Hi, this is Roger Ghai and I wanted to talk today a little bit about the HIV medication, TRUVADA. It was originally put out there on the market when the AIDS epidemic was running rampant and the purpose was to go ahead and prevent, of course, death. At that time it seemed like the perfect panacea, although the side effects were disclosed by the company. The side effects could include injuries such as to your kidney, it could relate to bone loss and so forth, but clients and patients went ahead and they put themselves on that, because it was much better than the alternative which would have been death. So for that reason the drug was put out there, it was manufactured by the company called Gilead Sciences. They had a patent on that drug, and it was quite profitable.
Now the only problem with this particular litigation for that drug, it’s not what the litigation itself is that, like I say, the patients who are prescribed this were warned of the possible side effects. The problem was, and is for Gilead probably is that the manufacturer also had a safer alternative drug, TAF, and the TAF was known to be number one, 10 times more effective as far as the actual dealing with the virus.
TAF was known by the company and the company produced both of the medications, the TDF and the TAF, but the TAF was known to be 10 times more effective. That is, it got into the bloodstream at a higher rate. More importantly, it actually went to the area of the body where the medication was needed. Now the reason that we suspect that Gilead did not release this when they could have at the same time was profit. They had a patent on the TDF, and so they kept the other medication even though it was the safe alternative out of the market for those 10 years. So the TDF of course had the story of side effects. The TAF didn’t have nearly the side effects, they kept it out of the market. And so that’s really the basis of the lawsuit. If you think that you’ve been injured or have a TRUVADA case, please call my office at 770-792-1000.