'We can end HIV': Groundbreaking preventative drug to be rolled out for $40 a year from 2027
https://www.france24.com/en/health/20250925-groundbreaking-hiv-prevention-injection-to-be-rolled-out-for-40-dollars-a-year-from-2027
841 points · 100 comments · view on lemmy.world
100 Comments
bassomitron@lemmy.world · 121 pts · 327d
And anti vaxxers will make some bullshit claim, making idiots believe it, and it'll only halfway eliminate HIV.
jumperalex@lemmy.world · 84 pts · 327d
Not just them, but the religious fuckers who want everyone to suffer "consequences" for the sin of sex. Same ones that freak out about HPV vaccine.
I know there is a lot of overlap. But it isn't total.
Archangel1313@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 327d
At least this way you can save most of the smart ones.
Nomad@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 326d
Religious people often have smart kids. They need protection.
Blackmist@feddit.uk · 7 pts · 326d
You know what, if you have HIV and throw your lot in with them then you've only got yourself to blame. If they had their way they'd throw you down a well for having it.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 326d
Problem is "that lot" is running the HHS (including the CDC) so people that want medicine in the US may not have access, even if they can afford it (which is becoming more unlikely than before).
Americans will find some way to blame the democrats for it tho, so the few people that actually vote will just vote in "that lot" again.
MangioneDontMiss@feddit.nl · 93 pts · 326d
40 dollars in low income countries. 28,000 dollars in the united states. The drug is made in the united states.
WTF.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 40 pts · 326d
Makes you wonder if Trump has a point.
But thanks to RFK and Trump, there will be no more drugs like this in the future. Gilead did the trials, but 95% of the effort behind this was NIH funded. We can't even guess how many game changing drugs have been cut in 2025.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 23 pts · 326d
As always Trump completely misunderstands the situation. Yes there’s a point in how exepnsive drugs are in the us, especially relative to other countries. But whether it’s manufactured in the us has almost nothing to do with it.
The problem is recovering all the development costs from American patients, and more recently just charging what they think the market will bear. We have to fix the complex maze of healthcare and all the levels of profiteering, we have to fix how development costs can be recovered and most of all we need to fix charging what the market will bear. Has everyone already forgotten the outcry over insulin a few years ago. A ceo who should be in jail decided to start charging ten or twenty times the cost, because he could, because us patients are a captive market. Then got away with saying “some of you can use these coupons….”. There’s definitely a point where exploitive business practices have crossed the line and should be considered criminal acts
phoenixz@lemmy.ca · 11 pts · 326d
Yeeeaaahhh, but no.
There is also a huge amount of plain greed in there, drug companies aren't exactly known for being very generous to put it mildly. Cost of healthcare in the US is beyond insanely expensive and that isn't just because Americans are rich, the vast majority aren't and for many, getting sick is not only a death sentence, it's also a death sentence to the family as they'll be stuck with the medical bills that will bankrupt them.
The US healthcare system is beyond fucked up with corruption and just plain extortion. Wanna live? Say, that's a nice first born you have there!
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 326d
I've encountered this: This treatment is $10,000 if you pay out of pocket, but we'll charge your insurance company $680 for it.
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 5 pts · 326d
The issue here is that the bigger insurance companies literally set the prices for services and drugs.
You wanna keep doing business with United, you charge them what they're willing to pay, otherwise they'll just reject claims or put you out of network altogether.
It's FUBAR.
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 325d
A hell of a lot of that is funded by tax payers. They don't need to recoup money, they need to give the tax payers what they already paid for.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 325d
Drug development in trials costs $120-200M. Upon approval, Pharma expects $15B +.
They have proven they would rather a drug not save lives than offer lower profits.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · -1 pts · 325d
if a product can be sold at 10 times the profit to one fifth the people only an idiot would not rase prices ten fold
sga@piefed.social · 18 pts · 326d
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 325d
Pharmaceutical companies used to do basic research until the 90s. At this point, they are just banks who buy biotechs spun out from NIH research.
Now that NIH is gone, the industry will atrophy within a decade. There will be no new drugs.
Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz · 6 pts · 325d
Those companies spend more on advertising than RND
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 325d
15 years on patent drugs.
