Latest / Legally Brunette / Killer Thriller: Danny Strong Says the Company Behind OxyContin Tried to Change His Mind

Transcript

Killer Thriller: Danny Strong Says the Company Behind OxyContin Tried to Change His Mind · Legally Brunette

0:06
Speaker 1: Amy Roboc and TJ.
0:07
Speaker 2: Holmes present Killer Thriller with your host Alisa Donovan. Hey everyone,
0:15
Speaker 2: Elisa Donovan here, and this is Killer Thriller. Today we
0:18
Speaker 2: are continuing our conversation with Dope Sick creator, executive producer.
0:22
Speaker 1: And writer Danny Strong.
0:24
Speaker 2: We'll dive deeper into Purdue Pharma, corporate accountability, and the
0:28
Speaker 2: real life events that inspired one of television's most powerful
0:32
Speaker 2: true crime dramas. What sort of responsibility did you feel
0:36
Speaker 2: to the families of the victims, for example.
0:39
Speaker 3: Incredible responsibility, But I felt, you know, to me, the
0:43
Speaker 3: show was sort of a tribute to them, but also
0:48
Speaker 3: you know, when we were making it that it really
0:52
Speaker 3: had felt like they had all gotten away with it. Yes,
0:57
Speaker 3: now that there hadn't been this reckoning that did come eventually,
1:03
Speaker 3: although they still no one's ever been charged criminally.
1:06
Speaker 4: But the show shows.
1:07
Speaker 3: How they how they how they the prosecutors wanted to
1:10
Speaker 3: charge people criminally, and how they clip through their fingers,
1:14
Speaker 3: you know, and just how it all slipped through their fingers.
1:16
Speaker 2: Right.
1:18
Speaker 3: But but I wanted I very much viewed the show
1:21
Speaker 3: as the trial that Purdue Pharma never got right. So
1:26
Speaker 3: I wanted to lay out I wanted to lay out
1:30
Speaker 3: all the deception in a way that just showed the
1:36
Speaker 3: audience and the country and the world right whoever was
1:38
Speaker 3: watching this, like this is how it happened, this is
1:42
Speaker 3: how the climes were committed.
1:44
Speaker 4: So there's in so that was a big part of it.
1:46
Speaker 3: And so in a way, you know, I felt like
1:48
Speaker 3: I was a prosecutor making a case and that the
1:52
Speaker 3: show was the case, right, but I also wanted to
1:57
Speaker 3: be fair to everyone, where some prosecutors goal wasn't to
2:02
Speaker 3: be fair and the goal is to just get the
2:04
Speaker 3: guilty verdict right where where I'm also making a piece
2:07
Speaker 3: of art and a piece of drama, you know, And
2:09
Speaker 3: so it's sort of that I want to show insight.
2:11
Speaker 3: I really wanted to with Richard Zackler. I wanted you
2:15
Speaker 3: to understand pressures he was thunder in ways that he felt,
2:20
Speaker 3: you know, his own sense of pain and and and
2:23
Speaker 3: what he was going through.
2:25
Speaker 1: And wanting to achieve.
2:26
Speaker 2: Like that becomes very clear that this is again why
2:29
Speaker 2: this is so genius, because it really does get into
2:31
Speaker 2: the details of the family and as outrageous and despicable
2:35
Speaker 2: as their behavior and choices were, it's like he wants
2:39
Speaker 2: to he wants to achieve for his dat like, he
2:42
Speaker 2: wants to be better than his dad, you know, he
2:46
Speaker 2: wants to make more money, be more successful, be It's.
2:50
Speaker 3: Just yeah, and he's also so disliked by the family, right, right,
2:54
Speaker 3: you know, but he's making so much money for all
2:56
Speaker 3: of them, right. He's he's, he's, he's, he's he's the
3:00
Speaker 3: one doing all the work. He's the one that's driving this,
3:03
Speaker 3: he's the force behind it. And they all seem to
3:06
Speaker 3: really dislike him. And this is all based on research, right,
3:11
Speaker 3: And and what does that feel like?
3:13
Speaker 4: You know, what what is that? What is he going
3:15
Speaker 4: through with that?
3:16
Speaker 1: Right?
