Macroviruses are BACK and are the future of malware, says Microsoft

 

It's 2015 and half a million people will still click on stuff we knew was bad in the '90s 30 Apr 2015 at 01:58, Darren Pauli Macro malware is making a comeback with one nineties nasty infecting half a million computers, Microsoft says. Macro viruses took a battering over the last decade after Redmond spent a decade boosting security in its Office suites to reduce the likelihood that users would execute malicious macros. Word processors throw warnings about unknown sources and relegates execution to a manual click-through process by which users would need to all but insist on infecting themselves before macros would run. "Just when you think macro malware is a thing of the past, over the past few months, we have seen an increasing macro downloader trend that affects nearly 501,240 unique machines worldwide," Redmond's malware boffins say . "The user opens the document, enables the macro, thinking that the document needs it to function properly – unknowingly enabling the macro malware to run." The United Kingdom and the US each soak up about a quarter of the total infections, way above the 20,000 p0wned boxes each in France, Italy, and Germany, and blasting the paltry Aussie total of 14,000. Attackers do not appear to have reinvented wheels. Microsoft says they are using documents aimed to pique a victim's interest such as purported sales invoices, tax payments, and courier notifications. The macro threats include Adnel; Bartallex; Donoff; Jeraps, and Ledod, which fetches trojan payloads or additional downloaders after execution. "After the macro malware is downloaded, the job is pretty much done. The torch is passed to either the final payload or the binary downloader," Microsoft says. The company says users should stick to its decade-old advice and avoid executing macros while system administrators can block older versions of Office from executing and ensure security things are up to date.

Microsoft: Free Windows 10 for thieves and pirates? They can get stuffed

 

No upgrades for 'Non-Genuine' installs ... well ... unless ... Microsoft's Terry Myerson wants to make one thing clear ... though which thing, we're not sure 15 May 2015 at 21:04, Neil McAllister Think you'll be getting a free upgrade to Windows 10 from your pirated copy of Windows 7 or Windows 8.1? Not so fast. For months, rumors have been swirling that suggested Microsoft was so eager to get its entire customer base onto Windows 10 that it will extend its free upgrade offer even to those who obtained their copies of Windows by, um, questionable means. Well, it seems that may not be true after all. Or not entirely true. Or something. Microsoft operating systems exec veep Terry Myerson weighed in on Friday to clarify the software giant's position on "Non-Genuine" Windows installs – although as clarity goes, his comments were hardly crystal. "Non-Genuine Windows has a high risk of malware, fraud, public exposure of your personal information, and a higher risk for poor performance or feature malfunctions," Myserson said. "Non-Genuine Windows is not supported by Microsoft or a trusted partner." Fair enough. So what about those free upgrades? "While our free offer to upgrade to Windows 10 will not apply to Non-Genuine Windows devices, and as we've always done, we will continue to offer Windows 10 to customers running devices in a Non-Genuine state," Myerson said. OK then. Microsoft will not be offering free upgrades to Windows 10 to customers who are running an older version of Windows that isn't properly licensed. That's plain enough, right? But hang on ... "In addition, in partnership with some of our valued OEM partners, [sic] we are planning very attractive Windows 10 upgrade offers for their customers running one of their older devices in a Non-Genuine state," Myerson added. "Please stay tuned to learn more from our partners on the specifics of their offers." If you can parse that one, then please let us know via the comments. From the sound of it, though, Microsoft plans to offer discounts on Windows 10 via certain of its OEM partners who might not have been entirely on the up-and-up about their Windows licensing in the past. Which partners, what kind of discounts, and on what terms is anyone's guess. If we had to speculate, we'd hazard that this is all about trying to expand the paying Windows user base in developing markets like China, India, Brazil, and other regions where you're more likely to be running an unlicensed copy of the OS than a legitimate one. If, on the other hand, you just downloaded your copy of Windows from BitTorrent and used a keygen to activate it, don't expect Microsoft to give you a free upgrade to Windows 10. At least, that's our hunch. "Windows 10 is still in development and we won't be able to answer all questions yet," Myerson wrote, "but I hope this provides some clarification on important topics."

Yes, You Too Can Read at 1000 Words Per Minute

 

#AwesomeTechnology Ever wondered how to read faster. Here is a solution that will allow you to read 1000 words per minute. Spritz, a Boston based start-up, is developing a technology that would enable you to read up to 1000 words per minutes. Spritz’s mission is to change the way people read and make communication faster, easier, and more effective. With Spritz, which is coming to the Samsung Galaxy S5 and Samsung Gear 2 watch, words appear one at a time in rapid succession. This allows you to read at speeds of between 250 and 1,000 words per minute. The typical college-level reader reads at a pace of between 200 and 400 a minute. What Spritz does is manipulate the format of the words to more appropriately line them up with the eye’s natural motion of reading. The “Optimal Recognition Point” (ORP) is slightly left of the center of each word, and is the precise point at which our brain deciphers each jumble of letters. The unique aspect of Spritz is that it identifies the ORP of each word, makes that letter red and presents all of the ORPs at the same space on the screen. In this way, our eyes don’t move at all as we see the words, and we can therefore process information instantaneously rather than spend time decoding each word. Try it for yourself. You just read 250 words per minute. This is 250 words per minute. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s stone is 76,944 words long. At this rate you could read the entire book in just over 5 hours. What about 350 words per minute? 350 words per minute doesn’t seem that much faster. 3 hours and 40 minutes to finish Potter. Wow! Now 500 words? Now it’s getting harder to follow. Probably takes time to get used to. If you could keep up with this for two and a half hours, you could read Harry Potter  from cover to cover. Amazing, isn’t it?  Want to try for more speed? Go to http://www.spritzinc.com/blog/ and click on the spritz button to start reading at your preferred speed. The site currently allows up to 600 words per minutes. With little more practice you can read 1000 words per minute too. Ajoy Kumar Singha Ajoy is the founder and editor of Testing Circus magazine which is read and subscribed by thousands of professional testers around the world. He is associated with various testing forums such as NCR Testers Monthly Meet as a founding member. Follow Ajoy on Twitter.

Even Olympic athletes have cardiac abnormalities and may be at risk of cardiovascular disease

 

Even athletes whose performance and fitness are at the very highest level may have life-threatening cardiovascular abnormalities. Indeed, a study of more than 2000 athletes eligible for the summer and winter Olympic games and screened for cardiovascular health has now revealed an unexpectedly high prevalence of cardiovascular conditions, some of which were considered as very serious threats to health. "Even Olympic athletes," said Dr Paulo Emilio Adami from the Institute of Sport Medicine and Science of the Italian Olympic Committee in Rome, "regardless of their superior physical performance and astonishing achievements, showed an unexpected large prevalence of cardiovascular abnormalities, including life-threatening conditions." The study, reported at EuroPRevent 2015, assessed the cardiovascular health of 2354 elite athletes (1435 male, 919 female, mean age 27.6 years) as part of their screening to compete in Olympic games from 2004 onwards. The screening tests took place between 2002 and 2014. The athletes were engaged in 31 different summer and 15 different winter sports disciplines. Their screening included a physical examination, 12-lead and exercise ECG, and echocardiography. Further tests, which included 24-hour ECG monitoring, were given selectively to confirm earlier diagnoses. The investigators were surprised to find that 171 of the 2354 athletes screened (7.3%) had some form of cardiovascular abnormality, either structural or electrophysiological (causing a heart rhythm problem). The abnormality in six of the 171 athletes was considered life-threatening and they were disqualified from competition. The abnormalities detected included cardiomyopathies and coronary heart disease. Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is one of the most common causes of sudden cardiac death. A further 24 athletes were temporarily suspended but were eventually allowed to take part in the Olympic games under close medical surveillance. Commenting on the results, Dr Adami said: "It is really surprising that Olympic athletes, who are considered some of the healthiest individuals, should have such significant abnormalities . . . and that despite these abnormalities they had managed to reach such high competitive levels. In most of the cases, their abnormalities had gone unrecognised, because the screenings they had previously had were not as extensive and thorough as the ones we applied. "We cannot take it for granted that elite athletes are healthy. This study demonstrates that a more accurate assessment is necessary for elite professional athletes than for members of the general population, in view of the intensity and stress on their cardiovascular system through so many hours of training and competition. We suggest that our model of screening is applied to all elite athletes, regardless of the sport they practise." Dr Adami added that all those wishing to participate in competitive sports should have a medical evaluation, to make sure "that our athletes are competing safely, free from any cardiovascular condition." Screening for leisure athletes, he proposed, would depend on the characteristics of the sport and the volume of exercise. "As a general rule," said Dr Adami, "I would advise a visit to a sports medicine doctor or the GP beforehand, especially to those who are very unfit or sedentary. However, preparticipation of athletes and sports players is controversial, mainly because studies have not yet confirmed beyond doubt that a mass population screening programme would actually detect all the higher risk cases. One study found that around 800 athletes would need to be denied sports activity to prevent one sudden death. Most evidence in favour of screening comes -- like this study -- from Italy, where a programme to screen all teens and adults in organised sports was introduced in 1982. In the Veneto region of Italy, for example, the annual incidence of sudden cardiac death in athletes decreased by 89% (from 3.6/100,000 person-years in 1979-1980 to 0.4/100,000 person-years in 2003-2004 -- whereas the incidence of sudden death among the unscreened non-athletic population did not change significantly. Today, Italians are not eligible for competitive sports until their cardiovascular health has been confirmed. Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Living on water in Malaysia

