Thank you for this news Rebecca. I gotta say, if this will help reduce consumption of PrEP (which has no beneficial purpose, has bad side effects, and is a boondoggle for big pharma), then I'm all for it!
$20k every six months for the injectable? Holy crud that's insane. And this part really made me do a scoobie-do double take, "The company on Thursday released results from an advanced trial of the drug’s use as PrEP in cisgender women showing it was highly effective;"
BUT, being a 'cisgender' woman is already protective against 'HIV' given the lack of an explosive AIDS epidemic in straight women in the West. So this leads me to believe we're looking at a known pharmaceutical trick of doing research on poor Africans, or on custodial children, etc. Finding a sufficiently large group of white cisgender women to create statistically significant results seems unlikely.
This situation has as many fallacious assumptions as the "witch" scene from Search for the Holy Grail. A woman outfitted by her accusers to appear as a witch goes before a "judge" who claims that witches are made from wood, that because wood and ducks both float, witches and ducks weigh the same, and who finally "proves" the woman a witch using scales which falsely indicate the woman's weight to be equal to a duck. Thus, in both cases, an entire farcical procedure is followed, completely lacking in both scientific evidence and valid logic, but accepted by all involved as if the opposite were true.
Notice the Johns Hopkins researchers “speculated” that a $10 copay would double the abandonment rate . . but they have no comment on what the clinical outcome of such abandonment would be. Which suggests to me that they don’t think there would be any impact at all.
Thank you for this news Rebecca. I gotta say, if this will help reduce consumption of PrEP (which has no beneficial purpose, has bad side effects, and is a boondoggle for big pharma), then I'm all for it!
$20k every six months for the injectable? Holy crud that's insane. And this part really made me do a scoobie-do double take, "The company on Thursday released results from an advanced trial of the drug’s use as PrEP in cisgender women showing it was highly effective;"
BUT, being a 'cisgender' woman is already protective against 'HIV' given the lack of an explosive AIDS epidemic in straight women in the West. So this leads me to believe we're looking at a known pharmaceutical trick of doing research on poor Africans, or on custodial children, etc. Finding a sufficiently large group of white cisgender women to create statistically significant results seems unlikely.
Thank you so much for staying on top of this issue.
This situation has as many fallacious assumptions as the "witch" scene from Search for the Holy Grail. A woman outfitted by her accusers to appear as a witch goes before a "judge" who claims that witches are made from wood, that because wood and ducks both float, witches and ducks weigh the same, and who finally "proves" the woman a witch using scales which falsely indicate the woman's weight to be equal to a duck. Thus, in both cases, an entire farcical procedure is followed, completely lacking in both scientific evidence and valid logic, but accepted by all involved as if the opposite were true.
Notice the Johns Hopkins researchers “speculated” that a $10 copay would double the abandonment rate . . but they have no comment on what the clinical outcome of such abandonment would be. Which suggests to me that they don’t think there would be any impact at all.