3:16
Speaker 3: So that was you know, and from what I understand,
3:19
Speaker 3: he's intensely ostracized now that they sort of view him
3:22
Speaker 3: as the man that brought sort of the downfall to
3:25
Speaker 3: the family and brought them down, although you know, they
3:28
Speaker 3: were all making millions and millions from the products. I
3:33
Speaker 3: had a source inside tell me that by two thousand
3:36
Speaker 3: and one, two thousand and two, you know, upper management,
3:41
Speaker 3: they just they didn't care anymore. They just wanted to
3:44
Speaker 3: make as much money as they could, and that there
3:46
Speaker 3: was this sense that it could all come apart at
3:49
Speaker 3: any moment, and that there was because they were there
3:52
Speaker 3: were sort of actions taken in nineteen ninety nine, two
3:56
Speaker 3: thousand and and it just then became came about just
4:00
Speaker 3: hitting the gas. And then when they when the prosecutions
4:03
Speaker 3: didn't happen, when they when the case, you know, they
4:08
Speaker 3: pled the top executives pled to misdemeanors. You know, that's
4:11
Speaker 3: ultimately how it was resolved in two thousand and seven.
4:14
Speaker 4: What did they do.
4:15
Speaker 3: They tripled down on all on on, on all the tactics,
4:20
Speaker 3: which the show doesn't even cover. That's posts the show.
4:22
Speaker 3: And I had a scene where we had that where
4:24
Speaker 3: we explained that, and it was so depressing and so maddening.
4:29
Speaker 3: I just thought that the audience has been through.
4:31
Speaker 1: Enough, right, Let's spare them this.
4:34
Speaker 3: Let's spare them that they just made things even work,
4:36
Speaker 3: you know, after this and then that, and that that's
4:39
Speaker 3: already public fact, you know, because that they were then
4:43
Speaker 3: they were Then you know, there was another because they
4:45
Speaker 3: pled guilty. The company pled guilty to multiple felonies in
4:49
Speaker 3: two thousand and six, two thousand and seven, and then
4:51
Speaker 3: they did it again in twenty nineteen because they blew
4:54
Speaker 3: off everything they said they were going to do or
4:58
Speaker 3: much of what they said they were to do in
4:59
Speaker 3: two thousand and the guilty plea in twix and seven,
5:03
Speaker 3: So it happened to them again, you know, another set
5:07
Speaker 3: of guilty place, but individuals have still never been charged
5:10
Speaker 3: with crimes.
5:11
Speaker 2: First of all, also reminds me of, like, in a
5:14
Speaker 2: very scary way of AI and digital things, that like,
5:17
Speaker 2: at a certain point, these companies are just like, we
5:21
Speaker 2: just need to make as much money as we can,
5:24
Speaker 2: and then realizing.
5:25
Speaker 1: Oh wait, the robots might take over our whole lives.
5:31
Speaker 2: You know, but there's that kind of break in your
5:34
Speaker 2: moral you know, your moral standard somehow to just say
5:40
Speaker 2: it becomes very selfish obviously, but also this kind of
5:43
Speaker 2: like like how much of it do you think is
5:45
Speaker 2: greed versus denial that it was doing the wrong thing.
5:50
Speaker 3: I think it's greed, That's just my opinion. But I
5:54
Speaker 3: just think they knew, they knew what was happening from
5:57
Speaker 3: the very beginning. You know that they that that these
6:01
Speaker 3: marketing practices were deceptive. You know that they were claiming
6:05
Speaker 3: the drug was not addictive, they were pushing higher dosages,
6:11
Speaker 3: and partly because not only was the drug addicted, but
6:13
Speaker 3: it would wear out, So you you it would become
6:16
Speaker 3: less stop being effective, so you had to up the dose, right,
6:20
Speaker 3: and and well a higher dose is the same amount
6:23
Speaker 3: for them to manufacture, basically, but they charged twice as much.
6:27
Speaker 3: Then then you charged twice as much for the next
6:30
Speaker 3: But it's basically the same manufacturing cost. Right, So it
6:33
Speaker 3: became just a pure money making operation. And the drug
6:40
Speaker 3: I was talking about the beginning, ms Conton was basically
6:44
Speaker 3: used as sort of is just for as a cancer
6:47
Speaker 3: drug and is an hospice, end of life type of
6:52
Speaker 3: type of that you would take. Well, that's a very
6:55
Speaker 3: small market. So the whole, the whole plan, the whole
6:59
Speaker 3: sort of conceit of OxyContin, the non addictive opioid, was
7:04
Speaker 3: how to break into the chronic pain market, and they
7:08
Speaker 3: then they push it into moderate pain, you know, for
7:12
Speaker 3: migraine headaches. You know, an addictive opioid for migraine headaches, right, yeah.
