Watch: Charlie Sheen’s doctor wants you to know he’s no Hollywood quack Keren Landman HealthCould safer porn promote safer sex? About the Author Reprints Related: A proposal to require all porn actors in California to wear condoms on set is meant to protect the performers from sexually transmitted infections.But some public health experts are hoping it will protect the public as well — because when it comes to porn, a growing body of evidence suggests that in some cases, viewing leads to doing.In particular, researchers say the growing popularity of unprotected sex in gay porn may be playing an important role in the persistence of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections among gay and bisexual men. So they’re hoping the reverse might be true, too: Requiring actors to wear condoms on screen could encourage porn viewers to wear them in real life.advertisement @landmanspeaking It echoed a similar study, also funded by the NIH, that was published in 2013. It, too, described a dose-response relationship between watching and having unprotected anal sex among gay and bisexual men.The author of the 2013 study, epidemiologist Simon Rosser of the University of Minnesota, notes that watching porn in general — even watching a lot of it — doesn’t increase the risk of having unsafe sex. The correlation only holds with porn depicting unprotected anal sex.These studies don’t prove causation, but Nelson said she hears it from the men she talks to for her research: “They all say, ‘There’s no doubt this is impacting behavior in the community,’” she said.California workplace regulations already require employers to take measures to prevent the spread of disease, but the adult film industry has argued that the language is vague and doesn’t require its actors to wear condoms. The proposed update would make that requirement explicit. It would also compel adult film producers to cover costs of vaccinations, testing, and medical monitoring related to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Tags HIVsexSTI A new approach to reducing HIV infections shows promise By Keren Landman Dec. 17, 2015 Reprints Eric Schrimshaw, a health psychologist at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, coauthored a study last year that found 34 percent of gay porn featured unprotected anal sex.And a separate study last year by Kimberly Nelson, a clinical psychologist at Brown University, found that gay and bisexual men were more likely to have unprotected anal sex if they had watched such risky behavior online in recent months. Not only that: Their risk increased in direct proportion to the amount of condomless porn they watched. That study was funded by the National Institutes of Health.advertisement Proposed regulations in California would require all porn actors to wear condoms while filming. Yasuyoshi Chiba/AFP/Getty Images Related: [email protected] The state regulatory board is expected to vote on the proposal in February. If approved, the rules will take effect in July 2016. Willful violations of the standards are punishable with a fine of up to $70,000.The Free Speech Coalition, the trade association for the adult entertainment industry, opposes the regulations. Industry representatives have argued that the regulations were designed for health care settings and are “unworkable” on film sets, and that they remove performers’ control over their own sexual health.“We focus on performer choice — it affects them more than the rest of us,” said Mike Stabile, a spokesman for the organization. Plus, he said, the recent availability of drug regimens that can help protect against HIV infections means that condoms are no longer the only way to safeguard performers.But Schrimshaw, the researcher at Columbia, said condom use is still critical for preventing sexually transmitted disease. He said the regulations are a step in the right direction — though he noted that they won’t affect porn filmed outside California.Nica Noelle already requires all her actors to use condoms for the porn she directs at the Icon Male studio in New Hampshire. But she’s not happy about an industry-wide policy — especially if it’s being sold as measure to improve public health.“Now the adult industry is responsible for the sexuality of society at large? No,” she said. “That’s not fair, and that’s not right.”
