The Philip DeFranco Show - PDS 1.17 Massive OxyContin Accusations, TFue vs Ninja, The Trump Syria Problem, & More

Episode Date: January 17, 2019

Latest episode of The Philip DeFranco Show Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Sup you beautiful bastard, hope you're having a fantastic Thursday. Welcome back to the Philip DeFranco Show. And a quick note before we jump into it, this morning, as promised, we posted an extra morning news show. It is a deep dive into a very troublesome topic. I don't know if that was part of the reason or just happenstance, but I had a lot of people saying they didn't see it on their page, they didn't get their normal notifications for it. So, after today's show, it's gonna be one of the top links in the description down below. I highly recommend it.

But, with that said, for this Philip DeFranco show, let's just jump into it. And the first thing we're gonna talk about today is how we're seeing Netflix come under fire. And this is actually not connected to the recent price increase that they of course announced this week, that we talked about. It's in connection with Bird Box,

but it's not in connection with the Bird Box Challenge. It is instead about some of the footage that was in the Bird Box movie. It turns out that some of the footage they used in the movie during the part where it's like, oh, the world is going to hell, just chaos in the Bird Box movie. It turns out that some of the footage they used in the movie during the part where it's like, oh, the world is going to hell, just chaos in the streets. Some of the video included was from an actual 2013 train disaster.

It was a train that was carrying crude oil that exploded. 47 people died in this incident. And the footage of the tragedy in question, it appears in the movie not as the tragedy that happened back in 2013, but as a result of this fictional movie. And as far as how this happened, while Netflix has not officially responded yet, it appears that they acquired this footage without potentially knowing what it was actually of.

And that was because they got the footage from a stock media supplier called Pond5. Which is also why it turns out that this same footage was used in a Canadian series called Travelers, which as it happens is also another Netflix series. And while we don't know if any of the footage is going to be changed or removed with Bird Box, according to reports, Carrie Mudd, who is the president of Peacock Alley Entertainment, which produced the series Travelers, she reportedly responded by saying that the company was working to remove the images. And according to a recent update to this story acquired by Gizmodo, a spokesperson for Pond5 responded with a statement saying, Some of the content we offer includes footage of historical tragedies, military conflicts, weather events, and natural disasters that may depict sensitive events. Saying,

And commenting on how the footage was used in the two examples today, for additional guidance. We license millions of clips every year and it's very rare that something like this occurs. We are saddened by this incident and are taking additional steps to correct the situation. We are contacting all customers who have purchased any related clips to ensure they are aware of the sensitive nature of this footage. Additionally, we're proactively re-auditing content of this nature while continuing to improve our guidance for usage.

And that's where we are right now. And as far as if Netflix is going to do anything, I feel like probably not. Looking through reactions of what appear to be just everyday people on the internet It appears that a lot of people don't see what the big deal is. Saying it's stock footage, tons of companies do this At the same time you have people saying no It's still incredibly disrespectful if you're going to use that footage as essentially a prop or something that doesn't actually reference the tragedy But still you had people pointing to other tragedies being repurposed in the past. Things like when the Hindenburg burst into flames. That was actually

used for a Led Zeppelin album cover. But also with that image, it refers to the origin of the band's name. We can kind of just continue to go through examples, but instead of doing that, I just want to pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this? Do you find it to be disrespectful? Do you want Netflix to remove that footage? Or no, it's not a big deal, or no, it's just a mistake. You know, to actually maybe make it more relatable closer to your everyday life, because I know, you know, only part of the audience is Canadian. How would you feel if, let's say, footage of people running away from the World Trade Center was used in some, like, sci-fi horror film? And it was used quickly to depict people running away from, like, an alien attack. Or maybe because you think that's different because it's a,

that was a terror attack. Something like the Challenger exploding being used in reference to some other ship in a sci-fi movie exploding. You still have the same opinion, why, why not? I'd love to know. Then in some kind of quick industry news, it's been really interesting looking at what's happening on Twitch right now. And I say that because it appears that more and more