7:17
Speaker 2: And part of it was the how they they invented
7:20
Speaker 2: sort of you know lin lingo and language like breakthrough
7:23
Speaker 2: pain and individualize the dose, blame the abuser. So it
7:28
Speaker 2: sort of sounds very legitimate, like these are medical researched claims.
7:34
Speaker 2: And then you just keep you just keep using those words,
7:37
Speaker 2: and then it becomes common, Oh, yes, you have breakthrough pain,
7:41
Speaker 2: so you've you clearly.
7:42
Speaker 1: That's not a problem.
7:43
Speaker 4: You have to up the dose.
7:44
Speaker 1: You just have to take more.
7:46
Speaker 3: You just have to take more medication. Right, And that
7:48
Speaker 3: in all roads led to upping the dose, right, you know,
7:52
Speaker 3: it was sort of all roads led to upping the dose.
7:55
Speaker 3: But the stuff, you know, the facts that are so
7:57
Speaker 3: damming is the falsification of tests and graphs and yes,
8:03
Speaker 3: oh that that elements and that was so important to
8:07
Speaker 3: me to get that into the show.
8:09
Speaker 2: Yes, there's a there's a chart, a graph that shows
8:13
Speaker 2: very clearly the the trajectory of like when the drug
8:17
Speaker 2: wears off and they manipulate it such that it looks
8:22
Speaker 2: like it's sort of like a rainbow arc, when really
8:25
Speaker 2: it's a it's a mountain peak up and down, like
8:27
Speaker 2: a very steep mountain, and if you look at the
8:30
Speaker 2: side and then it's like one of these things where.
8:32
Speaker 1: You don't And the fact that that is so.
8:35
Speaker 2: Specific and so nefarious and just a lie, like how
8:42
Speaker 2: how do you think that these doctors didn't see that?
8:47
Speaker 1: Like how do you think.
8:48
Speaker 3: They That's a big question, you know, and some people
8:52
Speaker 3: have a hard time accepting that the doctors didn't know
8:57
Speaker 3: what was going on. You know, the I remember one
9:03
Speaker 3: of the doctors I interviewed, he just said, he said, hey,
9:07
Speaker 3: not everyone got addicted. So it wasn't as you know,
9:11
Speaker 3: it would be. It would be a percentage of the patients,
9:14
Speaker 3: but there'd be several patients that would be fine and
9:16
Speaker 3: they would take it and then they'd get off of it,
9:18
Speaker 3: you know, they'd stop taken it. Right, But so you know,
9:21
Speaker 3: it wasn't it wasn't one hundred percent, but that they
9:25
Speaker 3: just believed, they believed the con right, you know, they
9:30
Speaker 3: just they believed the con. They fell for the con
9:33
Speaker 3: and it was it wasn't just it just it was
9:37
Speaker 3: so clever in the deception, and that there were there
9:41
Speaker 3: would be many articles written in prestigious medical journals about it.
9:47
Speaker 3: They were there would be they would form these groups,
9:50
Speaker 3: they would finance these these pain society groups, and then
9:54
Speaker 3: and then they would hire doctors, right that would then
9:57
Speaker 3: promote the non addictive lie, and then it would be
10:01
Speaker 3: quoted in the articles. So there would be you know,
10:03
Speaker 3: there'd be a lot of data that they could point
10:06
Speaker 3: to that.
10:07
Speaker 1: They were paying these people to create.
10:10
Speaker 3: This exactly, So they basically create the Pain Society, and
10:16
Speaker 3: then the Pain Society would then would then you know,
10:19
Speaker 3: promote and approve the drug, and then and that promotion
10:22
Speaker 3: would be used in literature and pamphlets, you know. And
10:26
Speaker 3: there was a key doctor whose name I can't remember
10:31
Speaker 3: who who was sort of one of the great villains
10:33
Speaker 3: of this story because he was just this highly regarded
10:37
Speaker 3: doctor that would go all.
