Connect with us

Business

‘Source Of Profound Regret’: Firm Pays Half Billion Settlement To Avoid Criminal Prosecution For Fueling Opioid Crisis

Published

2 minute read

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Adam Pack

A consulting giant that helped fuel the United States’ deadly opioid epidemic agreed to pay a massive settlement to avoid criminal prosecution, according to court papers filed Friday.

McKinsey & Company, an international management consulting firm that advised Purdue Pharma to “turbocharge”  sales of Oxycontin during the height of the opioid crisis, entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) that will require the firm to pay a $650 million settlement over five years.

A former senior McKinsey employee also pleaded guilty to an obstruction of justice charge for destroying records detailing the consulting giant’s work for Purdue.

The McKinsey settlement is the latest in a string of lawsuits seeking accountability from corporations and consulting firms for contributing to the opioid crisis.

The epidemic, created in part from the work of Purdue and McKinsey to market OxyContin to millions of Americans, has taken more than 500,000 lives and left a trail of devastation in its wake, particularly in parts of rural America.

“McKinsey schemed with Purdue Pharma to ‘turbocharge’ OxyContin sales during a raging opioid epidemic — an epidemic that continues to decimate families and communities across the nation,” U.S. Attorney Joshua Levy for the District of Massachusetts, who sued McKinsey alongside an attorney for the Western District of Virginia over the firm’s consulting work for Purdue, wrote following the settlement. “Consulting firms like McKinsey should get the message: if the advice you give to companies in boardrooms and PowerPoint presentations aids and abets criminal activity, we will come after you and we will expose the truth.”

“We are deeply sorry for our past client service to Purdue Pharma and the actions of a former partner who deleted documents related to his work for that client,” the consulting firm wrote in a statement following the settlement. “We should have appreciated the harm opioids were causing in our society and we should not have undertaken sales and marketing work for Purdue Pharma. This terrible public health crisis and our past work for opioid manufacturers will always be a source of profound regret for our firm.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Report: Chinese government considering sale of TikTok to Elon Musk, possible X merger

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

“A potential high-profile deal with one of (returning President Donald) Trump’s closest allies holds some appeal for the Chinese government, which is expected to have some say over whether TikTok is ultimately sold”

Chinese government officials are considering the possibility of allowing TikTok to be sold to X owner Elon Musk ahead of a deadline to sever the social video platform from its Chinese government-linked ownership, according to a report published Monday by Bloomberg.

Last April, a law signed by President Joe Biden and supported by many in both parties, required TikTok to be sold by January 19 or shut down due to Chinese parent company ByteDance’s links to the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its military and surveillance operations, sparking national security concerns over the Chinese regime’s access to the personal data of TikTok’s American users.

ByteDance challenged the law, but last week, the U.S. Supreme Court signaled in oral arguments that it would not block the law, although no ruling has yet been issued, with the deadline for divestment just days away.

On Monday, Bloomberg reported that “people familiar with the matter” said several options are now being considered on a preliminary basis, one of which would involve Musk purchasing TikTok and possibly merging it with X. That could drastically grow the latter platform’s user base and give Musk vast troves of data with which to improve his artificial intelligence project xAI.

“A potential high-profile deal with one of (returning President Donald) Trump’s closest allies holds some appeal for the Chinese government, which is expected to have some say over whether TikTok is ultimately sold,” according to the report. Musk vocally and financially supported Trump in the 2024 election and will be advising the new administration on spending cuts.

Musk, who opposed banning TikTok, has not commented on the report. ByteDance dismissed it as “pure fiction,” but Bloomberg said that “It’s not clear how much ByteDance knows about the Chinese government discussions.”

While at first glance it appears unlikely that the Chinese government would be willing to give a new owner outside its control the opportunity to examine TikTok’s collection and sharing of user data, the report suggests the regime may see it as a “potential area for reconciliation” ahead of negotiations with the Trump administration over issues such as trade and tariffs.

American politicians on both sides have inconsistent records on support for the video app. Last February, Biden’s reelection campaign joined the app despite his own administration labeling it a national security threat. White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby admitted at the time that “there are still national security concerns about the use of TikTok on government devices and there’s been no change to our policy not to allow that,” but declined to comment on the propriety of his boss using the app.