there's this ever-growing conversation about who is actually the biggest person on Twitch. Right, and whether it be Twitch or YouTube, when these conversations pop up, sometimes it's because of some of the creators talking about it, a lot of the times it's because of the fans. But with this situation we're talking about today,

it is specifically about Twitch, and specifically about paid, or at least the creator being paid subscribers. And for those of you that are maybe only familiar with YouTube, while we have subscribers here, Twitch, they have followers, which are akin to YouTube subscribers, and then they have Twitch subscribers, which are paying subscribers. Twitch, they have followers, which are akin to YouTube subscribers. And then they have Twitch subscribers,

which are paying subscribers. Right, and so there, there are different tiers. Like subscribers pay at least $5 or higher, although asterisk, you also get one free subscription a month if you have Amazon Prime. And also part of the reason this debate is going on is that there are conflicting numbers out there. You have these numbers from twitchstats.net.

They list the top five as Ninja, Summit1G, TimTheTatman, Tfue, and Shroud. Via Tfue post what appeared to be a screenshot of him actually having over 53,520 subs. Looking at his stream today, it also appears that he publicly showcases the number of subscribers he has while he streams. And so there were a lot of people looking at those numbers

and saying, okay, well that's the new guy. This is the biggest guy on Twitch. Some seemingly also using this as a situation to bash on Ninja, who of course for the longest has been the face of Fortnite and Twitch. He of course famously in March of last year reportedly had over 200,000 subscribers. But also right now his numbers aren't public

and in stream he actually expressed his frustration. I just, you know, everyone's just out, everyone's out to just look for the next guy now. At least on, you know, streaming wise, it's really annoying. And what I say with this situation and also specifically that that clip from Ninja what he said is very true and I'll overuse this phrase constantly It's the same story

But a different coat of paint one of the only things that human beings love to do more than than building someone up being there For the ride trying to make someone the biggest is tearing people down Rooting for their failure and in rooting for their No matter who is at the center of that story, sometimes people think that person changed or maybe because they've gotten so much of the spotlight that they need to be humble. But I think the big thing to keep in mind as the outsider is that they're all winning.

The worst case scenario for any of these top five, if these numbers are even remotely true, is that they're making six figures a month from just one point of revenue. Not even taking into account the other sources of revenue. If people will be out here seeing a slight dip and they're like, oh, you're irrelevant. That's one of the things I hate in this industry the most

because it really pushes this mindset of you are only worth your numbers. That is a dehumanizing toxic mindset to have. And I say that as someone that used to only value myself based off of my numbers. But with all that said, if there is a positive thing that I can attach to this story

is that it feels like more and more a lot of the new young guys that are coming up, they're less likely to take the bait. Because even though we often see, you know, people comparing other people, trying to pit them against one another, in a recent video, we saw Tfue say this. I have nothing but good things to say about Ninja Tyler.

He's a good friend of mine. A lot of people like to, you know, throw hate on him, which doesn't make any sense because he's a legend what he's done for fortnite and esports and just gaming as as as all it's honestly he's done so much so i have nothing but respect and good things to say about ninja i don't like when people go too hard on ninja because i feel like he doesn't deserve it but yeah that's the situation that's my mindset on kind of the the greater past twitch situation with this i want to pass the question off to you whether you you know you don't watch twitch or you're kind of the the greater past Twitch situation. With this, I want to pass the question off to you,

whether you, you know, you don't watch Twitch, or you're kind of more like me, you're a casual Twitch viewer, or maybe you're into one or several streamer communities. What are your thoughts around all of this? And then let's talk about this story around OxyContin. And the reason we're talking about this is a newly public court filing in the case

against Purdue Pharma, the makers of OxyContin, cites previously unseen documents that detail efforts to deceive doctors and patients. Back in 2018, Maura Healey, the Massachusetts Attorney General, sued Purdue, its executives, and members of the Sackler family, saying by their misconduct, the Sacklers have hammered Massachusetts families

in every way possible. The lawsuit alleges that Purdue not only misled doctors and patients about the risk of OxyContin, but that they also aggressively targeted doctors that were big prescribers of opioids. And the suit also alleges that members of the Sackler family that sat on the board of directors were aware that Purdue did not notify authorities

to reports that the drug was being abused and sold on the streets. And more specifically, the suit lays out that Richard Sackler, the former president of Purdue and the son of one of Purdue's founders, was the main force behind the aggressive marketing of the drug and the company's dismissal of abuse reports in the early 2000s.

