By Charles P. Pierce, April 28, 2022 | From: Esquire

You will be happy to know that working for both the regulators and the regulated is not a conflict of interest, you silly young thing. This is the latest explanation from McKinsey & Company about how there was nothing untoward about consulting for both the Food and Drug Administration and Purdue Pharma at the same time, which also happened to be the same time when Purdue’s OxyContin was ravaging the country. Here’s McKinsey’s managing partner to explain this odd arrangement, and doing so by treating the House Oversight Committee to an outburst of authentic business-school gibberish. Its authenticity can be assumed from how completely distant from their actual meaning the words are. From Reuters:

That work did not create a conflict because McKinsey advised the FDA on topics such as technology upgrades and organizational efficiency, Sternfels said. "We did not comment on the safety of drugs such as Oxycontin or any other opioid in our work with the FDA,” Sternfels said.

McKinsey’s work with Purdue already has cost the company $575 million as part of a settlement with the victims of the opioid epidemic, in which Purdue played a major role—much to the surprise of the McKinsey consultants, of course, who were busying themselves with making sure the technology was upgraded.

Sternfels said he regrets not cutting ties sooner: "While our intent was not intent to fuel an epidemic, we failed to recognize the broader context of what was going on in society around us.”

McKinsey’s work with Purdue involved advising the company on the best sales strategies for peddling its Oxy. The problem, of course, is that McKinsey was also working for the FDA, which was supposed to regulate things like that. The members of the House committee found this arrangement…ah, how you say, piquant. From the AP, via the Washington Post:

A preliminary report from the committee found 22 McKinsey consultants who worked for both the FDA and an opioid manufacturer over the span of a decade. The overlapping work included McKinsey staffers advising the FDA on overhauling its drug safety division, according to the committee’s review of thousands of company documents.

And, of course, there are emails, because there are always emails, just as there are always tapes.

What to Read NextTrump’s Latest Executive Order Is a Big Step Toward Authoritarian ControlInvestigate Chuck Schumer For Threats Against DOGE Workers? We're Off the Diving Board NowTrump’s Mass-Deportation Plan Is Characteristically Reckless, Meat-Ax, and Half-AssedIt’s Going to Take Years to Train Another Generation of Federal WorkersThe Administration's Pointless Assault on USAID Is Decimating the Independent Global PressMexican President Sheinbaum Is Threatening to Sue Google—But the Real Target Is Trump

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, testifying remotely, said that her state’s own investigation into McKinsey uncovered emails recommending Purdue “band together” with other drugmakers in 2009 to “defend against strict treatment by the FDA.” Sternfels said McKinsey did not share FDA documents or intelligence with Purdue and said claims of information sharing were inaccurate.

He also testified that McKinsey was open with FDA about its pharmaceutical consulting work. “We made very clear that we were working both with the industry and with opioids in particular,” Sternfeld said. FDA officials have previously stated they were aware of McKinsey’s pharmaceutical consulting.

So some of the same consultants were working for a drug company and for the government watchdog. And this apparently made sense to both McKinsey and the FDA. Sometimes, I think I never learned English. Unfortunately for Sternfeld, Rep. Rashida Tlaib was paying attention. From Bloomberg:

“You guys are trafficking. You’re making money off of poisoning people,” Tlaib said to Sternfels. “You know, Bob, 86 percent of overdoses in my district in the city of Detroit are due to overdoses from opiate[s]. Did you know that?”

“If anyone could explain to me the difference between McKinsey, Big Pharma, opioid cartels and the organizations of people like Pablo Escobar, I’m all ears. I really am. Y’all may be wearing suits and maybe having these fancy offices, but you’re doing the same freakin’ thing.”

The casual, business-as-usual way this unsavory relationship was conducted was the most striking thing about Sternfels’ testimony. The obvious conflict of interest McKinsey had, and the company’s apparent dismissal of such considerations, bespeaks a kind of banal amorality that is even more horrifying than watching the Republicans on the committee clumsily try to change the subject to Chinese fentanyl pouring over the Mexican border. Some people can convince themselves of anything.