purdue pharma, for example, had less than $2 billion in revenue last year.ibutor mckesson, by contrast, had $208 billion in revenue. >> moore: mckesson, you're the sixth largest company in this country. you're telling the american public you didn't have systems in place to adhere to the controlled substance act? seriously? >> whitaker: mike moore and his allies now have what they characterize as devastating evidence proving that distributors knew what they were doing. a huge confidential d.e.a. database called arcos tracks all transactions involving controlled substances. this spring, a federal judge in cleveland, who is hearing many of the local lawsuits, ordered all that data to be handed over to the plaintiffs' lawyers. >> burton leblanc: and i can actually tell you which distributor distributed to which particular pharmacy, by year, by volume, and where the pills came from. >> whitaker: wow. burton leblanc is a louisiana lawyer who regularly huddles with mike moore in grayton beach. his firm represents hundreds of cities and counties in their opioid laws

companies named in that suit include purdue pharma. in a statement herrera said the companies that marketed these drugs misrepresented science. in response to abc7 news, he refuted it saying we believe it's inappropriate for the city to substitute its judgment for the regulatory, scientific, and medical experts of fda. we look forward to the opportunity. the ma kemckesson corporation ht responded. >> this, according to a new canadian study. researchers did 100 randomized trials. now, some were given opioids. some were given a placebo. they offered min malt pain relief and the relief was not very long lasting. the studies published in the journal of medical association. >>> up next, the benefits of sleeping in. how a new study shows how an extra 30 minutes could help high schoolers. >> how about adults. >>> last-minute shopping time. the shipping deadline if you still need to order christmas gifts online. mauntil i held her.diabetes wasn't my top priority. i found my tresiba® reason. now i'm doing more to lower my a1c. once daily tresib

because the fda allowed that to go on the label which defined what the drug was that that is what purdue pharma told them and the fda did no checks itself adjusted with the company told that but then it says this is the fda has approval this is what the fda says. it is a real turnaround for the fda because by that point it is deeply compromised and deeply complicit in the promotion of opioids but the fpa on - - the fda in the sixties setting the global standard was a drug called for little my which was widely prescribed in europe to pregnant women to treat morning sickness in 1959 my mom was offered it but she turned it down that led to thousands of babies being born with very serious deformities. before that was none - - before that was known seeking approval from the fda there was a scientist at the fda a woman who said there isn't enough here we need more information and she kept saying there is something missing from this she kept asking for more and because she's a woman she was disparaged they went around her to the senior officials she's just making things difficult just approve it is be

label, which defined what the drug was but the only fda on only allowed that on because that what purdue pharma told them, and the fda did no checks itself. it simply endorsed what the company told it. then what the company does is says this is the fda approval, what the fda is saying. it is a real turn-around nor fda because by that point it's become deeply compromised and deeply complicit in the promotion of opioids with the drug companies, but the fda in the 1960s had set a global standard. it was drug called thalidomide which was very widely prescribed in europe to pregnant women as a -- to treat morning sickness and my mother was offered it in 1959 and she turned it down. and it led to thousands of babies being born with very serious deformities, and before that was known, the drug came to the states and it went to the fda for approval, and there whereas a scientist, a woman at the fda, who looked at the data and said, there's not enough here. we need more information. and she kept saying, there's something missing from this. and she kept asking for more. and because she was a woman, she w