U.S. Government and Top Mexican Drug Cartel Exposed as Partners

U.S. Government and Top Mexican Drug Cartel Exposed as Partners

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/north-america/item/17396-u-s-government-and-top-mexican-drug-cartel-exposed-as-partners

For over a decade, under multiple administrations, the U.S. government had a secret agreement with the ruthless Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel that allowed it to operate with impunity, an in-depth investigation by a leading Mexican newspaper confirmed this week. In exchange for information and assistance in quashing competing criminal syndicates, the Bush and Obama administrations let the Sinaloa cartel import tons of drugs into the United States while wiping out Sinaloa competitors and ensuring that its leaders would not be prosecuted for their long list of major crimes. Other revelations also point strongly to massive but clandestine U.S. government involvement in drug trafficking.

Relying on over 100 interviews with current and former government functionaries on both sides of the border, as well as official documents from the U.S. and Mexican governments, Mexico’s El Universal concluded that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Justice Department had secretly worked with Mexican drug lords. The controversial conspiring led to increased violence across Mexico, where many tens of thousands have been murdered in recent years, the newspaper found after its year-long probe. The U.S. agents and their shady deals with Mexican drug lords even sparked what the paper called a “secret war” inside Mexico.

The newspaper’s investigation also confirmed long-held suspicions that U.S. authorities were signing secret agreements with Mexican drug cartels — especially Sinaloa, which CIA operatives have said was a favorite for use in achieving geo-political objectives. Supposedly without the knowledge or approval of officials in Mexico, ICE and DEA, with a green light from Washington, D.C., made deals with criminal bosses allowing them to avoid prosecution for a vast crime spree that has included mass murder, corruption, bribery, drug trafficking, extortion, and more. In exchange, cartel leaders simply had to help U.S. officials eliminate their competitors — certainly a win-win scenario for crime bosses who prefer to operate without competition or fear of prosecution.

As The New American first reported in early 2011, a high-ranking operative with the Sinaloa cartel had outlined elements of the criminal agreements with U.S. authorities in official court documents. “The government of the United States and its various agencies have a long history of providing benefits, permission, and immunity to criminals and their organizations to commit crimes, including murder, in exchange for receiving information against other criminals and other organizations,” trafficker Jesus Vicente “El Vicentillo” Zambada-Niebla argued in U.S. court filings cited by El Universal. The New American has also reported extensively on the Zambada-Niebla case and what it reveals.

Experts quoted in the Mexican paper echoed other analysts who have spoken out in recent years, saying that the U.S. government scheming handed the Sinaloa cartel de facto status as the primary powerhouse. In fact, during the period when El Universal says the relationship between American officials and Sinaloa chieftains was most active — 2006 through 2012 — drug war-fueled violence in Mexico surged to unprecedented levels. There are numerous indications that despite official denials, top Mexican officials may have been aware of the schemes, or even involved in them.

Also part of the U.S. government deal with Sinaloa, analysts and Zambada-Niebla have said, was the Obama administration’s “Fast and Furious” gun-running program to arm Mexican cartels at U.S. taxpayer expense. Most recently, a whistleblower from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) said that U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, killed with a Fast and Furious gun, was murdered by criminals working for the FBI. “It is clear that some of the weapons were deliberately allowed by the FBI and other government representatives to end up in the hands of the Sinaloa Cartel,” stated a motion filed in U.S. court by Zambada-Niebla’s defense team, adding that the U.S. government has documents showing that the weapons were provided by authorities pursuant to the agreement with Sinaloa.

According to former officials and drug kingpins, the agreements between Sinaloa and Washington also allowed the criminal empire to ship multi-ton quantities of hard drugs across the border into the United States. In all, El Universal said there had been at least 50 meetings in Mexico between U.S. government agents and senior Sinaloa bosses, along with many more phone calls and e-mails. The criminal syndicate’s leaders “were given carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago and the rest of the United States and were also protected by the United States government from arrest and prosecution,” Zambada-Niebla’s court filings state, adding that the U.S. government has the documents proving it. “Indeed, United States government agents aided the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel.”

Unsurprisingly, none of the American federal agencies implicated in the machinations would comment on the revelations. However, citing court documents and official records it published online — as well as numerous interviews with federal agents, convicts, and analysts — the paper was able to conclusively confirm what experts and even officials have been arguing for years: The U.S. government is deeply intertwined with the drug trade. It was not clear what statutory or constitutional authority Washington, D.C., believes would authorize its functionaries to participate in, protect, and facilitate wanton criminal activity.

