Anyone watching Dopesick? (title edited by MNHQ at request of OP)

[Biggfarmer]

So I've been watching this on iplayer (about the opioid scandal/catastrophe in the US) and so many things seem to relate to what has happened with puberty blockers - obviously the huge money involved for invested companies, the overly simplistic charts which are used to get people to agree they feel like that, the language used to plough through safeguarding/good doctors, the constantly staying ahead of people trying to stop it, the fight back and chaos when the pharmaceutical company realises people realise it's not all cool... It's so depressing, anyone else had a similar feeling? I know some of this is how pharmaceutical companies operate and always have, but the striking thing with this is that they know they can get away with this because the US doesn't have the regulations of Europe (specifically Germany in this), but with puberty blockers that doesn't seem to have stopped anyone (until now [UK]). Any thoughts welcome (it's an excellent series either way 😬, Michael Keaton is great)

I read an interesting substance recently from a Canadian doctor about the change in pain management, leading to the issues with OxyContin, from the 70s when he was in medical school up through to the 2000nds. It was really interesting to see the evolution, some changes seemed to be about research, but there was always, it seemed to me, an underlying element of medical and social culture around how people thought about pain.

One of the things that struck me, and it had before with regard to some of the things we hear around gender affirming care, or psychiatry in general, is that there has come to be a real sense that suffering of any kind is really unbearable, and needs to be relieved by any means necessary. I don't think that's from the medical culture, I think it's from the larger culture.

And also a sense that if there is a problem, there must be a solution. There is no acceptance of the idea that some problems may not have complete solutions.

I do think there are some similarities with this and gender medicine, and I'd also say I saw a lot of the same in the way COVID was approached. Evidence based medicine wasn't exactly at the forefront.

It's very much a medical model of health care rather than a social model. Gender affirming care is a medical model.

I recently read a really interesting article from a book about mental health - a woman's MH issues were the subject of some tv programmes around 15 years ago and she was told her brain was different and therefore meds would help

Apparently MH is moving away from such quick use of anti depressants to more social models of MH support. Ads have a place but not in the same way as was touted before

The article explains it so much better!

www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/13/i-was-the-poster-girl-for-ocd-then-i-began-to-question-everything-id-been-told-about-mental-illness

Want to post more but now time.

It's worth noting that "inclusion" comes from the "social model" for disability. This is about making society more accessible for those with disabilities.

I find it very ironic that gender affirming care is seen as A Great Idea and then "trans" is all about inclusion. As it's completely at odds with true inclusion- which is about changing environments, not the individual. They're "fixing" the individual to look different and inline with gender stereotypes.

Obviously there are some issues and positives with both the medical model and social models for disability, context is key. medical approaches are certainly needed within the context of disability- hearing aids, certain medications and aids. But in other contexts, such as accessing a theatre for example, the social model says that the "problem" is the theatre not the individual with needs. And that can be changed.

Gender stereotypes are socially (and consumer) driven ideals. The idea that women must take medication to be masculine and vice versa is all based on gender stereotypes.

Gender stereotypes are also at the heart of violence against women.

There's obviously more to say there about the interplay between males id as women and women's safety.

There is another interesting programme to watch on iPlayer.

Panorama, The Antidepressant Story. Subtitle; the companies trying to conceal concerns about their antidepressants.

Pharmaceutical companies prioritising money over patients is how they operate.
Whilst the UK appears to be more regulated there is still far too much pharm involvement in training medics and vets, and too much incentivising to encourage use of their drugs.
Anyone watching Dopesick or Painkiller is naive to believe that the approach to testing, approving and marketing OxyContin is a one off.
A large proportion of FDA funding comes from pharmaceutical companies.
The whole thing is unethical.

I haven't seen the series of Dopesick, but can recommend the book. The percentage of Americans on some kind of medication is astounding.

It really does show that they create a drug and then create a market for it. We tend to believe that they start with a problem and look for a cure, but the reality is that they simply want to make money by any means necessary.

I think with puberty blocking drugs like Lupron they were actively looking for new markets. I was briefly given it for endometriosis and it was the worst experience of my life - talk about a sledgehammer to crack a nut!

But the thing that struck me most about Dopesick was that some of the doctors who were prescribing it genuinely thought they were helping. Seven years of medical training and they didn't realise that a heroin-type drug was going to be addictive. And this is what we're up against with puberty blockers and cross sex hormones. There are some health care providers who just don't stop and think for themselves, and as consumers we are often too trusting.

