The 10 December 2009, DGS (Directorate General of Health) announced that the antiviral treatments, previously recommended only in severe cases and in people at risk, were now justified in all patients with flu. antivirals, Tamiflu but also Relenza, stored by the government, will be issued free on prescription in pharmacies, at the latest 21 December, but this measure is far from unanimous among the medical world.
the ESC, which represents 1 500 adhérents, GPs lecturers in medical schools, said he "does not recommend the routine use of antiviral drugs for suspected influenza A". He asked the DGS 'to indicate the scientific arguments and levels of evidence relied on by the sudden change of recommendation ". This objecting attitude is unusual from this instance. For Dr. Vincent Renard, Vice President of ESC : "According to data we have, the risk-benefit balance is unfavorable Tamiflu®. The benefits are not established, contrary to the side effects : Nausea and vomiting are common in adults, Sleep disorders in children. Or, if millions of patients are treated, it is the general who will have to manage adverse effects. "
For Professor Bruno Housset, chief of pulmonology department of the hospital intercommunal de Créteil and president of the French Federation of Pneumology : "The argument is not sound scientifically. I do not understand that the decision was taken without discussion with learned societies ". According to his opinion, antiviral prescription could have been systematic logic, there are three more weeks, when the circulation of the H1N1 virus was predominant compared to other respiratory viruses, but she is more at this stage of the epidemic.
Even echo of Professor Jean-Paul Stahl, head of infectious diseases department of the Grenoble University Hospital and president of the Infectious Pathology French-speaking society : "My personal opinion is that if Tamiflu has an efficiency in terms of public health, that is when there is a very high viral circulation. Today, that moment has passed ".
But the worst for the laboratory is at the same time, the 12 December 2009, the British Medical Journal published an article that concluded that this antiviral reduced by approximately one day duration of clinical symptoms and Roche accused of abusing doctors and governments on the benefits of Tamiflu.
The authors belong to the Cochrane Collaboration, independent international organization which groups 15 000 Health professionals across a hundred countries, and aims to review scientific studies to measure the effectiveness of health products. The team was led by Australian Professor Chris Del Mar and investigated ten studies cited as references by the Swiss laboratory.
Or, on the ten studies, conducted only by Roche, only two have been published in scientific journals and records of these two publications have "disappeared". En effet, researchers who were supposed to have access to records learned from the author of the first publication that he had lost the original of his work in office changing, and the other author confessed that he had not participated in the study. In truth, these authors, both employees of Adis International, an important communication company working for "Big Pharma", admitted that they wrote as "niggers" some published studies on Tamiflu. One of them confessed to BMJ it was Roche's commercial department which managed the affair Tamiflu®. "In the introduction, I had to announce that the flu was a major problem and I had to conclude that Tamiflu was the answer ".
Autrement dit, Roche is the commercial department that managed the scientific part and dictated researchers concluded clinical trials. Whatever their results, they had come to the conclusion that Tamiflu was the right response to the flu.
The only study that Cochrane Collaboration could get is an unpublished study, concerning 1 447 adults, and shows that this is no better than a placebo. For researchers Cochrane, Tamiflu ® can use the "possibly" reduce symptoms, but "there are insufficient data to see if it reduces the risk of complications in healthy adults".
For Roche laboratory, Manufacturer Tamiflu®, the publication of BMJ, is truncated because it does not take into account all the studies. "This meta-analysis was limited to healthy subjects, that are not groups which make the most of complications ". Yet it is to these groups that Tamiflu is now recommended by the World Health Organization. Otherwise, Roche said it "confirms the soundness and integrity of data demonstrating the efficacy and safety of Tamiflu® and conduct of clinical trials" and that "the studies included in the marketing authorization dossiers attest to a statistical decrease respiratory complications as Tamiflu®. »
L’association NaturalNews do not share this opinion : "When it comes to selling chemicals to treat the H1N1 swine virus, the industry has only two solutions : Vaccines and antivirals. Tamiflu® is in fact derived from a plant that is part of traditional Chinese medicine, star anise. Tamiflu® but is not a plant. This is a potentially dangerous concentration of isolated chemical components that have been hacked, and when you isolate these specific components, you lose the value and safety of the entire plant. »
However, in its search for a promising market, laboratory Roche has not stopped to this detail and claims to ten studies that have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of Tamiflu®, dont 61 % reduction of hospital admissions among those who had the flu and were being treated by their product.
Or, These studies were all conducted by the Swiss laboratory, and it is on these statements, that would be equally false and invented by Roche, many governments have decided to buy bulk of Tamiflu tablets. Thus, France has provided a stock of 4 million doses, and pharmacy of armies produced 3,3 millions, from active ingredient supplied by Roche laboratory.
Le Dr Fiona Goodlee, editor of British Medical Journal, is outraged : "The world's governments have spent billions for a drug that the scientific community is now unable to assess". She noted that the laboratory Roche has not facilitated the investigation and did not provide all the minutes of the previous scientific assessments.
While the product was far from cheered when the FDA approved it in 1999, his success began in 2003, after the SARS alert (Severe Acquired Respiratory Syndrome) and the threat of avian pandemic.
Tamiflu® reported a fortune Roche, which sold for 1,8 billion this year. The question that remains is : Why, if one believes the bank J. P. Morgan, the governments of the world have they invested about 3 billion in a drug so little useful ? Especially if it is of little use, it remains dangerous. Thus, according to FDA, its side effects can include fatal heart problems. It is therefore essential to be sure that if this drug should avoid death from the flu, Roche as claimed, we must know what is the benefit / risk balance in his favor.
Shannon Brownlee, de la New America Foundation, et Jeanne Lenzer, Investigative journalist asked the FDA if it has called for a new study to Roche to prove whether or not this drug decreased the number of more than he was causing complications. The laboratory spokesman replied that this request had not been made. Thus, neither the CDC nor the FDA requested a truly scientific investigation to determine the truth of the matter, but Nancy Cox, who heads the issue of the CDC flu, said there is already some time that it was opposed to a placebo-controlled study, because the benefits were sufficiently proven.
But the matter is now so badly managed that no one seems interested enough to conduct a new study to find out if this product may or may not save lives without destroying. It is our knowledge institutions finally to distinguish between true science and shameless greed of financial benefits. L'OMS, CDC and FDA, which have relied if the European Agencies, were careful to check only the studies conducted by the manufacturing laboratory and its employees. But, Anyway, come what may, person will never be responsible for any "reprehensible".