Mexican authorities, meanwhile, were reportedly kept largely out of the loop surrounding DEA meetings and agreements with top leaders in Mexico’s most notorious criminal syndicates. Officials in Mexico also claimed to be in the dark about the Obama administration’s program to arm the cartels with U.S. weapons. According to analysts quoted in the El Universal report, if it is true that Mexico City was unaware, that only adds to the troubling implications of the unlawful scheming between U.S. officials and criminal bosses from Mexico and Colombia to Afghanistan and Southeast Asia.

Among other concerns, experts highlighted violations of human rights, infringements on the sovereignty of other nations, and more. It also helped fuel the devastating violence that has plagued the nation and claimed the lives of between 50,000 and 100,000 people in less than a decade. If Mexican authorities in fact approved the U.S. government’s drug-running schemes in Mexico, they broke the law, too, legal experts told the paper, saying the Mexican Constitution could not be trumped by bilateral agreements or anything else.

The latest revelations in the El Universal report came just days after the emergence of more explosive information implicating the CIA in drug-trafficking yet again. In an investigative article for Narco News entitled “DEA Case Threatens to Expose US Government-Sanctioned Drug-Running,” veteran drug-war journalist Bill Conroy highlights another U.S. government investigation that, perhaps inadvertently, ended up implicating the infamous American intelligence agency in major cocaine trafficking operations once more. Citing official documents and numerous U.S. officials, the piece also notes that CIA-sponsored drug running has been a persistent and ongoing problem.  

In fact, it would not be the first time that the DEA has stumbled on major CIA drug-running operations. Even former DEA chief Robert Bonner, during an explosive interview with CBS, revealed that his agency had learned that the U.S. intelligence outfit unlawfully imported a ton of cocaine into the United States in cooperation with the Venezuelan government. According to the agency’s inspector general, the CIA was indeed working with traffickers but received a “waiver” from the Justice Department purporting to allow the government crime spree to remain secret. More recently, a Mexican official accused the CIA of “managing” the global drug trade.         

The Mexican investigation follows decades of explosive revelations and accusations, many documented by The New American, suggesting that Washington, D.C., plays a crucial role in facilitating the international drug trade. In fact, more than a few officials, drug lords, and analysts have even said that the CIA and other secretive U.S. and foreign agencies actually run the global trade in narcotics, laundering the profits, and more. The DEA was even investigated by Congress last year for helping to launder drug money, while the ATF was exposed supplying U.S. weapons to Mexican cartels. ICE has reportedly been allowing cartel hit men into the United States to murder. So far, none of the high-ranking officials responsible for the lawlessness have truly been held accountable.

Photo shows alleged hit men working for Sinaloa drug cartel along with grenades, automatic weapons, and body armor: AP Images

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe after growing up in Latin America, including seven years in Mexico. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.

Committing suicide use to be ILLEGAL… now states are ENCOURAGING IT

New Jersey approves bill allowing terminally ill patients the right to die

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/435782-new-jersey-approves-bill-allowing-terminally-ill-patients-the-right-to

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) on Monday announced he will approve a bill that allows physicians to provide lethal prescriptions to terminally ill patients who want to die.

“Allowing terminally ill and dying residents the dignity to make end-of-life decisions according to their own consciences is the right thing to do,” Murphy said Monday. “I look forward to signing this legislation into law.”

Shortly before his statement, the New Jersey state Assembly passed the “Medical Aid in Dying for the Terminally Ill Act” in a 41-33 vote on Monday, according to NJ.com.

The state Senate reportedly passed the bill in a 21-16 vote minutes later. 

Susan Boyce, a 55-year-old woman from Rumson who has been diagnosed with a terminal autoimmune disease, told the local publication that she has been “working on this quite a while.” 

Boyce, who needs an oxygen tank in order to breathe, said that having the law is “something I want the option of.”

“I don’t know what’s in store for me,” she said.

During a debate prior to the vote, state Assemblyman Jay Webber (R) called on his colleagues to delay the vote on the measure. 

“Once you cross this line, Mr. Speaker, there is no going back,” Webber said, according to the NJ.com.

Webber argued that some elderly people support assisted suicide because they don’t want to be a burden to their family and friends.

“Don’t make the right to die an obligation to die,” he said.

However, state Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D), who co-sponsored the legislation, argued that the state has enough safeguards in place to protect those most vulnerable.

“The right of self-determination stands firms no matter what … we control our destiny,” Burzichelli said.

The legislation will go into effect four months after being signed by Murphy.

Blaming Prescription Pain Pills For The Opioid Epidemic Is Fake News

Blaming Prescription Pain Pills For The Opioid Epidemic Is Fake News

How negligent media have helped inflate a deadly moral panic over prescription opioids and ignored the real sources of addiction, while hurting people who live with devastating chronic pain.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/26/blaming-prescription-pain-pills-opioid-epidemic-fake-news/

Angela Kennecke is a popular reporter for a television news station in my hometown of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Each weeknight, Kennecke is at the anchor desk for KELO, a CBS affiliate, and has been there as long as I can remember. For many people in the “Sioux Empire,” Kennecke’s work on television is a normal part of the day, and they can count on her to tell them how it is.