This is massive news, this is a massive note because in the federal case against Purdue back in 2007, members of the Sackler family were not accused of any wrongdoing. Instead, in that case, we saw that Purdue Pharma and three of its top executives pled guilty to federal charges for misrepresenting the dangers of OxyContin and paid $634.5 million in fines.

However, in order to understand the new developments, we have to go back to 1995 when the FDA approved OxyContin. At the time, Purdue claimed that the long-acting formula was actually believed to reduce the appeal to addicts when compared to other painkillers like Vicodin and Percocet. But according to the complaint, Richard Sackler said at a party

to celebrate the launch of the new drug, "'The launch of OxyContin tablets will be followed "'by a blizzard of prescriptions that will bury the competition. The prescription blizzard will be so deep, dense, and white. And once OxyContin hit the market, it was actually sold to doctors as a drug that could not be abused.

With sales representatives reportedly telling doctors that there was less than a 1% chance of addiction. But of course, abuse of the drug grew over the years. And when this evidence of abuse began to turn up, according to the complaint, this did not stop Purdue from continuing their aggressive and deceptive marketing tactics. Instead, according to the filing between 1999 and 2003,

while Richard Sackler was president of Purdue, he led a strategy of blaming addicts for the abuse of the drug. And in a now public 2001 email, he wrote, "'We have to hammer on the abusers in every way possible. "'They are the culprits and the problem. They are reckless criminals. For example, according to a document cited in the filing

in 2001 after a federal prosecutor said that there had been 59 deaths in his state alone, Sackler reacted by writing to company officials, This is not too bad. It could have been far worse. Also of note is that prior to and during 2007, members of the Sackler family left their positions, but the suit claims that they still controlled many of the company's decision and in a now public

2012 email one sales official wrote anything you can do to reduce the direct contact of Richard into the organization is Appreciated after the suit was made public Purdue made a statement saying Massachusetts amended complaint irresponsibly and counter productively cast every prescription of oxycontin as dangerous and illegitimate substituting its' sensational allegations for the expert scientific determinations of the FDA and completely ignoring the millions of patients who are prescribed Purdue Pharma's medicines for the management of their severe chronic pain." Then going on to say, to distract from these omissions of fact and the other numerous deficiencies of its claims, the Attorney General has cherry-picked from among tens of millions of emails and other business documents produced by Purdue. And also saying in the statement that the government found them in compliance of the five-year

corporate integrity agreement when they checked in 2013. Now obviously with all of that said now, I'm very interested to see what other information comes out, what happens from here. But personally, I look at situations like this and I think, what is the motive? And the motive here is pretty clear. And it's usually the obvious thing in front of you,

and that is the money, right? Dollars over actually helping people. And I mean, according to the lawsuit, in 1999, when employee Michael Friedman reported to Richard Sackler that Purdue was making more than $20 million per week, Richard replied immediately at midnight that the sales were, quote, not so great,

adding, after all, if we are to do 900 million this year, we should be running at 75 million a month. So it looks like this month could be 80 or 90 million. Blah, humbug, yawn, where was I? As far as why this situation matters, it's not just the price tags that we see, it's the toe tags that we've seen. The sheer number of people we see in the United States

die from Oxycontin and other opioids. According to the CDC, from 1999 to 2017, more than 700,000 people have died from a drug overdose. On average, 130 Americans die every single day from an opioid overdose. And just looking at 2017, overdoses involving opioids killed more than 47,000 people, and 36% of those deaths, they involved prescription opioids.

