--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- John Bickley: Good morning, I'm John Bickley, Editor-in-Chief of The Daily Wire, and this is a special edition of Morning Wire. I'm joined today by my co-host Georgia Howe.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Good morning, John. It's Friday, December 29th.
--:-- John Bickley: Before we dive into today's topic, I want to give a quick shoutout to our sponsor, Pakshield. Pack some peace of mind with 20% off your order. Use promo code WIRE at Pakshield.com.
--:-- Georgia Howe: And now, let's talk about the Supreme Court's decision to take up a controversial settlement case involving Purdue Pharma. Joining us to discuss this is Judge Bill Nelson, who lost his stepson, Brian, to an Oxycontin overdose.
--:-- Judge Bill Nelson: Thank you for having me on.
--:-- John Bickley: Judge Nelson, what was your reaction when you heard the Supreme Court would take up this case involving Purdue Pharma?
--:-- Judge Bill Nelson: I was surprised yet ecstatic. I didn't think they would take up such an issue, especially knowing how powerful the Sacklers are and how they kind of bought their way through the court system up until that point. But we were very glad that the Supreme Court did the right thing.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Your stepson, Brian, was 20 years old when he died of an overdose. Can you tell us specifically why you believe the Sackler family is to blame and not just Purdue Pharma?
--:-- Judge Bill Nelson: Well, they were the sole owners of Purdue Pharma at the time. It was 2009, and the Sackler family were the sole owners of the company. And they were pushing OxyContin like it was candy, even though they knew its addictive qualities and they denied it and they falsified the packaging, they falsified the labeling, they bribed FDA officials to push it through. They incentivize their salespeople to push it through, knowing that it was so addictive and that it was killing people. And the Sacklers were Purdue Pharma. So that's essentially why we blame the Sacklers.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Now, legally, why do you think a bankruptcy court should not have been able to approve this deal in the first place?
--:-- Judge Bill Nelson: They shouldn't have approved the deal because generally when a corporation files bankruptcy, it doesn't protect the individuals that do not file bankruptcy. The way the bankruptcy code is written, these types of releases can only release individuals under extraordinary circumstances. The Sacklers are billionaires. Today, they're worth $11 billion. They took $11 billion with them when they left Purdue Pharma at the time of filing bankruptcies. I don't know how you can protect someone from bankruptcy when they walk away with $11 billion. These are called non-consensual third-party releases. Non-consensual meaning people like me and other families don't consent to our property rights being relinquished in bankruptcy. And that's essentially what's happening. The Sacklers would forever be barred from being sued civilly for damages they've caused families. And that's just not right. It's unheard of in this type of situation.
--:-- John Bickley: In your legal opinion, what should public policy look like regarding the issue of drugs and opioids?
--:-- Judge Bill Nelson: That's a very difficult question to answer. Opioids are still today killing 200 people a day. I don't know what type of policy you can institute because there are people that still need opioids, cancer patients, people with unbearable pain, but they need to be regulated more. I've seen people that walk out of a dentist's office after having a tooth extracted with a prescription for 60 opioid pills. Now, that's totally unnecessary. You know, you could take a Tylenol. So the doctors need to be educated a little more on prescribing practices. Pharmacists need to be a little educated more on, you know, what to prescribe and what not to prescribe. But you don't need an opioid. You don't need a strong painkiller for every single little pain, a little discomfort. But they should be regulated. They should be issued to those who need it. You know these prescription opioids have as you know led to the strong comeback of heroin and now the unprecedented problem with the fentanyl. Heroin and fentanyl are a lot cheaper. It's coming across the border in unprecedented amounts. So we need to control that as well.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Now, a key part of the claim here is that Purdue aggressively promoted these drugs in a very dangerous and reckless way. Can you unpack that a bit more for us?
--:-- Judge Bill Nelson: Well, they were incentivizing their sales force to do whatever they can to get these doctors to prescribe opioids, especially the 80 milligram, which at the time were the strongest pills milligram wise that you can buy in the Oxycontin pill. While at the same time, they were working on 160 milligram pills. I can't think of any instance where someone should be taking 160 milligrams of Oxycontin when 80 milligram pills were killing people. When Brian died, he was taking 80 milligram pills. We found them after he passed away in his bedroom. And we think at the time that he was taking four or five of them a day. So again, they were doing everything they can to get their sales force to sell to these doctors the need to push these 80 milligram pills and to convince these doctors that they were not killing people. They were not addictive, even though they knew damn well that they were.
--:-- John Bickley: What are your thoughts on criminal charges? The Sacklers have not specifically been charged. What charges should they see?
--:-- Judge Bill Nelson: I believe it was seven Purdue Pharma executives were indicted. In 2020, there were some indictments, and I think all the way back, it might have been 2009. Not sure when the first set of indictments went down, but there were some indictments for mislabeling. There can be some fraud, broad misrepresentation. There was a bribery of FDA officials. And to this day, which really gets a lot of us, the Sacklers have refused to admit absolutely any wrongdoing at all. And I think that's what bothers most of us is that they still refuse to admit that they've done anything wrong when 200 people a day are dying.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Now, the pushback on disrupting this bankruptcy deal is that this settlement might be the only way a lot of these families get any money at all or at best, this will result in years-long delays. What's your response to that?
--:-- Judge Bill Nelson: I'm very sympathetic towards the families that want the settlement to go through for that very reason. Is the delay in getting any type of money right now, and this is the only way that any family is going to see any type of payment from these people, and it's very sad. You know it a billion settlement which sounds like a lot of money and it is a lot of money but most of that money all but million is going to the states into local governments into cities and towns and to even Native American tribes for treatment for opioid abatement for treatment facilities for life drugs like Narcan etc. So you hear about this $6 billion being paid out, but what you don't hear about is only $750 million going to the families who have a stake in this. And that's over 140,000 families. And also what you don't hear about is that money's payable over 18 years. And what you don't hear about is the families that have these claims, the 140,000 families, are going to get anywhere from $3,500 to the maximum of $48,000. And for the families that want the settlement to go through, yes, they could use some of this money, even though it's not much. My family would fall within the $3,500 range. And to say my son's life is worth $3,500 is kind of a slap in the face, if you ask me. But for those who want the money, I understand. I sympathize with them. They want to put it behind them. It's not going to bring their loved one back, but it will put closure. It'll give them some type of recompense, I guess. But it's not a lot of money. It's not going to make the problem go away. And they're not going to see the money for 18 years.
--:-- John Bickley: That was one of Justice Kavanaugh's questions, is, why fight this when a majority of the people, the majority of those affected by this, want this settlement to go through? He said, quote, it's a prompt way for them to get money. And I don't think money over 18 years is very prompt. I don't think these justices, I don't want to speak badly of the justices because they've got quite a heavy burden on them. But I think they need to be educated a little more. I don't think they realize this money is payable over 18 years.
--:-- Georgia Howe: Justice Kagan also weighed in on this issue, referring to those against the settlement as "nut jobs." She said, "Why should one lone nut job hold up to settlement?" And I say to her, if I'm the lone nut job, then so be it. But I'm not going to put a $3,500 price tag on my son's life.
--:-- John Bickley: Well, a very complex and I know very tragic case for you personally, Judge Nelson. Thank you so much for talking with us.
--:-- Judge Bill Nelson: Thank you guys. Thank you for your support.
--:-- [Theme music fades in]
--:-- John Bickley: That was Judge Bill Nelson. And this has been a special edition of Morning Wire.
