This is a good thing, IMO.<p>This is the drug that failed to show efficacy in trials but was approved anyway for reasons that no one can explain. There are investigations into how and why it was allowed to be approved.<p>It costs $56,000 per year and they can’t show that it has positive benefits, but the studies show it has significant side effects in some users.<p>It doesn’t make sense for insurance companies or the general public to shoulder the cost of $56,000 per year per potentially millions of patients to take a drug that can’t be proven to have any positive effect.<p>If someone has the means to afford this on their own and is willing to self-experiment them they can try, but they need to do it at their own cost.