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 326d
I figured this would come up but you've gotta remember that drugs are expensive as hell to develop. And it just received US approval in June so it's not like they have been sitting on this making money for years.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 29 pts · 326d
The cost of drug development is vastly overstated as an excuse. The reality is $100-200M, but pharma expects $14B++ in returns. Little of that goes back into basic research.
The front end of costs was spent by the NIH, and after that was ended, Pharma is not taking up the slack. It's not sustainable and pharma will die in a decade.
Dozzi92@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 326d
Yeah, a lot of these drug companies have ad budgets larger than the R&D budget, but any overhead is used to jack up the prices. I swear ads are sold at inflated prices for the sake of being able to sell high.
Gladaed@feddit.org · 5 pts · 326d
Just because development of a single drug costs not that much does not mean you don't need to pay for failed drugs too. If many drugs die during trials someone gotta pay for that. Profitability is a better indicator for greed.
Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 326d
Gilead’s own words show they aren’t hurting in the least for profits. It’s definitely greed.
Gladaed@feddit.org · -1 pts · 326d
You must look at the whole sector as failures sink companies but yes.
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 326d
I'd like to see some sources on those numbers, I couldn't find any of that when I searched.
MangioneDontMiss@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 324d
ok so US citizens are supposed to subsidize the cost of the drug for the entire planet???
LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 324d
No they arent, it's pretty imbalanced, but effectively that is what's happening.
MangioneDontMiss@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 324d
I believe this would be known as an "understatement"
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org · 72 pts · 327d
Cethin@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 326d
Fuck...
Why can't we have nice things?
BossDj@piefed.social · 9 pts · 326d
You know why
msage@programming.dev · 6 pts · 326d
Capitalism
BossDj@piefed.social · 4 pts · 326d
A.K.A. Billionaire Socialism
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · 0 pts · 325d
socialism has the state make compromises, what the rich has allows them to make their own
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · -2 pts · 325d
in this case: copyright/patents of chemicals
Confused_Emus@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 46 pts · 326d
Generic versions of a groundbreaking injectable HIV-prevention drug should be available for $40 a year in more than 100 countries from 2027, Unitaid and the Gates Foundation said Wednesday.
…
Marketed under the brand name Yeztugo by California-based Gilead Sciences, lenacapavir currently costs around $28,000 a year in the United States.
FUCK GILEAD
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 325d
clearly they should have tried a smaller time frame to get a more reasonable price
selkiesidhe@sh.itjust.works · 32 pts · 326d
Sounds like a good thing therefore the brainworm in charge of health here in the states will surely get it banned. Or at least made to cost several thousand percent more than it costs to make.
IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 326d
Thank goodness the west coast states have created their own health consortium and a bunch of east coast states have followed suit. I live in one of those east coast states, and just got a covid booster no questions asked. It is also covered 100% by my insurance.
sol6_vi@lemmy.makearmy.io · 1 pts · 325d
So do I and I did the same and it was so easy. I felt hella privileged sitting in that chair this year.
aeternum@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 325d
Cassanderer@thelemmy.club · 1 pts · 325d
Not quite brainworm's fault we are getting extorted for drugs.
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 4 pts · 325d
Maybe not, but you can always count on MAGA to exploit a broken policy rather than fix it.
BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz · 31 pts · 327d
Oh no! Quick! Cut their Funding!
-The USA!
chiocciola@lemmy.cafe · 11 pts · 326d
No no, keep their funding but make a Pharmaceutical company around it and only release pills with enough potency to treat instead of cure
NickwithaC@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 326d
Archangel1313@lemmy.ca · 28 pts · 327d
"We can end HIV":
...as long as we can convince everyone to take it. So, yeah. Good luck with that.
themurphy@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 326d
You can convince people of everything, if it depends on you having more sex or not.
altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 16 pts · 326d
No pills. Have sex. Die. No sex.
Yes pills. Have sex. Live. More sex.
SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 326d
Edit:
plyth@feddit.org · 4 pts · 326d
Already a thing. Check the syphilis statistics.
Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 326d
Wouldnt I still need to rubber up to avoid genital warts, herpes, Hep, HPV, among others?
altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 326d
Two pills, but also celibacy.