 

 

Posted: 15 May 2015 01:20 PM PDT

Le photographe malaisien Ng Choo Kia, membre de SIPA Press, s’est rendu au sein du peuple des Bajau en Malaisie. Ses habitants ont la particularité de passer leur existence sur l’eau. Les maisons en bois sont montées sur pilotis et surplombent l’eau transparente et turquoise.

OxyContin (Oxycodone) Use and Abuse

 

OxyContin: Pain Relief vs. Abuse Are worries over abuse having an impact on the drug's legitimate use as a painkiller?   From time to time, OxyContin abuse flares up as a hot topic around the water cooler. If it isn't celebrities in the news for abusing the prescription painkiller, it's reports of drug-dealing doctors and overdose deaths. Add to that a law enforcement crackdown on OxyContin, and the result is a backlash affecting legitimate use of the drug: Many chronic pain sufferers won't take OxyContin for fear of becoming addicted, and some health care providers refuse to write OxyContin prescriptions for fear of being prosecuted. WebMD talked to experts about OxyContin as a legitimate medication for moderate to severe pain, the dangers of abuse, the issue of addiction, and the climate of suspicion that restricts patients' access to the drug. OxyContin Use and Abuse OxyContin is the brand name for a timed-release formula of oxycodone, a narcotic analgesic (medication that reduces pain). It's used to relieve pain from injuries, arthritis, cancer, and other conditions. Oxycodone, a morphine-like drug, is found along with non-narcotic analgesics in a number of prescription drugs, such as Percodan (oxycodone and aspirin) and Percocet (oxycodone and acetaminophen). OxyContin contains between 10 and 80 milligrams of oxycodone in a timed-release formula that allows up to 12 hours of relief from chronic pain. What distinguished OxyContin from other analgesics was its long-acting formula, a blessing for patients who typically need round-the-clock relief. "If you have pain that's there all the time, four hours goes by very quickly," says cancer specialist Mary A. Simmonds, MD. "If you're not watching the clock, the pain comes back. People tend not to take their pills on time. The pain builds back up, so you're starting over. It's not very good management of pain." Simmonds gave testimony on the value of OxyContin for alleviating cancer pain at a 2002 Congressional hearing. "For moderate to severe pain, aspirin and Tylenol aren't effective. We do need opioids." It's the high content of oxycodone that makes OxyContin popular on the street. People who abuse the drug crush the tablet and swallow or snort it, or dilute it in water and inject it. This destroys the time-release mechanism so that the user gets the full effects of the narcotic. Users compare the high to the euphoria of heroin. "What makes OxyContin dangerous is not only that it's addictive, it can also be lethal," says Drew Pinsky, MD, best known for his Loveline radio show. "It makes you feel you can tolerate more, but it can precipitate respiratory failure, especially when used with other drugs like alcohol or benzodiazepenes." Street names for OxyContin include OC, Kicker, OxyCotton, and Hillbilly Heroin. According to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), oxycodone has been abused for more than 30 years. But with the introduction of OxyContin in 1996, there has been a marked escalation of abuse. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2006 revised Substance Abuse Treatment Advisory on OxyContin, the regions most affected are eastern Kentucky, New Orleans, southern Maine, Philadelphia, southwestern Pennsylvania, southwestern Virginia, Cincinnati, and Phoenix. However, the DEA says the problem has spread across the country. While there is special concern about teens' use of OxyContin, the percentage of 12th graders who said they had abused the drug in the past year declined in the 2006 Monitoring the Future survey of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The information is summarized in "NIDA Infofacts: High School and Youth Trends." Abuse of OxyContin decreased for the first time since its inclusion in the survey in 2002, from 5.5% in 2005 to 4.3% in 2006.   Drug Tolerance vs. Addiction Chronic pain patients often confuse tolerance with addiction. They become fearful when the dosage of a narcotic has to be increased, but it's normal for the body to build up tolerance over time, says Simmonds, spokeswoman for the American Cancer Society. "Patients don't get a high, and they don't get addicted." Simmonds, who is in private practice in Harrisburg, Pa., tells WebMD, "The tragedy is that any day of the week a patient will be in my office in real pain, and a family member will say, 'Don't take morphine.' Patients will suffer needlessly because they think they'll get addicted. We have to take time to educate them." Kathryn Serkes, director of policy and public affairs for the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) in Tucson, Ariz., agrees. She says the standard of pain management care is more aggressive today than what it was just five years ago. She disagrees with some critics who would use OxyContin only as a last resort. "The phrase 'addicted to painkillers' is used fast and loose."   