In the final year of Trump’s first term, meanwhile, he levied sanctions against TikTok and supported banning it as well, but during his 2024 campaign reversed his position days after meeting with GOP megadonor and TikTok shareholder Jeff Yass. In December, Trump asked the Supreme Court to delay the divestment deadline until after he took office, arguing that he “alone possesses the consummate dealmaking expertise, the electoral mandate, and the political will to negotiate a resolution to save the platform while addressing the national security concerns expressed by the government.”

Continue Reading

Business

FDA bans commonly used food dye

Published on

FDA Finally Bans Cancer-Linked Red No. 3 Food Dye

By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on Wednesday that it is banning the use of Red No. 3, a synthetic dye responsible for the vibrant cherry red color in foods and beverages, citing its association with cancer in animal studies:

The dye is still used in thousands of foods, including candy, cereals, cherries in fruit cocktails and strawberry-flavored milkshakes, according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food safety advocacy group that petitioned the agency in 2022 to end its use.

Food manufacturers will have until Jan. 15, 2027 to reformulate their products. Companies that make ingested drugs, such as dietary supplements, will get an additional year.

This ban was LONG overdue. Unfortunately, the other synthetic food dyes that have also been linked to serious deleterious health effects still remain on the market. A few months ago, I summarized the harm linked to synthetic food dyes — outdated FDA standards expose Americans to toxic food dyes linked to cancer, neurobehavioral issues, and other health risks, demanding urgent regulatory action:

Synthetic Food Dyes: A Half-Century of Harm

·
November 25, 2024
Synthetic Food Dyes: A Half-Century of Harm
 

by Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

 

Read full story

Batada et al found that nearly half (43.2%) of grocery store products contained artificial food colorings (AFCs), with Red 40 (29.8%), Blue 1 (24.2%), Yellow 5 (20.5%), and Yellow 6 (19.5%) being the most common. Candies (96.3%), fruit-flavored snacks (94%), and drink mixes/powders (89.7%) had the highest prevalence of AFCs, while produce contained none.

Oliveira et al summarized the deleterious health effects linked to synthetic food colorings in children: neurobehavioral disordersallergic reactionscarcinogenic and mutagenic potentialgastrointestinal and respiratory issuestoxicitydevelopmental and growth delays, and behavioral changes.

Sultana et al illustrated the specific health hazards associated with particular synthetic food dyes:

Miller et al conducted a systematic review of the potential neurobehavioral impacts (activity and attention) of food dye consumption. They included 27 clinical trials of children exposed to synthetic food dyes and found that 16 of 25 challenge studies (64%) demonstrated evidence of a positive association, with 13 studies (52%) reporting statistically significant findings. The authors concluded, “Current evidence from studies in humans, largely from controlled exposure studies in children, supports a relationship between food dye exposure and adverse behavioral outcomes in children, both with and without pre-existing behavioral disorders.” They also noted that:

“Animal toxicology studies were used by FDA as the basis for regulatory risk assessments of food dyes [25]. All current dye registrations were made between 1969 and 1986 based on studies performed 35 to 50 years ago. These studies were not designed to assess neurobehavioral endpoints. Dye registration was accompanied by derivation of an “acceptable daily intake” (ADI) based on these studies. FDA ADIs have not been updated since original dye registration, although there have been several reviews of specific effects since then, the latest in 2011.”

Synthetic food dyes, widely prevalent in U.S. products and lacking nutritional value, rely on outdated FDA approvals despite evidence of widespread toxicity, carcinogenicity, and adverse neurobehavioral effects, strongly warranting urgent regulatory action to protect public health.

While the FDA has finally made a decision that will benefit public health, they are still allowing the dangerous COVID-19 genetic injections to be administered to all individuals aged 6 months and older despite far exceeding criteria for a Class I recall. The immediate removal of unsafe and ineffective gene therapy injections should be the first priority before anything other product bans.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following the McCullough Foundation and Nicolas Hulscher on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

Continue Reading

Trending

X