana illegal which nobody ever overdosed and died from, not saying stupid people dont do stupid things while stoned, they would eventually do stupid things anyway, but for mild pain relief and help you
Opioids and Elections (Score:3)
Just a reminder, there is a connection between the opioid epidemic and the 2016 election results: The peer-reviewed research is conclusive.
https://jamanetwork.com/journa... [jamanetwork.com]
Re:These drugs are legal. (Score:5, Informative)
What the opioid manufacturers did was LIE TO THE DOCTORS about the rate that people become addicted to opioids
Since it is up to the doctor to decide when and how much to give to a patient, being told that these were non-addictive played a major role in the rates of prescription and refill that doctors made
Re:These drugs are legal. (Score:5, Insightful)
And the FDA and medical profession simply took the manufacturers word for it? Thats the failure here.
In the UK, the NHS maintains its own audits on things like this - prescription rates, repeat prescription rates, addiction rates (through various methodologies, such as drug seeking behaviour, repeated visits etc), we don't just blindly take a manufacturers word on these things, we actually gather proper evidence from our own patient body and take action where needed. GP surgeries are required to regularly submit audits on a range of topics, and are subject to external audit on a regular basis.
The manufacturer is providing a drug, the medical profession in your country should be responsible for the proscribing of that drug and the responsibility for over proscribing of it. There are multiple levels of failure here which the drug manufacturer is being forced to take all responsibility for, because the FDA and the US medical profession has shirked their responsibilities - the FDA is not fit for purpose, and the US medical profession needs to implement retraining across the board so its professionals can properly handle the drugs they are prescribing.
In the UK, doctors use a publication called the BNF (British National Formulary), which contains an absolute tonne of independent information on drugs, their interactions, their dependency rates, how to prevent or remove dependency etc etc etc. It sounds like it works very well, better than whatever is going on in the US....
Re:These drugs are legal. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The pharma companies popularized the idea of a 'pain epidemic' and added level of pain to the DR's diagnostic panels
This is a result of the rotating door between the pharma companies and the FDA under the Bush admin
Re: (Score:2)
The revolving door between the busty blonde pharma reps and the physicians is worse. The FDA has the power to approve a drug for a particular purpose. Once approved, physicians have the power to prescribe that drug for whatever they feel like.
Re:These drugs are legal. (Score:5, Informative)
In the UK, the NHS maintains its own audits on things like this - prescription rates, repeat prescription rates, addiction rates (through various methodologies, such as drug seeking behaviour, repeated visits etc), we don't just blindly take a manufacturers word on these things [...]
Yeah, but that's bureaucracy which is a horrible thing and it makes things more expensive for consumers. I mean, look at the price of prescription medicine in the UK and the US [drugwatch.com].
Uh...wait. Those prices are cheaper because...uh...socialism! Yeah! That's the ticket!
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK they also have laws against false advertising.
The ruling was based on the following: "the state met its burden that the defendants Janssen and Johnson & Johnson's misleading marketing and promotion of opioids created a nuisance as defined by [the law]"
This ruling against Johnson and Johnson for such things could happen in most first world nations.
Government isn't the solution, it's the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What straw man? The medical profession and the FDA are the gatekeepers here (opioids are controlled substances, you can't simply buy them over the counter, prescriptions are being handed out for them), they are responsible for this more than the drug companies.
And if a proper regulatory system isnt "how any of this works", thank *fuck* I don't live in the US because it sounds like your system is failing badly. I know Americans dislike socialism, but regulatory systems are not socialism and they have a use
Re: (Score:2)
Salesmen always lie about everything. Any adult knows this. Which lies the salesmen told is irrelevant.
If between them doctors and regulatory authorities aren't savvy, can't get at the truth fix that. No viable system will ever count on salesmen being honest ... that's just amazingly fucking dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:These drugs are legal. (Score:4, Insightful)
Drugs aren't inherently harmful or beneficial - it's a matter of how they are used. It turns out that in America, the drug companies are allowed a lot of latitude to influence that, by sharing information selectively, by giving kickbacks to doctors, funding 'studies,' pricing strategy, and on and on. But in so doing, they take on liability, and this is what can happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because they have money. This is another lawsuit of the general form "you have a lot of money. Give me some of it."
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, and that's not really a problem, but you keep sucking ass, it's a good look on you.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't about the absolute danger or lack of danger for the drug. This is about promoting the drugs use inappropriately and fraudulently downplaying the risks. Even to the point of claiming extremely addictive formulations were less addictive than others or even that they somehow made addiction nearly non-existent.
I do hope though that in the quest for cash, the states don't end up doing even more damage by leaving people for whom opiates really are the best option screaming in pain.
