Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Tamiflu Hoax

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Hoax as defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous

According to a recent article, Tamiflu doesn’t prevent the flu, nor does it cure the flu once someone has it. The notion that Tamiflu has any efficacy in fighting the flu is actually the result of a well orchestrated hoax, relying on faulty science and marketing schemes, it says. This sounds familiar. The “Anthropocentric-Global-Warming-Climate-Change-Greenhouse-Gas-Effect” hoax comes to mind as well. So does the Darwinian notion of an “Undirected-Evolution-Of-A-Molecule-To-Man” hoax. The fraudulent science on all fronts, just to promote a particular fancy, is really alarming. Remember Ida and Ardi and the Piltdown Man and Haeckel’s embryos?

Tamiflu’s maker, Roche…claims there are ten studies providing Tamiflu is both safe and effective. According to the company, Tamiflu has all sorts of benefits, including a 61% reduction in hospital admissions by people who catch the flu and then get put on Tamiflu.

The problem with these claims is that they aren’t true. They were simply invented by Roche.

A groundbreaking article recently published in the British Medical Journal accuses Roche of misleading governments and physicians over the benefits of Tamiflu. Out of the ten studies cited by Roche, it turns out, only two were ever published in science journals. And where is the original data from those two studies? Lost.

The data has disappeared. Files were discarded. The researcher of one study says he never even saw the data. Roche took care of all that, he explains.

So the Cochrane Collaboration, tasked with reviewing the data behind Tamiflu, decided to investigate. After repeated requests to Roche for the original study data, they remained stonewalled. The only complete data set they received was from an unpublished study of 1,447 adults which showed that Tamiflu was no better than placebo. Data from the studies that claimed Tamiflu was effective was apparently lost forever.

Lost, like the raw data that was lost by the East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.  The parallels are uncanny. It seems that the business of science has become a science of business. If the data and evidence isn’t saying what you want it to say when you want it to say it, just say it anyway, and sell the product to the masses.

Comments
All this just goes to show what I and others have been saying for many years now - there needs to be a major public outcry against frauds in science and a major drop in public confidence is inevitable. It is a crying shame, and highly revealing, that the needed outcry and exposing of fraud in science has not not come from the scientific community itself. Business as usual - "pay no attention to the freezing man behind the curtain, trust us, we are the inscrutable unimpeachable elite of humanity and you are the 'unwashed masses'" It's getting to the point where we can repeat the adage, , usually applied to lawyers, "It's only 99% of scientists that give a bad reputation to the rest".Borne
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Did someone say climate hoax? Possible new "mini Ice Age"? http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool New deep sea measurements predicted this years cooling trends?DATCG
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
In fairness to Roche - their response... http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/dec08_3/b5374?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=tamiflu&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=date&resourcetype=HWCIT I do not know if they've made the data available yet.DATCG
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
Here is a search list by date of published articles and correspondance between BMJ and Roche. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fulltext=tamiflu&sortspec=date Two articles discuss the delays in getting good data... A review of problems and request and failures of system accountability... http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/dec08_3/b5351 And We Want Raw Data Now I've not found an article where it says data was lost, only that it has not been forthcoming as of Dec 10th. Maybe someone else can find more recent articles? Or, ask Mike Adams?DATCG
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Heinrich at 6, if you can't follow my logic, I will try to help, but don't know how much help I can be. If you read the original article, you will discover - and this is generally accepted so far as I know - that in the country where H1N1 first emerged (thousands of kilometres from the country in which it was first identified [Canada]), people can get medications from a pharmacist to relieve their symptoms without a prescribing physician who asks why this is happening. This may help poor people in important ways, but it disables the system with respect to epidemics, because disease symptoms are often the same - and remedies may be too - even if the causes are different. But if an epidemic of a new virus (or some other pathogen) is in progress, there would be no record of its course. That is the reason we don't do things that way here.O'Leary
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Mr Hayden, A follow-up article in New Scientist on the BMJ study. Most of the article lays out the story with references to the published studies, but the lead paragraphs raise the point that the use of Tamiflu in slowing an epidemic outbreak is not the same as its use against seasonal flu. I also looked at the original BMJ article but could not find anything to support the claim that the original data for the two published studies had been lost.Nakashima
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT
Just how H1N1 got into the system is a bit murky, but that’s in part because it was first identified – sort of – in a country where pharmacists are permitted to prescribe without physicians.
Sorry, I can't follow your logic. Can you explain?Heinrich
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
The thing is, there are so many of these scandals now. Just how H1N1 got into the system is a bit murky, but that's in part because it was first identified - sort of - in a country where pharmacists are permitted to prescribe without physicians. The problem with that policy is that prescriptions are often dispensed based on symptoms alone. All flu and many other illnesses cause familiar patterns of feeling rotten (= spending way too much time in the john, for example, and I do NOT mean reading the comics there). That doesn't tell us much except that the person is sick. Lab testing is essential for determining whether the disease is something new. That country didn't even realize it had an epidemic on its hands until it had become much bigger than it should have been. A lab in Winnipeg, Canada, identified the virus. I wrote about this problem here. O'Leary
January 11, 2010
January
01
Jan
11
11
2010
12:24 AM
12
12
24
AM
PDT
Again, colour me taken aback.IRQ Conflict
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
08:58 PM
8
08
58
PM
PDT
There's a lot more to this than meets the eye, but most will not swallow the red pill. The co-creator of Tamiflu, Adrian Gibbs, an Australian bio-chemist, was one of the very first to reveal, after receiving culture samples of the H1N1 flu, that the virus shows clear signs of being a "lab escape". He says this because, and I quote "...". Well! I WAS going to quote, but the article, which I had become familiar with, as now been radically altered to avoid saying what he had said. At least they acknowledge tgat the article has been "updated". It was here: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afrdATVXPEAk What Gibbs said, that now is not there, was as far as I can remember, this "there is no way for this to have occurred in nature, it is clearly a lab-escape". Regardless, the H1N1 strain is made up of Avian, Swine and Human flu, and many have now testified that this virus could not have formed in nature. On top of this, the patent for H1N1 vaccine, was granted a full 7 months before the virus appeared in the wild, on August 28, 2008. See here: http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Baxter%20Vaccine%20Patent%20Application.pdf Of course, as i said, so few are willing to accept the red pill and "follow the money" to see what might really be going on here. And that's sad. So do I think there's some massive global conspiracy here to introduce a new strain of flu and then have the vaccine ready to distribute to the govts of the world at break-neck speed, thereby creating your own big-Pharma stimulus in a dying economy? Actually yes, I do.Gods iPod
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
08:48 PM
8
08
48
PM
PDT
Shocked, and so surprised. Not.IRQ Conflict
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT
On the face of it, Roche's behavior in this matter appears to be highly questionable. Further down the article, however, there is this line:
Even if Tamiflu did work, there are Tamiflu-resistant strains of H1N1 are now circulating...
Surely this would indicate that Tamiflu does work to some extent. Why, otherwise, would a virus become resistant to an agent that has no effect on it? Why become resistant when there is nothing to resist?Seversky
January 10, 2010
January
01
Jan
10
10
2010
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply