Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Tuesday March 26 2019, @10:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-a-start dept.

Purdue Pharma settles opioid lawsuit for $270m

Purdue Pharma, the drug-maker owned by the billionaire Sackler family, has reached a $270m settlement in a lawsuit which claimed its opioids contributed to the deaths of thousands of people.

The deal with Oklahoma is the first settlement the US firm has struck amid some 2,000 other lawsuits it is facing linked to its painkiller OxyContin.

Purdue is one of several firms named in the claim which alleged they used deceptive practices to sell opioids.

[...]Under the settlement, Purdue will pay $102.5m towards the creation of a National Centre for Addiction Studies and Treatment at Oklahoma State University.

The Sacklers themselves said that they will contribute $75m over five years to the centre.

Also at CNN and NBC.

Previously: OxyContin Maker Purdue Pharma May File for Bankruptcy to Disrupt Lawsuits


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 27 2019, @12:44AM (3 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 27 2019, @12:44AM (#820427) Journal

    their method of figuring "Whether the benefits outweigh the cost when giving sick people a drug." [theguardian.com]

    Scientists in the federal government and inside Purdue warned Richard Sackler, then the senior vice-president of Purdue responsible for sales, of the risks that OxyContin would be abused if it was uncontrolled.

    After a co-worker wrote to him with such a warning Sackler responded, according to Tuesday’s filing: “How substantially would it improve your sales?”

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @01:03AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @01:03AM (#820433)

    What is your point? The government approved it cause "p < 0.05" and they hadn't reached their quote for drugs to approve yet that year.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 27 2019, @01:44AM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 27 2019, @01:44AM (#820440) Journal

      What is your question? Are you able to formulate it coherently?

      Rather than revealing their entire method of figuring out what is a good idea to give to people or not

      Who are they?

      The government approved it cause "p they hadn't reached their quote for drugs to approve yet that year.

      How is the emphasis relevant?

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @01:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 27 2019, @01:51AM (#820442)

        Sorry, I don't have a question for you. It is clear what will convince you, and it don't involve no compound sentences.