Brandeis Must Confront the Human Cost of Opioid Restrictions

By Arianne Grand-Gassaway

As a mother who lost my 35-year-old daughter, Desiree, to a counterfeit Xanax pill in the wake of restrictive prescribing policies, I am calling on Brandeis University to reckon with its role in a public health crisis.

The 2016 CDC Guideline on Opioid Prescribing, heavily influenced by Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) and its founder, Dr. Andrew Kolodny— Co-Director of Opioid Policy Research at Brandeis -- has helped fuel a humanitarian disaster.

Tens of millions of Americans with chronic pain and mental health conditions face untreated suffering, forced tapers, and abandonment by providers terrified of prosecution for prescribing opioids and other controlled substances like Xanax.

I am one of those Americans. I suffer from intractable pain and was denied opioid medication for a decade, before I found a provider who is treating my pain now. That decade of no pain care did irreparable damage to my body though.

Jewish wisdom, a cornerstone of Brandeis’s identity, teaches that saving one life is akin to saving the world (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5). Yet, these policies have done the opposite. My daughter, unable to access medically necessary medication for her panic disorder, turned to someone she thought she could trust—a desperate act that cost her life.

So many now are dehumanized by a system that prioritizes fear and suspicion over compassion. My family’s story is not unique. Despite a recent decline in overdoses, drug poisonings remain near record levels, with over 80,000 fatal overdoses in 2024.

Most of these deaths involve illicit fentanyl, while legitimate prescriptions remain out of reach for those who need them most: the sick, injured, and elderly.

On May 7, 2025, I wrote a letter to Brandeis Interim President Arthur Levine, urging dialogue that includes patient voices. Weeks later, after a follow-up call, I have received no response. This silence mirrors the broader dismissal of patients crying out for relief.

Brandeis, a self-proclaimed beacon of social justice, has a moral obligation to examine how Dr. Kolodny’s influence and advocacy have contributed to this crisis. Limiting prescriptions has not reduced addiction or overdoses — it has punished the vulnerable while illicit drugs continue to flood our streets.

By his own testimony, Dr. Kolodny only works part-time at Brandeis, which enables him to continue his work as an expert witness and consultant for plaintiff law firms involved in opioid litigation, for which he charges $780 per hour.

In 2022, Dr. Kolodny testified in West Virginia that “it’s been lucrative” work for him personally, although he declined to state the total amount of money he’s been paid by law firms over the years. Under questioning, he didn’t dispute estimates that it was a million dollars or more.   

I call on Brandeis to host a public forum with patients, providers, and policymakers to confront the harms caused by the CDC guideline and restore the doctor-patient relationship. Providers must be free to prescribe based on good faith and informed consent, without fear. We can prevent addiction and treat it compassionately without sacrificing those whose lives depend on these medications.

This is not just my story — it’s the story of many millions. If Brandeis and other organizations in positions of power to change the trajectory of this tragedy continue to remain silent, I will continue to speak, for Desiree and for all those suffering and dying. The time for action is now. 

Sens. Manchin and Markey Want Opioid Research Stopped

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Seven years ago, Sens. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) wrote a letter to the acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, asking for stricter limits on the production of opioid pain medication. They joined with over a dozen of their colleagues with another letter in 2017, asking for the same thing.

The letters said too many Americans were becoming addicted to opioids and that there was “insufficient research body about the effectiveness of opioids when used long term.”

The letters and a personal meeting with the DEA administrator had an impact. The agency embarked on a years-long campaign to slash production quotas for opioid manufacturers, which now stand at their lowest levels in two decades. Since their peak, DEA production quotas have fallen by 65% for oxycodone and 73% for hydrocodone. And the U.S. now has chronic shortages of opioid medication.    

Flash forward to 2023, and Sens. Markey and Manchin are at it again, but in a different way.  

In a new letter --- this time to the Food and Drug Administration – the senators called on the agency to scrap plans for a new clinical trial that could help prove whether opioids are effective long term – the very thing the senators said there was “insufficient research” on just a few years ago.

“Other studies have already evaluated prolonged opioid use,” Markey and Manchin wrote in their letter, which was first reported by STAT.

SENS. JOE MANCHIN AND ED MARKEY

At issue is an FDA plan to use a research design known as enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW) to study the use of opioids by patients with chronic pain – persistent pain that lasts for over three months.  Such a study would require patients on extended-release morphine to either continue taking the medication or be unwittingly switched to a placebo – which would essentially amount to a rapid taper with no pain relief.  

Markey and Manchin say such a study is biased in favor of opioids and would “needlessly expose” patients on morphine to the risk of addiction. They also make the dubious claim that long-term clinical studies of opioids are no longer needed, citing a controversial Australian study – known as the OPAL study -- that found low dose opioids gave little relief to patients with back and neck pain.

“A recent randomized placebo-controlled study found that prolonged opioid use was ineffective for acute back and neck pain. The study found that after six weeks, there was no significant difference in pain scores for the patients taking opioids compared to those who took a placebo,” the senators wrote.

Critics were quick to note the OPAL study has a number of flaws, the most obvious one being that the treatment period only lasted six weeks. OPAL was a short-term study of opioids for acute pain – not “prolonged opioid use” as Manchin and Markey claimed.   

“The letter by Markey and Manchin is a phenomenon of misinformation and lack of understanding of the opioid crises,” said Stephen Nadeau, MD, a Professor of Neurology at the University of Florida College of Medicine.

“The OPAL study indisputably examined only ACUTE neck and back pain; it is completely inappropriate to apply its results to chronic pain,” said Chad Kollas, MD, a palliative care physician and pain policy expert.

Kollas posted a long thread on Twitter (now known as X) debunking other aspects of the OPAL study, saying its findings were “overstated & oversimplified to support the policy agenda of opioid reductionists.”

“I believe Manchin and Markey are being influenced to shut down any public funding of research that would demonstrate positive benefits for the long-term use of opioids -- of which, enriched enrollment trials are a prime example. By whom, I do not know,” says patient advocate Richard “Red” Lawhern.   

The “whom” in this case appears to be Dr. Andrew Kolodny, the president and founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group that is funded by dark money. Several PROP members, including Kolodny, have repeatedly failed to disclose their conflicts of interest and enriched themselves by testifying as paid expert witnesses in opioid litigation cases.  

Kolodny has worked previously with Manchin on anti-opioid legislation and is apparently doing so again. Manchin is co-sponsoring a bill that would require the FDA to review the use of EERW studies on opioids. Kolodny is quoted in a recent Manchin press release promoting the senator’s bill. 

“The FDA has been putting new painkillers on the market based on improper studies that skew results in favor of approval. The methodology they're using was cooked up in private meetings with drug makers. The time for outside experts to examine the use of enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal is long overdue,” said Kolodny, who is Medical Director of Opioid Policy Research at Brandeis University.  

Coincidentally, when the OPAL study was published in The Lancet medical journal, it was accompanied by an invited commentary from two other PROP members, Drs. Jane Ballantyne and Mark Sullivan, who said the study “raises serious questions about the use of opioid therapy for acute low back and neck pain.”

More Opioid Studies Needed

Although opioids have been used for thousands of years for pain relief, there are surprisingly few placebo-controlled clinical studies of their long-term effectiveness. That is mainly due to the ethical issues involved in giving a placebo to someone in pain. Few pain patients would want to participate in a long-term study in which there’s a good chance they don’t get any pain relief. And few studies duplicate the real world experiences of pain sufferers.

“Depriving patients of benefits they might gain from receiving LTOT (long term opioid therapy) ethically precludes using randomized controlled studies (RCTs) as a research method in studying LTOT. This necessitates using other types of research, including the type of research that the senators seek to eliminate,” Kollas told PNN.

“The reason that RCTs of opioids for chronic pain have failed is very simple:  the trial design is fundamentally flawed. It is simply not adequate to address the scientific question at hand,” says Nadeau. “EERW trials have shown promise, and certainly more evidence of efficacy then the conventionally designed trials, but they have their problems.” 

Nadeau and other have proposed that EERW studies be modified so that patients on opioids are gradually tapered, not just suddenly switched to a placebo. 

“What is glaringly evident is that the gold standard of randomized double-blind trials cannot be applied with opioids because of very high failure rates in the placebo arm, due to breakthrough pain,” said Lawhern. “Moreover, even short-term trials are invalidated by protocols that do not remotely resemble actual clinical use of these medications.”  

As flawed as they might be, EERW studies may be a way to fill in some of the missing gaps in opioid research. Do opioids work long-term? Do they inevitably lead to addiction?  Are chronic pain patients helped or harmed by using opioids? Those are simple questions we still don’t have definitive answers to – and may never know if politicians dictate health policy and try to block much needed pain research. 

“We ask the FDA not to permit the use of EERW to determine the long-term efficacy and tolerability of opioids in chronic pain patients. We also urge you to reject EERW study designs for any future new drug applications for opioids and reconsider past opioid approval decisions using EERW,” Manchin and Markey wrote.

The Real Hoax About Prescription Opioids

By Barby Ingle, PNN Columnist

How many have to die? How many have to be denied? How many have to suffer unnecessarily?

Those are some of the questions I’m asking after reading a recent article in The Guardian about the CDC’s revised opioid guideline. The article has a few misstatements about prescription opioids that I have issues with. 

