Keep up with the news by installing RT’s extension for . Never miss a story with this clean and simple app that delivers the latest headlines to you.

 

UK wastes $900 mln on Tamiflu, other ineffective drugs on WHO recommendations

Published time: April 10, 2014 10:27
Edited time: June 27, 2014 08:25
Reuters / Nicky Loh

Reuters / Nicky Loh

The British government wasted $896 million dollars on buying two ant-flu drugs, despite their not being proven to prevent infections spreading or stop serious illness, according to scientists who spent four years studying and analyzing the medications.

Parliament's influential Public Accounts Committee (PAC) said it was "surprised and concerned" to discover that information on methods and results of clinical trials of such prescribed drugs "is routinely withheld," and said there was a "lack of consensus over how well Tamiflu ... actually works."

The government spent $712 million stockpiling Tamiflu and $228 million on Relenza as a precaution in the event of a flu pandemic. The UK took steps to buy enormous quantities of the medicines following a recommendation by the World Health Organization (WHO) in light of the 2009 outbreak of swine flu, which led to 14 deaths in Northern Ireland. Almost $3 billion was spent on the drug worldwide at the height of the pandemic.

"The case for stockpiling antiviral medicines at the current level is based on judgment rather than on evidence of their effectiveness during an influenza pandemic," said Richard Bacon, a leading member of the committee.

However, a report in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) by Cochrane Collaboration, which is a group of independent scientists who investigate how effective medicines are, brings into question just how useful Tamiflu - also known as Oseltamivir - is. Despite the vast amount of money spent, the drug does not significantly reduce the amount of time needed to fight a bout of flu. Without the medication, the time is seven days, while those taking Tamiflu felt better in 6.3 days.

The journal mentions there are some worrying side-effects from those who use the medication to tackle flu. Tamiflu, produced by Swiss company Roche, can cause psychiatric and kidney problems, while it is also linked to increased risk of headaches and vomiting. Despite only fractionally reducing the time it takes to be cured and the costs involved in stockpiling the drug, the BMJ wonders why the medicine is included on the WHO list of essential drugs.

Tom Jefferson, a researcher for Cochrane Collaboration, independent scientists who investigate how effective medicines are, wrote a series of emails to the WHO in March 2013 asking that Oseltamivir be deleted from the list, saying in one letter, “is the WHO willing to keep a drug on the essential medicines list if its only benefit is symptom reduction, similar to what we might expect in a drug like aspirin”?

The WHO never responded to Jefferson’s request, for the drug’s removal from the list.

Comments (12)

 

DoAskDoTell 10.04.2014 18:28

Bill Gates/ WHO merge => Big Scare/Delayed Poisons Monopoly on helpless guinea pigs?

Bill Gates worrying about losing his place on the top 10 whatever toilet dollar list? lol

looking for new ways to make *real* money pushing new *drugs*?

 

Peter Jennings 10.04.2014 16:27

It was never about Flu as the stuff was useless and came with other toxins and pigflu viruses. It was a scam from the start and everybody knew it apart from the UK gov't?

Maybe they fell for their own hegelian dialectic tricks or maybe they just covered their ears until their pockets were full.

 

Terry Ross 10.04.2014 15:51

The manufacturer of drug sponsored all the trials and the reviewers found evidence of publication and reporting biases. The studies did not show that Tamiflu reduced the risk of hospitalization, they were inadequate to determine effect of Tamiflu on complications or to determine if Tamiflu reduced transmission of virus.
Use of Tamiflu did reduce the duration of symptoms by about a day
Forbes: on the Cochrane Report 2013 (world’s most respected organization for synthesizing evidence and providing assessments on medical interventions)
A ttempts to get further details on the studies from the manufacturer were ignored.

View all comments (12)
Add comment

Authorization required for adding comments

Register or

Name

Password

Show password

Register

or Register

Request a new password

Send

or Register

To complete a registration check
your Email:

OK

or Register

A password has been sent to your email address

Edit profile

X

Name

New password

Retype new password

Current password

Save

Cancel

Follow us

Follow us