Latest news with #JOSHEDELSON
Toronto Sun
5 days ago
- Health
- Toronto Sun
U.S. approves world's only twice-a-year shot to prevent HIV transmission
Published Jun 18, 2025 • 4 minute read The Gilead Sciences sign is seen outside their headquarters in Foster City, Calif., on April 30, 2020. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on June 18, 2025, approved Gilead Sciences' twice-yearly injection to prevent HIV -- a move the company hailed as a major breakthrough in the fight against the sexually transmitted virus. Photo by JOSH EDELSON / AFP via Getty Images WASHINGTON — The U.S. has approved the world's only twice-a-year shot to prevent HIV, the first step in an anticipated global rollout that could protect millions — although it's unclear how many in the U.S. and abroad will get access to the powerful new option. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account While a vaccine to prevent HIV still is needed, some experts say the shot made by Gilead Sciences — a drug called lenacapavir — could be the next best thing. It nearly eliminated new infections in two groundbreaking studies of people at high risk, better than daily preventive pills they can forget to take. 'This really has the possibility of ending HIV transmission,' said Greg Millett, public policy director at amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research. Condoms help guard against HIV infection if used properly but what's called PrEP — regularly using preventive medicines such as the daily pills or a different shot given every two months — is increasingly important. Lenacapavir's six-month protection makes it the longest-lasting type, an option that could attract people wary of more frequent doctor visits or stigma from daily pills. Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But upheaval in U.S. health care — including cuts to public health agencies and Medicaid — and slashing of American foreign aid to fight HIV are clouding the prospects. Millett said 'gaping holes in the system' in the U.S. and globally 'are going to make it difficult for us to make sure we not only get lenacapavir into people's bodies but make sure they come back' twice a year to keep up their protection. Read More Gilead's drug already is sold to treat HIV under the brand name Sunlenca. The prevention dose will be sold under a different name, Yeztugo. It's given as two injections under the skin of the abdomen, leaving a small 'depot' of medication to slowly absorb into the body. People must test negative for HIV before getting their twice-a-year dose, Gilead warned. It only prevents HIV transmission — it doesn't block other sexually transmitted diseases. Some researchers who helped test the shot advise cold packs to counter injection-site pain. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Global efforts at ending the HIV pandemic by 2030 have stalled. There still are more than 30,000 new infections in the U.S. each year and about 1.3 million worldwide. Only about 400,000 Americans already use some form of PrEP, a fraction of those estimated to benefit. A recent study found states with high use of PrEP saw a decrease in HIV infections, while rates continued rising elsewhere. About half of new infections are in women, who often need protection they can use without a partner's knowledge or consent. One rigorous study in South Africa and Uganda compared more than 5,300 sexually active young women and teen girls given twice-yearly lenacapavir or the daily pills. There were no HIV infections in those receiving the shot while about 2% in the comparison group caught HIV from infected sex partners. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. A second study found the twice-yearly shot nearly as effective in gay men and gender-nonconforming people in the U.S. and in several other countries hard-hit by HIV. Ian Haddock of Houston had tried PrEP off and on since 2015 but he jumped at the chance to participate in the lenacapavir study and continues with the twice-yearly shots as part of the research follow-up. 'Now I forget that I'm on PrEP because I don't have to carry around a pill bottle,' said Haddock, who leads the Normal Anomaly Initiative, a nonprofit serving Black LGBTQ+ communities. 'Men, women, gay, straight — it really just kinds of expands the opportunity for prevention,' he added. Just remembering a clinic visit every six months 'is a powerful tool versus constantly having to talk about, like, condoms, constantly making sure you're taking your pill every day.' This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Gilead said the U.S. list price, meaning before insurance, is $28,218 a year, which it called similar to some other PrEP options. The company said it anticipated insurance coverage but also has some financial assistance programs. Most private insurers are supposed to cover PrEP options without a co-pay although the Supreme Court is considering a case that could overturn that requirement. Congress also is considering huge cuts to Medicaid. And while community health centres still are an option, the Trump administration has largely