Before I share my take, I want readers to know that I do not take opioid medications myself. I have taken them in the past, but found other treatments that were more effective, so I stopped taking opioids in 2009. I also have an allergy to OxyContin, which I discovered after a knee surgery.

In 2018, I underwent pharmacogenomic testing, which I highly recommend for anyone who has chronic physical conditions. It has given me the best precision care available. I still live with multiple chronic pain and rare diseases, and will need treatment for the rest of my life.

You may be aware that I recently stepped down as president and a board member of the International Pain Foundation (iPain). It was a completely volunteer position. I have been advocating through many nonprofits since 2006 and have always been transparent about any funding that the charity or I received. I also have a degree from George Mason University in Psychology.

Which brings me back to the claims about addiction, opioids and patient advocacy that Dr. Andrew Kolodny, president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), made in The Guardian article. This quote is from Kolodny about patient suicides:

“This is a really serious issue. But what the opioid advocates, many with industry ties, disclosed or undisclosed, pushed was this false narrative about an epidemic of suicide and so there was a manufactured backlash against the CDC guidelines.

“The notion that there are patients losing access to an effective treatment, and therefore they have no choice but to kill themselves because they’re in so much pain now, that’s a hoax. But the idea that someone in the context of acute withdrawal would kill themselves, that certainly could be real because it’s so excruciating.”

From the perspective of a pain patient and a former nonprofit board member, I want to set the record straight about Kolodny’s alleged “hoax.” Yes, addiction is a serious issue. Under-treatment of chronic pain is also a serious issue. Any mistreatment of people with chronic care challenges is an issue.

The healthcare system in the U.S. is working as it was designed and needs to be thrown out. We are all individuals and should be treated by the providers of our choosing to get the care that we need — not as the healthcare system dictates. Not every provider is great, not every patient is great, and no treatment works for everyone. 

In America, we live in a “free” society. I believe we should be able to choose our own care and moral stance. But I wonder why Kolodny believes his moral stance should supersede what a provider and patient feel is best, whether it’s addiction treatment, pain management or any particular choice of care.

We should have full access to whatever we are willing to do to our own bodies. I have said many times over the years that I do not want to be a guinea pig anymore. I work hard to manage my pain levels, my surroundings, my energy pennies, and the people around me.

‘Advocates With Industry Ties’

Kolodny claims that many “opioid advocates” have industry ties and manufactured a false narrative about patient suicides in a backlash against the CDC guideline.

As a patient advocate who has been working with nonprofits for almost 20 years, I believe that the pharmaceutical industry should be giving money to the pain community to help us with tools and resources that make our lives better.

People think it’s easy for advocacy groups to get funding from Pharma, but that is not true, at least for the small funding that I was involved with. I know firsthand the many checks and balances that are needed before any grant money is provided. It did not matter if it was $100 or $10,000. Nonprofits have to account for it on their tax returns and through audits.

Since 2015, grant money from Pharma for iPain completely stopped, even the small amounts that we were getting. We went from completing over 200 grant applications a year, and getting less than 5 percent of them approved, down to a 0% success rate. There is nothing to report when you receive nothing, which is how it is going now for most patient advocacy organizations and support groups.

Receiving nothing from Pharma did not change our opinions or goals. We found other ways to accomplish them on a shoestring budget. I wish it was easier, but being hard does not stop the movement, because it is a matter of life or death in too many cases. Our work at iPain continued, because it was never about spreading whatever Pharma wanted. It was always about helping patients get individualized care. And all options, including opioids, should be on the table.  

Our work continued on a smaller scale and more creatively than if we had a large budget to get things done. At about the same time that our funding dried up, social media took off and it became easier to reach more people and actually be heard. We were still able to accomplish our goals, at less cost and with less funding.

I do not have the time, energy or space in this column to go into the many financial ties — disclosed and undisclosed — that Kolodny and PROP have with law firms involved in opioid litigation, which funded their efforts to take opioids away from patients. Good God, what is the point of him being so moral in his own eyes, that he does not let other people choose what is best for them?  

Patients losing access to treatment is real. So are patients dying or contemplating suicide. I receive emails and calls from them regularly, even since stepping down from iPain.

The first patient I lost due to being cut off from medication was in 2012. She was one of my best friends at the time. I talked to her often. She was on a medication that was helping. The provider cut her off and put her on a different drug. Neither were opioids. She was stable and doing well with the first medication, but not on the second one. My friend decided that jumping out of a 10-story window to her death would be better than not having the medication that was giving her more quality of life.

Kolodny says someone in acute withdrawal might kill themselves because it is so excruciating. Yes, Dr. Kolodny, withdrawal is hard and you are forcing it on people who are already in pain, who did not need or ask for your opinion. That is the real hoax.

Barby Ingle is a reality TV personality living with multiple rare and chronic diseases. She is a chronic pain educator, patient advocate, motivational speaker, and best-selling author on pain topics. Barby has received over 25 awards for her advocacy efforts over the years. You can follow her at www.barbyingle.com 

How Supporters of CDC Opioid Guideline Hijacked Public Hearing

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A public hearing on the CDC’s controversial opioid guideline was dominated by anti-opioid activists, who took most of the speaker slots after being tipped off about the hearing by CDC insiders, PNN has learned.   

At issue is a January 28, 2016 public hearing in Atlanta by the CDC’s Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC), an advisory panel that later voted unanimously to recommend the agency’s guideline, which discourages doctors from prescribing opioids for chronic pain. At the time, the CDC was under growing criticism for the secretive process used in drafting the guideline, which allowed for little input from the public, pain specialists and patients.

Faced with a congressional inquiry and accused of “blatant violations” of federal law, CDC postponed release of the guideline, opened a 30-day public comment period, and announced plans for a public hearing. But that hearing was essentially hijacked by anti-opioid activists who were alerted by Dr. Roger Chou, one of the guideline’s co-authors.

PNN has obtained a January 8, 2016 email from Chou to Dr. Andrew Kolodny, Executive Director and founder of PROP (Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing), PROP president Dr. Jane Ballantyne, PROP vice-president Dr. Michael Von Korff, and PROP board member Dr. Gary Franklin. Chou wanted to make sure PROP members and other guideline supporters spoke at the Jan. 28 hearing.

“I was hoping you could help spread the word for folks who are willing and able to help provide some balanced public comments; otherwise much of the public comments are going to be dominated by pharma. The CDC guideline is going to come under a lot of scrutiny by Congress and others so comments coming from credible people would be of great help,” Chou wrote in his email.

“The public comment period at the meeting is 90 minutes long and those who wish to speak must sign up in advance; the slots are first come, first serve, so those who want to do this they will need to sign up quickly as I’ve been told that pharma is already gearing up to take as many slots as they can.”

Kolodny responded quickly to Chou’s email, urging Ballantyne and the other PROP members to sign up as speakers. Although a public notice about the CDC hearing was not officially published in the Federal Register until January 11 -- three days later – the notice was put on “public display” in the Federal Register on Jan. 8, along with a link that allowed speakers to sign up early.

“We need to register ASAP if we hope to get a spot to give oral remarks (which can be done over the phone). I think it’s best for Jane to give remarks for PROP,” Kolodny wrote in an email of his own. “You don’t need to include a full written statement, just mention that you intend to speak in favor of the draft guideline and the need for promoting more cautious opioid use.”

Although the public notice asked that “each organization register one speaker to represent their organization,” PROP wound up having four speakers at the Jan. 28 hearing: Kolodny, Ballantyne, Franklin and Dr. David Juurlink. Franklin registered on Jan. 8, identifying himself as a representative of “Washington State public agencies.” Juurlink signed up as a representative of the “University of Toronto and American College of Medical Toxicology” and Kolodny identified himself as “Chief Medical Officer, Phoenix House Foundation.” Only Ballantyne signed up as representative of PROP.

The four PROP members were joined by over two dozen other guideline supporters, including Gary Mendell, Judy Rummler, Pete Jackson and other anti-opioid activists who have lost children to opioid overdoses. They urged CDC not to change the guideline by “watering it down” or removing dose limits.  

“The CDC guideline is urgently needed. The guideline was very carefully crafted using the best available evidence, expert opinion from a group of individuals with extensive experience of writing practice guidelines, and stakeholder input from a broad and balanced group of stakeholders,” Ballantyne said in her written comments.

“Primary care needs guidance on opioid prescribing that is free of industry bias. The CDC guideline accomplishes this. Evidence shows that the widespread use of opioids for chronic pain is harming more people than it is helping,” said Kolodny, according to minutes of the hearing.

Only four people spoke in opposition to the guideline. One was Howard Techau, a pain patient who pointed out that most overdoses were caused by illicit fentanyl, not pain medication. “Many chronic pain patients are suffering more now due to the (opioid) restrictions that are already in place,” said Techau, according to the hearing minutes.

The hearing ended with BSC chair Dr. Stephen Hargarten thanking the participants for their “extraordinary discussion and input from a variety of perspectives.”

‘Stacking the Deck’

A pain patient who registered for the hearing but was not given a chance to speak was Anne Fuqua. She encouraged dozens of other patients to attend and register as speakers, helping some to fill out their online registration forms. When the hearing ended and none of them were called upon to speak, she remembers feeling the hearing was rigged and stacked against patients

“The whole process felt like such a concerted effort to railroad patients,” Fuqua told PNN. “I remember at the time us saying we felt like it was beyond the realm of chance that they randomly selected the speakers.