And that's why, if after giving everything kind of like the shake, shaking the tree to see what falls out, the lawsuit moves forward, we find that this is true. It is incredibly unlikely that we will see any punishment that can actually fit the crime. Because what we're seeing here is a lot like what we've seen in other industries,

like the tobacco industry, because I see this as just mass murder. It just maybe takes more time than you think of a traditional murder. And they probably think to themselves that they're disconnected from what's happening. And what we're seeing is the chaining of now generations of American population with addiction,

all in the pursuit of the almighty dollar people be damned. It's not a new story. It is the same story with a different coat of paint, but also something has to change moving forward. We have a situation where an organization can be fined $634 million. And essentially that's just a slap on the wrist. It is the price of doing business their way,

a profitable business, by the way, immensely profitable. But as I always try to say, that is the story, then my personal opinion, and of course I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts on this one? And then finally, let's talk about Syria and the just cowardly monsters that are ISIS. On December 19th, as you might remember, President Trump declared via tweet and then later on video that ISIS was defeated and that the United States would officially be pulling out of Syria. When does fast grocery delivery through Instacart matter most? defeated and that the United States would officially be pulling out of Syria. So download the app and get delivery in as fast as 60 minutes. Plus, enjoy $0 delivery fees on your first three orders. Service fees, exclusions, and terms apply.

Instacart. Groceries that over-deliver. We've been fighting for a long time in Syria. I've been president for almost two years, and we've really stepped it up. And we have won against ISIS. We've beaten them, and we've beaten them badly. We've taken back the land, and now it's time for our troops to come back home. And around this, there was originally a 30-day timetable, but that has also since been revised to be slightly more flexible and based on, quote,

on-the-ground conditions. And this is, of course, just a big deal in general, but it was also a big deal for Trump specifically. And that's because pulling out of the Civil War and other areas where American troops are deployed was a central campaign promise for Trump specifically. And that's because pulling out of the Civil War and other areas where American troops are deployed was a central campaign promise for Trump. But that said, the situation around and the decision to pull out was controversial and Trump received backlash both outside and inside his administration.

And of course, one of the most impactful criticisms was from Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who resigned in protest over Trump's sudden decision to leave Syria. Mattis feeling it was too abrupt and abandoned vulnerable US partners in the region, and he cited these issues in his resignation letter, writing,

And of course, famously, he wrote, "'Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position.'" And according to reports, even other advisors were upset by this decision. For example, you even had National Security Advisor

John Bolton, who differed from Mattis in why we should stay in Syria. Bolton reportedly wanting to stay as a defense against Iran, who are very active in the country. But either way, against protests from both Mattis or Bolton, or really whoever was against this, Trump defended his decision, countering the point most critics made

that this withdrawal was too sudden. For example, according to reports, he actually attempted to force this decision back in April, but when defense officials pushed back, he agreed to wait for six months, giving them a window to prepare. Now Mattis' time as Secretary of Defense was supposed to end on February 28th,

but Trump decided to force him out at the start of the new year. As far as why this decision was made, it is unclear, but reports claim that it was in response to Mattis' resignation letter. Main point, long story short, Trump moved forward with the plan to remove US troops out of Syria.

Because remember, quote, "'We have defeated ISIS in Syria, "'my only reason for being there "'during the Trump presidency.'" And for about a month now, the U.S. has been working out its withdrawal from Syria, the fallout among our allies, and how international actors in the region will respond.

But the perception of what's going on in Syria that the Trump administration has been trying to sell to the American public faced a major hurdle yesterday. And that's because of what happened in the northern Syrian city of Manbij. Near a U.S. convoy that was stopped at a popular restaurant and cafe called the Palace of the Princes,

a suicide bomber blew himself up and killed 19 people, including four Americans. And those four being two service members, a civilian employee of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and a military contractor. And according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, the other dead were 10 Syrian civilians and five local fighters.