10:38
Speaker 4: Over the country and speak at these on behalf.
10:41
Speaker 3: Of oxycon and he was so he just was he
10:45
Speaker 3: just was this very you know, admired, prestigious doctor who
10:50
Speaker 3: who I and he eventually recanted. He eventually did have
10:55
Speaker 3: a crisis of conscience, I think, you know, I'm not
10:59
Speaker 3: sure in maybe twenty twelve and said that they were wrong.
11:04
Speaker 1: A little bit late, a little bit late.
11:06
Speaker 5: Yeah, Yeah, there's a character like this in the series.
11:23
Speaker 1: Also, it's the.
11:24
Speaker 4: Actual guy in the series. I use the name in
11:27
Speaker 4: the ship.
11:28
Speaker 3: Yeah, oh yeah, yes, the guy that speaks for them,
11:31
Speaker 3: Russell Portnoy.
11:32
Speaker 1: Russell Portnoy.
11:33
Speaker 3: Yeah, later stated in twenty twelve, didn't I say, twenty twelve,
11:37
Speaker 3: do I get them?
11:38
Speaker 1: Yes?
11:38
Speaker 2: You did?
11:39
Speaker 3: Hold on, what was this pseudo addiction? Remember we were
11:42
Speaker 3: talking about the phrase.
11:43
Speaker 2: Yes, yes, the language, the languageguage pseudo addiction.
11:46
Speaker 3: That it's diabolical, you know, it's the phrase and what
11:50
Speaker 3: pseudo addiction, What that phrase was was that it was
11:53
Speaker 3: someone's not addicted. They're just giving the stive of symptoms.
11:59
Speaker 3: And so what they need to get over that is
12:02
Speaker 3: they need higher tore, the need more dosages, and so
12:06
Speaker 3: they're not actually addicted. It's pseudo addiction, right, and that
12:10
Speaker 3: we have a whole episode called pseudo Yeah, it's like.
12:13
Speaker 1: The bastardization of language. It's just like I it's it's wild.
12:20
Speaker 1: It's very cult like to me, like it feels very
12:23
Speaker 1: like a.
12:24
Speaker 3: Coll And that's very well said, because I remember feeling
12:29
Speaker 3: that way when I heard about sort of the inner
12:32
Speaker 3: workings of the company and the farmer reps and the doctors,
12:36
Speaker 3: and anyone who questioned anything or whatever, speak out or
12:41
Speaker 3: anything would be fired.
12:42
Speaker 4: You know, so you're you're.
12:44
Speaker 3: Out right the second you're out, the second that you say, hey,
12:47
Speaker 3: I don't think this data is correct, or you know
12:49
Speaker 3: we're getting reports or that that addiction rates are going up.
12:55
Speaker 4: You know, if you didn't toe the party line, you
12:58
Speaker 4: were out.
13:00
Speaker 3: The farmer reps were making so much money because they
13:04
Speaker 3: were they were drug dealers. Basically the drug was highly addictive.
13:07
Speaker 3: They were selling higher dosages and there would be these clinics,
13:12
Speaker 3: these these these clinics where the prescribing would be astronomical
13:18
Speaker 3: and they just they you know, a lot more in Florida.
13:21
Speaker 3: There was a famous one in New Orleans.
13:23
Speaker 2: One of my one of my notes here is the
13:25
Speaker 2: Florida of it all? And with exclamation points, how at
13:29
Speaker 2: the one moment when Caitlin's character and the oh that
13:34
Speaker 2: also a great actor who played the drug dealer partner
13:38
Speaker 2: person that goes on the Escapades with that they go
13:42
Speaker 2: down to Florida because the laws were looser.
13:45
Speaker 1: Was that it you could get the drugs easier.
13:48
Speaker 4: Yeah.