“Aside from the 4 PROPers, it just doesn’t seem possible that supporters would have been this successful in flooding the sign-in ahead of everyone else.”

The CDC disputes the notion that anyone at the hearing who was pre-registered was denied an opportunity to speak.

“A total of 37 individuals pre-registered for the meeting and, of those, 30 requested to give oral public comment.  During the 90 minutes allotted for public comment, participants were called on in the order that they registered.  After individuals that had pre-registered were given the opportunity for public comment, public comment was opened to others for the remaining time. One additional person provided public comment at that time,” Courtney Leland, a CDC spokesperson, said in a statement to PNN.

“I don’t understand how they could possibly say only 30 registered to provide public comments. There were so many patients who told me they registered at the time and I registered way more than 30 people myself,” says Fuqua, who provided dozens of donated cell phones to nursing home residents so they could call in.

Others questioned the “first come, first served” process used by CDC to sign-up speakers, which could be easily manipulated by anyone given advance notice.

“The first come-first served method necessarily gives advantages to groups that hire lobbyists to track Federal Register postings, and, apparently, groups that have an inside connection who can alert them to the opportunity,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, former Executive Director of the American Academy of Pain Management. “Individual patients and even patient advocacy organizations are not going to have the resources to find out about these opportunities until the very limited number of slots are filled. CDC needs to seriously re-think this method of filling spots if they do anything like this in the future.”

‘Forward This Announcement to Others’

At least five PROP board members were involved in advising the CDC during the guideline’s development, so it is not clear why they were given yet another chance to express their opinions. Ballantyne and Franklin were members of a key guideline advisory panel known as the Core Expert Group; Dr. David Tauben was on the guideline’s peer review panel; and Kolodny and Juurlink were on a stakeholder review group.

Kolodny has tried to downplay PROP’s role in drafting the opioid guideline, but Chou’s email is direct evidence that there was some degree of collusion.

When asked why he contacted PROP and other organizations to give them an early heads-up about the hearing, Chou said he did so at the request of the CDC. A CDC staffer emailed Chou and other “Partners” involved in the guideline process, urging them to “forward this announcement to others who may be interested in commenting.”

“The information I forwarded to those folks and others was from an email that I received from CDC on January 8 that had been sent out widely to partners/stakeholders. Not sure why there would be any prohibition on sharing that information, which was public,” Chou wrote in an email to PNN.

But the information was not yet public, at least not widely. CDC never sent out a press release about the hearing and the public notice that was in the Federal Register probably wasn’t seen by many people outside of lobbyists.      

“Chou can say all he wants that this justified his efforts to stack the deck, but it also shows CDC was complicit,” says Fuqua.

“The fact that CDC would encourage people to publicize the availability of this speaking opportunity prior to publication in the Federal Register, especially when they were using a first come-first served selection method, is problematic,” said Twillman. 

“It is shameless that Roger Chou gave PROP a head start to prepare. It’s like an author writing their own book reviews,” said Julie Killingworth, a pain patient and independent researcher who helped PNN track the 2016 emails, which were obtained by another journalist through the Freedom of Information Act.  

“PROP members and their cohorts like Chou have proven beyond doubt they will always resort to cheating and lying to promote and profiteer their destructive scientifically faulty agenda. The CDC has unapologetically shacked up with a shadowy lobbying group, endangering the health and well-being of all citizens.”  

As for Chou’s warning that pharma was “gearing up to take as many slots as they can” at the hearing -- not a single representative from the pharmaceutical industry spoke. Pharma did not “dominate” the hearing as Chou predicted, PROP and other guideline supporters did.

Outspoken Critic of Opioids

All of this happened six years ago and may seem like “inside baseball” trivia to people unfamiliar with the CDC and its opioid guideline. But for this reporter and others who have followed the issue for years, it has a familiar ring.

Chou is a prolific researcher who heads the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center at Oregon Health & Science University, which over the last five years has received over two billion dollars in research grants from the federal government, much of it spent studying pain management therapies.

Most public health researchers keep a low profile to avoid accusations of bias, but Chou has long been an outspoken critic of opioid prescribing. In a 2019 podcast, for example, Chou said the benefits of opioids were “clinically insignificant” and that the medications are often harmful.

Chou has also collaborated on several prior occasions with PROP. In 2019, he co-authored an op/ed with Ballantyne and PROP board member Dr. Anna Lembke that encourages doctors to consider tapering “every patient receiving long term opioid therapy.”

DR. ROGER CHOU

In 2011, Chou wrote another op/ed with Kolodny and Von Korff, calling for a major overhaul of opioid prescribing guidelines, which were then mostly developed by pain management societies. That major overhaul came in 2016, when the CDC released its own guideline, which was quickly adopted by many states, insurers, physician groups and even law enforcement agencies.

Opioid prescribing fell dramatically as a result, yet drug overdoses rose to record levels, and many pain patients were tapered off opioids or abandoned by doctors who feared prosecution for prescribing the medications. Patients who once led productive lives while on opioids became unable to work, disabled and bedridden. Even the CDC admits the guideline has been harmful to patients and is in need of overhaul.    

Patients may be suffering and overdoses keep rising, yet several members of PROP have done well for themselves. At least six PROP board members have worked for plaintiff law firms involved in opioid litigation, making as much as $850 an hour. Kolodny, by his own admission, was paid up to $500,000 for testifying in one trial.

‘Compromised by Conflicts’

To this day, Chou remains heavily involved with the CDC. He is one of five co-authors drafting a revised and more “flexible” version of the guideline, which is expected for release later this year. He is also now a member of the CDC’s Board of Scientific Counselors. Critics say Chou’s biases and conflicts of interest are excessive and he should be removed from both roles.

“Based on growing evidence from our own research and many credible sources, the CDC inappropriately collaborated with Chou and leaders from the advocacy group PROP, to create and vigorously promote unfocused reductions in opioid prescribing,” says Dr. Chad Kollas, a palliative care physician who co-authored research critical of Chou’s “undisclosed” conflicts and PROP's role in helping to draft the guideline.

“The creation process for the 2016 Guideline lacked transparency and repeatedly violated CDC’s internal rules and policies addressing relevant conflicts of interest, thereby compromising its scientific integrity and its authors’ credibility. While the draft of CDC’s 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline on Prescribing Opioids for Pain seeks to mitigate growing patient harms from the 2016 Guideline, it is difficult to understand why CDC continued to allow Chou, compromised by ongoing conflicts of interest, to lead its effort to improve its failed opioid policy.”

Distrust of the CDC runs deep in the pain community. In a PNN survey of over 2,500 patients, providers and caregivers earlier this year, nearly 96% said they do not trust the agency to handle the revision of the guideline in an unbiased and scientific manner.

This week, an open letter signed by over 35,000 people was delivered by patient advocate Tamera Stewart to the office of Chris Jones, Acting Director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The letter says the 2016 guideline is so deeply flawed and compromised by ethical violations that it should be completely withdrawn and revoked, without any revisions.

Stewart, who is Policy Director for the P3 Alliance, is also asking Congress to investigate the CDC’s alleged violations of federal procedure and scientific methods during the development of the original and revised versions of the guideline.

CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky recently announced plans to reorganize the agency due to mistakes made during its handling of the Covid pandemic, with the goal of improving communication with the public and changing CDC culture. Walensky put three senior CDC officials in charge of a “top-to-bottom review” of the agency.

One of them is Acting Deputy Director Dr. Deb Houry, the former director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, who oversaw the drafting and rollout of the 2016 guideline. Houry will likely be reviewing the work of Dr. Deborah Dowell, who was chief medical officer for the CDC’s Covid Response team. Houry is already very familiar with Dowell, who co-authored both the 2016 guideline and the revised guideline that is awaiting release.  

Kolodny Returns as PROP President

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

After an eight-year hiatus, much of it spent testifying as a paid expert witness in opioid litigation trials, Andrew Kolodny, MD, has been reappointed as president of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), the anti-opioid activist group that he founded. Kolodny succeeds Dr. Jane Ballantyne, who remains with the organization as VP for Clinical Affairs.

“I am delighted to serve in this role again, especially at a time when the need for more cautious opioid prescribing in the United States and abroad is becoming increasingly clear to clinicians, policymakers and the public,” Kolodny said in a press release.

Kolodny served as PROP’s first president from 2010 until 2014, when he was Chief Medical Officer at Phoenix House, a nationwide chain of addiction treatment centers. He is currently the Medical Director of Opioid Policy Research at Brandeis University.

Although Kolodny is a psychiatrist with a background in addiction treatment and lacks expertise in pain management, he has played a prominent role in reducing the use of opioids to treat pain. He lobbied Congress and federal health agencies for years to limit opioid prescribing, and is often quoted making sensational anti-opioid comments in the media, calling them “heroin pills” or saying that over-the counter drugs like ibuprofen “are as effective and in some cases more effective than opioids.”   

He stopped talking to this reporter years ago, saying he doesn’t like my questions and hasn’t had “a good experience” answering them.

Paid Expert Witness

Kolodny’s reinstatement as PROP’s president comes at a time when many opioid litigation cases are wrapping up against drug manufacturers and distributors, resulting in multi-billion dollar settlements with states, cities and counties. The plaintiff law firms who filed and pursued those cases stand to make billions of dollars themselves in contingency fees.

