Post

Sorry, but we now have a once-per-six-months PrEP injection with a 96% efficacy in reducing HIV infections, and the response is to limit PrEP to only pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers? What?! It's going to be much more expensive to provide lifelong treatment than work on prevention.

144 reposts570 likes

so. here's the thing. the cost of lifelong treatment doesn't matter, because they're gonna find a way to not provide lifelong treatment to queers who get HIV. hope that clarifies things.

I'm not gonna pay for the Atlantic today but the screenshot appears to be about PEPFAR, the international program run in part by USAID before it was de facto shut down. The entire future of that program is unclear.

I really, really need all of you to understand this is not, and has never been, about saving money or reducing cost, and every time someone gives them the benefit of the doubt on that, it only serves to further legitimize them. It has only ever been about killing people they hate. That's it.

That’s a good question. HIV PrEP is needed most by gay men & trans women in the U.S. & poor African women, all notably disfavored groups. But Gilead stands to make a lot of $$ from it, so we’ll see who prevails.

Sorry, my first tweet should have said we will soon have. Lenacapavir isn't approved yet for PrEP but is (was?) expected to be approved by this summer. But I'm also not sure by how the review timeline will be affected by lay-offs.

This thread is not about assuming the decision is about cost. It's to say that the decision doesn't hold up those grounds, when people argue that's what it's about.

Really interesting in how they're so fixated on HIV being the "gay disease" that they seem unaware that it's more common in heterosexual people now and also apparently want to continue that.