It's more complicated than that. They knew it was killing people and turning thousands (millions) into addicts and they kept pushing doctors to use it at all costs. I'd recommend the John Oliver special on it.
All of this is documented in emails that were presented as evidence in court.
That's very different from the effects of (freebase?) nicotine typically found in e-cigarettes which is slower to absorb and doesn't have a noticeable crash.
No disagreement, but I think it's worth considering how stigmatized addiction is in our society. I expect many patients would hide any signs of addiction from their doctors - especially since it might result in losing their supply of OxyContin, or worse, their career.
Totally pain-free medical care is a bit misguided.
And our unequal society forces a lot of people to damage their bodies in the pursuit of happiness (i.e. earning money). That damage becomes chronic pain.
And unfortunately, painkillers often have a euphoric effect. So people might use that effect to escape the grinding reality that they are trapped within. Consider how popular cannabis is, especially among older adults in states where recreational use is legal.
They also don't have time because of the artificial limits of physicians graduating every year, combined with more bureaucracy being pushed on them day by day
I find this surprising, if true.
You have to remember med students are training to be clinicians not researchers. They have to diagnose and treat patients based on information taught to them by clinicians and basic scientists
This is also why it annoys me when lay people refer to the opinions of physicians on some new research that just came out, like with covid stuff. They are not research experts, they're clinicians. They treat people and make diagnoses
edit: it's meant in sarcasm, mostly.
There is a lot of basic science that is quite solid and is replicable yet people tend to throw it out with nonsense complaints
Most journalists don't understand research either and I've even seen some PhD science writers get things wrong too but usually less often.
Science journalism is filled with incredible sweeping claims and jumps in logic that boggle the mind and are nothing like what's in the research being reported on, it truly makes me disappointed
Doctors pretty much need to be intelligent and hard working to get through med school and residency. After that, they might not necessarily keep up with things. You'd think oncologists would know the best treatments for each patient, but if that were true those ads would be worthless - and I doubt those companies like to throw money away.
Because the pharma company offered them direct or indirect benefits for doing so. Doctors are just as human and just as susceptible to financial incentive as anybody else, that's why for decades there were doctors advertising the health benefits of smoking.
Consider whether most would think a mechanic is more or less easily manipulated into unnecessary vehicle repairs.
That's different. This is closer to a mechanic using a part from Company X in the repairs of their customer's car, because a rep told them it was more durable.
I would expect them to notice their repeat customers not getting the benefits. But keep in mind that doctors saw their patients appearing pain free and high functioning.
To overextend the mechanic metaphor, it would be like making a part out of aluminum and claiming it has infinite fatigue life. We know aluminum doesn’t so the threshold of evidence needs to be very, very high or the mechanic should remain skeptical. If the part continues to fail, but the manufacturer keeps making new, novel excuses the mechanic should be throwing the BS flag about their infinite fatigue life claims.
The opiod manufactures are organized too. They have trade groups and conferences.
Regulatory capture is a central problem in America today. The big powerful entities- major corporations, large unions, special interest groups, etc have the time, resources and incentives to lobby for laws (regulations) to be written in their favor.
The result is the American public is very heavily regulated, but in ways that are beneficial primarily to the powerful incumbents. This spans everything from copyright law favoring big hollywood studios to USDA regulations favoring the handful of major meat producer corporations to medicine, manufacturing, retail, real estate, etc.
Regulatory capture is also why the divide between leftists saying more regulation and rightists saying less regulation are both often missing the real problem. The US already has millions of lines of text for regulation, the problem is that so much of the regulation is bad and written to favor whoever donated or could sway votes to whichever representative crafted the language.
That said, the lag time between the beginning of failing to self-regulate and the beginning of consequences showing up are likely too far apart to make it a sound doctrine for the US government.
An amazing read and I also highly recommend it
(genuinely curious, not trolling)