Just had to do this. SACKLER is a pack of rich bastards who helped create the opioid crisis (number four? five? who’s counting) currently running through the States and getting foot holds throughout the world.
Good luck reading all his dribbling shit.
Here is an excerpt….
Richard Sackler, M.D.
1 MS Contin or try to position it alongside MS Contin.
2 Do you recall that issue?
3 MR. STRAUBER: I object to the form of
4 the question. Could you repeat it? I’m not sure I
5 understood the question.
MR. THOMPSON: Yes.
One of the concerns when you were
8 developing Oxycodone — I’m sorry — OxyContin
9 Controlled-Release was how you were going to position
1 o it for market share and whether you were going to
11 position it and make MS Contin obsolete and take that
12 market share that MS Contin had, or whether you were
13 going to position it alongside MS Cantin and sell them
14 both together.
Do you recall that concern?
I recall discussions, but that wasn’t
1 7 the principal driver. The principal — the principal
18 goal was to produce the best product we could, and we
19 believed when we started it and subsequently …
Should I stop?
We believed it was and is a better
23 product than MS Cantin.
24 Q. Here’s a memo dated — to Richard S.
1 MR. THOMPSON: Sure. That’s why I was
2 holding it over here.
3 MR. STRAUBER: It’s hard to read from
4 that distance.
MR. ELLIS: Here’s an extra copy.
MR. THOMPSON: Great.
MR. STRAUBER: Do you have a copy for
MR. ELLIS: (Passing document.)
MR. STRAUBER: Thank you.
So do you see down there the second
highlighted portion that says “Rationale.”
A. Mine is not highlighted.
Q. Yeah. I’ll tell you where to go.
Q. So the second highlighted portion,
1 7 “Rationale for another controlled-release opioid
18 analgesic.” And do you see the first sentence below
Oh, I see. That’s a cross-title.
I was looking at the text.
And the text below that says,
24 “MS Cantin may eventually face such serious generic
2 5 Sackler from Robert Kaiko. 2 5 competition that other controlled-release opioids must
Page 26 Page 28
1 Do you know Dr. Kaiko?
2 A. I do.
3 Q. He’s a Ph.D.?
4 A. He is.
5 Q. What was his role?
6 A. He was the person who undertook or ran
7 the project and was involved — the project of
8 developing OxyContin — and was — as a clinical
9 pharmacologist was deeply involved in selecting
1 o formulations that would be most likely to achieve the
11 desired effect.
12 Q. And under here it says, “Rationale for
13 Another Controlled-Release Opioid Analgesic.”
14 This is Bates number — it’s actually
15 got two Bates stamps. So it’s PDD9520805292.
16 But it says, “Rationale for Another
1 7 Controlled-Release Opioid Analgesic: MS Cantin may
18 eventually face such serious generic competition that
19 other controlled-release opioids must be considered.
2 o Other pharmaceutical firms are thought to also be
21 developing other controlled-released opioid
Nineteen ninety fucken four..?..
Think I was in jail, released just in time for a birthday on Dec 13th. Think the release date was the 12th. Or maybe it was the fucken 13th? Really don’t remember. Or give a shit to be frank. Whoever frank was, he has a few things to answer for.
What I do remember, quite well, was…
Itching to get out the cell and being left there by some sarcastic screw until well after normal release hour…
Climbing up the walls, almost literally…
Warm toast at Dad’s… before telling some bullshit lies and finding my feet tracking down the drug dealer who took up the slack when me and my totally slack mate went to jail…
Two days of remembering sweet fuck all – pretty sure I met the future mother of my daughter mind you…
Blowing through the few grand left with that typical thousand dollar a day ceiling most stupid fuckwits like me aspired to…
Well and truly smashing the old notion that being clean for a few months from methadone means that your tolerance for all things opiate has dropped…
Ho fucking hum. Roll on withdrawal and a shot at another life, for the first time.
Two Thousand and Nineteen…
Netflix has a new film out. The All American version of Mötley Crüe.