But Kennecke’s objectivity was shaken in May 2018, when her 21-year-old daughter, Emily, was found dead after overdosing on heroin that had been laced with the opioid fentanyl. This tragedy, which made national news, deeply affected Kennecke and the Sioux Falls community. Now, almost a year since Emily’s death, Kennecke has become South Dakota’s leading reporter on the opioid crisis.

In 2017, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) counted 47,600 opioid-related deaths, three-quarters of which involved heroin or “synthetic opioids other than methadone,” a category that consists mainly of fentanyl or its analogs. In 2011, 2,666 deaths involved drugs in that category; by 2017 the number had increased to 28,466, or 60 percent of opioid-related deaths.

Fentanyl in the medical setting is the narcotic drug most commonly administered during surgery. Outside the surgical room, it is primarily prescribed by doctors in the hospital to palliative care patients due to its high potency, which is 50 to 100 times greater than that of morphine. Unfortunately, fentanyl is also dirt cheap for black-market drug dealers to import from China and Mexico. In recent years, traffickers have increasingly turned to fentanyl as a heroin booster and substitute.

The Rise of Black Market Fentanyl

Although opioid-related deaths are driven mainly by heroin and black-market fentanyl, you would not know that from most of the press coverage, which emphasizes pain medication prescribed to patients who become addicted, overdose, and die. This narrative is “fake news.”

Just 30 percent of opioid-related deaths in 2017 involved commonly prescribed pain pills, and most of those cases also involved other drugs. People who die after taking these drugs typically did not become addicted in the course of medical treatment. They tend to be polydrug users with histories of substance abuse and psychological problems.

Contrary to what you may have read or see on TV, addiction is rare among people who take opioids for pain. In a 2018 study of about 569,000 patients who received opioids after surgery, for example, just 1 percent of their medical records included diagnostic codes related to “opioid misuse.” According to federal survey data, “pain reliever use disorder” occurs in 2 percent of Americans who take prescription opioids each year, including non-medical users as well as bona fide patients.

“The current battle against fentanyl as a street drug has little or nothing to do with American medical practice,” writes Harvard-trained anesthesiologist Richard Novak. “Most of the fentanyl found on the streets is not diverted from hospitals, but rather is sourced from China and Mexico.”

Yet, politicians, law enforcement agencies, anti-drug ad campaigns, movies, and TV shows still put pain treatment at the center of the “opioid crisis.” Kennecke’s reporting has helped perpetuate this false narrative. In a 50-minute news special that aired last December, for instance, representatives of the two largest South Dakotan hospitals brag about cutting opioid prescriptions by a whopping 38 percent. Kennecke asks no questions and shows no skepticism.

While fentanyl is mentioned as a cause of the crisis, prescription analgesics gets much of the blame. A viewer only needs to see the opening image of a black background covered in a waterfall of pills to understand the correlation being made. In her news reports and work for her opioid-addiction charity, Emily’s Hope, Kennecke frequently refers to prescription opioids while talking about deaths caused mostly by fentanyl and heroin.

To be fair, her reporting and charity work are done with good intent, and Kennecke is far from alone in reporting this narrative. You can almost count on two hands the number of journalists in the country reporting on this issue responsibly. But this kind of thing—where someone pushes a specific narrative for a cause without regard to the full context and facts of a story—isn’t journalism, it’s activism.

No one can blame Kennecke, Eric Bolling (a national conservative personality whose son died from a fentanyl overdose in 2017), or any other journalist whose life is affected by a fentanyl death for getting emotional. It is understandable that they feel as strongly as they do. But reporting one-sided and biased information is unethical because their reporting is influential.

For example, Bolling reportedly has President Trump’s ear and helped influence an anti-opioid bill package that Congress passed last year. Activism like this comes with a heavy price.

Cracking Down in the Wrong Areas

Thirty-three states have now created laws that severely restrict opioid prescriptions in response to the hysteria. Most of these laws put hard day limits on prescribers. In Florida, for example, they impose a three-day limit on any prescription opioid for acute pain. The combination of these laws, plus overactive Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents, has made pain specialists scarce in states such as Montana and Tennessee.

Due to the media hysteria which in turn inspires political hysteria, it is now harder than ever to get an opioid prescription for those in chronic pain, even though there is currently no equivalent medical treatment to replace the prescription opioids used by 18 million Americans for long-term pain. In 2017, a New England Journal of Medicine study found, the number of doctors who prescribed opioids at all fell by 29 percent. That same journal in a more recent study found a decline of 54 percent in prescription opioids by doctors for first-time-opioid patients between 2012 and 2017.

