Update on the Truvada disaster

This really is AZT 2.0–we need to pay attention

Yesterday, I received note that the Truvada lawsuits are expected to begin in earnest in 2024. Earlier, I had reported that the class action lawsuit against Gilead Pharmaceuticals for Truvada comprised 26,000 plaintiffs. That has expanded considerably, and includes multiple other lawsuits. Furthermore, AIDS Healthcare Foundation has called for Gilead Sciences to set up a ten billion dollar fund to help compensate victims.

AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) is calling on Gilead Sciences Inc., one of the largest manufacturers of HIV/AIDS drugs, to set up a $10 billion dollar victim compensation fund for patients harmed after taking the drug maker’s TDF-based (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate) drugs as part of their treatment for HIV or AIDS or taken by uninfected individuals as part of the HIV prevention strategy known as pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP.

[…]

The lawsuit alleges Gilead knew that it had a safer version of tenofovir available – tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) – but shelved it in order to extend its profits from and monopoly of TDF.  The newest lawsuit also alleges that Gilead failed to warn patients of the damaging side effects of TDF and actively misrepresented TDF’s efficacy and risks knowing that TAF, the safer alternative, existed in its own laboratories.

Of course, we know that TAF, or “good Truvada,” is not without its risks. It is known to cause elevated cholesterol and associated cardiac events, which is reminiscent of the now rarely used protease inhibitors. Regardless, it is clear that Gilead, at best, committed a lie of omission. Here is a reminder of the adverse events this company allowed to happen in the name of enormous profit (Truvada’s price tag is close to $2000 a month). As always, emphasis is mine throughout.

TDF is a key drug used for treatment of patients with HIV and AIDS and is also used (under the brand name, Truvada—TDF and emtricitabine) by uninfected individuals as part of the HIV prevention strategy known as PrEP. However, the medication causes damage, sometimes permanent and sometimes fatal to the kidneys and bones.

Read that again. “Bad Truvada” is given to “uninfected individuals” and it is causing sometimes permanent, fatal damage to the kidneys and bones? Who thought this was a good idea? No wonder “PrEP discontinuation” is so troubling to some. Here are two more links to reports on the AHF lawsuit if you’re interested.

LA Times on Truvada

Justia lawsuit summary

I notice that Janssen, manufacturers of the since dropped Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine, are listed as defendants alongside Gilead and Bristol-Myers Squibb. There is also the following extensive report on the Truvada lawsuits in a publication called Lez Do TechMed on April 1 (although it isn’t a joke):

Truvada lawsuits: what’s in store for 2024?

The pharmaceutical industry's irresponsibility has resulted in a wave of litigation against products like Elmiron, Zantac, IUD ParaGard, and opioids in the United States. The Truvada lawsuits are one of these cases that make up the lion's share. We are aware that many medications have side effects, but we have a right to get information about these risks so we can decide whether to use a medication or not.

It is nearly criminal that this lawsuit is basically not being covered in the mainstream media—with the exception of a piece that appeared in The NY Times business section in July 2024– given its scope.

I noted immediately that this article misclassifies—maybe—the pharmacological components of Truvada. They claim that “Emtricitabine is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, whereas tenofovir is a nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor. They are known as NRTIs.” Well, yes, they are both NRTIs, but “nucleotide” versus “nucleoside” is nonsensical in this case; the drugs work in the same manner. They belong to the same class of drug as AZT, and are not specific to “HIV.” I don’t know if this was ignorance or a deliberate attempt to make the medication appear more sophisticated than it is. Moving on:

When Truvada was approved by the FDA in 2004, Gilead's R&D team had been working on a new version of TDF. TAF (tenofovir alafenamide fumarate) (named Genvoya) was a newer, safer version of TDF that worked similarly to TDF but was more efficiently absorbed into HIV. It was more effective at slowing the virus's growth and also was much less toxic. TAF was still toxic to bones and kidneys, but because of its lower dose requirements and other properties, it was less harmful than TDF.

