I've observed that they turned attention from HIV/AIDS to addiction as a group. They appear to have preserved the same focus on pharmaceutical interventions that made a lot of sense in relation to reducing infectious diseases, but it's not a good fit for addiction. As I said in my remarks, pharmaceuticals play a relatively limited role.
It's clear now that they worked together in advancing a larger agenda to prioritize the role of pharmaceuticals. They each laid claim to various corporate methods of following through on their advocacy. Unfortunately, they also took the step of stymying criticism and had a strong influence on shaping an overall narrative that, in some cases, was really inaccurate—an example being, as was said with respect to HIV, that everyone is at risk. They tried to promote that same narrative with respect to addiction, where it is simply not true.
Looking at B.C. to give some fairly stark examples—