Kolodny was a paid expert witness or consultant for at least four of those law firms (Motley Rice, Nix Patterson, Cohen Milstein and Scott & Scott), making as much as $500,000 when he testified at a rate of $725 an hour in Oklahoma’s lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson.

That case, which resulted in a $425 million verdict against the drug maker, was overturned last year by Oklahoma’s Supreme Court, which ruled that J&J was not the “public nuisance” that Kolodny and the state attorney general portrayed it to be.  

A similar ruling was made by a California judge, who said opioid manufacturers did not use deceptive marketing and were not liable for the state’s opioid crisis. Dr. Anna Lembke, a Stanford psychiatrist and PROP board member, testified as a paid witness for plaintiffs in that case, but Judge Peter Wilson said her testimony about opioid addiction was unreliable.

DR. ANDREW KOLODNY

Court records show that Lembke was paid up to $800 an hour for her testimony in a New York opioid litigation case.

Public records also show that Kolodny was hired as an “expert consultant” by at least one state. In 2020, he signed a contract with the New York State Department of Financial Services to provide “consultation on medical issues and trends regarding the prescription of opioids” at a rate of $600 an hour. In one invoice, Kolodny billed the state $1,500 for making two phone calls. The maximum amount to be paid to Kolodny was later set at $174,999.

In addition to Kolodny and Lembke, at least five other PROP board members have testified as paid expert witnesses or consultants in opioid litigation: Ballantyne, Dr. Danesh Mazloomdoost, Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, Dr. Mark Sullivan and Dr. David Juurlink. Mazloomdoost was paid a rate of $850 an hour for his testimony.

PROP members have failed on repeated occasions to disclose these business relationships, but when questions were raised about them, they filed revised conflict of interest statements — without providing details on who they worked for or the amount they were paid.

PROP itself has not been transparent about its finances. PROP is not a public charity and has never filed a tax return. It takes advantage of a loophole in IRS law by having the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation as its “fiscal sponsor,” which allows donors to make tax-deductible donations anonymously.

PROP says it does not accept funding from “pharmaceutical companies and other life sciences corporations.” Kat Marriott, PROP’s Executive Director, did not respond to an email asking if the organization accepted money from law firms, medical device makers, drug testing companies or other industries that have profited from the opioid crisis.  

(Update: This story contains several updates relating to PROP members working as paid expert witnesses and consultants in opioid litigation cases. )

CDC Censoring Public Comments About Revised Opioid Guideline

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has censored over a dozen public comments about its revised opioid guideline to remove negative references to Dr. Roger Chou, one of the guideline’s co-authors.  

Chou is a controversial figure in the pain community. A prolific researcher and an outspoken critic of opioid prescribing, Chou heads the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) at Oregon Health & Science University.

Over the last five years, the university has received nearly $2 billion in contracts from the CDC and other federal agencies, much of it going to the EPC to support Chou’s research. That research, which generally discourages the use of opioids, is cited over 100 times in the revised CDC guideline.

The CDC published the revised draft in the Federal Register last month and invited the public to submit comments, with the agency cautioning posters that it “may choose to redact, or withhold, submissions containing private or proprietary information.”

Of the 2,600 submissions received so far, over 280 have been edited in some way, mostly to remove personal information about the poster or their medical provider

SOURCE: REGULATIONS.GOV

But at least 15 comments critical of Chou’s research and his role in writing the opioid guideline have also been edited to remove his name, even though much of the information they contain is already public and not proprietary.

Chou’s name is redacted four times from this post by Emma W:

“I think it’s reasonable for them to redact private information, physicians’ names, clinic names, etc. I’m all for protecting privacy. But it makes no sense to me that they would redact the names of guideline authors and/or the authors of research papers they directly cite as evidence,” said Emma, who asked that we not use her last name. “I did not personally make any offensive, rude, or vulgar remarks about him in my comment, so I’m still at a loss as to why I and some others were singled out.”

In addition to being a co-author of the revised guideline, Chou was one of the authors of the original 2016 guideline, which led to significant cutbacks in opioid prescribing nationwide. He also continues to serve on the CDC’s Board of Scientific Counselors, despite admitting to a financial conflict-of-interest (COI) at a board meeting last year.

“Since CDC funds Chou’s research, which supports their guidelines, my guess is that they’re going above and beyond to protect him from criticism,” Emma told PNN. “I suppose I should’ve expected this, considering absolutely nothing has been done about his continuing involvement in these guidelines despite his COIs.”

“It is outrageous but I’m not surprised,” said Julie Killingworth, whose comment was edited 6 times to remove the names of Chou and others.

“I thought my comment would be removed because I stopped appeasing the CDC with politeness long ago. I’m not surprised the CDC is silencing people they have cruelly targeted to be tortured,” Killingworth told PNN. “The CDC does not deserve the national respect they feel entitled to receive.” 

To be clear, not every post that references Chou has been edited. PNN identified 5 posts where his name has not been redacted. Those comments are also critical of Chou’s extensive involvement researching, developing and writing the guideline.

“I am concerned about the legality of redacting public comments. This in my experience is quite irregular,” says Terri Lewis, PhD, who co-authored a 2021 paper that looked into Chou’s conflicts of interest. “It doesn't change what are legitimate concerns about what are very real conflicts of interest and the failure to disclose same, especially in light of other historical facts that are emerging.”

In addition to the Chou redactions, the CDC has censored several comments that mention Dr. Andrew Kolodny by name and other members of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group that Kolodny founded.

Chou has collaborated on several occasions with PROP, including a 2019 op/ed he co-authored with PROP President Dr. Jane Ballantyne and PROP board member Dr. Anna Lembke that encourages doctors to consider tapering “every patient receiving long term opioid therapy.”

(3/31/22 Update: Nearly three weeks after we asked CDC why the names of Chou and others are being redacted, we received this reply from a spokesperson:

“Our approach with comments on this FRN (Federal Register Notice) was to redact all individuals’ names to protect privacy. With so many comments, there have been a few that were not redacted in line with this approach, but the intent was to redact names of any and all individuals.”

The spokesperson said the CDC may also “redact or withhold certain submissions” that contain private or proprietary information, inappropriate language, or duplicated public comments that could indicate a mass-mail campaign.)

The CDC will continue to accept public comments about the revised guideline until April 11. Click here to make one.

Ironically, the revised guideline has generally been received favorably by the pain community because it gives doctors more flexibility in prescribing opioids. Some patients and advocates are leery, however, that the revisions won’t restore access to opioid medication or fix all the other problems the original guideline created, such as patients being forcibly tapered or reduced to ineffective doses.

Does U.S. Have Opioid Crisis or Overdose Crisis?

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

A lot of people were surprised by an alarming report from the CDC last week, showing that a record 100,306 Americans died of a drug overdose in the 12-month period ending in April, 2021. That’s a 28.5% increase in a single year.

Among those who were caught off-guard was Andrew Kolodny, MD, an opioid researcher at Brandeis University and founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group.

“I was surprised by the latest tally from the CDC showing that for the first time ever, the number of Americans who fatally overdosed over the course of a year surpassed 100,000,” Kolodny wrote in an op/ed for The Conversation that’s been republished in several major newspapers.

“The soaring death toll has been fueled by a much more dangerous black market opioid supply. Illicitly synthesized fentanyl – a potent and inexpensive opioid that has driven the rise in overdoses since it emerged in 2014 – is increasingly replacing heroin. Fentanyl and fentanyl analogs were responsible for almost two-thirds of the overdose deaths.”

It’s refreshing to see Kolodny finally address the elephant in the room – illicit fentanyl – instead of always blaming prescription opioids for America’s addiction and overdose problem. But he continues to frame the drug crisis as an “opioid crisis” when repeated studies show that multiple substances are usually involved in overdoses, including non-opioid drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine.  

“It is especially tragic that these deaths are mainly occurring in people with a disease – opioid addiction – that is both preventable and treatable. Most heroin users want to avoid fentanyl. But increasingly, the heroin they seek is mixed with fentanyl or what they purchase is just fentanyl without any heroin in the mix,” Kolodny wrote.

“Opioid-addicted individuals seeking prescription opioids instead of heroin have also been affected, because counterfeit pills made with fentanyl have become more common.”

Here Kolodny sidesteps the fact that many pain patients are turning to street drugs because of government and law enforcement policies that restrict the prescribing of opioid medication – policies that Kolodny and PROP had a significant role in creating. They’re not addicts “seeking prescription opioids instead of heroin.” They’re patients seeking pain relief.

“Our misdirected efforts to solve the overdose epidemic have led to even more deaths. As long as we myopically focus on reducing prescription opioids for people in pain, the overdose epidemic will continue and worsen,” says Lynn Webster, MD, a pain management expert, Senior Fellow at the Center for U.S. Policy (CUSP) and Chief Medical Officer of PainScript.  

“Some of those who need opioids will be driven to the streets where they will find illicit and, potentially, lethal opioids. Some people may even choose to end their own lives. Your readers may have seen the recent article that described a suit against a physician for denying opioid treatment of a patient. The patient committed suicide as a result.” 

Webster says it is wrong to single out opioids – legal or illicit – for America’s escalating drug problem when the causes are complex and embedded in society. 

