should give them more. and they told doctors, don t fall into the addiction ditch. avoid negatives like using the word addiction and emphasize the positive of supposed efficacy. what do you see behind those terms and what was really going on here? well, i ll give you a couple of terms, chris, devious and diabolical. what happened here is they made a decision that there was an opportunity for them to make billions of dollars off of misrepresenting these drugs, brainwashing physicians, using pseudo science and trumped up studies, and then they go even further to push back against doctors who were seeing addiction, calling it pseudo addiction, and telling them to prescribe more. they knew damned good and well what they were doing to americans and oklahomans. they just couldn t afford to stop. right. and you didn t argue in the case, very interesting and important to note this, brad beckworth, counselor, thank you for being with us as well. hey, we don t need opioids. opioids don t w
strategy in court. what they call the defendants pseudo addiction, and it is really just such a wicked dynamic that you guys outlined in court, convincing doctors that patients who exhibits signs of addiction, like asking for higher doses of opioids or came back early and used up the prescription before they were supposed to, they weren t actually suffering from addiction, but from the undertreatment of pain and they should give them more. and they told doctors, don t fall into the addiction ditch. avoid negatives like using the word addiction and emphasize the positive of supposed efficacy. what do you see behind those terms and what was really going on here? well, i ll give you a couple of terms, chris, devious and diabolical. what happened here is they made a decision that there was an opportunity for them to make billions of dollars off of misrepresenting these drugs,