Treatment of Pain in Addicts Is it inhumane, as some in pain management believe, to withhold opiates from someone in pain who has a history of addiction? No, say two experts in chemical dependency who talked with WebMD. "Medical professionals need to be educated about addictions," says Peter Provet, PhD, president of Odyssey House Inc., in New York City. "A problem with addicts is they don't like pain of any kind. They've been medicating their emotional pain, physical pain, or familial pain. The addict is quick to ask for a pill, but sometimes we have to deal with our pain. "All other kinds of treatment should be first considered before the physician jumps to what is the easiest solution, a synthetic opiate," he tells WebMD. "An addict or recovering addict suffering pain from cancer or after a car accident should talk with a physician well-versed in addiction. On occasion, someone who is in recovery may need a drug like OxyContin. It would need to be done thoughtfully with full knowledge of addiction, and then the treatment should be very carefully monitored." Pinsky, author of When Painkillers Become Dangerous: What Everyone Needs to Know About OxyContin and Other Prescription Drugs, says the risk of addiction is so great, not only for addicts but for anyone genetically prone to addiction, that any patient who comes forward with pain should first be asked if there is a family history of alcoholism or addiction. "How does the health care provider know who is genetically predisposed to addiction? It may be hidden back three generations. The risk is triggering opioid and opiate addiction, the addiction with the poorest prognosis." Opioids and opiates act similarly on the brain and the terms are often used interchangeably, but unlike opiates, opioids -- such as methadone -- are not morphine based. Pinsky admits to holding a minority view when he says no one should be treated with opiates more than two weeks, particularly if there's a family history of addiction. "If you have a history of addiction and have an extraordinary need to go beyond two weeks, it needs to be monitored very carefully by someone in the addiction field." He says there are many non-narcotic pain medications, such as Toradol, and alternative therapies, such as acupuncture, massage, and chiropractic treatment.     Treatment of Pain in Addicts continued... Pinsky, who is medical director for the department of chemical dependency services at Las Encinas Hospital in Pasadena, Calif., tells WebMD he admits at least two patients a day for overusing painkillers. "They've been addicts all along. They didn't suddenly develop an addiction. They come to me with overwhelming pain -- back pain, neck pain, headaches. They can't sleep." He says chronic physical pain in addicts is often an expression of past trauma. Drugs relieve the pain but feed the addiction. His approach is to take them off the pain medicine. "I say it will be the worst pain of your entire life for two weeks, but that will be the end of it. Meanwhile, we do 12-step and group therapy programs with them and intensive treatment of their withdrawal."   The Backlash of OxyContin Abuse In certain parts of the country, the crackdown on illegal use of OxyContin has made it hard for pain patients to get legitimate prescriptions. "OxyContin was the first prescription medication listed as a drug of concern by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency, which made it a target," says Ronald T. Libby, PhD. The drug, Libby says, is "monitored by pharmacies and [Perdue] Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. Some physicians, knowing the DEA or sheriff is looking at these scripts, refuse to write prescriptions for fear of prosecution. Doctors can be scammed, and if a patient takes some pills and sells some, the doctor can be guilty of diversion." Libby is the author of a Cato Institute policy report titled "Treating Doctors As Drug Dealers: The DEA's War on Prescription Painkillers" andprofessor of political science and public administration at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville. "The war on drugs has become a war on legal drugs, on patients who take them, and on doctors who prescribe them," Serkes tells WebMD. The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons has issued a warning to doctors: "If you're thinking about getting into pain management using opioids as appropriate, don't. Forget what you learned in medical school -- drug agents now set medical standards. Or if you do, first discuss the risks with your family."   The Backlash of OxyContin Abuse continued... Libby, who is writing a book entitled The Criminalization of Medicine: America's War on Doctors, says OxyContin can be safer to take than nonsteroidal anti-inflammtory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen and aspirin. "OxyContin does no damage to internal organs, but NSAIDs irritate the stomach lining, liver, and other organs." Pinsky says, "If you had cancer you would thank God OxyContin exists. Unfortunately there's a huge social movement vilifying it as an evil product of drug companies. It's total nonsense. The drug itself is not bad. It's a great medication, but it has to be used by skillful clinicians."   Finding Balance It's a challenge to balance the needs of chronic pain patients, health care providers, the chemical dependency treatment community, and law enforcement. But efforts are under way. The Pain & Policies Study Group at the University of Wisconsin Paul P. Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center issues annual progress report cards evaluating states' policies regarding the use of opioid analgesics in pain management. The concern is that cancer pain is often undertreated, and opioids like OxyContin are essential. Evaluation scores reflect a balanced approach in which law enforcement practices to prevent diversion and abuse do not interfere with the medical use of opioid analgesics in treating pain. In the group's 2006 report, it was noted that policies adopted in the last decade by 39 state legislatures and medical boards addressed doctors' concerns about being investigated for prescribing opioid pain medications. The report concludes: "Despite a growing effort by policymakers and regulators, the fear of regulatory scrutiny remains a significant impediment to pain relief and will take years of further policy development, communication, and education to overcome."