13:49
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was in Florida. They could prescribe and sell
13:54
Speaker 3: in the same building. So because of that, yeah, So
13:58
Speaker 3: because of that, it was you know, it was it
14:00
Speaker 3: was your one stop shop, right people. It was called
14:03
Speaker 3: The Pharmacist. Is the documentary? Uh, it's the story of
14:07
Speaker 3: Dan Schneider who it's a fantastic three part documentary and
14:11
Speaker 3: it covers pretty pharma. But his story is really powerful
14:14
Speaker 3: and it and it takes you into one of these
14:16
Speaker 3: these pill mill pain clinics where the prescribing is just
14:20
Speaker 3: sort of astronomical, and those doctors know exactly what they're doing, right,
14:25
Speaker 3: corrupt doctors who are just trying to sell as much
14:27
Speaker 3: as possible. And there, you know, over and over again,
14:31
Speaker 3: the anecdotes on on pill mill doctors was they were addicted.
14:35
Speaker 4: Themselves themselves, right, Yeah, it was. That was that was.
14:40
Speaker 2: That's a really strong part of the series as well,
14:42
Speaker 2: showing there's something. I think it's like episode four is
14:46
Speaker 2: when the addiction part really starts to rev up, where
14:49
Speaker 2: we see what's happening with everyone and it's just, uh,
14:55
Speaker 2: it's very very well done. But those scenes of people
14:58
Speaker 2: waiting on line outside of the pharmacy or outside of
15:03
Speaker 2: the doctor's office, and the frustration of the DEA agent
15:08
Speaker 2: and just like trying to get someone to listen to her,
15:13
Speaker 2: like I can't I can't imagine the how frustrating that
15:18
Speaker 2: person's existence must be, you know, to so passionately believe
15:23
Speaker 2: it and see it with your own eyes and not
15:25
Speaker 2: be able to well.
15:27
Speaker 3: And I think that was maybe one of the reasons
15:29
Speaker 3: why the real person didn't want to participate, is I
15:33
Speaker 3: think she was she was so burned and some of
15:36
Speaker 3: the scenes of in Rosario. Dawson played the role in
15:40
Speaker 3: the show, and so some of the scenes in the
15:45
Speaker 3: in the show were actual scenes that actually happened, you know,
15:48
Speaker 3: with particularly the meeting that she had with Richard Sackler
15:52
Speaker 3: and then the moment in which in which the FDA
15:58
Speaker 3: sides with pert Do Pharma over her and she presents
16:03
Speaker 3: a case and the pretty Pharma lawyers are there and
16:07
Speaker 3: she presents the case and in the room the the
16:13
Speaker 3: FDA doctor literally sides with Perdue Pharmin and it's kind
16:17
Speaker 3: of it's sort of the end of her arc in
16:19
Speaker 3: the show. And and that scene is not only is
16:22
Speaker 3: that scene, you know, quite accurate to what happened. She
16:27
Speaker 3: shows slides and the scene there's a slideshow presentation, and
16:31
Speaker 3: those were the actual slides that were presented in the
16:34
Speaker 3: actual scene really that were weaked to me. So I
16:39
Speaker 3: got the actual slides that were leaked to me and
16:42
Speaker 3: and I put them in the show.
16:43
Speaker 4: Oh wow, yeah, yeah, so.
16:46
Speaker 3: It was and that they were when they walked out
16:49
Speaker 3: of that meeting. It had never this hadn't been reported
16:52
Speaker 3: in any of the books because they didn't feel comfortable
16:54
Speaker 3: with it legally. The word they ensued was that they
16:59
Speaker 3: was the the d agent and the scientist that was
17:03
Speaker 3: with her quest thought thought it was so egregious that
17:07
Speaker 3: the FDA sided with Purdue over them, that they thought
17:11
Speaker 3: they were on the take, they thought that they were
17:13
Speaker 3: being paid off. So then I put that in the
17:15
Speaker 3: I could put it in the show, right, so, and
17:19
Speaker 3: you know, and it doesn't have to be that insidious, right,
17:23
Speaker 3: you know, to side with Purdue Pharma. The person who
17:27
Speaker 3: gave Purdue Pharma the wording on the warning label that
17:32
Speaker 3: basically said that this is less addictive than other opioids,
17:36
Speaker 3: he leaves the FDA and eighteen months later, eighteen months later,
17:39
Speaker 3: he goes and works for Purdue Pharma. Right, So there's
17:41
Speaker 3: this revolving door of these jobs.
17:43
Speaker 4: To be had.
