Update on the Truvada Disaster

Over 26,000 plaintiffs in these multiple lawsuits

We have a lot of new readers lately, so I thought I’d provide a quick one-paragraph description of the Truvada disaster and the lawsuits surrounding this medication, since that’s been a focus of this substack since its inception. I’ve been covering this story for two years now, and it has been woefully underreported.

Since 2023, I’ve been covering the class action and state level lawsuits against Gilead Sciences for Truvada and related TDF-containing drugs (TDF is tenofovir disoproxil sulfate and I usually called it “bad Truvada” as shorthand), alleging that Gilead knew that they had an alternative in the wings (TAF; or tenofovir alefanemide, which I call “good Truvada” despite having its own serious issues) that was safer for the kidneys and bones, yet held it back from patients until the patent on TDF expired. These lawsuits—and there are many of them, including one in Canada (as a former Canadian that blows my mind) accounting for a full 26,000+ plaintiffs, to the point that Gilead has been asked to set up a ten billion dollar slush fund to cover their potential financial liabilities.

The toxicities that Gilead is having alleged to have covered up include osteoporosis, osteopenia, kidney failure, lactic acidosis and more. There are multiple reports of patients that have needed hip replacement at the age of thirty, suffered kidney failure and even death, all because of Gilead’s profit craze.

I should point out that Truvada and Descovy’s main ingredient are NRTI drugs (non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, which don’t actually inhibit RT), the oldest “anti-HIV” drugs on the market. How are these innovative new drugs so miraculous when the very same class of drugs in the late 80s and early 90s was clearly toxic? This is an important point that I keep trying to make, but have done so less effectively than I’d prefer. In 1996, we were told that the protease inhibitors miraculously cured AIDS and that they were so much better than the “older” NRTIS. So why are we using NRTIs and not PIs at all anymore?

This piece I’m going to cover briefly, from the Davis Kellin New Mexico Trial law firm, provides a decent synopsis of the whole Truvada issue. I’ll include most of the piece, with minimal commentary from me (as always, all emphasis is mine). Here we go:

Truvada Lawsuit

Truvada lawsuits have sent shockwaves through the pharmaceutical industry and the HIV prevention community. […] At the heart of the controversy is the claim that Gilead Sciences possessed knowledge of a less toxic formulation of the drug but chose not to pursue its development. This decision, if proven true, could have potentially exposed thousands of patients to unnecessary health risks. The lawsuit has sparked a broader conversation about corporate responsibility in healthcare and the ethical obligations of pharmaceutical companies to prioritize patient safety over profit margins.

Here’s a little homework assignment for you: go to Amazon and search for “Truvada.” Gilead is still making bank off of this medication despite its being embroiled in controversy and scandal. And “good Truvada” (Descovy—which turns out not to be so good) is priced at over $2000 per month without insurance. Truvada itself is off patent, so patients can get their toxicities at a more attractive price point, I guess.

The lawsuit alleges that despite this knowledge, Gilead continued to market and sell Truvada without adequately warning patients of these risks.

[…]

The lawsuit argues that this delay in bringing a safer alternative to market constitutes a breach of the company’s duty of care to its consumers. By prioritizing profits over patient safety, Gilead has allegedly put the health and well-being of thousands of people at risk.

How many thousands more will be harmed in Gilead’s quest to get the long acting injectable PrEP option, lenacapavir, into as many “HIV” negative individuals as quickly as possible?

The Truvada lawsuit has raised significant concerns among current and former users of the medication. Many individuals who have relied on Truvada for HIV prevention or treatment are now grappling with the possibility that they may have been exposed to unnecessary health risks. This realization has led to anxiety and uncertainty within the HIV prevention community, as patients question the long-term effects of their medication use.

Imagine what they’ll be grappling with when the entire HIV AIDS story fizzles in real time—which it will.

For those who have experienced kidney problems or bone density issues while taking Truvada, the lawsuit offers a potential avenue for seeking compensation. However, it also highlights the nature of pharmaceutical litigation and the challenges of proving causation between medication use and specific health outcomes. As the legal proceedings unfold, Truvada users are left to navigate a landscape of medical uncertainty and legal complexity.

The Truvada lawsuit has far-reaching implications for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory bodies. It raises questions about the adequacy of current oversight mechanisms and the potential need for stricter regulations governing drug development and marketing practices. The case may set a precedent for how courts interpret the responsibilities of pharmaceutical companies in disclosing potential risks and pursuing safer alternatives.

It really is incredible how little these lawsuits have been covered in the media, given their enormous range—Truvada lawsuits are even being filed in Canada, which is not and has never been a litigious country.

The lawsuit could potentially lead to changes in how the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves and monitors drugs. If the allegations are proven true, it may prompt a reevaluation of the approval process for new medications and the ongoing monitoring of drugs already on the market. This could result in more stringent requirements for pharmaceutical companies to demonstrate the long-term safety of their products and to actively pursue safer alternatives when possible.

It will be interesting to see if this eventuates.

Gilead Sciences has vigorously defended itself against the allegations in the Truvada lawsuit. The company maintains that it has always acted in compliance with FDA regulations and in the best interests of patients. Gilead argues that the development and release of new drugs is a complex process that involves extensive research, testing, and regulatory approval, which can take many years to complete.

In its public statements, Gilead has emphasized the life-saving nature of Truvada and its significant contribution to HIV prevention efforts. The company asserts that the benefits of the medication far outweigh the potential risks, which it claims are well-documented and communicated to healthcare providers and patients. Gilead’s defense strategy appears to focus on highlighting the positive impact of Truvada while downplaying the significance of the timing in the development of its newer, allegedly safer formulation.

There’s a reason the pharma pushers have to add the descriptive “life saving” to these potent, highly toxic drugs. If they were truly live-saving instead of the exact opposite, they wouldn’t need to say it; it would be obvious.

The Truvada lawsuit has cast a shadow over the future of HIV prevention strategies. While Truvada remains an important tool in the fight against HIV, the controversy surrounding its safety and the alleged actions of its manufacturer have raised questions about the long-term viability of current prevention methods. This uncertainty has spurred increased interest in alternative prevention strategies and accelerated research into new medications and treatment approaches.

It’s almost as though one ought not to be taking powerful medication to “treat” a condition one doesn’t even have, as is the case with PrEP.

As the legal proceedings continue, the HIV prevention landscape is likely to evolve. Pharmaceutical companies may become more cautious in their development and marketing practices, potentially leading to delays in bringing new medications to market. The increased scrutiny may also drive innovation and a renewed focus on patient safety.

The outcome of the Truvada lawsuit could shape the direction of HIV prevention efforts for years to come, influencing both medical practice and public health policy.

Given that the Truvada lawsuit is one of the most glaring signs that something is not quite right with the HIV AIDS story, its far reaching effects cannot be understated. Literally millions of “HIV” positive people are on these drugs, and among those, 10-40% are immunological non-responders; add to that the number of people taking Truvada for PrEP and we have quite the patient pool that is not only not being helped by this medication, but are being actively harmed as well.

Regardless, we all know how slowly these types of lawsuits move through the courts, so I can’t say when the company might reach a settlement or proceed to trial, but I will keep you up to date on everything that occurs. It is quite possible that the payoff from these lawsuits will rival those from the lawsuits regarding OxyContin. Stay tuned!