“We do have an overdose epidemic. Unfortunately, policymakers and the media have wrongly categorized it as an opioid epidemic rather than a drug overdose epidemic,” says Webster. “The roots of the overdose crisis are deep and seeded in despair from major shifts in socioeconomic conditions and lack of adequate and affordable healthcare. The Covid pandemic has made clear that social and mental health issues must be addressed if the overdose crisis is to be reversed. 

“The only solution to the overdose epidemic is to lower the demand. This will require a broad approach that involves addressing socioeconomic and mental health drivers of demand. More affordable and accessible treatment is important but will not solve the crisis.” 

Invested in Opioid Crisis 

Changing the narrative about the overdose crisis won’t be easy, since so many lawyers, politicians, healthcare companies and media outlets have invested in perpetuating the “opioid crisis.” Kolodny and other PROP board members have lucrative side hustles testifying as expert witnesses in opioid litigation cases for plaintiff law firms, which stand to make billions of dollars in contingency fees if their lawsuits are successful. 

One such case was decided by a federal jury in Cleveland today, which found that Walgreens, CVS and Walmart substantially contributed to addiction and overdoses in two Ohio counties by dispensing opioids in their pharmacies. The companies said they would appeal. 

“Plaintiffs' attorneys sued Walmart in search of deep pockets while ignoring the real causes of the opioid crisis-such as pill mill doctors, illegal drugs, and regulators asleep at the switch,” Walmart said in a statement. “And they wrongly claimed pharmacists must second-guess doctors in a way the law never intended and many federal and state health regulators say interferes with the doctor-patient relationship.”

Judges in Oklahoma and California recently ruled that opioid manufacturers are not “public nuisances” and can’t be held responsible for what people ultimately do with their drugs.  

Oklahoma Supreme Court Reverses Landmark Opioid Ruling

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Oklahoma’s Supreme Court has reversed a landmark court ruling that found opioid drug makers created a public nuisance and were responsible for the state’s opioid crisis. It was the second major victory this month for the pharmaceutical industry, as it fights back against a tsunami of opioid litigation around the country.

The 5-1 decision by Oklahoma’s highest court throws out a $465 million verdict by Judge Thad Balkman against Johnson & Johnson. Former Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter alleged that J&J and two other drug makers fueled the opioid crisis by flooding the state with painkillers. But the court said J&J can’t be held liable for the actions of others with legally prescribed opioids.

"We hold the opioid manufacturer's actions did not create a public nuisance. The district court erred in extending the public nuisance statute to the manufacturing, marketing, and selling of prescription opioids," the ruling states.

The decision is very similar to a ruling by a California judge last week, who said that J&J and three other drug makers can’t be held responsible for “adverse downstream consequences flowing from medically appropriate prescriptions.”

Like the California judge, Oklahoma’s high court acknowledged that an opioid epidemic exists and that it has caused the overdose deaths of thousands. While illicit use of prescription opioids led to many of those deaths, the court said few deaths occurred when individuals used opioids as prescribed.

“J&J had no control of its products through the multiple levels of distribution, including after it sold the opioids to distributors and wholesalers, which were then dispersed to pharmacies, hospitals, and physicians' offices, and then prescribed by doctors to patients. J&J also had no control over the laws and regulations that govern the disbursement of its prescription opioids or whether prescribers follow the laws,” the court said.

“We also cannot disregard that chronic pain affects millions of Americans. It is a persistent and costly health condition, and opioids are currently a vital treatment option for pain. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has endorsed properly managed medical use of opioids (taken as prescribed) as safe, effective pain management, and rarely addictive.”

An Oklahoma patient advocate told PNN the court’s ruling was the “only logical outcome” because the state failed to prove its case.

“Their evidence never proved that bad marketing caused excess prescriptions nor the overdose crisis,” said Tamera Lynn Stewart, Policy Director for the P3 Political Action Alliance. “Looking at the totality of the evidence and data available from state and federal sources, it is clear that this crisis was always caused by attempts to fuel the drug war. If this use of public nuisance was allowed to stand, it would open up Pandora's box to future use against any company that produces a product for public use.”

Possible Impact on Other Cases

Plaintiff law firms representing state and local governments have filed over 3,000 lawsuits against drug makers, opioid distributors and pharmacies for their role in the opioid crisis. If successful, the law firms stand to make billions of dollars in contingency fees.

“Coming on the heels of a verdict in favor of opioid manufacturers in California, this news really casts significant doubt on similar cases that are still underway. I haven't read the ruling in this case yet, but the fact that the decision was 5-1, and that the lone dissenter agreed with the premise of the court's majority, but only wanted a different procedural outcome, means that the Oklahoma Supreme Court was not the least bit swayed by the state's case,” said Bob Twillman, PhD, former Executive Director of the Academy of Integrative Pain Management.

“It will be interesting to see if this court picked up on the same issues identified by the judge in California, namely, that the plaintiffs' presentation missed the mark with respect to an accurate and non-hyperbolic presentation of the facts. It's worth noting that much of the hyperbole came from ‘expert’ witnesses such as Andrew Kolodny.”

The state’s star witness in the Oklahoma trial was Kolodny, an addiction treatment specialist who founded Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group. Dr. Kolodny claimed that J&J and other drug makers operated an “opioid mafia” that funded patient groups and professional medical organizations that promoted the use of opioids.

“I don’t believe physicians should be helping drug companies market their products,” Kolodny testified in 2019. “It’s very easy to fool yourself when it’s profitable to fool yourself.”

Kolodny admitted under questioning that he was being paid $725 an hour to testify by the law firm of Nix Patterson & Roach and stood to make up to $500,000 for his services in Oklahoma. He also acknowledged that he was paid a similarly high hourly rate as a consultant for at least one other law firm involved in opioid litigation. Other PROP board members have also been paid witnesses in opioid litigation cases.

“It looks like the half-million dollars (or more) paid to him and to others is an indication of just how invested the plaintiffs are in the bill of goods they have been sold,” Twillman said in an email. “Meanwhile, while fully recognizing the toll taken by opioid use disorder, we need to keep reminding people of the harm caused by the pursuit of cases such as these -- the harm suffered by people with chronic pain who rely on opioid medications for pain relief, but whose access to those medications has been severely limited by the money-grab inherent in these cases. If there really is a public nuisance here, it may be that these cases are that nuisance.”

Purdue Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals settled out-of-court with Oklahoma before the case even went to trial, for $270 million and $85 million respectively. Several other drug companies have also settled out of court or are contemplating settlements rather than risk protracted and expensive litigation. The California and Oklahoma rulings are no doubt giving them second thoughts.

According to the CDC, the U.S. saw over 96,000 fatal overdoses in the 12 month period ending in March, 2021. Most of the deaths involve illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, not prescription opioids.

Nearly 60% of Americans Live with Pain

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Nearly 60 percent of U.S. adults have some type of short or long-term pain, according to a new CDC report that found the prevalence of pain steadily increases with age and is highest among adults aged 65 and older. Being female, white or poor also increased the likelihood of pain.

The CDC study is based on data from the 2019 National Health Interview Survey, in which participants were asked if they felt pain “some days,” “most days” or “every day” in the last 3 months.

Back pain (39%) was the most common site for pain, followed by pain in the hips, knees or feet (36.5%); hands, arms and shoulders (30.7%); and head pain (22.4%). About ten percent of those surveyed said they had abdominal or dental pain.

U.S. Adults With Pain in Last 3 Months

SOURCE: cdc

“Overall, nearly three in five adults (58.9%) experienced pain of any kind in the past 3 months in 2019,” researchers reported. “Location-specific pain, such as back, neck, arm, and hip pain is associated with short- and long-term health effects, ranging from minor discomfort to musculoskeletal impairment, diminished quality of life, and escalating health care costs.”

Household income appears to play a role in pain prevalence. Nearly 45% of people living in a household below the 2019 federal poverty level ($25,750 for a family of four) reported having back pain. For people with household income at least 200% higher, the rate of back pain was 37.6 percent. The association between pain and poverty was similar for people with pain in their upper and lower limbs.

The study findings are similar to the so-called “deaths of despair” first reported in 2015 by Princeton researchers Angus Deaton and Anne Case, who found that financial and emotional stress caused by unemployment and stagnant incomes may be behind the reduced life expectancy of middle-aged white Americans.

Between 1999 and 2013, the mortality rate for middle aged whites rose by 2 percent, coinciding with an increase in fatal overdoses. No other race or ethnic group saw such an increase in mortality. The rising death rate for whites was accompanied by more suicides and substance abuse, as well as increases in joint pain, neck pain, sciatica and disability.

One critic of the “deaths of despair” theory is Andrew Kolodny, MD, the founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP).  Kolodny in a recent webinar claimed that overdoses were driven by drug addiction, not socioeconomic factors.

“The deaths of despair framing, while provocative, is unlikely to explain the main sources of the fatal drug epidemic and that efforts to improve economic conditions in distressed locations, while desirable for other reasons, are not likely to yield significant reductions in drug mortality,” Kolodny said.

Kolodny and at least three other PROP board members have been well-paid expert witnesses in opioid litigation cases – lawsuits that depend on a public narrative that excess opioid prescribing led to the overdose crisis, not mental health problems or economic disparity. Maintaining that narrative is becoming harder, with opioid prescribing at 20-year lows and overdose deaths at record highs, fueled in part by economic and social issues exacerbated by the covid pandemic.