Doctors believed that 'study' that proved Oxycontin was non addictive, yet the evidence was just a letter published in a journal. The evidence for gender affirmative 'care' is also incredibly shaky but in the US they are saying that the science is 'proven'.

Thank goodness for the Cass review.

I believe most drs don’t question what they’re told via official channels, but at the same time think they are doing the right thing by their patients.
Those that do question and call out tend to be vilified and called conspiracy theorists.

Agreed. I think there are some wonderful doctors out there who do genuinely care - all the doctors who resigned in protest from the Tavistock spring to mind. But so many over our doctors are over worked and understandably scared to make a fuss.

Not in the UK they don’t.

Another thing it mentions is the patient group they fund that makes it look like there is grassroots support. Drug companies do that in the UK too though often more subtly. B-interferon for MS is one such drug. But anytime you see patients on the BBC promoting some drug they have been on a trial of and how marvellous it is, there is likely to be a drug company in the shadows. The patient themselves is probably genuine (like the patients in the OxyContin ad in Dopesick) and some of the drugs may well be effective but there is the company behind them.

there was also significant overlap between pharmaceutical companies who made opioids and did Covid vaccines, so I could understand why so many Americans, particularly in communities hollowed out by opioids, were so desperately skeptical about the vaccines and the “reassurances”.

Absolutely. It's really opened my eyes to this. Not something I was aware of before. Made me realise how people with concerns were generally portrayed as stupid. So many sides to this issue. I also watched the Louis Theroux programme on heroin - same area, also touches on oxycontin and fentanyl and domestic violence. What a mess.

I can also recommend the Netflix series Painkiller about the activities of Purdue Pharma/The Sackler family and the FBI investigation against them (including the corruption within the FDA, that is also very pertinent to the matter of drugging so called gender dysphoric children). The brilliant Barbara Kingsolver novel, Demon Copperhead*, is also an excellent account of how drug companies target poor, rural areas.

*It is a modern reworking of David Copperfield, and an utterly wonderful novel, despite the bleak subject matter.

They do, over the age of 16

If you mean informed consent that is, it's from 16

Doctors have no obligation to provide off-license drugs to anyone. Furthermore, they must not go beyond their expertise and GPs are not qualified endocrinologists. Consenting to treatment does not in any way relieve a doctor of their clinical responsibilities.

Oh did you mean they couldn't just get a prescription? No but they could demand to be put on the pathway, even against the judgement of the doctor, which before the closure of GIDS would often result in their getting them.

No but they could demand to be put on the pathway, even against the judgement of the doctor

They could demand, but the doctor have no obligation to agree to that demand, and if against his clinical judgement he must not do so.

Lots of patients demand things, particularly painkillers.

I think the young people trying to get on the GIDS waiting list for puberty blockers was a fairly unique situation. The doctor I know felt utterly torn.

Because it was the context of them getting general help, but they would end up with puberty blockers

The entire board of Perdue and its executives and the entire Sackler family should be in prison for a long long time. They ruined lives and families. It is a disgrace that they are not.

Lock 'em up with Trump! I haven't seen Dopesick, but I remember a Louis Theroux (?) show years ago about the 'Oxy capital of the world' or some such. Some God-awful town/city somewhere in the rural US where every other person seemed to be addict.

It's actually one of those series I'm really glad to have seen because it makes so much sense of so many things in the US that doesn't really get much coverage. I can understand why people are so suspicious of vaccines and directives now. They were used as an experiment and their lives not taken seriously enough.

But GIDS never prescribed puberty blockers, they aren’t doctors. GIDS referred them on to an endocrinologist for that. And the endocrinologist blamed parents and said they thought GIDS had done thorough assessments when GIDS just ticked a box. It was an exercise in trying to shift blame.

If the doctor you know was not an endocrinologist and thought he shouldn’t prescribe they he absolutely shouldn’t prescribe. There should have been no doubt in his mind about that.

They were used as an experiment

I wish people would stop referring to medical abuse/negligence as experimentation. Even at the most basic level where you break the law by failing to follow ethics and regulations, if it was an experiment you would be testing a hypothesis and monitoring and analysing the results. OxyContin and Puberty blockers are examples of corruption and abuse not experimentation.