ExhibiCat@lemmynsfw.com · 0 pts · 325d
Of course, but rubbers can fail and they don't prevent everything. Many STDs like herpes, hpv etc are not stopped by them because they are transferred by skin contact, not necessarily genital contact. So yea they're still a great idea.
I've never had intercourse without one as all my gfs preferred the extra safety. No problem.
CXORA@aussie.zone · 4 pts · 326d
You don't need to convince everyone, just enough people.
Were already seeing really good progress with pills and condoms, so an option which doesn't need to be taken on a strict daily schedule will be a huge boon.
SpiceDealer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 18 pts · 325d
Pastors: NO! How will I condemn the gays now?!
Capitalism: That's great but what's the profit margin?
JargonWagon@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 325d
Fascists: That drug causes autism, use this one instead (that just so happens to also profit us)
Deflated0ne@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 325d
$80 in the US. Because our president is a buffoon
qualia@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 325d
Free with many insurances though! It may take a little longer to get a "Prior Authorization," but as long as you say you're in an at-risk group for HIV (Google these) it will eventually get approved.
The rationale is that since treating HIV+/AIDS is so astronomically more expensive than merely paying for this once every 6 months PrEP, that insurance actuaries determine the latter to be way more in the insurance company's interest.
This is good since it doesn't require the insurance companies to be ethical, just cheap. But a win-win is still a win-win, so I say take it where you can get em. {Former pharmacist here, feel free to reach out and ask how to get non-addictive drugs covered} 🪿
InquisitiveYum5003@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 325d
Hi Qualia, my brother is medically obese and uninsured. Does he have any chance of getting some sort of weight loss drug for free or low-cost? He has sleep/wake cycle problems too.
qualia@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 325d
slid into yer DMs
Rekorse@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 325d
I somehow read your post as "Free with insurgencies". Not sure what thats about.
cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone · 2 pts · 325d
banned in the us. because the president and health secretary is a bag of dicks.
altkey@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 326d
That's for bigots to not being ashamed of taking pills against sexually transmited diseases? See, Hetero is in it's very name, so it's fine!
AA5B@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 326d
That’s ok, I’m sure it won’t be allowed to sell in the us. Profits will be intact
boonhet@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 326d
Yes, the US won't get the Hetero, they'll only get the sparkly $28000 version, called the Homo.
tehredmage@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 10 pts · 326d
"Preventative drug"? Is this what we're calling vaccines now?
stoly@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 326d
There are No vaccines for HIV. This is a drug that if taken continually will prevent the virus from taking hold.
Tabula_stercore@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 325d
It is an interesting what makes the distinction.
The core principle of vaccination is training the immune system with a substance so that a disease can be defeated later on.
Nothing says that a vaccine needs to be an injection. There are injection vaccines that need multiple doses before the immune system reaches a certain level.
So why would a pill that trains your immune system not be a vaccine?
CXORA@aussie.zone · 7 pts · 325d
I guess a pill could be a vaccine, but this drug is neither a vaccine nor a pill, so I have no clue why youre bringing this up.
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 6 pts · 325d
It's not a vaccine. It does not trigger an immune response. Science says vaccines cannot be pills, they either need to be intramuscular or inhaled aerosol. This is because they are proteins, which get digested through the stomach and gut.
Dremor@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 325d
Some vaccine are oral based (but as a liquid, not as pill). We don't use them in the West as we have robust viccine that are injection based. But those vaccine requires a way more robust supply chain than many third world countries has, so oral vaccine, while not as effective as injection based vaccine, are used there.
Problem with oral vaccine is that most pathogens are killed by the digestive system so the only one that could be made as a pill would be those who already are acclimated to such a harsh environment (so gut microbiology).
There are very few digestive disease that would allow for such vaccine vector to be developed, the only one that could these last few decade would be Ebola. But for such a deadly disease (90% mortality if I remember well), the medical community would prioritize the most effective way, which would be injection.
ohshittheyknow@lemmynsfw.com · 2 pts · 325d
There is also an oral polio vaccine that was developed.
