Fact Check: Lenacapavir could cost just $25 per patient annually!

Fact Check: Lenacapavir could cost just $25 per patient annually!

Published June 18, 2025
VERDICT
False

# Fact Check: "Lenacapavir could cost just $25 per patient annually!" ## What We Know Lenacapavir is a new drug that has been heralded as a significa...

Fact Check: "Lenacapavir could cost just $25 per patient annually!"

What We Know

Lenacapavir is a new drug that has been heralded as a significant advancement in HIV prevention, particularly due to its efficacy demonstrated in clinical trials. The drug is administered via a twice-yearly injection, which is a departure from the daily oral pills currently used for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) like Truvada. According to a report by NPR, lenacapavir's cost as an HIV treatment in the United States was approximately $42,250 per patient per year as of 2023 (source-1).

While some sources have suggested that lenacapavir could be produced at a significantly lower cost if mass-produced, estimates indicate that it could be manufactured for around $35 to $46 annually, potentially dropping to $25 with sufficient scale (source-4). However, these figures refer to manufacturing costs rather than the actual price patients would pay.

Analysis

The claim that lenacapavir could cost just $25 per patient annually is misleading. While it is true that research indicates the drug could be produced at this cost under certain conditions, this does not reflect the current market price or the price that patients would realistically pay. The current price set by Gilead Sciences, the manufacturer, is substantially higher at approximately $42,250 per year (source-3).

Moreover, the assertion that lenacapavir could be available for $25 is based on projections of mass production and does not account for the complexities of drug pricing, market dynamics, and the potential for generic competition. The actual cost to consumers will depend on various factors, including regulatory approvals, insurance coverage, and market competition, which are not guaranteed to align with the lower manufacturing costs suggested in some analyses (source-6).

The sources discussing the potential for lower manufacturing costs, such as the one from The Guardian, are speculative and do not represent the current pricing landscape. They do not provide a definitive pathway to achieving such low costs in practice, especially in regions where access to medications is already a significant issue (source-4).

Conclusion

Verdict: False
The claim that lenacapavir could cost just $25 per patient annually is misleading. While there are projections for lower manufacturing costs, the actual price set by the manufacturer is significantly higher, and there are no guarantees that patients will be able to access the drug at the lower price mentioned. The current market price is approximately $42,250 per year, which starkly contrasts with the $25 claim.

Sources

  1. Anti-HIV drug lenacapavir called 'breakthrough of the year' - NPR
  2. A new way to prevent HIV delivers dramatic results in trial - NPR
  3. Gilead Agrees to Allow Generic Version of Groundbreaking ... - New York Times
  4. 'HIV-ending' drug could be made for just $25 per patient a ... - The Guardian
  5. This preventive drug could be a 'game changer' in ending the HIV epidemic - LPM
  6. Break Gilead's Lenacapavir Monopoly - MSF Access
  7. Ending HIV: Balancing Innovation and Affordability With ... - Think Global Health
  8. Why Lenacapavir is Important … and Expensive - Managed Healthcare Executive

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Lenacapavir could be produced for just $25 per patient annually!
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Lenacapavir could be produced for just $25 per patient annually!

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Lenacapavir could be produced for just $25 per patient annually!

Jun 18, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Lenacapavir could be produced for just $25 per patient annually.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Lenacapavir could be produced for just $25 per patient annually.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Lenacapavir could be produced for just $25 per patient annually.

Jun 18, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Gilead's lenacapavir may cost 1,000 times more than its production price!
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Gilead's lenacapavir may cost 1,000 times more than its production price!

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Gilead's lenacapavir may cost 1,000 times more than its production price!

Jun 19, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Gilead's lenacapavir could be priced 1,000 times higher than production cost.
True

Fact Check: Gilead's lenacapavir could be priced 1,000 times higher than production cost.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Gilead's lenacapavir could be priced 1,000 times higher than production cost.

Jun 18, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Gilead's lenacapavir could be priced 1,000 times higher than production cost!
True

Fact Check: Gilead's lenacapavir could be priced 1,000 times higher than production cost!

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Gilead's lenacapavir could be priced 1,000 times higher than production cost!

Jun 18, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →