SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for chromas
Tufts University to dissolve relationship with family behind OxyContin amid national opioid epidemic
Tufts University announced that it is severing ties with the billionaire family that owns Purdue Pharma, the firm that manufactures OxyContin.
The Massachusetts school announced Thursday that it is stripping the Sackler family name from its campus and will no longer accept any donations from them amid concerns that they are helping fuel the ongoing opioid crisis. The Sacklers and Tufts had maintained a nearly 40-year relationship that helped funnel millions to the school's science and medical programs.
"Our students, faculty, staff, alumni, and others have shared with us the negative impact the Sackler name has on them each day, noting the human toll of the opioid epidemic in which members of the Sackler family and their company, Purdue Pharma, are associated," the school said in a statement. "We are grateful to those who have shared their thoughts with us. It is clear that the Sackler name, with its link to the current health crisis, runs counter to the school's mission.
"In taking these actions, we will more fully enable our university and medical school to move forward in support of their missions and to help the countless individuals and families who have suffered as a result of the opioid crisis," the statement added.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Wednesday December 11 2019, @10:05AM (8 children)
No mention of how much sweet oxymoney they received before cutting the ties. Hundreds of millions? Billions? Considering it's been going on for 40-something years it should be a fairly substantial amount. They didn't seem to have minded so much until the it became a PR problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @11:23AM
That's just your guess about this. You have no idea what was the situation in Tufts U wrt the university population and their opinion of Purdue Pharma before the Sackler controversy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Wednesday December 11 2019, @11:53AM (3 children)
It's more than just the Sacklers, Universities have always been happy to take money from drug dealers (the Sacklers), pedophiles (Epstein), and who knows what else, their money's as good as anyone's until the publicity gets too severe. It's kinda disturbing when large investment funds, not exactly what you'd hold up as a model of ethical behaviour, are still more ethical in terms of environmental and socially responsible investing than Universities, who seem happy to take anyone's money as long as the publicity over it doesn't get too bad.
(Score: 3, Funny) by takyon on Wednesday December 11 2019, @12:50PM (2 children)
Drug dealers and pedophiles want to give away their money? BRB, registering a charity.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Wednesday December 11 2019, @01:39PM (1 child)
Greenwashing for Humanity!
"Kid, take the money and do something good with it"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:46PM
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday December 11 2019, @12:17PM (2 children)
Maybe, maybe not. You tend to be benevolent instead of inquisitive with the guy who gives you money.
It is interesting to note that the behavior of removing all ties with a perceived malefactor is decried as bigotry when the author is Christian, tolerated and encouraged in all the other cases.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday December 12 2019, @03:35AM (1 child)
Enough with the bullshit Christian persecution complex narrative. If that were true, we wouldn't have had 45 Christian presidents (44 IMO, but Trump calls himself one...) in a row. You wanna be persecuted, I'll staple a flag to your ass and mail you to Iran. You can bitch and whine...or more likely scream and howl and writhe, about Christian persecution there.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday December 12 2019, @09:47AM
see? even the observation itself is attacked with inconsistent arguments.
the zeitgeist against selective bigotry is either present and documented or not. The answer is there for everyone to notice, ignore, or verify as missing. The faith of guys pulling 9/11 or self proclaiming partners of the sionists is for the hypothetical guy upstairs to judge. The explicit persecution of Christians is still another matter.
Account abandoned.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @01:44PM (23 children)
I don't blame this "family" one bit. This is 100% the fault of the doctors prescribing this stuff. If we got rid of prescriptions it would be 100% the fault of the people taking the drugs.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday December 11 2019, @02:34PM (22 children)
What about the doctors being misled by kickback pushing drug company representatives telling them that it's not addictive. All the while, the doctors are addicted to the kickbacks from these drug companies.
Aren't prescriptions intended to provide a level of protection for drugs that the public might need some supervision with?
For example: I take a very potent prescription NSAID. Like a super duper version of Advil or Aleve. Some significant percent of population experiences serious side effects from this drug, (bleeding, ulcers, other fun stuff) while others, like me, do not. Other drugs in the NSAID class affect different people in different ways. Because of the seriousness, they can't just let people buy these drugs off the shelf like candy. My arthritis doctor worked with me to find just the right NSAID for me. That worked. No side effects. That I could spread the doses out to mostly cover 24 hours. Etc.
I have a good working relationship with this arthritis doctor. Long time user of this NSAID and other drugs like hydrocodone. I can ask for things like: "hey, can I get a one time bottle of 90 of that NSAID in half the dose of my regular pills so that I can sometimes add an extra pill (half dose) during the night, or sometimes replace one of my regular pills with a half-dose pill if I think I don't need as much?" Doctor: yep, no problem.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:10PM (21 children)
Doctors being mislead by kickbacks? Doctors are supposed to be able to judge the evidence for themselves, if all they can do is parrot the corporate/government line then they serve no purpose.
Guess what? People can already get any drug they want "like candy". These laws aren't stopping anyone. Most people have common sense though and don't take highly concentrated poisons like candy. For your purposes look into DMSO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:37PM
Exactly. The Sacklers have a business, and their goal is to raise sales. It is the government's and doctor's job to ensure proper application of a drug with strong potential for abuse.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 11 2019, @04:30PM (12 children)
Thanks.
I don't believe I have any porpoises that would benefit from DMSO.
I also believe my arthritis specialist is skilled at what he does. He gives good technical explanations of how things work, don't work and can be treated. He seems to know plenty of treatment options, including even very old drugs that still work perfectly just like when they were developed.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @04:52PM (9 children)
Thats your choice, just don't ask me to pay for you to take 10-100x overpriced treatments with more dangerous side effects.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 11 2019, @05:10PM (8 children)
I don't know what treatments you are thinking of. I take several inexpensive drugs. I had tried one modern and very expensive drug. It did help, but the way it screws with my immune system was not worth it. After a few years of on-again off-again with that drug, I finally threw in the towel. I would rather live with more pain in exchange for NOT catching every little sniffle and cough that comes along.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @05:29PM (2 children)
DMSO is the original, safest, and most effective NSAID. It works for like 80% of people, whenever the main problem is due to secondary inflammation vs simple totally destroyed joints. So unless you tried that first you have no idea what you are missing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @09:06PM (1 child)
He's missing having to rub stuff on his skin, the taste of garlic, and the possibility of
exposing his children (if he has them) to a substance that can harm their developing
nervous systems. He's also missing the difficulty of controlling dosing with a topical
vs. the dose control of a pill, the possibility of drug interactions with meds his doctors
know about but you don't, and the risk of absorbing toxins in to his skin since DMSO
increases the permeability of skin.
DMSO has legitimate uses when combined with other drugs in patch form. If that
made sense for him, his doctor would probably have him on a patch. My Dad was
on a patch for his back. I don't know if DMSO was in the mix, but a powerful pain
killer was and I was always real careful not to touch it when I helped him change
the patch.
There's a reason why DMSO isn't first-line. But whatever. Nevermind the MD, listen
the the AC instead?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @11:04PM
There is no option of act like a human being and research/think for yourself? To you the only options are which authority to choose?
If you are worried about toxicity you can start here:
Brobyn, R. D. (1975). THE HUMAN TOXICOLOGY OF DIMETHYL SULFOXIDE. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 243(1), 497–506. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1975.tb25394.x
scihub: https://sci-hub.tw/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1975.tb25394.x [sci-hub.tw]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 11 2019, @07:30PM (4 children)
It seems to me the A/C you're arguing with is using the Libertarian magical thinking of "Voluntary Contracts" and you're living in the real world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @07:57PM (3 children)
Where did you get that?
The people on this sites are literally nuts, they just make up strawmen out of thin air, argue with them, then vote each other up.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 11 2019, @11:15PM (2 children)
I got it from your first comment:
Advocating getting rid of prescriptions sounds like a Libertarian thing to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @11:30PM (1 child)
Where did I advocate getting rid of prescriptions? I said because there are prescriptions we can't blame the person blindly taking the drug.
You are a seriously confused individual, please stop making up strawmen loosely related to my posts.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 11 2019, @11:48PM
Thanks for the insults by the way. It is not strengthening your arguments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @04:56PM (1 child)
Is this your doctor? https://img.bhs4.com/77/5/775500f311d5bd261736dc9e3f0006d9acd1d7d5_large.jpg [bhs4.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday December 11 2019, @05:10PM
No
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by http on Wednesday December 11 2019, @05:59PM (5 children)
You're not arguing in good faith to leave out the "drug company representatives telling them that it's not addictive" part.
You must be so bored now that your former corporate masters have filed for chapter 11. Why don't you go find some honest work? And no, you can't work for me.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @06:11PM (4 children)
I would never take advice from a doctor who believed what a drug company said about their product...
Why would you listen to someone like that??? They should lose their license.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 11 2019, @07:33PM (3 children)
How would you know you had until after you were addicted?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @08:00PM (2 children)
Use critical thinking and ask questions to see if the doctor has used critical thinking... How old are you?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 11 2019, @11:12PM (1 child)
Critical thinking! Of course, I should have thought of that.
I should also remember to ask if my doctor thinks maybe the rep from the drug company might have been lying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 12 2019, @01:28AM
Sure, any answer besides "Yes, no doubt" means go find someone else.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday December 12 2019, @09:51AM
>Doctors are supposed to be able to judge the evidence for themselves
no they are supposed to follow protocols, else end up sued or worse.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:33PM (1 child)
I've been thinking about my will and what should happen if a charity I thought was worthy to receive a chunk of my estate decides to figuratively spit in my dead face because I expressed 20th century views or something.
I'm considering having my executor send them a letter that the money they rejected will be applied to pay down the public debt. That's the closest one can come to burning the money in front of their faces.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 11 2019, @03:41PM
Spend some of it on cryopreservation of your entire body. Then you'll have a slim chance to carry your 20th century views into the 22nd century.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]