Patient Z and the Criminalization of Pain Care

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

Dr. Stefan Franzen is not a physician or pain patient, but his new book is likely to open some eyes about the poor quality of pain care in the United States and the consequences of criminalizing opioid medication.

“Patient Z” is Franzen’s pseudonym for a family member who lives with ankylosing spondylitis, a severe form of arthritis, who was cut off from opioids when his longtime doctor came under investigation and was forced to stop prescribing. Patient Z struggled for years to find a new doctor and effective treatment, at times contemplating suicide during bouts of intense pain.  

When Franzen, a chemistry professor at North Carolina State with an extensive background in biomedical research, tried to help by speaking with doctors – he came to the realization that Patient Z and millions of others like him had been stigmatized, terrorized and abandoned in the name of fighting opioid addiction.   

“There are doctors who would like to help patients like Patient Z, but they feel that matters are out of their hands. There is not likely to be major change until the citizens of the United States realize that the denial of pain management care is an attack on patients’ rights and that what happened to Patient Z can happen to anyone,” Franzen writes.

Franzen’s book is comprehensive and well-researched, with several chapters dedicated to debunking some of the myths about opioids, such as addiction and overdoses being inevitable after high doses and long-term use. Those myths have been codified into medical guidelines, laws and regulations to a point where many doctors are now afraid to prescribe opioids or even see pain patients.

“It feels like the tribe is moving on and leaving the patients behind. Our attitude is ‘everybody for themselves’ and the doctors are saying, ‘Hey, I could go to jail.’ And the patients are screwed, which is absurd. The criminalization of medicine is a big part of this problem,” Franzen told PNN.

“My book looks at this from the point of view of the pain patient. What does this look like? And to realize what it’s like when you’re rejected. You’re afraid you’ll be called an addict. You’re afraid someone is going to cut you off at any time.”

Franzen says the war on drugs has been a misguided failure that has only made drug trafficking worse, with pain patients caught in the crossfire. As an example, he points to Florida’s crackdown on pill mills a decade ago.

“When they finally cracked down, there was this massive switch to heroin. It was in 2011 and the heroin numbers shot up. And of course, everyone went to draw the conclusion that the prescription drug crisis caused the heroin crisis. It’s the wrong conclusion,” says Franzen.

“I think the reason the heroin numbers went up is the way they clamped down. They were shutting down methadone clinics. They were making it as hard as possible for anyone with an addiction problem to get help. Here are all these people who got hooked and they’re shutting every single door. What choice do those people have? They can either go cold turkey and go into withdrawal or, suddenly, there’s a lot of heroin available.”

PROP’s ‘Lack of Ethics’

Franzen acknowledges that at one time opioid prescribing was excessive and it was too easy to get opioid medication. But he says the reaction to that by government regulators and law enforcement was “draconian and just absurd.”

Much of the blame for that, according to Franzen, lies with Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group that questioned whether opioids were even effective in treating pain. That led to what Franzen calls a “medical coup d’état” in which PROP bypassed the FDA and persuaded the CDC to release its controversial opioid guideline in 2016.

Franzen says if PROP founder Dr. Andrew Kolodny, PROP president Dr. Jane Ballantyne and PROP board member Dr. Anna Lembke were in his chemistry class, he’d give them all F’s.  

“They’d get an F because they misrepresented the facts. And they did things that were intellectually dishonest. I’d actually not give them a grade. I’d kick them out of the class. They cheated,” says Franzen. “Their academic papers are bunk. Part of what I do in this book is debunk them. I do exactly what I would do if I was writing about somebody in chemistry, which is my area of research, who I thought had written something that did not make sense and was not supported by the data.

“They’re ignoring all of these facts or even contradicting themselves. They’re suggesting that a patient has to admit they’re an addict before you can treat them. Huh?”

As PNN has reported, Kolodny and Ballantyne have been well-paid expert witnesses for law firms that stand to make billions of dollars in contingency fees from opioid litigation. But they neglected to mention that conflict-of-interest in several papers and had to make new disclosure statements.

“That too is just stunning to me. The lack of ethics by Kolodny and Ballantyne, specifically, is just jaw dropping,” says Franzen. “I hope they read my book and come after me. I want them to know what I said about them and try to defend themselves, because I don’t think that they can.”   

As for Patient Z, Franzen says he is in palliative care and getting opioids again. He needs to use a walker and wheelchair to get around, but the pain is at least tolerable. Patient Z has also become a fierce advocate for patient rights.      

Are Prescription Opioids Really the Same As Heroin?

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

The new HBO documentary “The Crime of the Century” is garnering a lot of attention for its take on the opioid crisis. In the documentary, Dr. Andrew Kolodny, the founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), claims that prescription opioids are “essentially heroin pills.”

This is a common claim. Dr. Corey Waller, an addiction and emergency medicine expert, recently testified in a West Virginia lawsuit that opioid drugs and heroin are "identical."

"The brain doesn't know the drug you just gave it," Waller said. "It just knows the action that it has."

But it’s not quite that simple. There are two standard ways to look at drugs: pharmacology and epidemiology. The former takes into account a drug’s chemical structure and mechanism of action in the human body. The latter looks at the public health effects of a drug.

Opioid Pharmacology

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) explains that heroin is a type of opioid made from poppy plants that is “chemically similar and can produce similar effects” as prescription pain relievers.

But chemically similar does not mean functionally identical. Small chemical differences affect how quickly a drug is absorbed, how strongly it acts and how long it remains in the body. The specific action of each opioid drug at the various mu, kappa, and delta opioid receptors also varies, creating differing levels of analgesia and other effects.

For example, oxycodone’s chemical composition makes it a particularly powerful opioid.

“What's unique about oxycodone relative to other opioids is the speed at which it's presented to the brain,” anesthesiologist Dr. Heath McAnally explained in a recent MedPage Today op-ed. “And in that regard, oxycodone reigns supreme (rivaling heroin), likely having to do with the fact that oxycodone's transport across the blood-brain barrier is considerably faster and more efficient than that of other opioids.”

Further, oxycodone is more active at kappa opioid receptors, possibly explaining the harder withdrawal that some people experience. It also acts more strongly on mu receptors, which may explain its greater euphoria. Morphine, by contrast, is more prone to histamine effects like itching and is associated with less positive feelings.

The opioid tramadol is also a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, while tapentadol is a norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. Some people do not tolerate tramadol well, and there is less abuse of tapentadol than other prescription opioids. They are very different than heroin.

Opioid Epidemiology

A 2013 study found that about 80% of heroin users first misused prescription opioids, but in more recent years heroin has become the first opioid people abuse in many cases. Heroin’s so-called “capture rate” -- a proxy for the addictiveness of a substance -- is thought to be about 25 percent.

By contrast, NIDA says about 8-12% of people on long-term prescription opioids develop some form of opioid use disorder, and less than 4% of people who misuse prescription pain medication start using heroin within five years.

Among prescription opioids, oxycodone is the most abused. According to a 2020 DEA report, the diversion and abuse of oxycodone “has become a major public health problem in recent years.”

Street prices and illicit sales are similarly revealing. Prescription opioids sold illegally are not all priced the same, nor treated with the same level of interest. There is a clear hierarchy, with oxycodone on top.

But the key driver in the overdose crisis today is illicit fentanyl made in clandestine labs and sold illegally on the street or online, often adulterating heroin or used in counterfeit oxycodone or Xanax pills.

Illicit fentanyl’s impact on the U.S. overdose crisis cannot be overstated. Other opioids, including heroin, do not come close to its level of abuse, addiction and death. Meanwhile, countries like Germany have not seen an opioid crisis, even though Germans are the second largest consumers of opioids worldwide.

It is also important to note that prescription opioids are medically essential, not only for pain management but also when sedating Covid-19 patients for ventilator use, for controlling air hunger in congestive heart failure, and for hospice and palliative care. Prescription opioids are medically useful in ways that heroin is not.

The claim that prescription opioids are identical to heroin does not hold up well. It obscures important information about opioid pharmacology and epidemiology. It may make a good soundbite, but it doesn’t shed light on the risks of opioids or how to address the overdose crisis.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research. 

How Do Opioids and NSAIDs Compare for Chronic Pain?

By Roger Chriss, PNN Columnist

With the ongoing push to reduce opioid prescribing because of the risk of addiction and overdose, claims that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen are better have become common.

Dr. Andrew Kolodny, founder of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), recently claimed that “NSAIDs are as effective and in some cases more effective than opioids, even for excruciating painful conditions.”

But it’s not that simple. There are few research studies that directly compare opioids and NSAIDs, and little progress has been made since I wrote about this issue in 2017.

The best we can do is to look at Cochrane reviews of opioids and NSAIDs for specific types of pain management. The Cochrane organization provides unbiased, systematic reviews that are widely accepted as gold-standard evidence.

Cochrane on Opioids

A 2010 Cochrane review found that that opioids for long-term non-cancer pain may be useful in select patients and that opioid addiction was rare.

“Many patients discontinue long-term opioid therapy (especially oral opioids) due to adverse events or insufficient pain relief; however, weak evidence suggests that patients who are able to continue opioids long-term experience clinically significant pain relief,” the authors concluded. “Many minor adverse events (like nausea and headache) occurred, but serious adverse events, including iatrogenic opioid addiction, were rare.