Dremor@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 325d
Exactly, as the polio virus is resistant to digestive acids, and is transmited oraly, initially developing in the digestive system.
stoly@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 324d
A vaccine is administered to teach the immune system how to beat something. These drugs prevent certain processes in the virus replication cycle and have to be taken continuously for life to be effective.
CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org · 12 pts · 325d
vaccine is a scientific term, meaning a weaker (or, rather, as weak as scientifically possible) version of the same virus / bacteria, so that immune system could learn to fight it without dying in the process.
This is not a vaccine, as has an active substance, that chemically interacts either with our body, HIV's shell, or both
olafurp@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 325d
There are more ways, weak virus, dead virus, modified virus, payload swap virus and an mRNA blast.
Would love to see this HIV vac get more development and become permanent and a part of infant vaccine routine until it just fucking dies.
CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org · 2 pts · 325d
of course there are. I was axcited to hear about Vectors when they were developed. It's nice to see scientists come up with something new
Dremor@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 325d
MRNA vaccine works differently if I remember well. Basically instead of injecting the weaker virus itself, they trick the body to produces non-active parts of that pathogens in order to train the body.
CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 325d
wow, cool, good to know something like that exists. What are we vaccinating against with MRNA?
Dremor@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 325d
Covid. Like 80% of the vaccine where mRNA based.
CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org · 1 pts · 325d
oh, cool
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca · 8 pts · 325d
HIV infects the immune cells, which is why attempts at vaccines failed.
qualia@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 325d
Yeah HIV doesn't use traditional warfare: it bombs hospitals. 😔
Dremor@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 325d
That's standard warfare to some these days.
titanicx@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 326d
But what about the Tylenol?
captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 326d
Probably doesn't prevent HIV.
Link@feddit.nl · 8 pts · 326d
We can :) But, we probably won't :(
qualia@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 325d
Just to clarify the potentially confusing title. This drug came out three months ago in the US, is a version of PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) that only needs to be taken every six months, and is free with most insurances if you're in an at-risk demo.
Aatube@kbin.melroy.org · 2 pts · 325d
the article says it costs around $28,000. i don' mean to interrogate bu' d'ya have a source saying taht insurance covers that all
qualia@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 325d
Since the Affordable Care Act it's been a legal mandate for all non-grandfathered-in insurances to cover all A & B recommendations with zero copay, which includes PrEP. Sources: HIV.gov, USPSTF.
Any disease that specializes in inserting itself into the host genome and then eradicating their immune system needs to be wiped out.
ExhibiCat@lemmynsfw.com · 1 pts · 325d
It's coming down to $40 in 2027 thanks to a deal between governments and the drug companies
qualia@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 324d
The US (and other high-income countries) are not included in that licensing deal, meaning the non-insured in those countries will hafta wait for the domestic patent protections to expire (2034-2041) or be successfully challenged in the courts.
ExhibiCat@lemmynsfw.com · 0 pts · 324d
Ok that's indeed steep then 😢
rapchee@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 326d
is it called prep?
BanMe@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 326d
Yeah I hate to say it, but I worked in HIV prevention in the late 2000s, and we really thought prep was going to be the end of HIV, along with rigorous testing and linkage to care.
Since then, HIV rates have exploded in many areas, silently, because we've gone fully regressive on sex ed.
I have friends that became HIV positive before they even knew about prep.
WTF happened.
stoly@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 326d
Boomers aged and shifted to the right.
shane@feddit.nl · 3 pts · 325d
This is actually not true. People are
actually more left thanmostly the same ideologically as when they were younger, even though the right wing takeover of media would have us believe that people have swung right.https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17a56o1/moving_from_left_to_right_wing_as_we_age_true_in/
Let me find a link to a study...[Edited to add link to a Reddit comment which explains this, including links to studies, and updating incorrect assertions by me.]
Rooster326@programming.dev · 4 pts · 326d
What, are you crazy?
I don't have that kind of money!
palordrolap@fedia.io · 3 pts · 326d
Then you should have sex with as many rich people as possible then die as quickly and quietly as possible, there's a good chap.
Best regards, Your corporate overlords
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 326d
quickly, sure. quietly, well, when this cannon goes it'll be loaded