A nationwide survey of almost 4,000 pain patients by Dr. Terri Lewis found that 56 percent reported either disruption in pain treatment or outright abandonment by their once trusted doctors.

So awful is the reaction against chronic pain patients that 300 drug policy, addiction, and pain treatment experts, including three former White House drug czars, recently urged the CDC to clarify its 2016 opioid prescription guidelines, which have been widely interpreted as imposing arbitrary limits on average daily doses. Last November, the American Medical Association approved a resolution noting that guidelines had been read “by pharmacists, health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers, legislatures, and governmental and private regulatory bodies in ways that prevent or limit access to opioid analgesia.”

While the news media aren’t to blame for the backlash against doctors and their chronic pain patients, they are guilty of sustaining the moral panic underlying it—a panic that is causing many needless deaths. Just go to any chronic pain patient forum, social media group, or even the federal government’s regulatory website to read the thousands of stories of quality-of-life reductions and suicide plans.

Kelly Goricki, a mother of four, offered this account on Chronic Pain Reddit:

It pisses me off when I get treated like a drug-seeking junkie by doctors who can CLEARLY see my well-documented injuries in my medical files. It pisses me off when my doctor, who doesn’t have chronic pain and has watched my injuries worsen dramatically over the last decade+ tells me I/my injuries ‘shouldn’t hurt that bad/aren’t that bad,’ as she watches my physical decline and takes away pain meds that allowed me to care for myself, my home, and my family, just so she ‘doesn’t have to deal with the paperwork.’ It pisses me off I’m treated like a junkie bad mother because someone finds out I take pain medication. It pisses me off that people assume the same meds I have been prescribed for (years) ….. make me high, or that I abuse them to get high.

An anonymous commentator had this to say on the government website regulations.gov:

I have fibromyalgia, arthritis, depression and diabetes. About 2 years ago my physician decided to take all of (his) patients off of pain meds. … The pain level is very extreme and it is 24/7 chronic pain. I can not function with this pain at a level that I could full time. I live by myself and can no longer support myself. I feel that eventually suicide may be my only option. I never abused my meds and I was able to function.

All this misery for this patient, Goricki, and an untold number of other patients is happening because the media and the CDC have made their physicians’ jobs impossible.

Desperation for Chronic Pain Patients?

Many of these patients used their prescriptions responsibly for decades, but they are now being pushed into trying dangerous surgical interventions or desperately buying drugs off the street. Reporters like Kennecke are helping to push chronic pain patients past their breaking point. It’s a pointless sacrifice, since opioid-related deaths have continued to rise even as prescriptions of pain medication have fallen dramatically.

As someone who is disabled and suffering from intractable pain, I know this problem keenly. For more than a year, I have lived without a prescription of low-dose oxycodone I responsibly used for almost nine years.

While not a perfect treatment for my pain, oxycodone did allow me enough function to survive. While on it, I attended college, served a mission, obtained my bachelor’s and master’s degrees, and ran for school board twice. All that was taken away from me a year ago by a doctor who didn’t want to deal with the hassle that now comes with opioid prescriptions.

Reporters like Kennecke are doing what they think is right. The deaths caused by fentanyl are real and atrocious. But what she and too many of our leaders are doing by associating prescription opioids with fentanyl deaths is unethical and inaccurate. And the deaths of innocent pain patients will be the price of it. Journalists must ask themselves: Does our misreporting have a cost?

Peter Vaughn Pischke is a journalist and podcast host for TheSiouxEmpire.com. He can usually be found manning the Happy Warrior Podcast: providing commentary on conservative and nerd-culture news and ideas. You can find him on Twitter: @happywarriorp.

CVS asked us to fill out a “safety” survey

CVS asked us to fill out a “safety” survey and how well our teams adhered to policies and procedures for safe practices… Then they left a comment space at the end, which I dutifully filled in.

This is a CVS pharmacist’s response to the corporation’s how Rx dept staff are:

how well our teams adhered to policies and procedures for safe practices

This is just one of their pharmacist’s opinion but from what I have heard others share to a major degree the same feelings and you as a pt… are you putting your health/safety at risk by having your prescriptions filled there ?

Here is a link to help you find a independent pharmacy – by zip code – where you will be dealing with the pharmacist/owner

http://www.ncpanet.org/home/find-your-local-pharmacy

Bayer, J&J settle thousands of US Xarelto lawsuits for $775 million

Bayer, J&J settle thousands of US Xarelto lawsuits for $775 million

https://www.mdlinx.com/pharmacy/top-medical-news/article/2019/03/26/7561883/

Bayer AG and Johnson & Johnson have agreed to settle more than 25,000 US lawsuits alleging that their blockbuster blood thinner Xarelto (rivaroxaban) caused unstoppable and in some cases fatal bleeding for a total of $775 million, court documents on Monday showed.