17:44
Speaker 3: But even if it's not even if you're not even
17:47
Speaker 3: if it's not a direct job, there's you know, there's
17:50
Speaker 3: boards you get put on and you get paid to
17:53
Speaker 3: be on these olders, and who is charge of these boards,
17:56
Speaker 3: who's influencing perdue pharma, Farma's financing, you know, paying all
18:00
Speaker 3: this money to the university. And so there's all these
18:04
Speaker 3: different revenue streams that are to be had by being
18:08
Speaker 3: you know, good friends with Perdue Pharma.
18:24
Speaker 2: Did anybody from Perdue Pharma ever reach out to you?
18:28
Speaker 2: Did anybody did they try to have they had anything
18:31
Speaker 2: to say about the show.
18:33
Speaker 3: So I tried to get interviews with Richard Sackler and
18:38
Speaker 3: Kathy Sackler, and Jonathan Sackler passed away before we went
18:43
Speaker 3: into production, I believe, but I actually think I I
18:46
Speaker 3: think he was still alive. When I did my initial
18:48
Speaker 3: round of interviews and reached out right, they said they
18:51
Speaker 3: would not grant me an interview, but they would they
18:56
Speaker 3: wanted me to come watch a presentation.
18:58
Speaker 1: A presentation on OXYC on.
19:00
Speaker 3: The opioid crisis and oxycon. You know that I had
19:04
Speaker 3: the wrong facts. They warned me against h And this
19:08
Speaker 3: wasn't a direct conversation. This was to Hulu's lawyers. You know,
19:12
Speaker 3: you have to be careful of Beth Macy. She's wrong,
19:14
Speaker 3: thinks she says, you know that type of stuff. If
19:18
Speaker 3: you know, I was only talking to Beth Macy and
19:20
Speaker 3: there was no other source.
19:22
Speaker 2: This is crazy Lad, crazy Lady documentary.
19:26
Speaker 3: There's just so much data out there, right, and so
19:29
Speaker 3: I so then the Hulu lawyers said, well, we're not
19:32
Speaker 3: going to respond, and I said, no, no, no, no,
19:36
Speaker 3: you must respond.
19:36
Speaker 4: Here's what you say.
19:38
Speaker 3: You say, I will come watch the presentation if you
19:42
Speaker 3: if they agree to give me the interviews. I said,
19:46
Speaker 3: because if we don't say that, they're going to come
19:48
Speaker 3: out later and say that they offered to give me
19:51
Speaker 3: a presentation and.
19:52
Speaker 1: I refrain and refused.
19:54
Speaker 3: Okay, So cut to the show's about to come out.
19:56
Speaker 3: I get a call from a New York Times reporter
19:58
Speaker 3: and he says, Purdue Pharma is saying that they offered
20:01
Speaker 3: you this presentation and you refused.
20:03
Speaker 1: And I went, no, exactly what you said that.
20:07
Speaker 3: I said, I would do it if they would grant
20:09
Speaker 3: me interview, you know. And then you can tell he
20:11
Speaker 3: had this moment of okay, like he knew he was
20:14
Speaker 3: being lied and then and so he didn't put that
20:16
Speaker 3: in the story that I had refused these presentations.
20:20
Speaker 4: So it was great.
20:21
Speaker 3: I've done this before on these true life stories, so
20:24
Speaker 3: I'm I'm familiar with the things they say when when
20:28
Speaker 3: when it comes out, so that yeah, yeah, so so yeah,
20:32
Speaker 3: so there was So that was the only direct interaction
20:36
Speaker 3: was was the request for the interviews, and then the
20:40
Speaker 3: and then their request for me to watch the presentation.
20:43
Speaker 4: In our response the.
20:46
Speaker 3: Jake Tapper I was on Jake Tapper's show on CNA
20:50
Speaker 3: Michael Keaton, and they objected to a tirn on the
20:56
Speaker 3: screen that said something about the the Sackler family, you know,
21:03
Speaker 3: you know, either being leading guilty or being charged. And
21:08
Speaker 3: their sort of big talking point over the years is
21:11
Speaker 3: that the Sacklers have never been charged Purdue Fharmat Pharma
21:16
Speaker 3: with charged and pled guilty, not the Sacklers, you know,
21:19
Speaker 3: if you know, as if it's not them, it's this company.
21:22
Speaker 1: And so they did ause if they aren't the company.