dismantled HIV prevention work at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that would normally get the message to vulnerable populations who'd qualify for the shot, said Carl Schmid of the nonprofit HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Schmid worries the shot won't meet its potential because 'we're basically pulling the rug out of HIV prevention and testing and outreach programs.' Gilead also has applications pending for the twice-yearly shot in other countries. Last fall, the company signed agreements with six generic drug makers to produce low-cost versions of the shot for 120 poor countries mostly in Africa, Southeast Asia and the Caribbean. Gilead plans to make enough shots to supply 2 million people in those countries, at no profit, until the generics are available, said company senior vice-president Dr. Jared Baeten. Winnie Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS, said in a statement the price is still too high. If it's unaffordable, she said, 'it will change nothing.' And HIV experts worry the arrangements Gilead has made to reduce costs in some countries leave out middle-income countries like some in Latin America. 'Everyone in every country who's at risk of HIV needs access to PrEP,' said Dr. Gordon Crofoot of Houston, who helped lead the study in men. 'We need to get easier access to PrEP that's highly effective like this is.' NHL Soccer Columnists Editorial Cartoons Canada
Newsweek
09-06-2025
- Newsweek
TSA Ban Costco Cards As Travel ID
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has taken to social media to clear up confusion over what counts as REAL ID, following the implementation of the act last month. The TSA took to Facebook to make clear that Costco cards do not count. In a post to Facebook, TSA wrote "We love hotdogs & rotisserie chickens as much as the next person but please stop telling people their Costco card counts as a REAL ID because it absolutely does not." A woman displays her Costco card in order to enter after waiting in a line that snaked around a Costco store in Novato, California on March 14, 2020. A woman displays her Costco card in order to enter after waiting in a line that snaked around a Costco store in Novato, California on March 14, 2020. JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images Twenty years after it was first proposed, REAL ID has been implemented, meaning that Americans and permanent residents will only be able to pass through airport security or enter some federal government buildings if they have a REAL ID, or another valid form of identification, such as a passport or Enhanced Driver's Licenses and identification cards (EDL/EID) issued in the following states: Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington. Costco cards never counted as a REAL ID, and you were never able to travel on one. This story will be updated.
Toronto Sun
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Toronto Sun
RETURN OF THE ROCK?: Trump says he wants to reopen Alcatraz
TOPSHOT - An aerial view shows Alcatraz island in front of the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California on May 16, 2024. Alcatraz Island is 1.25 miles (2.01 km) offshore from San Francisco and initially was a federal prison before being converted into a tourist attraction. The strong currents around the island and cold water temperatures made escape nearly impossible, and the prison became one of the most notorious in American history. (Photo by JOSH EDELSON / AFP) (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images) WATCH: For decades, the federal prison on Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay held America's most violent criminals. Men like Al Capone, Whitey Bulger, Machine Gun Kelly, Canadian bank robber Alvin Karpis & other killers of all kinds. Surrounded by shark-filled waters, it was impossible to escape from. It was shuttered in 1963 because it was too expensive to operate. Now, U.S. President Donald Trump wants to reopen it. What do YOU think? Tell us your thoughts in the comment section below or send us a Letter to the Editor for possible publication to . Letters must be 250 words or less and signed. And don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube Channel. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Toronto Maple Leafs Canada Editorial Cartoons World Celebrity
Newsweek
23-04-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
My Company Competed Against Facebook. Here's What Happened