The amount will be shared equally between the two companies that jointly developed the drug. Bayer and J&J do not admit liability under the agreement.

The settlement will resolve all pending US lawsuits over rivaroxaban, which plaintiffs claimed caused uncontrollable and irreversible bleeding leading to severe injuries and even death among thousands of patients. Plaintiffs accused the drugmakers of having failed to warn about the bleeding risks, claiming their injuries could have been prevented had doctors and patients been provided adequate information.

Bayer in a statement on Monday said it continues to believe the claims are without merit. “However, this favorable settlement allows the company to avoid the distraction and significant cost of continued litigation,” the company said. Lawsuits over rivaroxaban began piling up in 2014, and the companies had so far won all six trials over rivaroxaban’s alleged bleeding risk.

J&J in a statement said it continued to believe in the safety of rivaroxaban but that the settlement was the right thing to do for patients and their doctors.

Rivaroxaban is Bayer’s best-selling drug. It contributed 3.6 billion euros ($4.07 billion) in revenue to the German group’s pharmaceutical business last year. Bayer said its share of the settlement amount will be partially offset by product liability insurance.

Bayer jointly developed rivaroxaban with J&J’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit, which sells the blood clot preventer under a licensing agreement in the United States. J&J reported 2018 rivaroxaban sales of $2.47 billion.

The US Food and Drug Administration approved rivaroxaban in 2011. It is prescribed for people with atrial fibrillation, and to treat and reduce the risk of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The companies in the past have said rivaroxaban’s warning label provides “complete, accurate, and science-based information on the medicine’s benefits and risks.”

The majority of the claims were consolidated in New Orleans federal court, where three cases were selected as so-called bellwether trials, aimed to help determine the range of damages and define settlement options. The companies won those three trials throughout 2017. J&J and Bayer were also cleared of liability in three other state court trials in 2018.

Rivaroxaban is among a class of oral blood thinners, including Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer’s Eliquis (apixaban), that are alternatives to decades-old warfarin. Most of the lawsuits over apixaban have been dismissed by US judges.

A similar drug, Boehringer Ingelheim’s Pradaxa (dabigatran), also became the subject of thousands of lawsuits claiming the company understated its bleeding risk. Boehringer in 2014 reached a $650 million settlement to resolve more than 4,000 of those cases.

Why did these companies agree to make these settlements ??.. because in MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION – they are dangerous…  A number of years ago, Barb had A-Fib and her then cardiologist wanted to discharge her from the hospital on one of these “new oral anticoagulants” that – at the time – had no way to reverse of a pt started bleeding… I reluctant to allow her to be discharged on the one that could at least be reversed with dialysis  – on top of that  – the particular med he wanted her on has a LEVEL ONE DRUG INTERACTION with one or more of her other meds – LEVEL ONE is DO NOT GO THERE.

Once I got her into the PCP… I got her switched to Warfarin… our PCP really kinda of defended using these new meds but he caved to my persistence. Thru a medical procedure, Barb was able to get her A-Fib correct and no longer on Warfarin…

A few years later, I showed up with some clots and had to go on a blood thinner and our PCP – either remembered me be “hard-headed” about using Warfarin  – or he had seen the problems with these new blood thinners and never discussed me being on anything but Warfarin.  A Warfarin bleed can be quickly reversed with Vit K and while there is a new reversal agent for these blood thinners… the studies I have seen suggests that it works so slow that 17% of the pt will still BLEED OUT !

I can do home testing with a meter http://www.coaguchek.com/coaguchek_patient/landing and with Medicare and a Supplement… the cost is paid 100% and it takes maybe a total of 5 minutes to do the test

 

 

Just how important are the CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURES to the feds ?

For those who are skeptical about how important the $$$ collected by the FEDS using CIVIL ASSET FORFEITURE ACT…  here is a list from SEVEN DIFFERENT FEDERAL AGENCIES and the lists of property that was seized/confiscated by the FEDS

https://www.forfeiture.gov/

https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/ATF/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/DEA/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/FBI/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/USAO/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/CBP/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/USPS/OfficialNotification.pdf
https://www.forfeiture.gov/pdf/USSS/OfficialNotification.pdf

 

Does it remind you of the WILD WILD WEST ?

