In the News Lately—AI bots, “ultra long acting PrEP” (!?!) and more

A Small Roundup

In lieu of reporting on many if not most PrEP items I see as I see them, I thought I’d mix it up and do a little roundup of news in the AIDS arena and other areas related to public health and its attendant problems. I might do these weekly, or not. Let me know if that’s something you’d like, or if it’s something you’d like, but less frequently. Here we go:

Doctors are worried about the ideas bots are putting in patients’ heads

This article is actually kind of entertaining, if alarming. Consider the following (emphasis mine):

People are increasingly turning to bots powered by artificial intelligence for advice when they get sick.

But the bots aren’t always right. Sometimes they make stuff up. And doctors dealing with the panic that can ensue want Washington to regulate this free technology before more time and money is wasted.

Turn to Washington? Okay. So the concern is that AI might threaten government control of the narrative? (Although that does open the question of how AI itself could control the narrative.) Here’s a funny excerpt, that attempts to be critical but fails in a rather amusing manner:

When asked about treating Covid-19 with ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, two drugs promoted by former President Donald Trump in the early days of the pandemic that were found to be ineffective, the bot says the treatments are controversial. But it fails to provide context.

Wow, calling something “controversial.” That in itself is apparently now controversial. I feel like we’re living in an Escher piece.

HIV prevention drugs known as PrEP are highly effective, but many at risk don't know about them

I feel like every other article about PrEP is bemoaning that not enough people are taking it or that people are stopping taking it. I guess this is happening to cover up the likelihood that it is failing to achieve its desired effect, in one way or another. (This must be the case, or people wouldn’t all be quitting.) This one starts with the predictable racial targeting:

While 94% of White people who doctors say could benefit from it are now on PrEP, less than 13% of Black people and 24% of Hispanic/Latino people who could benefit are receiving it, and less than 15% of women at risk are getting the drug. 

You know my opinion as to why this is. I think Black people are correct to be suspicious of being targeted by the medical establishment—it hasn’t worked out so well for them in the past. Underestimate them at your peril (which is apparently happening).

The cost of the PrEP medication, clinic visit and lab tests averages more than $5,000 a year, Gounder says.

This creates accessibility challenges for people like Wilkins.

"If my insurance provider decides, I don't want to cover this anymore, I really don't know what I would do because PrEP costs more than my rent right now," she says. "I have a lot of anxiety about that."

That’s pretty steep. And I won’t give medical advice, but I know what I would do in this individual’s position. She is HIV-negative and she’s worried about affording HIV medication. Wrap your head around that.

Truvada update

This update is a little frustrating. It is intended to be a guideline as to how much plaintiffs can expect in compensatory damages, but it doesn’t really answer that directly. However, I think it is important to link to this because part of my intention here is to create an archive related to the Truvada lawsuits.

Finally, we have “ultra long acting PrEP” (what could possibly go wrong with that?):

Ultra-long-acting cabotegravir could be taken three times a year for HIV PrEP and treatment

What is with this societal obsession with medicalizing absolutely everything? It is very, very odd. Is it an overcorrection, or is something more sinister going on?

This article is so incredibly boring that I won’t even be bothered to pull a quote, but you’re welcome to click the link. I will note one item of interest and that is that the trial reported on enrolled 70 participants. I’ll just leave that there.

Also, they’re just lengthening the treatment intervals by increasing the dose. This is not the normal way such medications work; they are supposed to be timed specifically to interrupt replication at a particular point in the life cycle of the targeted virus or the bacterium. How do they reconcile this with dosing the patient once every four months? I realize that this may be a totally naive question—I am not an infectious disease expert, I am a mathematician—but if anyone has an answer, I’d love to hear it because this seems off to me, as a treatment strategy for a supposedly viral illness.

That’s the end of my news roundup! Feel free to drop any interesting news items in the comments below, especially if I’ve missed anything.

To support my work on Substack, please purchase my book for yourself or for a friend, and leave a review on Amazon. You can learn about efforts to ban my book here. You can also buy my new book Almost Cancelled (which discusses Treatment Action Group in detail.)

If you’re a new reader and would like some background as to my views on HIV AIDS, including the “existence” question, please refer to this post and the links contained therein.