Most others have said the important part:
*Purdue claimed they were not addictive, then they got over prescribed.*
One level deeper: Purdue made billions off Percosets (Oxycodone) the 70s and 80s. They needed something newer, bigger, stronger, because that’s how you keep your stock price up.
But everyone acknowledged that Percosets were addictive if over prescribed. So they were regulated.
So this time around, in the 90s, Purdue consciously created a strong drug (OxyContin) that was stronger but slow releasing, and then claimed it was not addictive. So it was less regulated. And then prescribed to millions. And then millions became addicted.
Two levels deeper: the study Purdue provided (to show lack of addictiveness) was so blatantly simple that it never should have gotten past the FDA. But because of deregulation in the 80s and 90s, the FDA started taking big pharma “at their word” that they do the studies with honesty and integrity, instead of actually regulating.
Latest Answers