Watching this when you happen to be an old drug fiend leaves you feeling pretty odd, I gotta say.
The struggle with giving in and picking up is real. Daily.
Right about now human company would be beneficial.
Currently living alone, but with three ex feral cats has it’s own daily grind. Honestly. Right now I have the 8kg Axe Man between me and computer screen demanding attention. Am bleeding out spike wounds in the back of my hand and wrist. Not from drug use.
Bloody cats… Their bastard claws and teeth sure do work better than those little pins diabetics carry with them everywhere.
Maybe I need a meeting of the Narcotics Anonymous variety?
For I guess I am single, alone and confused about what ghosts are and why anyone bothers chasing them. Hungry or otherwise.
Or maybe I need to get some real food into me, stretch and get on with whatever the hell it is I do with my broken arse nowadays.
Pretty sure not everyone has a life this depressing.
Just say no, right people?
Just say no.
Had some food, fired up air compressor and put clear coat on some car parts… Got back to computer after an hour to be followed shortly thereafter by the Lorde Battle Axe… Again – just easier to give in and humour the big fella.
DESPITE ALL THE HATERS sending emails like “cannot you believe you moan about addiction services, they work well and moaners like you should be shot” there are many many more people like me out there. Even more so disillusioned.
Work done for “Perspectives” (research and graphic display) with a very highly respected and qualified researcher for Otago Univershity convinced me that the problem was even worse than I first diagnosed.
You see – rightly or wrongly people feel they should not speak out. Some fear the licenses for driving will be revoked (in truth, this has been known to happen for crazy reasons…), others don’t even enrol to vote for reasons known best to themselves.
But all share something in common – the services and help they require could be improved by them coming forward, voting and putting their names behind a change.
Here is a letter I received tonight from an extremely well-respected lady, whom used to work in an office next to my girlfriend who worked in the mental health sector and first encouraged me to write the worlds shittiest blog.
Please read. Please support. Please have your say.
You’re receiving this message from former Mental Health Commissioner Mary O’Hagan because you have taken action in the past on campaigns for a better mental health system.
Dear Mr Fiendipoobum,
In today’s Budget announcement Finance Minister Grant Robertson has promised future funding for mental health will depend on the outcome of the Government Inquiry into Mental Health and Addiction.
All of us want to know there will be support available for us, our loved ones, friends and whānau, when we experience mental distress or addiction.
The Government Inquiry gives us the biggest opportunity I’ve seen in my lifetime to change the system so that no-one is turned away and everyone get more than medication.
|SIGN FOR A SYSTEM CHANGE|
A lot of people can’t get help when they need it. Every week I hear stories of desperate people who can’t get access into services, with mental health care facilities at capacity and not enough staff.
I used mental health services for several years as a young woman. At the time, all I got was a ‘pills and pillows’ service and grim predictions from professionals for my future.
Their predictions were all wrong; for the last 30 years I have advocated for change in mental health at the local, national and international levels, including as a commissioner at the Mental Health Commission which had oversight of the mental health system.
The People’s Mental Health Report showed the system is not working. People get too many pills, too much coercion, and not enough support to get work, housing, talking therapies, community connections, self-belief and hope for their future.
There is a groundswell of support for fundamental change in mental health and addiction and the government has said of the Inquiry that ‘nothing is off the table’.
That’s why I’ve partnered with ActionStation in asking for a system change in the way mental health is treated and talked about in New Zealand.
We at PeerZone are a social enterprise run by and for people with mental distress where we develop and deliver resources and supports for our peers who have mental distress. We believe with social justice and the right kind of support all people with experience of mental distress can lead great lives.
The PeerZone team and many of our supporters have created The Wellbeing Manifesto for Aotearoa New Zealand; it starts where the People’s Mental Health Report left off, with wide-ranging and long-term recommendations, based on our lived experience. It is our submission to the Government Inquiry and I invite you to sign and support it too.
The Submission calls for all the sectors that have responsibility for wellbeing, distress and addiction — such as health, social development, justice, corrections and education — to jointly fund a full menu of services at the local level, in partnership with people affected by distress and addiction.