21:25
Speaker 3: Exactly exactly, and that's sort of been their point they're
21:28
Speaker 3: talking about for many years. And that all kind of
21:31
Speaker 3: sort of blew up when all the when all the
21:34
Speaker 3: discovery documents came out, you know, in twenty eighteen nineteen,
21:38
Speaker 3: during that time period that showed how much that they
21:41
Speaker 3: weren't actually in control of the company. But they had
21:44
Speaker 3: demanded some sort of apology or you know, a retraction
21:49
Speaker 3: from CNN and Jake Tapper over this chirn. Jake Tapper
21:56
Speaker 3: does an on camera apology to them that is so
22:00
Speaker 3: so brutal and sarcastic and just amazing, and he goes
22:05
Speaker 3: on and on, you know, as they've never been charged
22:09
Speaker 3: with it, however, and then he would go on about
22:12
Speaker 3: all these things and that that that clip went viral.
22:16
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, I'm good.
22:18
Speaker 4: It is unbelievable.
22:20
Speaker 3: And then they never said a word after that because
22:22
Speaker 3: it kind of blew up in their face the sort
22:24
Speaker 3: of way they had made. I mean, we got so
22:27
Speaker 3: much attention off the Jake Tapper Ology retraction. It's just
22:33
Speaker 3: rimming with sarcasm, and he just goes on and on
22:36
Speaker 3: and on, and it's it's a pretty brutal takedown in
22:40
Speaker 3: yeah ology.
22:41
Speaker 2: I mean that is like we at the end, I mean,
22:44
Speaker 2: at the end of the series, but also in like
22:47
Speaker 2: you we just want them to fry, right, You just
22:51
Speaker 2: want them to be held so accountable, and it just
22:55
Speaker 2: you know, it.
22:56
Speaker 1: Doesn't ever quite happen, and it's so.
23:00
Speaker 2: I mean, I love that you also show the Guggenheim protest,
23:05
Speaker 2: the Nan Golden like that's very powerful. And they certainly were,
23:09
Speaker 2: you know, they they suffered repercussions publicly and things like.
23:13
Speaker 3: That, but without a doubt. You know, a friend of
23:16
Speaker 3: mine who knew them said to me, and he already
23:21
Speaker 3: knew like one or two of them, you know, and
23:24
Speaker 3: he said, he said, no, one's peop always joke about
23:28
Speaker 3: being run out of town, he said, but the Sas
23:31
Speaker 3: were actually run out of New York. They all had
23:34
Speaker 3: you know, they actually were ran out of town. You know,
23:36
Speaker 3: went to Florida and London, you know, two places where
23:40
Speaker 3: you can just do anything and you'll be fine. Right,
23:42
Speaker 3: But there was definitely you know, a social reckoning, which
23:48
Speaker 3: you know, I can't I can't speak on their behalf
23:50
Speaker 3: how painful that was for them, But I guess you know,
23:52
Speaker 3: when you're that wealthy and you can have anything in
23:54
Speaker 3: the world and you've been sort of shamed and ostracized,
23:57
Speaker 3: I've got to think that the you know that probably
24:02
Speaker 3: that probably did hurt.
24:03
Speaker 1: An impact, It had an impact yet.
24:05
Speaker 3: That probably did have some sort of impact, but you know,
24:08
Speaker 3: not one that's satisfying to their victims on any level whatsoever.
24:12
Speaker 4: Right. So, and we did show that in the show of.
24:16
Speaker 3: That they that they were basically you know, run out
24:18
Speaker 3: of town.
24:19
Speaker 2: Yes, and their names removed from the museums. And because
24:22
Speaker 2: they were a big philanthropists.
24:24
Speaker 4: Yeah, you know, Nan Golden was so.
24:27
Speaker 3: She was so appreciative of the show Dope Sick because
24:31
Speaker 3: she said that people didn't you know, friends of hers,
24:35
Speaker 3: and they just didn't fully understand what she had been
24:39
Speaker 3: going on about for so long, you know, and her
24:42
Speaker 3: outrage and her protests, and they didn't understand it. And
24:46
Speaker 3: so once again, the show, being sort of the trial
24:49
Speaker 3: that was never had sort.
24:51
Speaker 4: Of laid it out, beat by beat.