Difference Between Oxycontin and Oxycodone

 

• Categorized under Drugs,Science | Difference Between Oxycontin and Oxycodone Oxycontin vs Oxycodone A number of people wonder if there is a difference between oxycontin and oxycodone. Are they the same medicines? Is oxycodone just a generic name for oxycontin? We’ll address these questions and other differences between the two: Summary: 1. Oxycontin is time released oxycodone. It is pure oxycodone, without anything added. 2. Oxycodone may remain effective for around 6 hours. However, oxycontin remains effective for around twelve hours also. This is because the medication is slowly released into the body. 3. Oxycodone may contain other chemicals like Tylenol, which may induce vomiting in a person if taken in large amounts. However, since oxycontin does not contain this chemical, it becomes more of a danger if taken in large amounts. 4. Oxycontin should never be broken up and taken in. It may cause severe and fatal after effects if taken in this manner. 5. There is no reduction in the efficacy of oxycontin during the entire time.

The story of OxyContin

 

This is the story of OxyContin, a schedule II opioid pain reliever introduced in 1996 which was more widely abused after its introduction that any prescription drug in the past 20 years. Sales of the drug, marketed by Purdue Pharma, rose to over $1 billion in less than five years, making it one of the fastest growing and highest grossing pharmaceuticals in recent times. Along with its popularity and rapid growth came widespread abuse, attracting attention from the media, the Food and Drug Administration, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Congress, law enforcement officials, and the medical community. Heralded as a highly effective groundbreaking new medication, OxyContin brought relief to millions of chronic pain patients, but also brought suffering and death to drug abusers. The backlash from this was felt by the manufacturer, the medical community, and legitimate pain patients who suddenly found themselves labeled as addicts and unable to obtain medication. The appropriateness of long-term opioid use was brought to the forefront of debate among medical professionals, and the progress which had been made during the past decade in the aggressive treatment of chronic pain conditions appeared to take a step backwards. To understand OxyContin, one must first know something of the history of opioids, which derive from the opium poppy known botanically as Papaver somniferum first cultivated by humans circa 3400 B.C. From the opium poppy morphine was created, and then in 1898 Bayer released the most famous drug brand of all time, Heroin. A wide variety of opioids were created over the next century, including oxycodone, the active ingredient in OxyContin. All opioids have in common an unrivaled pain relieving efficacy without toxicity to the body, allowing their use in large quantities over long duration. Unfortunately, opioids also bring euphoria and pleasure to many of their users, leading to widespread use and abuse. Modern science is still unable to separate the euphoric and pain-relieving qualities of opioids, making their use controversial and requiring restrictions on their availability. Longer term opioid use leads to tolerance as well, requiring users to take larger quantities over time to achieve the same initial effects. OxyContin was unique in that it was available in slow-release 12 hour high-dose formulations, giving physicians to ability to indefinitely increase patient dosage and maintain continued pain relief. Oxycodone seemed to have a lower number of side effects compared to other opioids, but also seemed to produce a uniquely enjoyable euphoric quality and was easily abused because of the high potency of the pills. The story of OxyContin was in a large part created by the media, which brought national attention to the drug with a wave of sensationalized news stories which began in early 2001. OxyContin was proclaimed a national epidemic and called the ‘New Crack’ with a ‘heroin-like’ high, supposedly claiming hundreds of lives yearly. These claims were not borne out by fact, but the news media was undeterred, and devoted a startling amount of attention to the drug in a 6 month period. This gave the DEA, Congress, the FDA, and the medical community no choice but to respond to these claims. In truth, abuse of prescription drugs had been occurring for decades. An analysis of prescription drug abuse data showed that OxyContin was responsible for less than 1.0 percent of total drug abuse emergency department mentions. It had also contributed to less than 20 percent of all opioid abuse mentions, and was in fact overshadowed by established opioids such as Vicodin, Morphine, and