More recent Cochrane reviews found that opioids provide some benefit for restless leg syndrome and rheumatoid arthritis, but little for osteoarthritis.  For neuropathic pain, the results are mixed.  

“Short-term studies provide only equivocal evidence regarding the efficacy of opioids in reducing the intensity of neuropathic pain. Intermediate-term studies demonstrated significant efficacy of opioids over placebo,” reviewers found. “Analgesic efficacy of opioids in chronic neuropathic pain is subject to considerable uncertainty.  Reported adverse events of opioids were common but not life-threatening.”

For specific opioids, results vary. Cochrane found limited, low-quality evidence for oxycodone for neuropathy. Findings for tramadol were discouraging for neuropathic pain and osteoarthritis.

But extended release tapentadol (Nucynta) provided better pain relief for musculoskeletal pain than oxycodone and placebo, although “the clinical significance of the results is uncertain.”

Cochrane on NSAIDs

The findings for NSAIDs are similarly mixed and the type of pain matters a lot.

For chronic low back pain, Cochrane found that in about half of clinical trials NSAIDs were more effective than placebo for reducing pain and disability, but “the magnitude of the effects is small, and the level of evidence was low.”

For neuropathic pain in adults, a Cochrane review found “no good evidence to tell us whether or not oral NSAIDs are helpful to treat neuropathic pain conditions.”

For kidney stone pain, Cochrane found that “NSAIDs were more effective than other non‐opioid pain killers including antispasmodics for pain reduction.”

For fibromyalgia, the evidence for NSAIDs is weak, with reviewers concluding that “NSAIDs cannot be regarded as useful for treating fibromyalgia.”

And for chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, Cochrane reports that “we have no evidence to support or refute the use of NSAIDs.”

Of course, what works for an individual cannot necessarily be predicted from a Cochrane review. Clinical decision-making involves a risk/benefit assessment, with consideration for each patient’s specific circumstances and close follow-up to monitor outcomes. Safety is paramount as well, in particular for drugs like opioids that have significant risks.

In sum, it is difficult to make a blanket statement about opioids versus NSAIDs for chronic non-cancer pain. Results vary by specific opioids and type of pain. We need better studies to inform clinical practice and improve patient outcomes.

Roger Chriss lives with Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society. Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research. 

Kolodny: NSAIDs ‘Just as Effective As Opioids’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

It’s fair to say that Dr. Andrew Kolodny is recognized as an expert in substance abuse. Koldony is board-certified in Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine, and for a few years was the Chief Medical Officer of Phoenix House, which operates a chain of addiction treatment centers. He now co-directs an opioid research program at Brandeis University.

Kolodny is also the founder of the anti-opioid activist group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), has testified as a well-paid expert witness in opioid litigation, and is frequently quoted in the media about opioid painkillers, often calling them “heroin pills.”

But Kolodny is not board-certified in pain management and is not recognized as an “expert” in treating physical pain. So it was a bit of a surprise to hear him giving medical advice about over-the-counter pain relievers last week in a webinar held by the Partnership for a Drug-Free New Jersey.

"Many people don't know this, but the class of analgesic known as NSAIDs are as effective and in some cases more effective than opioids, even for excruciating painful conditions like renal colic. It's also called kidney stone pain. NSAIDs have been shown to be just as effective,” Kolodny said.  

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as aspirin and ibuprofen are widely used to treat minor pain and headaches, but they are not generally used for severe or chronic pain.  

We asked Mary Maston what she thought about Kolodny’s advice. She is an expert on kidney stone pain, having been born with a congenital disorder called medullary sponge kidney (MSK), which causes her kidneys to continually produce new stones.  

“The class of analgesic known as NSAIDs are as effective and in some cases more effective than opioids, even for excruciating painful conditions.”

— Dr. Andrew Kolodny

“I wholeheartedly disagree that NSAIDs are as effective and in some cases more effective than opioids,” Maston told us. “My first thought was, ‘I wonder if he's ever had a kidney stone?’ Ask any patient that has, whether they have MSK like me or not, and they will quickly tell you that over-the-counter NSAIDs do absolutely nothing for kidney stone pain. I have never encountered a single patient that has said they just took some Aleve and that took care of the pain even a little bit.” 

Kolodny was just getting started. He also recommended acetaminophen (Tylenol) as an alternative to opioids, and said it can be combined with ibuprofen (Advil) for even stronger pain relief. 

“Tylenol is not as strong a pain reliever as NSAIDs, but can for some people be very effective. And fortunately, you can actually combine a drug like Advil with a drug like Tylenol because they work differently. As long as a patient is able to take Tylenol and is able to take Advil, as long as they don't have a contradiction to taking those medications, they can even be combined,” Kolodny said. 

“The combination of Tylenol and Advil is actually first-line for wisdom tooth removal, even though in many cases dentists often still give drugs like hydrocodone or oxycodone to teenagers when their wisdom teeth come out. Tylenol and Advil combined gives better pain relief, with less side effects." 

“What he said about kidney stones is not correct. In fact, it’s cruel. What he said about tooth extractions is correct,” says Jeffrey Fudin, PharmD, an expert in pharmacology and pain management. “But encouraging expanded chronic NSAID use without preliminary discussion with a physician or pharmacist is bad and he is oversimplifying. Pain source, cause, quality and quantity all need to be assessed. 

“And he didn’t offer what should be done for those patients that can’t take NSAIDs due to medical disorders or who can’t tolerate them or they don’t work. What do we do, not treat them?” 

Risky Side Effects of OTC Drugs

NSAIDs and acetaminophen are widely used over-the-counter pain relievers, and both can have serious side effects. NSAIDs increase the risk of heart attacks and stroke, while excessive use of acetaminophen can cause liver, kidney, heart and blood pressure problems. A recent study found little or no evidence to support the use acetaminophen for most pain conditions.  

Kolodny, who does not speak with this reporter, briefly acknowledged some of those issues during the webinar. 

“Some patients have medical problems where they are not able to take an NSAID. And sometimes for severe acute pain there is a role for opioids. But that should always be very short-term use. Or if it's ever prescribed for a chronic pain condition, intermittent use, meaning not taken every day. Because when opioids are taken every day, quickly patients develop tolerance to the pain-relieving effect,” Kolodny said. 

“He makes it sound as though it’s either opioids or NSAIDS/acetaminophen,” Fudin said in an email to PNN. “There are lots of options that can be used instead of opioids or in addition to opioids other than NSAIDs/acetaminophen in an effort to combine multiple different pharmacological mechanisms permitting lower doses of several drugs.”

An over-the-counter pain reliever that combines ibuprofen and acetaminophen was recently introduced called Advil Dual Action, but it is marketed as a treatment for “minor aches and pains” such as headaches, toothaches and menstrual cramps. Nothing about severe pain, chronic pain or kidney stones.

“NSAIDs have been known to cause acute kidney failure in patients that have perfectly healthy kidneys, and my nephrologist says we don't want to tempt the gods,” says Mary Maston. “Once I explain this to ER doctors and anesthesiologists when I have surgery, they quickly nod and agree.”

Maston would like to see an end to one-size-fits-all approaches to pain care and for providers to treat patients as individuals. One way to do that is with CYP450 testing, which looks for enzymes that determine how effective a medication will be in a patient.

“I personally think it's time to stop cramming all patients into convenient little boxes and start making CYP450 tests mandatory for anyone who suffers with chronic conditions. It would take the guesswork out of prescribing, prevent patient suffering, and eliminate the stigma, abuse and neglect of chronic pain patients by their providers,” she said. 

Dr. Fudin would like to see Dr. Kolodny stay in his lane as a psychiatrist and addiction treatment doctor. 

“Would it be okay for a board-certified pain specialist professing to be an expert and to opine under those circumstances on best drugs for schizophrenia?” asked Fudin.

Kolodny: Critics of CDC Opioid Guideline ‘Twisting the Facts’

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The founder of the anti-opioid activist group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) says his organization played only a minor role in drafting the CDC opioid guideline and claims much of the controversy over the guideline was stirred up by pain organizations funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

“Not every group that has harmful advocacy is funded by industry, but the vast majority are. The ones that are not funded by industry work arm-in-arm with industry funded groups,” said Dr. Andrew Kolodny. “They have an agenda. A lot of individuals, journalists, organizations that have weighed in on the opioid crisis have an agenda. And they will try and twist the facts to fit their agenda.”

Kolodny spoke for over an hour Tuesday during a webinar hosted by PharmedOut, a program at Georgetown University that seeks to expose deceptive marketing in healthcare. The webinar was billed as an effort to refute “False Narratives & Manufactured Controversies about the Opioid Crisis,” but it turned into a rambling dialogue by Kolodny that gaslighted pain sufferers, doctors, patient advocates and anyone else critical of the CDC guideline.

“Much of the controversy or the critique of the guideline, almost all of it, was focused on the secretive way in which the guideline had been drafted, not on the actual recommendations. They seemed to stay clear from attacking recommendations, almost all of which were pretty benign,” said Kolodny.

Although voluntary and only intended for primary care physicians, the CDC guideline has become the “standard of care” in the United States for treating pain, with millions of patients taken off opioids or reduced to lower doses in the name of preventing addiction and overdoses.

