From Opioids & Fraud to MAGA & COVID-19 — The Disastrous Jane Ruby
Indivior's two-billion-dollar fraud, and "Politics & Anti-vaccine activism"
While reviewing Sasha Latypova’s long trail of lies with some close colleagues, we realized her character cannot be covered properly without first detouring to her close friend - and main COVID-debate amplifier - Dr Jane Ruby.
The later’s involvement in the Indivior’s affair1 had been made widely known by
, end 20232. But a second look to the affair seems useful, as new documents have emerged, despite Jane’s lawyers’ efforts to have everything concerning her placed under seal.Jane herself did her best to cover her tracks, changing completely, then deleting her Linkedin profile3, and getting rid of other traces of her past life such as her old Twitter account4 - to make it harder to pinpoint what she had devoted her existence to, prior her apparition, in MAGA politics, as a Laura Loomer groupie, in 20175. Unfortunately, given that her main life’s quest has been to attract light, there were a few traces left.
Early Times
Jane J. Piampiano was born on October 14, 1954, the daughter of Alfreda & Peter “Piano” Piampiano. The couple already had a son, James “Jim”. At a time where Christian morals still weighted heavily, her father left home shortly after her birth6, and carried on to have children with several other partners7.
Jim & Jane were, therefore, raised by Alfreda alone. Jane was an active child, and at Eastside High School, was a member of the student council, the soccer & baseball teams, the Red Cross club, the Ski club, and the Girls Athletic Association. In 1971, aged 17, Jane also worked part time at Strong Memorial Hospital - at the information desk.
That year, she accessed local fame for the first time when she was named Harvest Queen of Monroe County8 on July 31st. As such, she attended numerous social events, meeting the Rochester Mayor & other notables 9101112, and won a scholarship allowing her to become a student of St Agnes High School - a private Catholic school in New York.
She made a brief attempt at production for Miss America, with her company Lady Jane Production in 198213, obtained a Bachelor in Nursing in 1985, and of Science in 1988, at NY’s private Alfred University14.
While she was finishing Nursing school, she worked for 3 years for Planned Parenthood15. She met & married the man of her dreams, Raymond “Ray” Ruby, a furniture store owner, with a strange taste for interior decorating16, who already had two daughters from a former wedding, and had recently been fined for false advertising17. Jane abandoned her Catholic faith, and became Jewish18.
From 1988 to 1994, she practiced as a Nurse at the University of Rochester Medical Center. In 1992, she obtained a Master of Science from the University of Rochester, a title of Doctor in Education from the University of Rochester - and a PhD from the online diploma-mill the “Kennedy Western University” (which has ceased to exist since)19.
Ray & Jane had a son. Thanks to Raymond’s contacts, she obtained a job of Assistant Professor and Researcher at Nazareth’s College, in 1994. Soon after, end 1999, her divorce from Raymond was pronounced. He had organized his assets in advance, so she didn’t obtain the settlement she was hoping20 - and Ray remarried the next year.
We can only assume Jane concluded from this experience that the road to fortune wouldn't be through marriage, and she joined pharma instead. She briefly passed by the Scharf Institute for Research, before joining, from 2000 to 2010, the “Medical Science Liaison and Managed Care” department of Forest Laboratories (now Allergan - botox’s producer)21.
In 2010, she finally joined Indivior.
The Indivior Fraud
While trying not to bore anyone with lengthy legal documents, here’s an overview of the legal and factual background behind these recent events...
In the United States, it is (or was, pre-COVID22) a crime to introduce a “misbranded” drug into interstate commerce, and corporate officers who can prevent or correct the violation may be held personally liable - depending on the severity of the crime and the willingness of the authorities to prosecute. A drug is misbranded when its labeling is false or misleading, including by failing to disclose to the regulators material facts: the definition of “labeling” covers almost any promotional literature, not just the package insert.
Indivior - a company that was created to isolate the opioid related risks by the British pharmaceutical tycoon Reckitt Benckiser Group PLC, had built a lucrative franchise treating opioid addiction with buprenorphine products. In 2002 the company secured FDA approval and seven-year orphan-drug exclusivity for two sublingual tablets: Suboxone (a combination of buprenorphine and naloxone, the latter acting as an abuse deterrent if injected) and Subutex (buprenorphine alone, intended for induction therapy and patients intolerant of naloxone). Both remain dangerous products which were presenting risks for children, and as such, were dispensed in child-resistant bottles. For years, Indivior faced no direct competition.
By 2007 the exclusivity clock was running out and generic tablets loomed. To protect its market share, Indivior developed Suboxone Sublingual Film, a patented thin strip containing the same active ingredients as Suboxone Tablet but packaged in individually wrapped, child-resistant foil pouches. The film dissolved more quickly, adhered to the oral mucosa, tasted better, and in some doses showed higher bioavailability, allowing the company to market it as a clinically superior, safer alternative. FDA approved the film in August 2010.