And according to additional reports, there were also three service members wounded and an unknown number of locals. And this attack was quickly claimed by ISIS, who also claimed that nine Americans were killed or wounded. Now on this note, while ISIS has had a tendency to claim attacks throughout the world, experts say that they have no reason to doubt

that ISIS was actually capable and behind this attack. Especially since the city that we're talking about, where this attack took place, was formerly within ISIS territory. And according to Hassan Hassan, an analyst for the Tahrir Institute of Middle East Policy, this city and many others throughout Syria and Iraq likely still have ISIS sleeper cells within them. And making matters worse for the Trump administration was a small speech by Vice President Mike Pence just an hour after the attack by ISIS against American troops was confirmed. Because in that speech, he doubled down that ISIS was defeated. We promised under this president's leadership to take the fight to radical Islamic terrorists

on our terms on their soil. The president and I couldn't be more proud. Thanks to the leadership of this commander in chief and the courage and sacrifice of our armed forces, we're now actually able to begin to hand off the fight against ISIS in Syria to our coalition partners, and we are bringing our troops home. The caliphate has crumbled and ISIS has been defeated." Then later, as the White House was offering condolences over the deaths, Vice President Pence issued a statement that insisted that ISIS was defeated. Now it's obvious here, the inconsistencies between what Trump and Pence say about ISIS and the reality are that they just attacked a US military convoy within a US held city.

And we saw people on both sides of the aisle speaking out. You had people like Adam Parkamenko, a grassroots organizer with the Democratic Party saying, quote, Our military leaders told Trump that ISIS is not defeated. But he knew more than them, so he publicly announced ISIS was defeated. And yesterday, ISIS killed four Americans. This is not reality television, it's just reality. You also had Republican Senator Marco Rubio tweet if true It is a tragic reminder that Isis has not been defeated and is transforming into a dangerous insurgency

This is no time to retreat from the fight against Isis will only emboldened and strengthen the Republican Senator Lindsey Graham Who has recently been very active and vocal about a support of Trump? Criticizing the decision saying my concern about the statements made by President Trump "'is that you have set in motion enthusiasm "'by the enemy we're fighting. "'You make people who were trying to help wonder about us. "'As they get bolder, the people we're trying to help "'are going to get more uncertain. "'I saw this in Iraq, and now I'm seeing it in Syria.'"

As well as Republican Representative Michael McCaul of Texas saying, "'I strongly urge the President to forcefully respond "'and ensure we do not withdraw our troops "'until ISIS is completely destroyed.'" But even with all of that said, right now it is unclear as far as if this will affect the withdrawal. As of recording this video, the president has yet to make a comment about any changes to his withdrawal plans. When the New York Times asked Acting Defense Secretary Patrick M. Shanahan about possible changes because of this attack,

he declined to comment. And as far as my personal reaction to this, I look at the situation, I see that there's no doubt that the president and the vice president, at least with what they're putting forward, it appears to be completely detached from what is happening on the ground. And for supporters of the Trump agenda here, for this specific campaign promise, I think it's important to consider that there are a lot of allies that are speaking out against this move, pointing to this metaphorical mission accomplished sign and saying no, especially when we're seeing that announcement and banner covered in both local and US blood. It's also very strange to me, although nothing's really surprising at this point, that Donald Trump is essentially doing what he criticized Obama of doing, right? Telegraphing what he's going to do with the military.

I don't want to telegraph what I'm doing or what I'm thinking. I'm not like other administrations where they say, we're going to do this in four weeks, and that doesn't work that way. I don't want to be one of these guys that say, yes, here's what we're going to do. I don't have to do that But ultimately that's the situation we're seeing right now my opinion tacked on to the end

And of course I pass the question off to you. What are your thoughts around this? That's where I'm going to end today's show Remember if you like this video you like the daily Philip DeFranco shows the dives into the news Let us know hit that like button Also, if you new here you want more in your life hit that subscribe button ring that bell to turn on notifications. They even sometimes work. And actually, on that note, if you missed this morning's extra bonus news show, The Deep Dive, I highly recommend you click or tap to watch that. Or if you missed the last Philip DeFranco show, click or tap right there to watch that. But with that said, of course, as always, my name's Philip DeFranco. You've

just been filled in. I love your faces, and I'll see you tomorrow. So, you beautiful bastards. Today is Thursday, January something, and we're going to talk about some bullshit. The job is done. Yeah, you killed it. Yep.