This menu includes:
→ personal and whānau support;
→ income, work and housing support;
→ talking therapies and treatments;
→ spiritual healing;
→ and crisis responses.
The services need to be co-delivered and working together as much as possible, in such settings as primary health facilities, marae, community centres and large workplaces.
At the same time, the workforce needs to undergo a transformation so that cultural workers and peer workers (those who have lived experience of distress and addiction) work alongside the traditional workforce with equal status and in equal numbers.
Your voice will add power to our submission for these ambitious goals. Will you sign onto our Submission to the Inquiry?
|ADD YOUR NAME|
Thanks for all you do,
Director of PeerZone
EXACTLY how are mental health and addiction leadership groups and direction managed in New Zealand…?….
You go to a meeting, you get to sit in groups (that have been pre determined) you then listen to speakers and discuss amongst your group, writing down likes, dislikes and generally feeling like you are helping change the landscape for the better in the complicated realm of addiction and mental health services or research.
Then you forget entirely you have read an article on this exact technique a long time ago.
It went something like this…
The Delphi Technique:
Let’s Stop Being Manipulated!
More and more, we are seeing citizens being invited to “participate” in various forms of meetings, councils, or boards to “help determine” public policy in one field or another. They are supposedly being included to get ”input” from the public to help officials make final decisions on taxes, education, community growth or whatever the particular subject matter might be.
Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, surface appearances are often deceiving.
You, Mr. or Mrs. Citizen, decide to take part in one of these meetings.
Generally, you will find that there is already someone designated to lead or “facilitate” the meeting. Supposedly, the job of the facilitator is to be a neutral, non-directing helper to see that the meeting flows smoothly.
Actually, he or she is there for exactly the opposite reason: to see that the conclusions reached during the meeting are in accord with a plan already decided upon by those who called the meeting.
The process used to “facilitate” the meeting is called the Delphi Technique. This Delphi Technique was developed by the RAND Corporation for the U.S. Department of Defense back in the 1950s. It was originally intended for use as a psychological weapon during the cold war.
However, it was soon recognized that the steps of Delphi could be very valuable in manipulating ANY meeting toward a predetermined end.
How does the process take place? The techniques are well developed and well defined.
First, the person who will be leading the meeting, the facilitator or Change Agent must be a likable person with whom those participating in the meeting can agree or sympathize.
It is, therefore, the job of the facilitator to find a way to cause a split in the audience, to establish one or a few of the people as “bad guys” while the facilitator is perceived as the “good guy.”
Facilitators are trained to recognize potential opponents and how to make such people appear aggressive, foolish, extremist, etc. Once this is done, the facilitator establishes himself or herself as the “friend” of the rest of the audience.
The stage is now set for the rest of the agenda to take place.
At this point, the audience is generally broken up into “discussion—or ‘breakout’—groups” of seven or eight people each. Each of these groups is to be led by a subordinate facilitator.
Within each group, discussion takes place of issues, already decided upon by the leadership of the meeting. Here, too, the facilitator manipulates the discussion in the desired direction, isolating and demeaning opposing viewpoints.
Generally, participants are asked to write down their ideas and disagreements with the papers to be turned in and “compiled” for general discussion after the general meeting is reconvened.
This is the weak link in the chain, which you are not supposed to recognize. Who compiles the various notes into the final agenda for discussion? Ahhhh! Well, it is those who are running the meeting.
How do you know that the ideas on your notes were included in the final result? You Don’t! You may realize that your idea was not included and come to the conclusion that you were probably in the minority. Recognize that every other citizen member of this meeting has written his or her likes or dislikes on a similar sheet of paper and they, too, have no idea whether their ideas were “compiled” into the final result! You don’t even know if anyone’s ideas are part of the final “conclusions” presented to the reassembled group as the “consensus” of public opinion.
Rarely does anyone challenge the process, since each concludes that he or she was in the minority and different from all the others.