 

Purdue Pharma, state of Oklahoma reach settlement in landmark opioid lawsuit

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/purdue-pharma-state-of-oklahoma-reach-settlement-in-landmark-opioid-lawsuit/2019/03/26/69aa5cda-4f11-11e9-a3f7-78b7525a8d5f_story.html

Purdue Pharma and the state of Oklahoma have agreed to settle a lawsuit over the drugmaker’s role in the deadly opioid crisis, a milestone in the legal effort to force pharmaceutical companies to pay some of the costs of the epidemic, people familiar with the matter said.

The deal, which is scheduled to be announced at a news conference Tuesday, will require Purdue and the family that owns the company to pay approximately $270 million. Most of the money will fund a new center for research, education and treatment of addiction and pain at Oklahoma State University in Tulsa.

Oklahoma is free to continue its lawsuit against two other defendants and their subsidiaries — Johnson & Johnson, the 37th-largest company in the United States, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, an Israel-based manufacturer that focuses mainly on generic drugs. The two companies, which have asked to be tried separately from Purdue, are slated to go to trial on May 28.

Lawyers in the case and a spokesman for Purdue declined to comment ahead of the planned announcement Tuesday.

Oklahoma contends that Purdue, Johnson & Johnson and Teva bear some responsibility for thousands of opioid deaths across the state, in addition to the health care, law enforcement and treatment costs of the state’s addiction crisis. Purdue and others face similar claims in several other courts, and the first major settlement in the flood of lawsuits could help set the bar for compensation sought by hundreds of states, cities, counties and Native American tribes for the costs incurred in responding to the epidemic.

About 1,600 of those cases are consolidated in one enormous case — known as multidistrict litigation — before a federal judge in Cleveland. That action targets companies that manufactured, distributed and dispensed narcotic painkillers across the country, and those cities, towns and tribes are seeking damages in what some believe is the most complex litigation in U.S. history.

Thirty-six states have chosen to bring separate lawsuits in their own court systems, believing they have better chances there.

Purdue’s recent acknowledgment that it is considering bankruptcy as an option could influence strategy in those lawsuits; Oklahoma’s settlement ensures it will receive at least some compensation for its claims.

Under the terms of the settlement, Purdue will contribute $102.5 million to establish the new addiction center. Members of the Sackler family, who own the company but were not defendants in the case, will pay another $75 million in personal funds over five years, people familiar with the agreement said. Purdue also will provide $20 million worth of treatment drugs, will pay $12 million to cities and towns, and will cover about $60 million in pay to private attorneys from two law firms that have represented Oklahoma in the case.

The addiction center would be housed at Oklahoma State University’s Center for Wellness and Recovery and would be overseen by an independent board.

Nearly 400,000 people in the United States died of opioid overdoses between 1999 and 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including a record 47,600 in 2017. Purdue is widely blamed for helping to start the epidemic after it introduced the powerful opioid OxyContin to the market in 1996. The company allegedly persuaded doctors to prescribe — and overprescribe — the drug for a wide variety of ailments. In 2007, Purdue and three of its executives pleaded guilty to misconduct in their marketing of OxyContin and paid more $600 million in fines.

Authorities have argued that Purdue used deceptive marketing tactics and a sizable workforce of representatives to repeatedly visit physicians to sell them narcotics, assuring them that the drugs were rarely addictive. Many patients became addicted to the potent painkillers, and large amounts of the drug were diverted to the black market.

More than 2 million Americans now suffer from an opioid use disorder, according to government data. The epidemic has evolved to encompass illicit use of fentanyl, a synthetic ultrapowerful opioid that has caused a spike in overdoses and fatalities.

Three years ago, the CDC estimated the cost of the opioid epidemic at $78.5 billion for calendar year 2013. In 2017, the White House Council of Economic Advisers placed the price tag much higher, at $504 billion for 2015.

A consultant’s report that Oklahoma filed in court estimated that abating the opioid crisis in that state would cost more than $8.7 billion during the next 20 years.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter sued the three drug companies in June 2017, and the two sides have been taking depositions and jousting over pretrial issues for nearly two years. As other cases lagged, Oklahoma judge Thad H. Balkman set a May 28 trial date, agreed to televise the proceedings live and refused drug company requests to postpone the trial. That ensured that the Oklahoma case would be the first major test of whether the companies would be forced to pay for the crisis.

According to a lawsuit filed by the state of Massachusetts, Sackler family members received nearly $4.3 billion in payouts from Purdue between 2008 and 2016. But the family-owned company has suffered heavy blows to its image in recent months as litigation has advanced. Three museums in Britain and the United States have turned down donations from the Sacklers, longtime patrons of the arts, in recent days.

And documents released in the Massachusetts lawsuit, brought by state Attorney General Maura Healey, depicted some of the Sacklers as insatiably greedy and uncaring about the human toll of their product.

“Millions of dollars were not enough. They wanted billions,” the lawsuit charges. “They cared more about money than about patients, or their employees, or the truth.”