From 2010 forward, Indivior aggressively promoted the film nationwide - but faced increased competition. Their new target became to have Suboxone Film recommended in Massachusetts - the United States largest market for opioid addiction - as the State’s drug of preference. On January 11, 2011, Indivior’s management - led by Shaun Thaxter, started to become alarmed that MassHealth - Massachusetts Health Institute, was considering expanding coverage in a non-opioid drug for treatment of opioid addiction : buprenorphine-only tablets produced by a competitor. Thaxter asked his senior managers-including Jane Ruby, Indivior’s Medical Affairs manager, for a strategy.
In 2012, Jane met her new mentor, Vladimir Zah - with whom she would author every one of the poor quality papers she has been on since, up to 202223.
In May 2012, Indivior’s management decided to focus their communication on safer use of Suboxone Film, which would cause less pediatric accidental poisoning. Indivior contracted RADARS - a company specialized in agglomerating medical statistics, to monitor these and provide them the data they required to support this strategy.
On October 2, 2012, Dr. Jane Ruby wrote to her hierarchy to inform them that she had secured a meeting with Dr. Paul Jeffrey - MassHealth’s Director of Pharmacy - the key decision maker for Indivior. “I am very excited at this opportunity to share the pediatric data.” She asked to attend the meeting alone as the “situation was very delicate” - yet assured the executives the meeting would be successful, and that “things would change in Massachusetts”. 7 days later, on October 9, Jane met with Jeffrey. She then emailed Indivior’s staff, to inform them that the argument using the pediatric data had been very well received, and that in the course of this meeting, she had asked RADARS to do an immediate analysis of the rates of unintended pediatric exposure to buprenorphine tablets in Massachusetts - and was going to follow up with a telephone meeting to share this information.
The next day, on October 10, 2012, RADARS, via Eric Lavonas, PhD, provided Ruby with the Massachusetts-specific analysis. It showed the rates of unintended pediatric exposure in Massachusetts for three categories of drugs: Suboxone Film, Suboxone Tablet, and buprenorphine-only tablets (sometimes called “mono tablets”). The analysis showed that, in Massachusetts, there were 3.3 exposures per 10,000 unique recipients for Suboxone Tablets, 2.7 exposures per 10,000 unique recipients for Suboxone Film, and 1.8 exposures per 10,000 unique recipients for buprenorphine-only tablets24.
This data showed that buprenorphine only tablets—which are packaged in bottles with child-resistant caps, in the same manner as Suboxone Tablet and many other drugs—had the lowest rate of unintended pediatric exposure among the three categories in Massachusetts.
Jane, disappointed, acknowledged receipt and asked whether RADARS could “simply add the mono and combo tablets rates together” to compare them with films. RADARS replied that they would analyse the issue25.
What Jane had in mind - as her “statistical audacity” might not be transparent to everyone, was to add the two rates together for the tablets, against the film - presenting the 2.7 / 10,000 recipients of Suboxone Film against a 5.1 (3.3 + 1.8) / 10,000.
The fact that she inquires about “the Ns” shows that she couldn’t survive her very long studies without at least a basic understanding that the two tablets rates “grouped together” couldn’t be calculated by simple addition of their individual rates - as illustrated with sample values below.
Yet, as RADARS probably had explained to her how a rate calculation worked earlier and refused to do it themselves, “Jane’s Approach” is exactly what she chose as the sole (mis)representation which fitted her objective, and on October 16, 2012, Jane Ruby sent the data to Dr. Jeffrey. She presented these stats as direct RADARS computations - as if they had been directly sent by Eric Lavonas26.
On November 19, 2012, in the follow-up of the presentation of these elements from MassHealth, Jane shared a new adulterated chart ; from an Indivior marketing brochure - which had opportunely removed the national-scale data for Buprenorphine-only tablets.
Jane would later explain to another Indivior employee - as investigations were raging - that her rationale with MassHealth was “don’t ask, don’t tell”27.
This final alteration resulted in the result they had hoped for, and in December 2012, MassHealth issued a press release announcing that it would “provide access to the unit-dosed film formulation to those members prescribed who live in households with children less than six years of age,” citing Indivior’s nationwide pediatric exposure-rate data as the source of their decision. Tens of millions of tablets were subsequently sold - and, as an obvious direct result of Ruby’s fraud - hundreds more children were placed in harm’s way.
Ruby’s managers at Indivior then failed to notify MassHealth of the frauds committed by Ruby, when they became aware of them, for three years - up to December 2015 (while they had already been made aware that investigations were ongoing regarding the matter - and after MassHealth received contradictory data showing that Buprenorphine-only tablets had, again, lower rates of pediatric exposure).
Of course, this overall very lucrative, obvious and stupid crime was discovered, prosecuted28, and resulted in the conviction of the guilty parties involved. Except.. well, the one who had made the fraud itself, Jane, who walked away like a charm and - almost - managed to get away with it, without even a stain on her public image.