This is a multi facet
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't how it works. (Score:2)
It is up to the FDA to decide whether or not drugs should be approved. If the danger of a drug outweighs the benefits, it is the duty of the FDA to deny or remove approval for the drug. It isn't the responsibility of drug companies to do this.
FDA approval implies that a drug is effective and appropriate when responsibly prescribed It is not a license to promote and encourage abuse of a drug. FDA approval of a drug does not absolve a company of all responsibility when it becomes plain that something is going seriously wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the used fraudulent data, lied, targeted people.
The drug has uses. Some people need it. Most do not, but when used AS IT SHOULD it's fine. Do corporations pay you? or do you like to sound that god damn stupid for free?
Re: (Score:2)
The opioid manufacturers took a single study from Boston Hospital, which reported a low rate of addiction within the hospital, so the pharma companies spread that one paper far and wide, claiming that the new opioids were non-addictive
of course, that was a lie, so the doctors, patients, insurance companies, etc... had bad information to base their decisions on
Re: (Score:2)
Wheres the regulatory system here? That should have prevented this - it does in other countries...
Re:Personal responsibility (Score:5, Interesting)
Wheres the regulatory system here? That should have prevented this - it does in other countries...
And in the US. Oxy is a Schedule II drug. Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are: Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin.
I went to the hospital with a back injury -- very painful. They doped me up pretty good. When it came time to release me they gave me a prescription good for TWO DAYS of Oxy. I told the docs I was going to be in town for four days, and then I needed to fly home, can I please get a week's worth. No. Didn't care. Can't do it. Two days. Period.
I went to fill the scrip. The computer was down, come back later. Ok, can I leave the scrip here and pick it up later? No, you must come back later, give us the paper copy (no e-prescriptions), show us photo ID. Then you can get the drugs.
A few months later, abcessed tooth. Very very very painful. Dentist gave me a script for -- two days of Oxy. Problem: the oral surgeon couldn't see me until Monday, which was five days away. PLEASE give me more. "Can't. Come in on Saturday and I'll give you another scrip." How about you just give me the scrip now and date it Saturday? "Can't. Would cost me my license." I went to fill the two day scrip -- the dumbass had forgotten to put his DEA number on the piece of paper.
You can't say that the US does not regulate this stuff. You can say that criminals make a lot of money from stealing and selling it. Maybe even disreputable doctors. But nobody told anybody that this stuff wasn't addictive, the feds are pretty clear on the matter.
Oxy for a toothache? There's your opioid crisis... (Score:2)
Right there.
A few months later, abcessed tooth. Very very very painful. Dentist gave me a script for -- two days of Oxy.
That's an antibiotics (pre-op) and metamizole or ibuprofen kinda situation.
Let that reduce the swelling and keep the pain at manageable level.
Then get you local during op, drink your soup through a straw for a few days and continue with NSAIDs for the pain as needed.
Had the same issue. Twice.
Once it was an upper premolar the other time an extra root left over from an earlier extraction of a molar, which then got inflamed years later.
Neither dentist or oral surgeon even suggested opiates for a to
Re: Personal responsibility (Score:2)
Re:Personal responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
Many people hooked on opiates got that way because doctors prescribed them for legitimate pain (injury, surgery, cancer, etc.) and those very same doctors had *no idea* how to ween their patients off the pain killers after they were no longer needed. Indeed many doctors are around for the main event and probably have no idea their patients even got hooked.
Pain killers are NOT something that you can just stop taking. You need a proper withdrawal protocol to get yourself off.
There are certainly people who abused pain meds, but there are also many people who got hooked on them because doctors had corporate incentives, poor studies, false information, and little support from the drug companies to get people off these meds.
As stated above VW got fined billions for lying about emissions...these companies should feel similar pain. If were up to me, I would revoke their most profitable patents and see how they react. Large fines certainly draw headlines, but are fairly easy for a company to sweep away in the accounting and justify those executive bonuses....I am sure there are unintended consequences to patent revocation as well, but the companies as well as the pill mills caused a lot of damage to the civilized society.
We need to be a little more clever in deterring future bad behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
so the doctors (and dope dealers who steal or smuggle the stuff) are at fault for the problems with this legal drug.
going after manufacturer is stupid, it's a legal product with legal procedure to use.
Re: (Score:2)
What you're failing to understand is they lied to the doctors about the drugs.
The doctors, believing that a drug manufacturer would not lie to them because of the extreme danger, prescribed based on those lies.
The typical remedy for a company causing harm through lying about their products is a fine. And here is a fine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
nonsense, there is nothing about opioids that hasn't been known for well over a century.