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. In its landmark antitrust case, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleges that Meta illegally maintains a monopoly in "personal social networking,"—something the company has always denied. As determined by the agency in its amended 2021 complaint, the only two surviving competitors left in this space were Snapchat and the company I founded: MeWe. I used to think it was possible to compete with Facebook, but as I wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2021, competition became impossible. With this realization, I handed MeWe off to new management in 2021, who then repurposed it into the niche Web3 arena. The FTC, which initially filed its lawsuit in December 2020, defines Meta's market, in particular Facebook, as "personal social networking," where users primarily engage with their real-world connections. This is distinct from entertainment or news-focused platforms like TikTok, YouTube, or X. People take a photo at Meta (formerly Facebook) corporate headquarters in Menlo Park, California on Nov. 9, 2022. People take a photo at Meta (formerly Facebook) corporate headquarters in Menlo Park, California on Nov. 9, 2022. JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images A key difference lies in network effects. Platforms like TikTok or YouTube can grow and provide worthwhile experiences for individuals without their social circles joining. But personal networks depend on that. If your friends, family, colleagues, schoolmates, etc. aren't there, the platform can't grow, and new members quickly become dormant. That creates a huge barrier to entry for upstarts in the space. While the FTC identified Snapchat and MeWe as the only independent players left in this market, it's remarkable the two had sidestepped the digital graveyard in Meta's wake. After Snapchat rejected Meta's $6 billion buyout offer in 2013, Meta didn't simply move on. It declared war. Snap created a dossier, "Project Voldemort," detailing how it believes Facebook and Instagram cloned Snapchat's features and blocked Snap-related search terms. Meta even allegedly pressured influencers to remove Snapchat links from their profiles and bought a VPN app, Onavo, to spy on iPhone users and monitor Snapchat and other rivals which was later removed by Apple for violating its privacy rules. MeWe experienced similar suppression. Under subpoena, I submitted hundreds of pages of documentation to the FTC, including numerous reports and screenshots from MeWe users showing that their Facebook posts mentioning MeWe were hidden, flagged, or removed. Potential partnerships also fell through seemingly due to the real or perceived threat of retaliation from Meta. Judge James Boasberg, who presides over the trial, noted that the FTC presented sufficient facts to suggest Meta dominates the "friends-and-family sharing market." He said a reasonable fact finder could conclude Meta "exploits" this customer base. Meta rejects that framing and insists it competes with TikTok and YouTube. Mr. Zuckerberg testified that Facebook has evolved into a "discovery-entertainment space." But this doesn't negate Meta's monopoly in personal social networking. To draw a parallel, Google has significant competitors in AI and cloud computing. Federal courts affirmed on April 17 and last August that it still holds illegal monopolies in both ad sales and search, respectively. During my time at MeWe, we built a full-featured personal social network. It consistently rated over four stars out of five in Apple and Google's app stores, while Facebook held steadfast with barely over two stars. Regardless, Facebook's powerful network effect along with the billions of marketing dollars it spent preempted users' dismal experiences. Seventy-nine percent of Americans use Facebook, and more than 50 percent use it "several times a day." Some argue that because Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp are free, antitrust law doesn't apply. Price hikes are what led to the famous breakups of Standard Oil and AT&T. That's outdated thinking. Today's web economy runs on data and targeting. Slade Bond, public policy lead at Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, says Meta's defense relies on "antiquated precedents." Meta's monopoly harms users in multiple ways. Lack of competition forces users to submit to pervasive content manipulation, invasive data mining, unprecedented privacy infractions, and a variety of mental health harms. After the Cambridge Analytica breach in 2018, Meta suffered a massive 66 percent loss in trust, and many users wanted alternatives. Yet at the time, Meta reported "no visible impact to core engagement metrics." Users were trapped by Meta's network effect. In fact, the subsequent $5 billion fine levied on July 24, 2019, was offset the same day by a larger increase in Meta's market cap. On April 15, the Wall Street Journal reportedthat Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg offered $1 billion to settle the FTC's lawsuit, up from an initial offer of $450 million. The FTC rejected it, reportedly seeking at least $18 billion and a consent decree. During the first day of trial, FTC lawyer Daniel Matheson pointed to an internal message from Zuckerberg in 2012 acknowledging that Meta was "buying time" by acquiring competitors before new ones could scale. Matheson called the 2012 message "a smoking gun." Another email from Zuckerberg in 2008 reads: "It is better to buy than compete." Meanwhile, Meta has made attempts to befriend the Trump administration, including donating $1 million to the inauguration. Despite Zuckerberg's political maneuverings, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, appointed by President Donald Trump, recently stated that the FTC "certainly" believes Meta is a monopoly. The FTC seeks to split off Instagram and WhatsApp. History shows us what can happen in such a scenario. AT&T's breakup into "Baby Bells" in 1984 eventually led to reconsolidation. The more lasting fix is adding data interoperability into any final judgement. For instance, the proposed bipartisan ACCESS Act would require platforms with over 100 million monthly U.S. users to let people port their data between platforms. Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee has created a working protocol for this: Solid Pods. This technology seeks to enable people to own, upload, download and relocate their social graphs, mitigating the network effect while interrupting unwanted data collection. Interoperability wouldn't just benefit personal social networks. Notably, Trump and his ally Elon Musk, now both owners of social media platforms, have a vested interest in dismantling Meta's data fortress. Meta's breakup would likely cause a user stampede to Truth Social, X, Bluesky, Mastodon, and others. Breaking up Meta is a good start. In tandem, releasing the stranglehold of the network effect gives users control of their data and the ability to easily move themselves and their networks between sites. In this scenario, if an app you're on does something unsavory, then your personal social graph, your contacts, content, and history, can simply migrate elsewhere. That's a compelling way to inspire vibrant competition. Mark Weinstein is a world-renowned tech entrepreneur, thought leader, privacy expert, and one of the inventors of social networking. He is the author of Restoring Our Sanity Online (Wiley, 2025). The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Forbes
08-04-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Court Rejects UK Attempt To Have Apple Encryption Case Held In Secret
Photo by Josh Edelson / AFP) (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images A U.K. court has ruled that the Home Office can't, as it had hoped, keep a hearing on backdoor access to Apple's encrypted cloud data under wraps. Earlier this year, the government used provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act to order the firm to give the security services blanket access to all users' end-to-end encrypted files, rather than just those for specific accounts. Via a Technical Capability Notice, it wants access to iPhone backups secured by Apple's Advanced Data Protection system - not just those of U.K. customers, but of international users too. Apple removed the opt-in Advanced Data Protection feature in the U.K. in February, but responded by launching legal proceedings against the government soon after, with the case to be heard by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. But the government said the proceedings should be kept secret, with not even the "bare details" made public, thanks to national security concerns. However, in a ruling, the tribunal has now rejected the government's request. "It would have been a truly extraordinary step to conduct a hearing entirely in secret without any public revelation of the fact that a hearing was taking place," the judges wrote. "For the reasons that are set out in our private judgement, we do not accept that the revelation of the bare details of the case would be damaging to the public interest or prejudicial to national security." They said it might be possible for some or all future hearings to incorporate a public element, but that it wasn't possible to make a ruling on this at the current stage. Campaign groups Open Rights Group, Big Brother Watch and Index on Censorship made a submission to the court, arguing against the proceedings taking in place in secret, and they've now welcomed the court's decision. "This judgment is a very welcome step in the right direction, effectively chipping away at the pervasive climate of secrecy surrounding the Investigatory Powers Tribunal's consideration of the Apple case," said Rebecca Vincent, interim director of Big Brother Watch. "The Home Office's order to break encryption represents a massive attack on the privacy rights of millions of British Apple users, which is a matter of significant public interest and must not be considered behind closed doors." The case even led to transatlantic tensions, with U.S. director of national intelligence Tulsi Gababrd expressing "grave concern" about the creation of a backdoor. It would, she said, be a "clear and egregious" violation of Americans' privacy and civil rights, as well as opening up a serious security vulnerability. "This is bigger than the UK and Apple. The court's judgment will have implications for the privacy and security of millions of people around the world," said Jim Killock, executive director of Open Rights Group. "Such an important decision cannot be made behind closed doors, and we welcome the IPT's decision to bring parts of the hearing into the open so that there can be some public scrutiny of the UK government's decisions to attack technologies that keep us safe online."