24:53
Speaker 3: Exactly what happened and by the way, and there were
24:56
Speaker 3: so many things that I couldn't even get into the
24:58
Speaker 3: show because it's there's so much, so much damning information,
25:02
Speaker 3: so much yeah, yeah, you know. And after the names
25:05
Speaker 3: came down off the met, Nan called me and just said,
25:09
Speaker 3: thank you for you know, you were part of this process.
25:12
Speaker 3: The show was part of the process of just getting
25:15
Speaker 3: this sort of tidal wave of people to truly sort
25:20
Speaker 3: of get what would happened. She's amazing, I mean, those
25:24
Speaker 3: protests and she kept the story alive for many years
25:27
Speaker 3: when people weren't talking about it. You know, it was
25:30
Speaker 3: really packed Braden Keith blowing it up with the New
25:33
Speaker 3: Yorker story and then and then Nan kind of kept
25:36
Speaker 3: the ball rolling, but then it would go away, you know,
25:39
Speaker 3: and when we were in production, it had kind of
25:41
Speaker 3: gone away, and there was definitely a sense that they
25:44
Speaker 3: had gotten away with.
25:45
Speaker 2: It, right, right, Well, I this again, it's such a
25:51
Speaker 2: phenomenal and important series. And again I feel like it's
25:56
Speaker 2: it's it's it's such a beautiful thing when when we
26:00
Speaker 2: can tell stories that are meaningful and actually can help
26:05
Speaker 2: shift a narrative and humanize us and help to you know,
26:11
Speaker 2: have some kind of healing. It's like nine hundred thousand
26:15
Speaker 2: of obioids, but it's like an outrageous number, outrageous number.
26:20
Speaker 3: Just the people that tragically passed away, right, It's the
26:24
Speaker 3: people too, that their lives were destroyed and spiraled. It
26:28
Speaker 3: was it's this story of their family members and their
26:31
Speaker 3: friends and the suffering they had to go through of
26:34
Speaker 3: having a friend or a relative whose life had you know,
26:39
Speaker 3: just transformed overnight to a white night crime, you know,
26:43
Speaker 3: and deception and tragedy, and you know, the anecdotes over
26:48
Speaker 3: and over are so heartbreaking. You know, a woman who
26:52
Speaker 3: had a back injury and was prescribed and then cut
26:55
Speaker 3: to six months later, she's in prison because she stole
26:59
Speaker 3: money from her bank job to finance her heroin habit,
27:03
Speaker 3: you know, and has lost her family, you know, and
27:05
Speaker 3: she had kids and they won't speak to her anymore.
27:07
Speaker 3: I mean, these you know, kids losing parents that are
27:10
Speaker 3: so alive, but it just, you know, it's it's just
27:13
Speaker 3: it's the havoc that it wrecked. You can't even count
27:15
Speaker 3: the number of people because it's community is just all
27:18
Speaker 3: all over the country. And thank you for doing this
27:21
Speaker 3: episode to just shining a light on the show and
27:24
Speaker 3: the issues and literally if it gets anyone to kind
27:27
Speaker 3: of watch the show that hasn't seen it, to see
27:30
Speaker 3: the case of this, you know. And and I highly
27:33
Speaker 3: recommend the other one I had mentioned on Netflix, the Pharmacist,
27:37
Speaker 3: because it's a just you know, it's more of a
27:38
Speaker 3: micro story and then one episode does go into Purdue
27:41
Speaker 3: and the bigger story, but it's it's a that's a
27:45
Speaker 3: very Dan Schneider's story is incredibly powerful, well you know,
27:49
Speaker 3: but there's just just tragically, there's there's you know, endless
27:53
Speaker 3: stories of the havoc that this this caused.
27:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I am so honored to talk to you
28:01
Speaker 2: and so happy to see your face.
28:04
Speaker 3: Your face too, and congrats on this amazing podcast.
28:08
Speaker 4: Thank you, such a pleasure to see you.
28:11
Speaker 3: And uh and you know, and hopefully more sooner or later, Yes.
28:15
Speaker 2: I hope so too, and Dope Sick is still streaming
28:17
Speaker 2: on Hulu and everyone.
28:19
Speaker 1: Should watch it.
28:20
Speaker 2: Who has yet to thank you so much, Danny, Thanks,
28:24
Speaker 2: bye bye,