Another Vet left being tortured by the VA & the govt that promised to take care of him

Image may contain: one or more people, people sitting, living room and indoor

It’s OFFICIAL the VA has now fully tapered my dad. His last RX is coming and that’s the end. Their intentions were all along to kill my father, even after the family begging them not to take away his pain medication. It was the VA who put my father on the pain program now they are taking away their promise to treat him.
I hold the VA and the #opioidhysteria responsible for the extreme suffering my father is going through. I will be outside the VA center everyday in protest and will shame this facility for the entire Pensacola area to see!!!!!

Another Vet left being tortured by the VA & the govt that promised to take care of him.
Please speak up and share this post, this has to end. I’m sure this woman would appreciate some help in protesting outside the VA in Pensacola as well, if anyone is in the area, contact her or stop by & show some support for those being harmed by #opioidhysteria and the false narrative being perpetuated by Andrew Kolodny, his cohorts at PROP, their PR team and the CDC & DEA who is their own personal terrorist army.
Please join the special class action lawsuit against the govt and help stop the torture! Visit www.sickofsuffering.com for more info!

 

A Federal Court Says Your Prescription Records Aren’t Really Private. The Supreme Court Might Have Something to Say About That.

A Federal Court Says Your Prescription Records Aren’t Really Private. The Supreme Court Might Have Something to Say About That.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/location-tracking/federal-court-says-your-prescription-records-arent-really

When you fill a prescription at your local drug store, you would surely bristle at someone behind you peeking over your shoulder — but in a decision issued last week, a federal court in Utah said that you have no Fourth Amendment right to object when the peeker is the United States government.

You read that correctly: In a case challenging the Drug Enforcement Administration’s warrantless access to patient prescription records stored in a secure state database, the court relied in part on an outdated legal doctrine to rule that a “patient in Utah decides to trust a prescribing physician with health information to facilitate a diagnosis,” and thereby “takes the risk . . . that his or her information will be conveyed to the government.”

That’s hard to swallow — and it helps make very clear the huge stakes of our upcoming Supreme Court argument in United States v. Carpenter, which concerns the role of the so-called “third-party doctrine” in opening up all kinds of sensitive records to warrantless searches by police.

The 1970s-era doctrine says that Fourth Amendment protections afforded to certain kinds of information disappear once people voluntarily provide that information to a third party. The doctrine emerged from a pair of Supreme Court cases, one of which — Smith v. Maryland — involved a robbery suspect who argued that his Fourth Amendment rights had been violated when police recorded the numbers he dialed from his home phone without obtaining a warrant. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that because his phone calls passed through the phone company, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed, and therefore they weren’t protected by the Constitution.

This case (and its close cousin, United States v. Miller, which held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in certain banking records held by a bank) is still on the books, and the government has leveraged it to acquire powers that were unimaginable four decades ago. Today, police can track not only the phone numbers dialed by a single suspect over a short period, but also collect reams of information about people — whether their sensitive prescription records or data about their every movement over months at a time — without ever asking a judge for a warrant based on probable cause.

That brings us back to Utah. In 1995, the state passed a law establishing a database for prescriptions of certain medications, including those that treat chronic and acute pain, anxiety disorders, gender transitions, and many more medical conditions or procedures. As of last year, the database housed more than 70 million prescription records and was growing by more than 5 million per year. To address the obvious privacy risks in maintaining this kind of database, and in response to a scandal in which a Utah detective downloaded the entire prescription histories of nearly 500 firefighters, in 2015 the Utah legislature amended its law to require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before retrieving this private medical information.

But even though the amendment made clear that sensitive prescription records should be protected by the safeguards of the warrant requirement — including a probable cause finding of criminal activity, an independent assessment by a judge, and a narrow and particular purpose — the federal government simply didn’t care. In June 2015, the DEA issued a subpoena that was never approved by a judge demanding reams of prescription records from Utah’s state database. When Utah said “get a warrant,” the agency went to court to force the state to turn them over.Last year, the ACLU and the ACLU of Utah intervened in the case on behalf of Equality Utah, an LGBTQ advocacy organization concerned about the privacy of transgender individuals who are prescribed hormones and other medications, and IAFF Local 1696, the union representing Unified Fire Authority firefighters and paramedics who have experienced concrete violations of their prescription privacy in recent years. (We also represent two individual Utahns and the patients and physicians among the ACLU of Utah’s members.)

The ACLU, on behalf of our clients — along with Utah, on behalf of all its residents — argued that the Fourth Amendment required a warrant because people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their prescription records.