Many patients say their pain and quality of life are now significantly worse, they have a hard time finding doctors, and some have turned to alcohol and illegal drugs for pain relief. The opioid crisis also continues to grow worse, with a record number of fatal overdoses last year – most of them caused by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, not prescription opioids.

Even the CDC has recognized that its 2016 guideline has caused “unintended harms,” and the agency is now in the process of updating and possibly expanding its recommendations.

Kolodny brushed aside many of those concerns and instead focused on deflecting attention away from PROP –- at various times blaming Purdue Pharma, the Koch brothers and the Washington Legal Foundation for “manufacturing a controversy around the CDC recommendations.”

“To try and make the guideline controversial, the messaging came out that the guideline has been secretly written by PROP. We started to see mentions in social media and publications describing PROP as a fringe group or as anti-opioid zealots. So the messaging was that the CDC relied on this fringe, anti-opioid zealot group to secretly write the guideline,” Kolodny said. 

As PNN has reported, the CDC guideline was in fact drafted in secret, with no public hearings and little input from patients or pain management experts. Only when threatened with a lawsuit by the Washington Legal Foundation and a congressional investigation did the CDC open up the guideline process to public scrutiny and disclose the identities of its advisors and consultants.

At least five PROP board members were involved in drafting the guideline, although Kolodny claimed there were only three in Tuesday’s webinar.  PROP President Jane Ballantyne and Vice-President Gary Franklin were members of a key advisory panel; David Tauben was on the guideline’s peer review panel; and Kolodny and David Juurlink were on a stakeholder review group.

While technically true that PROP did not write the guideline, PROP had input and key relationships within the CDC. Dr. Roger Chou, one of the guideline authors, has collaborated with PROP members on several occasions, such as writing an op/ed with Ballantyne that encouraged doctors to consider tapering “every patient receiving long term opioid therapy.”

Koldony is also a longtime associate and friend of then CDC Director Thomas Frieden, and has co-authored op/eds with Frieden, including one that recommended taking all high-dose opioid medications off the market.

On September 14, 2015, two days before the first draft of the CDC guideline was even made public, Frieden wrote an email to Kolodny thanking him for his role in preparing it. The email was then forwarded by Kolodny to other PROP members

“I want to personally thank you and your organization’s leadership for serving as members of the Stakeholder Review Group,” Frieden wrote. “We greatly appreciate not only your engagement in this process, but also your willingness to do so within the allotted timeframe. Given the public health toll, we have undertaken a process that will expedite publication while maintaining fidelity to the scientific process.”

We may never know the full extent of Kolodny and PROP’s relationship with the CDC, because the agency has refused to disclose key material about its guideline deliberations. The CDC’s response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from PNN was to send us nearly 1,500 pages of documents that were heavily redacted or scrubbed of information. Over 1,200 pages were completely blank, including some of the conflict of interest statements of CDC advisors like Kolodny.

The agency cited “deliberative process privilege” and “personal privacy” as reasons to withhold the information

(Update: In 2022 testimony in West Virginia, Kolodny testified that he started working on opioid litigation in 2012 with Linda Singer from the law firm Cohen Milstein. It’s unknown if he disclosed that relationship to the CDC on his conflicted of interest statement. In 2017, Singer joined Motley Rice, yet another law firm involved in opioid litigation.) .

Friendly Questions

Kolodny took only a handful of friendly, softball questions during the PharmedOut webinar, most of them from students at Georgetown University who are interning at PharmedOut. Several pain patients also submitted more critical questions, but they were not passed on to Kolodny.

Although opioid prescriptions in the U.S. have been declining since their peak in 2011, Kolodny says they need to go down further, even though nearly 85% of overdose deaths in the U.S. involve illicit fentanyl and other street drugs.

“We continue to massively overprescribe,” he said. “Opioids are not good treatments for chronic pain. It’s not true that more cautious prescribing somehow jeopardizes compassionate care for chronic pain. Compassionate care for chronic pain really demands more cautious prescribing.”

Kolodny is quick to blame “industry funded groups” for opposition to the CDC guideline, but PROP has remained secretive about its own funding. PROP uses a loophole in IRS regulations that allows it to hide behind front organizations such as the Steve Rummler Hope Network as its “fiscal sponsor.” Because it is not registered as a nonprofit — although it sometimes claims to be one — PROP has never filed a federal or state tax return and is not required to disclose anything about its funding or spending.

Kolodny currently works in opioid research at Brandeis University, but has a lucrative sideline testifying as an expert witness in opioid litigation and malpractice lawsuits. He was paid $725 an hour for his testimony during Oklahoma’s lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, and may have collected as much as $500,000 for that case alone.

Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, who is a PROP board member and Director of PharmedOut, is also a paid expert witness and earned $500 an hour for her testimony in another trial involving Johnson & Johnson. She reportedly received about $120,000 for her work in that case. Like PROP, PharmedOut does not disclose its funding or donors.

PROP Plans to Hire New Executive Director

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

An influential anti-opioid activist group -- Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP) – is raising money to hire a new Executive Director to replace Dr. Andrew Kolodny, PNN has learned.

There is no indication that Kolodny is leaving PROP, a volunteer organization that he founded in 2011 to “turn the tide of opioid overprescribing.” But in an unsigned email sent to supporters this week, PROP asked for donations so it could hire a new Executive Director, a position long held by Kolodny.

“We’ve retrenched and brainstormed and have great plans to expand our reach and impact. Our next big step is to hire a paid staff person. Will you help to make this plan a reality? We are trying to raise $100,000 by December 31st to ensure that we can hire an executive director with resources to take PROP's work to the next level. Please help by donating what you can,” the email said.

Supporters who click the donate button on the email will be taken to a PayPal account operated by the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation, which is PROP’s “fiscal sponsor.” PROP is not a charity, but can collect tax deductible donations under the foundation’s non-profit status.

Like PROP, the Rummler foundation’s main goal is to reduce opioid prescribing. Kolodny works closely with the organization and serves on its Medical Advisory Committee, along with PROP President Dr. Jane Ballantyne.   

Kolodny declined to talk with this reporter about what his future role with PROP will be.

“I haven’t had a good experience answering questions from you in the past, so I’m not going to talk with you,” Kolodny told me in a brief phone call.

‘Heroin Pills’

It would be hard to overstate the influence that Kolodny and PROP have had on opioid prescribing in the United States. A psychiatrist who specializes in addiction treatment and former Chief Medical Officer at Phoenix House, Kolodny is the public face of PROP. He lobbied Congress and federal health agencies for years to limit opioid prescribing, and gives frequent media interviews on opioid-related issues.

In a 2015 C-SPAN interview, Kolodny called opioid painkillers “heroin pills” and suggested pain patients shouldn’t trust their own doctors.  

“I wish I could tell you that you should trust your doctor and talk to your doctor about this, but that may not be the case,” he said. “We have doctors even prescribing to teenagers and parents not recognizing that the doctor has just essentially prescribed the teenager the equivalent of a heroin pill.”

PROP achieved its greatest success in 2016, when the CDC released its controversial opioid prescribing guideline, which several PROP members helped draft. Although voluntary, the guideline was soon adopted as mandatory policy by many states, insurers, law enforcement and health organizations

DR. ANDREW KOLODNY

Opioid prescriptions were declining even before the guideline was released and now stand at their lowest level in over a decade. But overdoses keep rising, fueled largely by illicit fentanyl and other street drugs, not pain medication.

PROP’s fundraising pitch takes credit for the decline in prescriptions and doesn’t even mention the role of street drugs in the overdose epidemic.

“PROP has helped turn the tide of opioid overprescribing.The good news is that opioid prescribing has decreased. The bad news is that the US still leads the world in opioid consumption, drug companies continue to undermine progress, and -- since the SARS CoV-2 pandemic -- opioid overdose deaths are on the rise again while prescription opioid use remains a route to opioid addiction and death,” the PROP email states.

‘Killer Kolodny’

Kolodny has drawn the ire of many pain patients, who blame him for their increased suffering, loss of access to opioids, and anecdotal evidence of a rising number of suicides in the pain community.  A small group of patient advocates recently staged a “Killer Kolodny Rally” outside Brandeis University, where he co-directs opioid research at the Heller School for Policy and Management.   

Kolodny dismissed the rally, telling the Brandeis student newspaper that the protestors who want him fired worked for the opioid industry or had fallen under its sway, and were “trying to controversialize science.”      

“There were climate change scientists who were similarly attacked and their universities stood by them, and I think that Brandeis would stand by science,” Kolodny said. 

Many pain patients believe Kolodny has enriched himself by promoting the use of Suboxone, an addiction treatment drug. That unproven allegation led Kolodny to ask for and receive a letter from Indivior, Suboxone’s manufacturer, stating that he does not have a financial interest in the company.    

As PNN has reported, Kolodny has made a substantial amount of money working as a consultant and expert witness for law firms involved in opioid litigation. During Oklahoma’s lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, Kolodny testified that he was being paid $725 an hour and would collect up to $500,000 for his services in that trial alone.  

Kolodny has not always been upfront about who is paying him. Last year he revised his conflict of interest statements on two medical journal articles to include his work in malpractice lawsuits. The articles were co-authored with former CDC director Thomas Frieden.