Re: (Score:3)
Opium and opioids are not synonyms.
J&J (and others) marketed these drugs as non-addictive. That's what made them different and better than previous drugs. And that was the big hook for doctors to prescribe them.
What, exactly, do you think should be the punishment for fraud?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me educate you.
All opioids act on opioid receptors to produce morphine-like responses. (morphine being in the opiate family) All opioids can cause physical dependence. This is known by all doctors who went to medical school, without exception. There is no question of what any marketing department said, this is very well known medical fact.
You are silly enough to believe that somehow doctors are ignorant of this. That is nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you are a hundred years old, but many people do not have that insight
Somebody, who has heard they have to take the entire script, that is sent home with 30 - 90 oxycontin is being set up to become an addict
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody, who has heard they have to take the entire script, that is sent home with 30 - 90 oxycontin is being set up to become an addict
The drug company didn't tell them that. The drug company doesn't tell the patient anything. The doctor does the telling.
but many people do not have that insight
Doctors are TRAINED and LICENSED to have that insight. I have never had a doctor hand me a bottle of 90 oxy and tell me to take all of them. EVERY doctor who has ever handed me a bottle of anything like that (hydro and oxy) has always said "take only if necessary", and the amount was very very limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand anything about doctors.
The fact that people like you are allowed on the internet is a failure of the implementation of the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
OH, so people are suppose to be medical and chemical experts before taking anything?
Nice, you victim blaming piece of trash.
" and is common knowledge and has been for hundreds of years..."
You are so stupid, if you burst into flame right in front of me, the only action I would take would be to get march mellow to roast over your screaming body while giggling.
You are literaly that bad for society, you lying piece of garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The doctors, believing that a drug manufacturer would not lie to them because of the extreme danger, prescribed based on those lies.
Doc: "Gee, I wonder why this drug is Schedule II on the DEA list? Hmm. And I need to fill out a paper prescription, and put my DEA number on it, and can only prescribe a very limited amount? Well, the government must be wrong, the drug company wouldn't suggest I prescribe this if it was addictive or anything..."
Get a new doctor. Unless you're looking for a pill-pusher, the one you've got is dangerous.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal doesn't mean suitable for every case. The doctors have definitely overprescribed, partially because advertising prescription drugs is allowed, partially because some non addictive painkillers simply aren't available in the USA, but probably mostly because they didn't care.
Re: (Score:2)
You may have missed the part where pharma companies popularized the idea of a 'pain epidemic' of untreated pain, then added 'Current level of pain' to the standard diagnostic tools that Drs use like pulse and blood pressure
Of course this was all created by the pharma companies to fool doctors into writing scripts
Re: (Score:2)
then added 'Current level of pain' to the standard diagnostic tools that Drs use like pulse and blood pressure
How awful that there be a standardized system for reporting the pain that often goes with injuries and disease. Simply awful. It's appalling that someone could convert "like being stung by a bunch of bees" level of pain into a simple number like "6", so that anyone looking at the chart later could quickly know what the patient was experiencing. How dastardly of those devious drug companies to support a standard like that?
Funniest pain chart I ever saw: "9" was "being mauled by bears". I've never been maule
Re: (Score:2)
No, what's stupid is you because you clearly font know what this was about, even though you can easily look it up.
But don't let your ignorance stop you from acting like an expert, you piece of shit.
Re: Personal responsibility (Score:2)
The companies distributing the opiods should have had a process in place to red flag abnormally large shipments. It's all computerized and they do study the data, but obviously they were focused on maximizing profits.
The doctors who were over prescribing are guilty too. The pharmacies filling ridiculously large prescriptions should be held accountable as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember when libertarians thought lawsuits could be sufficient to prevent corporations from committing fraud? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Re: (Score:2)
Those same libertarians who then bitch that people should sue corporation.
Libertarians are the real libtards.
Re: Personal responsibility (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's one thing to notice this decision was handed down from a judge and thus no jury was involved. It's something altogether different to not manage reading the first two words of TFSummary before posting.
Re:Bad Judgement (Score:4, Insightful)
When manufacture don't give out accurate data and instructions, that a problem.. hey, that's THIS problem!
"go out of their way to get more as they do give one a buzz"
yeah, it's called addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really the way it works. Human trials of drugs are done by scientists and physicians who are not affiliated with the producer. Those studies are published in medical journals.
Yes, in the US the drug company is allowed to send some beautiful people to chat up the prescribing physicians and tell them certain things about their drug, but those physicians are supposed to read the actual published and peer reviewed studies. Research generally shows that they do not.