But the court disagreed, deciding that “[p]hysicians and patients do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the highly regulated prescription drug industry,” because a patient who gives a doctor private health information takes the risk that her prescribed treatment will be regulated by state law. In other words, because a person gives sensitive information to a third party (here, a doctor and pharmacist!), that person loses an expectation of privacy in that information — the so-called “third-party doctrine.”

While we’ve lost this round in Utah, there’s another on the horizon that may require the court in Utah to reconsider its conclusions. This fall, we’ll be arguing before the Supreme Court in Carpenter that the mere fact that an individual’s private and sensitive records reside with some third party does not, on its own, eliminate the individual’s constitutional right to privacy in those records. In that case, police collected months’ worth of cell phone location information about our client, all without a warrant.

Given how integral cell phones have become to daily life, and the amount of sensitive information they generate about us, it’s simply untenable to argue that the mere act of carrying a cell phone eliminates your Fourth Amendment right against warrantless government access to your most private information. The Carpenter case provides a historic opportunity to ensure that the protections of the Constitution don’t become obsolete in the face of advancing technology. But it’s about more than the privacy of our cell phone location records. It could also provide an opening to give our prescription data and other sensitive records the privacy they deserve. It’s about time.

 

Opioid bill ignores real problem, creates host of new ones, critics argue

https://www.watchdog.org/minnesota/opioid-bill-ignores-real-problem-creates-host-of-new-ones/article_6f73481c-4c18-11e9-bc8c-9b551bb84e55.html

A Minnesota bill seeking to establish an Opioid Stewardship Fund doesn’t address the root cause of the opioid crisis – the illegal sale of narcotics – and will only increase costs to taxpayers, insurance companies and their customers, critics argue. And while well-intentioned, it potentially could drive pharmaceutical companies out of the state, they say.

The bill, HF 400, passed the state House by a vote of 94-34 and awaits action in the Senate. If passed into law, it would create an opioid stewardship fund, an opiate product registration fee, and modify provisions related to opioid addiction prevention, education, intervention, treatment and recovery.

Rep. Tony Albright, Assistant Minority Leader, who voted against the bill, has proposed several alternatives over the years, including better access to treatment and prevention resources.

The fund’s revenue would come from fees on manufacturers and wholesalers of opioid medication. Board members of the Opioid Stewardship Fund would determine fees based on its $20 million annual budget.

But imposing arbitrary fees on pharmaceutical distributors will only increase costs for everyone and do nothing to address the opioid crisis, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, argues.

HF 400 “could even make the opioid crisis worse,” Norquist says. “The legislation would impose a harmful new tax that would hurt patients in need of medicine by driving up costs directly and causing supply problems that would further hike costs and create access issues.”

Action 4 Liberty, an advocacy group that opposes the bill, argues “government should not get involved in the decision-making of prescribing pain medication from medical professionals.”

The bill dictates how much opioid pain medication a doctor can prescribe to patients who’ve had surgery or undergone a major trauma. It states, “when used for the treatment of acute pain associated with a major trauma or surgical procedure, initial prescriptions for opiate or narcotic pain relievers listed in Schedules II through IV of section 152.02 shall not exceed a seven-day supply.”

The bill also adds mandated acupuncture coverage to Minnesota health insurance plans: “health plans must cover acupuncture services for the treatment of pain and ongoing pain management.”

The new regulations are misplaced and overly burdensome, the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), argues.

“Because the opioid crisis is primarily driven by illegal narcotics like fentanyl and heroin, it would be prudent for legislators to focus their efforts on preventing those drugs from being trafficked, instead of placing further regulations and taxes on the legal pharmaceuticals that Americans use every day,” Elizabeth Wright, CAGW’s director of health policy, said.

According to a study published this month by economics professors at Union University in New York, any costs to comply will be passed on to taxpayers. When evaluating a similar opioid tax proposed in New York, the researchers found that “the proposed tax will encourage residents suffering from opioid dependence to switch to cheaper illegal opioids, including heroin and fentanyl, with increased rates of accidental overdose.”

The opioid tax would drive up prices for consumers and insurers, the researchers found, and not actually address the drug-addiction crisis.

None of these initiatives address the root of the opioid problem, critics argue.

Approximately 26,000 people died nationwide from fentanyl sold on the black market originating from China and Mexican cartels in 2017, according to a Bloomberg News report. According to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data, the sale of illicit fentanyl poses the greatest risk in the opioid crisis.

Critics point out that because the tax demands an arbitrary amount of fees, once one fee-paying pharmaceutical company leaves the state, the rest will end up paying more, and then also might consider leaving. Suppliers would then leave the state, opponents of the bill fear, creating another crisis altogether – less access to medication.

“Taxpayers should make their voices heard and demand that policies related to the opioid epidemic are focused on the cause of the crisis, not on a political scapegoat,” Wright added.