March 3, 2022: The New York Times Publishes Article

About Sacklers and Purdue Pharma reaching an agreement with states for the family to contribute up to $6 billion to Purdue’s resolution. 

Original article archived here[1]

March 4, 2022: After Publication, The New York Times Stealthily Updates Article

Updated to include two paragraphs erroneously claiming OxyContin “dominated the market.” 

Updated article archived here[2]

May 30, 2023: The Raymond Sackler Family Identifies Error & ContactsThe New York Times

Because these errors were not included in the initial version of the article, they were not identified for over a year later. (There was no indication the article had been updated). The Raymond Sackler family proceeded to contact The New York Times and engage in substantial dialogue, providing irrefutable data as proof that OxyContin was never more than 4% of the prescription opioid market – far from market “dominance.”

May 30, 2023: The Raymond Sackler Family Identifies Error & ContactsThe New York Times

Because these errors were not included in the initial version of the article, they were not identified for over a year later. (There was no indication the article had been updated). The Raymond Sackler family proceeded to contact The New York Times and engage in substantial dialogue, providing irrefutable data as proof that OxyContin was never more than 4% of the prescription opioid market – far from market “dominance.”

June 5, 2023: The New York Times Refuses to Acknowledge OxyContin’s Small Market Share

In response, The New York Times refused to acknowledge OxyContin’s small market share and instead pointed to various statistics in an effort to justify language that is plainly misleading and factually untrue. This included a study that looked at grams of OxyContin, hydrocodone and oxycodone distributed in just 20 counties as supposed evidence that dominated the market nationwide. 

June 7, 2023: The Raymond Sackler Family Sends Detailed Letter Further Refuting These False Claims

June 12, 2023: The New York Times Concludes: “A clarification is not warranted”

No further explanation or acknowledgment of the myriad of factual evidence provided.

Current article found here[3]