Truvada Lawsuit Filed in CANADA

BC Supreme Court rules that trial may proceed

As if the AIDS Healthcare Foundation calling on Gilead to set up a $10 billion slush fund in anticipation of the potential outcome of the Truvada lawsuits—this is how we know these lawsuits are serious and these that lawyers are not ambulance-chasers—Canada is NOT a litigious country, in particular when it comes to medicine. (In a socialist state, the government does not like to allow you to have recourse when you have been wronged; compliance is valued above all. We would be wise to consider this when making certain decisions.)

British Columbia Truvada Lawsuit

The plaintiffs, represented by their initials, I.F., J.F., and P.S., brought suit and the initial hearing took place in September 2023. In March 2024, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that the plaintiffs can proceed to trial. Here is I.F.’s story (emphasis mine throughout):

I.F. is the first named plaintiff in the ANOCC. I.F. made an affidavit stating that I.F. is a resident of British Columbia who was diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the early 1990s. I.F. was on several antiviral medications before being prescribed a TDF drug manufactured by Gilead called Truvada in or around 2007. I.F. continued to take Truvada until early 2020 when I.F.’s prescription was changed to a TAF drug manufactured by Gilead called Biktarvy. This was due to concerns about I.F.’s long-term kidney health. I.F. has agreed to act as a representative of the proposed class for this proceeding. I.F. wishes to be identified using initials because I.F. has suffered discrimination as a result of being diagnosed with HIV and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).

The lawsuits cover the TDF-containing medications Viread, Truvada, Complera, Stribild, and Atripla, that have been marketed in Canada. The TAF-containing medications marketed in Canada are Genvoya, Descovy (for PrEP), Odefsey, and Biktarvy. This lawsuit, like similar lawsuits here in the U.S., alleges that Gilead was guilty of negligence and of holding back the “safer” alternative, TAF, to maximize profits from TDF-containing drugs.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Gilead was negligent in designing, testing, manufacturing, marketing, labelling, promoting, distributing, importing and selling TDF drugs. The Plaintiffs say that Gilead introduced these drugs into the stream of commerce in Canada knowing that the adverse effects related to these drugs would cause foreseeable injury to the Plaintiffs and class members. In addition, Gilead is said to have known at the time the TDF drugs were commercialized in Canada that TAF was a safer alternative to TDF. Yet Gilead distributed, marketed, and sold the TDF drugs in Canada while withholding the TAF drugs, whose alternative design made TAF drugs safer than TDF drugs.

However, it is rather instructive to read what the lawsuit has to say about “good Truvada.” You may recall that we have discussed the problems with “good Truvada” before.

Both of Gilead’s prodrugs - TDF and TAF – deliver tenofovir to the human body in a manner that inhibits HIV replication effectively in patients. However, TAF’s intracellular conversion method leads to lower circulating plasma levels than TDF’s conversion method which occurs outside of the cells. Accordingly, the TAF conversion method reduces a patient’s exposure to kidney and bone toxicities when compared to the TDF conversion method. On the other hand, there are indications that TAF use may be associated with greater weight gain and higher levels of blood cholesterol in patients as compared to TDF.

These medications really have been plagued with toxicity issues, haven’t they? Yet somehow we have become conditioned, through mere media manipulation that ought to seem ever more familiar, to believe that they are somehow miraculous and life-saving. It’s really quite incredible.

Here is where this lawsuit stands now:

The primary issue before the court is whether the Plaintiffs’ proposed claim discloses a reasonable cause of action and a genuine issue for trial. If it does not, the claim must be dismissed at this stage. If it does, then the secondary issue of whether the claim should be certified as a class action must be addressed.

[…]

I find that the Plaintiffs have set out a reasonable cause of action for negligent design that raises genuine issues for trial. The Plaintiffs have also met all of the statutory requirements for certification. While the Plaintiffs’ claim may ultimately be dismissed when it is fully addressed on its merits, it deserves to be certified as a class proceeding at this time.

Things are looking worse and worse for Gilead Sciences. The financial strain they must be under is enormous, and it makes me more than a little suspicious that the reason the “ZERO transmissions” lenacapavir Phase I trial is being so celebrated despite the fact that it is far too soon to see any signal of long-term significance is for Gilead to somehow safe face, or at the very least, to distract the public’s attention from their crimes that are being exposed in the courts. This is a developing story; I will follow up as updates are available.