I wrote this note in 2014 when Govt of India,with the help of media, spreading fear about flu and was giving free tamiflu.
A doctor friend sent this paper Today: The Tamiflu fiasco and lessons learnt
First read below note, followed by research paper.
Cellular stress in Adult is either due to mental stress or nutritional stress. In case of epidemics, environment is under severe stress. Cure stress and things will be fine.
In case growing children, cellular stress is sometimes development mile stone indicator. So they may get non-seasonal running nose – can be cured without medicine by love, care and Tulsi/Turmeric/Ghee/Gau mutra like kitchen pharmacy.
Virus is a piece of nucleic acid (DNA or RNA) wrapped in a thin coat of protein. DNA or RNA is a packet of information exchanged among cells or live organism, just like data is exchanged between two computers using network and based on data exchange, computers act. Similarly, based on information exchange, cells act.
Packet of information is useless if there are no software programs written to interpret the data and commands. If software has bugs, wrong interpretation can happen and computer can give wrong output.
Similarly, virus is harmless if cells are programmed to interpret message correctly.
So where is the issue with Ebola or any other virus? They are harmless. Issue is with cells. Under stress, cells sometimes do not act as per programs. Or in other words, they raises false alarms by producing more specific DNA packets i.e. Viruses.
Culprit is not dead DNA strips generated by cells but cell level stress.
Solution is not to subside viral fever or take flu vaccines. Solution is to reduce cell level stress.
The drug Tamiflu given to tens of thousands of people during the swine flu pandemic, does nothing to halt the spread of influenza and the Government wasted nearly £500 million stockpiling it, a major study has found.
The review, authored by Oxford University, claims that Roche, the drug’s Swiss manufacturer, gave a “false impression” of its effectiveness and accuses the company of “sloppy science”.
The study found that Tamiflu, which was given to 240,000 people in the UK at a rate of 1,000 a week, has been linked to suicides of children in Japan and suggested that, far from easing flu symptoms, it could actually worsen them.
Roche claimed at the time of the 2009 swine flu outbreak that trials had shown that it would reduce hospital admissions and complications such as pneumonia, bronchitis or sinusitis.
Based on the results, the Department of Health bought around 40 million doses of Tamiflu at a cost of £424 million and prescribed it to around 240,000 people. In 2009, 0.5 per cent of the entire NHS budget was spent on the drug.
However, researchers from The Cochrane Collaboration, a not-for-profit organisation which carries out reviews of health data, found that Tamiflu only cut flu-like symptoms from seven days to 6.3 days and there was no evidence of a reduction in hospital admissions.
Eight children who took the drug in Japan ended up committing suicide after suffering psychotic episodes. Other side effects included kidney problems, nausea, vomiting and headaches.
Many people reported feeling anxious or depressed when taking the drug.
Data from 20 trials of Tamiflu also suggested that it prevented some people from producing sufficient numbers of their own antibodies to fight infection.
Dr Carl Henegen, professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford, said: “This drug was given to 1,000 people a week over a phone line, but it was no better for symptom relief than over-the-counter medication — and you’re talking about potentially serious complications. I wouldn’t prescribe it to my patients.”
Dr Tom Jefferson, an epidemiologist with The Cochrane Collaboration, added: “The stuff is toxic. It increased the risk of psychiatric events, headaches and renal events in one in 150 people. People reported nausea, vomiting and constriction of the airways. In Japan eight children jumped out of windows and committed suicide.” The report’s authors said they had struggled to obtain the original trial data from Roche, which initially claimed it was confidential.
The Government began stockpiling Tamiflu in 2006 over fears about bird flu after it was approved by the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. It is not widely prescribed for regular flu.
Roche said it “fundamentally disagrees” with the latest findings.
Dr Daniel Thurley, the company’s UK medical director, added: “We disagree with the overall conclusions of this report. Roche stands behind the wealth of data for Tamiflu and the decisions of public health agencies worldwide, including the US and European Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organisation.
“The report’s methodology is often unclear and inappropriate, and their conclusions could potentially have serious public health implications. Neuraminidase inhibitors are a vital treatment option for patients with influenza.”
The Department of Health said that Tamiflu had a “proven record” of safety, quality and efficacy. But a spokesman said health officials would consider the latest Cochrane review “closely”.
The review is published .
The Tamiflu fiasco and lessons learnt
Oseltamivir (Tamiflu), a neuraminidase inhibitor, was approved for seasonal flu by US Food and Drug Administration in 1999. A number of randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis emphasized a favorable efficacy and safety profile. Majority of them were funded by Roche, which also first marketed and promoted this drug. In 2005 and 2009, the looming fear of pandemic flu led to recommendation by prominent regulatory bodies such as World Health Organization (WHO), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, European Medicines Agency and others for its use in treatment and prophylaxis of influenza, and it’s stockpiling as a measure to tide over the crisis. Serious Adverse Events, especially neuropsychiatric events associated with Tamiflu started getting reported leading to a cascade of questions on clinical utility of this drug. A recent Cochrane review and related articles have questioned the risk-benefit ratio of the drug, besides raising doubts about the regulatory decision of approving it. The recommendations for stockpiling the said drug as given by various international organizations viz WHO have also been put to scrutiny. Although many reviewers have labeled the Tamiflu saga as a “costly mistake,” the episode leaves us with some important lessons. This article takes a comprehensive relook on the subject, and we proceed to suggest some ways and means to avoid a similar situation in the future.