It is interesting that PreP is said to be the thing that will save and protect people from dying from AIDS. Yet the uptake is so small that it can't be accounting for the lack of millions of people dying of AIDS. Aren't they inadvertently exposing the fact that whatever AIDS was back in the early 80s, it's no longer a thing? In a free market system, demand produces a product for that demand. I live in Utah, as an example in the year 2019 there was a grand total of 140 new 'infections' diagnosed. I think this is exactly why there's a push to expand the markets for prep.
On the other hand, think about what would happen if there was substantially greater uptake. If just 1 to 2% of physicians were prescribing to 'eligible' people, and there's a lawsuit of 24k people seeking damages from side effects, just imagine what that would be if the uptake for Truvada/Descovy had been just an order of magnitude higher.
It did expire, a year or two ago so a generic version came out which was much cheaper. That's sort of at the heart of this whole thing. Descovy is the new '2.0' version that is now the name brand. It was on the shelves of just waiting and was being held back until full profits could be made off the more side effect prone Truvada. That's what the whole law suite thing is about. We still don't know the long term negatives of Descovy, it's just being claimed that it's less damage producing.
It is interesting that PreP is said to be the thing that will save and protect people from dying from AIDS. Yet the uptake is so small that it can't be accounting for the lack of millions of people dying of AIDS. Aren't they inadvertently exposing the fact that whatever AIDS was back in the early 80s, it's no longer a thing? In a free market system, demand produces a product for that demand. I live in Utah, as an example in the year 2019 there was a grand total of 140 new 'infections' diagnosed. I think this is exactly why there's a push to expand the markets for prep.
On the other hand, think about what would happen if there was substantially greater uptake. If just 1 to 2% of physicians were prescribing to 'eligible' people, and there's a lawsuit of 24k people seeking damages from side effects, just imagine what that would be if the uptake for Truvada/Descovy had been just an order of magnitude higher.
Is the patent for truvada about to expire? Or whatever current prep the pharmaceutical funders of this “research” sell?
It did expire, a year or two ago so a generic version came out which was much cheaper. That's sort of at the heart of this whole thing. Descovy is the new '2.0' version that is now the name brand. It was on the shelves of just waiting and was being held back until full profits could be made off the more side effect prone Truvada. That's what the whole law suite thing is about. We still don't know the long term negatives of Descovy, it's just being claimed that it's less damage producing.