Percocet. A review of the coroner’s toxicology reports also suggested that the death numbers reported by the media may have been dramatically overstated, and that many of the OxyContin overdose victims had consumed alcohol, anti-anxiety drugs such as Valium, and other opioids. The Drug Enforcement Administration had already begun to investigate OxyContin diversion and abuse on a small scale in 1999 and 2000, but as the media coverage hit in 2001 and congressional hearing appeared imminent, the DEA drastically stepped up its rhetoric and its investigation of physicians. Before a congressional subcommittee in August 2001, the director of the DEA made it clear that OxyContin was the agency’s number one priority, characterized as a societal threat unlike any which had been seen for decades. Within six months, the DEA requested a budget allocation of $25 million to combat OxyContin diversion and abuse on top of the $114 million it was already requesting for its Diversion Control department. The diversion of OxyContin was due to its high street price; approximately $1 per milligram, nearly 10 times the pharmacy price. Stories were frequently reported about corrupt doctors making thousands of dollars through liberal prescription practices. Legitimate patients were sometimes selling their medication to supplement their income, and people were importing the drug from Mexico and Canada. Originally only popular in certain rural areas, the drug seemed to spread to urban areas as the intense media coverage brought it to attention, and the DEA predicted that the plague was heading west. Congressional subcommittees were convened to discuss the issue and the company was called on to address the problem. The DEA announced a National Action Plan to combat diversion and abuse through coordination of law enforcement agencies, cooperation with the manufacturer, public education campaigns, and discussions with physician and patient groups. Unsurprisingly, these groups were largely unreceptive because they had been hard at work throughout the decade passing legislation and changing medical opinion to support the increased use of opioids in treating a wider variety of chronic pain conditions. They knew that with increased scrutiny would come a constriction of legitimate use from doctors who feared the threat of DEA investigations. No matter how often the DEA stated that it gave full support to doctors who used opioids appropriately, it was never exactly clear what the DEA’s interpretation of ‘appropriate use’ meant, so physicians were left to look out for their own interests. It began to appear that partial responsibility for the problem lay with Purdue’s aggressive marketing of the drug. Sales grew from $300 million in 1996 to $1.49 billion in 2001 in part because of Purdue’s targeting of physicians who were already liberal prescribers. Some began to suggest the Purdue had downplayed the risks of the drug by claiming that it had reduced addiction liability due its slow-release mechanism. In also may have been marketed for a wider range of conditions than was appropriate. In 2001 Purdue began to make some effort to combat the problem by withdrawing the highest dose formulation and conducting anti-prescription drug abuse advertising campaigns. Under DEA pressure, the warning label and indications were changed in 2001 to convey the risks of the drug and the appropriate patient populations. In the face of rising criticism of its practices and calls to withdraw the drug, Purdue remained defiant, claiming innocence and placing the blame fully on those who chose to manipulate doctors and abuse the drug. While publicly proclaiming support for prescription monitoring programs and giving the state of Florida $2.1 million to establish its own monitoring program in exchange for halting an investigation, Purdue quietly opposed other attempts to create or strengthen monitoring programs. A rising tide of legal cases also began to occupy Purdue as patients filed suit against the company for inappropriate labeling and misleading marketing. As media attention began to subside, OxyContin was still on the radar of the DEA and Congress. After having caught the few corrupt doctors, the DEA settled for frightening the rest into changing their prescribing practices. The doors of clinics began to close and physicians became reluctant to prescribe the drug. It was this change in the medical community’s comfort with opioid use which was perhaps OxyContin’s most tragic legacy. While many doctors simply switched to other possibly less effective opioids, some stopped prescribing altogether. Patients’ advocacy groups found their cause had been set back dramatically, and legitimate chronic pain patients often found themselves unable to obtain treatment.