@Pharmalot Pharmalot Alex Hogan/STAT Pharmalot, Pharmalittle: Pinworm treatment costs 200 times more in the US than the UK Good morning, everyone, and welcome to another working week. We hope the weekend respite was relaxing and invigorating, because that familiar routine of deadlines, meetings, and whatnot has returned. Although the pending holidays suggest this will be a slow week, our experience suggests otherwise. After all, the world is still spinning, yes? So time to brace yourselves with a cup or three of stimulation. Cinnamon Dolce is our choice today. Meanwhile, here are your tidbits. Lots of news about pricing, by the way. Have a smashing day and do keep in touch …Impax Laboratories earlier this year began selling a drug for treating pinworm at an average wholesale price of $442 per pill, which means the usual two-pill treatment costs $884, the Financial Times reports. The drug was available as a cheaper generic version priced at around $1.60 per pill until 2011, when another company stopped production. Impax reintroduced a version of the pill, called Emverm, in April and is the only US provider. Meanwhile, it costs about $8.65 for a two-pack at the Boots pharmacy chain in the UK. Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. About the Author Reprints What is it? GET STARTED What’s included? STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. [email protected] Log In | Learn More Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the pharma industry — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry. Tags drug pricingfinancepharmaceuticalsSTAT+ Ed Silverman By Ed Silverman Dec. 19, 2016 Reprints
HealthA rare rat virus infects eight people in Wisconsin and Illinois Associated Press About the Author Reprints Eight people in Wisconsin and Illinois have been infected with a rare virus caught from rats Francois Mori/AP By Associated Press Jan. 20, 2017 Reprints MADISON, Wis. — Health officials are investigating how a rare rat virus called the Seoul virus infected eight people in Wisconsin and Illinois.The Wisconsin Department of Health Services says all eight people had direct contact with rats at Illinois and Wisconsin ratteries, which are rat-breeding facilities.Humans can become infected with the Seoul virus through direct contact with rats, though the virus cannot spread from person to person. Symptoms can include fever, chills, nausea, aches and pains or irritated skin. Not everyone experiences symptoms.Both people in Wisconsin recovered from the infections. Five of the six people in Illinois showed no symptoms.Wisconsin, Illinois and federal health officials are investigating the source of the virus. None of the ratteries involved are currently selling rats.— AP Staff Tags infectious diseasepublic healthvirology
[email protected] What’s included? Log In | Learn More GET STARTED STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Meghana Keshavan What is it? Will new biotech products outpace the regulatory system? A proliferation of new biotech products is on its way in the next decade — and it may overwhelm the regulatory system, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. This comes at a time when far-reaching deregulation looms, along with a government hiring freeze.The Trump administration, of course, has suggested that the Food and Drug Administration, among other government agencies, must cut two regulations for every one that they adopt. Dr. Scott Gottlieb, his nominee to head the FDA, may have his own ideas on the subject. About the Author Reprints By Meghana Keshavan March 13, 2017 Reprints Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the biotech sector — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED David L Ryan/The Boston Globe Biotech Biotech Correspondent Meghana covers biotech and contributes to The Readout newsletter. Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. @megkesh Tags biotechnologyCRISPRgeneticspolicySTAT+
GET STARTED Who’s going to win biopharma’s race to make a mint on migraines? APStock Damian Garde [email protected] STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the biotech sector — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED Preventing migraines is shaping up to be the drug industry’s next big gold rush, a multibillion-dollar opportunity with four contenders vying to claim its lion’s share. But just which company triumphs will depend on satisfying patients, winning over payers, and — maybe — lining the pockets of doctors.The key is a protein called CGRP, which plays a role in the dilation of the brain’s blood vessels. Block it and you can prevent the painful, debilitating headaches that plague roughly 40 million Americans, studies have shown. It’s by no means a cure, but doctors say shaving a few headache days off of a migraine sufferer’s monthly burden can make a world of difference. By Damian Garde April 25, 2017 Reprints National Biotech Reporter Damian covers biotech, is a co-writer of The Readout newsletter, and a co-host of “The Readout LOUD” podcast. Biotech About the Author Reprints What is it? What’s included? Log In | Learn More @damiangarde Tags drug developmentinsuranceSTAT+
STAT+ is STAT’s premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond. Some state Medicaid programs continue to restrict access to hepatitis C drugs GET STARTED @Pharmalot Tags drug pricingMedicaidpharmaceuticalsSTAT+ Unlock this article — plus daily coverage and analysis of the pharma industry — by subscribing to STAT+. First 30 days free. GET STARTED What’s included? Pharmalot APStock Ed Silverman Daily reporting and analysis The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters Subscriber-only newsletters Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day STAT+ Conversations Weekly opportunities to engage with our reporters and leading industry experts in live video conversations Exclusive industry events Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country The best reporters in the industry The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry And much more Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr. What is it? [email protected] About the Author Reprints Over the past three years, state Medicaid programs have done a much better job of disclosing information about access to expensive hepatitis C medicines and fewer are restricting treatment to patients, according to a new analysis.In 2014, 12 states did not make public their criteria for treatment, but all 50 states now do so (although one state, New Jersey, does not disclose specifics for treating different stages of the disease). And in the past three years, 17 states dropped restrictions to access based on a patient’s stage of liver disease, which has been a key test for determining treatment. In 2014, all 50 states had restrictions. By Ed Silverman Oct. 23, 2017 Reprints Log In | Learn More Pharmalot Columnist, Senior Writer Ed covers the pharmaceutical industry.