Indivior was sentenced to $2 Billion in fines29.
Shaun Thaxter, Indivior’s CEO, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to 6 months in jail, forfeiting $500,000, and a $100,000 fine. “CODB”, for someone who had exited his firm when the scandal hit with a 2.3 Millions exit package30. What really annoyed him was to be barred, in December 2020, from the industry, for 10 years31 - effectively terminating his career.
Timothy Baxter, Indivior’s Chief Medical Officer, the man between Jane Ruby & Shaun Thaxter in Indivior’s hierarchical chain, was sentenced to a $100,000 fine32, 6 months of “home detention”, and 100 hours of community service33, while he always denied having had any knowledge of Jane’s actions34.
Jane Ruby, who was facing several sentences of 20 years, was sentenced to… nothing. Her name was redacted from the records, and the documents concerning her directly were sealed.
They are sealed again in further proceedings resulting from the case. Except for some documents which are still accessible in dockets repositories - for example, this “Unopposed motion to file under seal”35 filed by attorney Calli Padilla, from Cozen36, on behalf on Jane Ruby, on May 30, 2023, in the Suboxone Antitrust Litigation - where Jane explains that she will “take the 5th” - I.E that she would expose herself to criminal liability if she testified.
In October 2023, Indivior agreed to pay $385 Million37 to end the last monopoly lawsuits we could trace and which were citing Jane.
From Pharma to MAGA
Indivior kept Jane on the payroll until things blew off, and in 2017, separated themselves from her.
According to the RocketReach archive of her Linkedin, Jane spent another 2 years, from 2017 to 2019, as Lead Medical Affairs & Heath Economics & Outcomes Research at Endo Pharmaceutical, another pharmaceutical company operating in Opioids, with a few thousand open legal cases (recall Vladimir Zah? Click on the picture to open the thread)…
… then a year at Pear Therapeutics as Associate Director, and a year at SK Life Science (a subsidiary of SK Biopharmaceuticals38) - finally ending her pharmaceutical career in 2021.
But Jane had already moved on from pharma to a new career closer to her early love for the spotlight : starting in 2017, she appeared in the “Bannon-MAGA” networks, on Twitter, on Periscope, and launched her very own website, https://drjaneruby.com. Very quickly, she became Palantir-fan39 Laura Loomer’s best friend, accompanying her in various MAGA demonstrations.
In 2019, Jane became an associate producer in a Cernovich-sponsored movie to the glory of Alex Jones, “Hoaxed”40, by Scooter Downey & Jon du Toit. This short excerpt of the movie is well suited to describe in what consists Jane’s late career: narrative control.
The aim isn’t here to dismantle the various poison-pills of the self-proclaimed mother of the “graphene in the jabs” rumor41 - it would quadruple this already lengthy article. We’ll perform this “analysis of talking points” in the coming-soon article on Sasha Latypova we mentioned in the introduction.
In the meantime, and to close this portrait, Jane - as the grift which keeps giving, performed a last magic trick when she was tasked to make the leap to the Medical Freedom movement.
She re-branded an account she was using to cheer for herself - “Alana Gabriella”, into her current “RealDrJaneRuby”42 (while forgetting to delete her old posts, for our great joy, of course) - and got rid of the old one, renaming the alias & protecting it43.
This should help clarify that absolutely everything about Jane Ruby is both fake and poisonous. From the filters she uses to present her image to the world, to her public persona, talking points, and even her supporters - all are either manufactured or tainted.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dr-jane-ruby-49971411 - Accessible from the right menu on https://web.archive.org/web/20171122115213/http://drjaneruby.com/ - and archived by Rocketreach & once modified on https://archive.md/hfkEY.
Case No 2:13-md-02445 Document# 894 - Dr Jane Rubys Unopposed Motion to file Under Seal - https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Pennsylvania_Eastern_District_Court/2--13-md-02445/IN_RE--_SUBOXONE_%28BUPRENORPHINE_HYDROCHLORIDE_AND_NALOXONE%29_ANTITRUST_LITIGATION/894/
Idiotic but funny. Thanks! my fan club is numerous and very diverse, spanning the rainbow of clowns from Robert Malone and MAHA apologists to mentally ill child predators JJ Couey/Housatonic duo to the PCR pushing fraudsters like Jikky/Arkmedic, and the Kevins, to nanotechnology nutjobs, to no-virus trolls, to ... well, I don't know what particular brand of troll VAET is, but of course they are anonymous, duh (because they are brave undercover fighters, you must understand!)
Thanks for your love and entertainment that you work so hard to provide for me. This must have taken weeks of work! I appreciate the effort that you put in writing sheer nonsense and fabricating so much bullshit. I don't own a TV, so you are invaluable source of retarded comedy.
Anonymous writers are almost without exception bad actors. That’s just a fact. This is no exception. That doesn’t mean that they are incapable of building justified cases against other bad actors. I imagine that would be a standard issue method for gaining credibility.