offices charge with approving new drugs and monitoring their safety, it also advise purdue pharma on its interactions with the agency. internal mackenzie documents first reported by the new york times show that the firm cited its connections to regulators win seeking more work at pharmaceutical companies. in a 2014 email to produce chief executive ones consultant stressed, who we know and what we know, specifically highlighting the firms work for the fda. and here is a representative katie porter approach that. well mr. stern foul shouldn t the fda have been allowed to make it its own decision about whether or not your companies work for purdue did or did not create a conflict. why should you and your company be the decision-maker here?