So, now, those who organized the meeting in the first place are able to tell the participants and the rest of the community that the conclusions, reached at the meeting, are the result of public participation.
Actually, the desired conclusions had been established, in the back room, long before the meeting ever took place. There are variations in the technique to fit special situations but, in general, the procedure outlined above takes place.
The natural question to ask here is: If the outcome was preordained before the meeting took place, why have the meeting? Herein lies the genius of this Delphi Technique.
It is imperative that the general public believe that this program is theirs! They thought it up! They took part in its development! Their input was recognized!
If people believe that the program is theirs, they will support it.
If they get the slightest hint that the program is being imposed upon them, they will resist.
This very effective technique is being used, over and over and over, to change our form of government from the representative republic, intended by the Founding Fathers, into a “participatory democracy.” Now, citizens chosen at large are manipulated into accepting preset outcomes while they believe that the input they provided produced the outcomes which are now theirs! The reality is that the final outcome was already determined long before any public meetings took place, determined by individuals unknown to the public. Can you say “Conspiracy?”
These “Change Agents” or “Facilitators” can be beaten! They may be beaten using their own methods against them.
Because it is so important, I will repeat the suggestions I gave in the last previous column. One: Never, never lose your temper! Lose your temper and lose the battle, it is that simple! Smile, if it kills you to do so. Be courteous at all times. Speak in a normal tone of voice.
Two: Stay focused! Always write your question or statement down in advance to help you remember the exact manner in which your question or statement was made.
These agents are trained to twist things to make anyone not acceding to their agenda look silly or aggressive. Smile, wait till the change agent gets done speaking and then bring them back to your question. If they distort what you said, simply remind those in the group that what he or she is saying is not what you asked or said and then repeat, verbatim, from your notes the original objection.
Three: Be persistent! Wait through any harangues and then repeat the original question. (Go back and reread the previous column.)
Four: (I wish to thank a reader of the previous column for some EXCELLENT suggestions.) Don’t go alone! Get as many friends or relatives who think as you do, to go along with you to the meeting. Have each person ”armed” with questions or statements which all generally support your central viewpoint. Don’t sit together as a group! Spread out through the audience so that your group does not seem to be a group.
When the facilitator or change agent avoids answering your question and insists that he must move on so everyone may have a chance to speak, your own agents in the audience can then ask questions, worded differently, but still with the same meaning as yours. They can bring the discussion back to your original point.
They could even point out, in a friendly manner, that the agent did not really answer your question. The more the agent avoids your question, and the more your friends bring that to the attention of the group, the more the audience will shift in your favor.
To quote my informant: “Turn the technique back on them and isolate the change agent as the kook. I’ve done it and seen steam come out of the ears of those power brokers in the wings who are trying to shove something down the citizen’s throats. And it’s so much fun to watch the moderator squirm and lose his cool, all while trying to keep a smile on his face.”
Now that you understand how meetings are manipulated, let’s show them up for the charlatans which they are.
Published in the September 23, 2002, issue of Ether Zone.
Stupidly, given the position I was in years ago of using and living with heavy opiate fiends, NZ police found a vial of narcaine or narcan and charged me with possession of a controlled drug.
Given the fact others had over dosed in the house, including me, this drug possession could have saved lives.
In fact, a few did die of over dose. The police then took great delight in locking people up under the guise of manslaughter convictions.
Meanwhile, my life saving collection of drugs was destroyed and I was charged under misuse of drugs act.
Actively narcissistic behavior by New Zealand Police and the Prosecution service, which happens to be police in N.Z.
Naloxone info found on my tiny smartish phone…
Would a life have been saved if we had access to those drugs? Possibly.
Would harm have come from us having access to those drugs? Most definitely not.
Police 3 charges, 2 convictions
Back in the day spent a little time in this place… The beds were little bits of foam on wire, with a lot of wire missing. Infections left right and centre, some of which would take years to get rid of… Some people never got rid of them at all.
I suppose everyone in there was a “dick” and the guards were all there to help us out.
But hey, not everyone is red neck and thoughtless.