What does that mean, “more efficiently absorbed into HIV?” I really want to know. Do they mean that “HIV” absorbs TAF and now the medication is part of the “virus?” This sentence makes no sense. The language around “HIV” is so weirdly anthropomorphic.

However, on seeing the huge turnover from the two promising drugs, Viread® and Truvada®, Gilead stopped the research on TAF and waited until the 10-year patent period to expire to release Genvoya to hit the shelves very late.

From 2005 to September 30, 2019, 11,381 adverse event reports for Truvada were recorded by the FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System or FAERS. Around 8,982 of these cases were serious, resulting in 718 fatalities. However, there have been no Truvada recall announcements from the manufacturer until the present.

That’s a lot of fatalities, for a medication that is largely prescribed to individuals with no clinical illness whatsoever, not even a laboratory result, in the form of PrEP. Given that Truvada is being prescribed to both “HIV” positive and “HIV” negative individuals, I posit that it will soon become obvious that Truvada is not just the new AZT. It may be much worse. It certainly isn’t looking good for Gilead:

Apart from the Truvada lawsuits, Gilead is facing a lot of other allegations on the Stribild and the Genvoya lawsuits. A tentative Truvada settlements deal has been announced to partially resolve a class action on HIV medication lawsuit settlement over allegedly expensive HIV drugs as a result of anti-competitive practices by Gilead and several other major antiretroviral pills.

Bristol-Myers Squibb has agreed to pay $10 million to settle claims that it conspired with Gilead, Johnson & Johnson, and some of their subsidiaries to artificially inflate the prices of widely used HIV drugs such as Atripla, Biktarvy, Complera, Descovy, Evotaz, Genvoya, Odefsey, Prezcobix, Stribild, Symtiza, Truvada, and Viread.

I’m shocked, people. Shocked that a drug manufacturing giant could possibly be conspiring with other drug manufacturing giants to artificially inflate the prices of their toxic medications.

The article goes on to list the admitted side effects of Truvada— the ones that are printed on prescription information handouts—and then points out that the major side effects that are not listed, such as: “Kidney disease and kidney failure; Fanconi syndrome - a tubule condition when the levels of glucose, potassium, and bicarbonate in the urine are elevated; Liver problems; Osteopenia or loss of bone mineral density- 2 to 6 percent decrease in bone density with the two years of use; Osteoporosis and Osteomalacia; Potentially fatal lactic acidosis; Immune reconstitution syndrome.” Ah yes, the infamous immune reconstitution syndrome, a paradoxical phenomenon in which a patient develops opportunistic infections as a result of starting ARVs.

According to the article, Gilead is being held accountable for “failure to warn consumers about the serious and potentially fatal risks of Truvada, despite having a legal obligation to do so.” It is also under fire for knowingly blocking TAF to maximize profits on TDF, as well as for making “a profit of around $18 billion a year (67 percent of its revenue) on its Truvada and other TDF-based drugs by putting the lives of the patients at stake.” It is also alleged that the drug has “design defects [since it was] made excessively and needlessly toxic.”

The particular legal allegations against Gilead involve “Strict product liability (design defects and failed to warn); Products responsibility for negligence (design defects and failing to warn); Implied warranty breach; Explicit warranty breach; Negligence and Gross Negligence; Fraud by Omission; Multiple State Consumer Protection Law Violations.”

The first lawsuit was filed in May 2018, and the situation is only getting worse for Gilead. As we recall, the class action lawsuit comprises 26,000 plaintiffs that we already know about, in addition to multiple other lawsuits. You don’t need a PhD in math to determine that we’re talking about 2-3% of the total “HIV” positive population in the United States, although we don’t know what proportion of these individuals were taking Truvada for PrEP. Still, that’s a pretty lousy side effects profile, considering these are initially unlisted side effects, and surely many victims have been missed!

