To understand first is our conflict of interest? we verify that the work was different. reclaiming my time. mr. eastern filed this is you putting yourself as the czar of conflicts. your scheme worked really well for mckenzie. mckenzie got contracts purdue goderich and america got addicted. since 2008 mackenzie earn 100 and $40 million in contracts from the fda. and you did not ever disclose your work for purdue. you did not disclose your conflicts of interest. so my question for you as since you didn t disclose the conflicts of interest. will you return to $140 million to the fda? so they were working for the biggest opioid pusher on the planet purdue pharma. and the fda. at the same time. absolutely. the same people. the same people at the same time. now it s possible and this is
we aren t who made you conflicts of interest sorrowfully united states government? we re not the conflict of interest saar did you just close to the fda your mckenzie work at the same time just close to the fda that mckenzie was working at the same time it was working for the fda that it was working for purdue did you disclose that to the fda? we made clear in multiple instances that the individuals involved had experience in both pharmaceuticals and opioid reclaiming my time. mr. sore felt they didn t have experience there are the identical humans working for both at the same time. did you tell the fda did you make these disclosures and then allow the government to decide if there is a conflict of interest? when we assessed the work the work request from the fda we brought professionals. our legal team government team
Their argument that we were doing something so unrelated for the fda to drug regulation, that it didn t affect our work for purdue on the topic of drug regulation. the real fundamental point is you mckenzie doesn t get to decide you are not as i said to him the conflict s are the point of disclosure is you put these disclosures out there. you put them out there and then the ethics experts the american people, the fda administrator, they decide whether or not there s a conflict of interest. so what we see here really is a big corporation, substituting their profit motivation for government ethics. you know why you plan to do in these hearings. and in this particular hearing. you ve got the evidence you go through it. how surprised were you that the way these executives respond and the way he responded today? do you expect him to be ready with something better than he had?