The article also gives updates as to when trials are expected to begin. No information has been given as to what kind of compensation plaintiffs might except, although the $10 billion dollar slush fund might provide a clue. (Hint: it’s a lot, but probably not enough to compensate for the loss of health in many cases.) According to Lawsuit Information Center , “The first big Truvada lawsuit set for trial will be in California on January 24, 2024. This is a bellwether trial.  So if there is a large jury payout, it will impact future Truvada settlement amounts.” They also stated in December 2022 that “You have seen an increase in lawyer advertising for Viread, Truvada, and other TDF injuries in recent weeks.  Why?  There is renewed hope in some quarters of HIV drug settlements in 2023 or 2024.  We will see.” Yes, I suppose that we will, but it might take awhile. Meanwhile, Truvada is still being prescribed and used, and no recall has been issued.

That is all the information I have regarding the state of the Truvada lawsuits at this time, but I would like to close by highlighting an article that shines a light on the ethical considerations undertaken by the good people at Gilead. Apparently, they do not take patient privacy seriously at all. This is shocking, but not a surprise. Read on:

Alabama Doe, et al., v. Gilead Sciences, Inc

An Alabama man was mortified when an envelope for him turned up in his workplace mailroom with the return address HIV Prevention Team in bold red lettering. An Indiana man, so protective of his confidentiality that he fills his HIV-related prescriptions at a different pharmacy chain from where he gets his other medications, was shocked to receive the same mailing. And a Missouri man, who lives in a 22-unit apartment building, found the mailer addressed to him in plain view on top of the residents’ mailboxes.

Can you even imagine receiving such an envelope, visible to anyone handling your mail?

It gets worse. They just flat out lie.

The company maintains a patient-assistance program to provide free or discounted PrEP to enrollees. The patient assistance program also provides free or discounted medication for treatment of HIV. The enrollment form states that “[p]atient confidentiality is of primary importance to us. All patient information will remain confidential.” Participants may even opt out of any Gilead marketing efforts.

But despite its promise of privacy, Gilead sent the mailer to enrolled participants with the return address printed in a bold red font: “HIV Prevention Team.” The mailers were sent to home or workplace addresses that enrollees provided.

This is just inexcusable. It’s bad enough that they want to control our bodies by prescribing PrEP willy-nilly; now they want to take away our privacy and ownership of our own medical history and status. This isn’t going anyplace good. Luckily, Gilead has been sued for invasion of privacy:

On May 21, 2020, the AIDS Law Project of Pennsylvania, joined by law firms Berger Montague and Langer Grogan & Diver, sued Gilead for violating the privacy of people enrolled in its patient assistance program. The case originally was filed in federal court in California, then was voluntarily dismissed and refiled in California Superior Court on Oct. 20, 2020.

However, the compensation that can be expected is underwhelming to say the least:

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, each class member will receive at least $100. Class members could also submit claims for up to $2,000 for reasonable non-reimbursed out-of-pocket expenses they may have incurred that were directly caused by the mailer, including any moving costs, medical or counseling costs, or loss of income. Up to $500 was also available to class members who experienced emotional distress, anxiety, or fear as a direct result of the mailer. The agreement calls for extensive measures to protect the privacy of the plaintiffs. Settlement distribution will begin on August 11, 2023.

So, in conclusion: pharmaceutical companies can lie, cheat, market defective products, and breach patient confidentiality, and plaintiffs can expect up to $2000? That seems wildly inadequate.

Again: Gilead is in hot water for deceptive marketing of Truvada and other “anti-HIV” drugs that are given not only to those unfortunate enough to have pinged positive on an “HIV” test, but to anyone that considers themselves to be at risk, regardless of status. Furthermore, AIDS activists intentionally covered up the existence of these lawsuits by demanding that advertisements for said lawsuits be removed from social media—this is important never to forget.

In other words, until these lawsuits are resolved in favor of the plaintiffs, Gilead is continuing to get away with poisoning tens of thousands of individuals with “anti-HIV” drugs, including both “good Truvada” and “bad Truvada;” many of whom don’t even “have ‘HIV’.” If that isn’t a strong indication that the drugs are not specific to “HIV,” and that “HIV” positivity is in some sense irrelevant to AIDS and by extension, to this desire to medicate the entire world, then I don’t know what is.

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. Or consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

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. My interview with Sam Bailey is also a great introduction.