Before you take your Tami-flu...(or anything else)

[diamondseeker2006]

This article is a few years old but it is in Newsweek which is a mainstream publication. I've read a good bit lately from various sources about problems with Tami-flu, not to mention the poor effectiveness of the flu vaccine. I am not interested in debating it, but this well represents my skepticism about following along blindly to any recommendations of drugs and vaccines. I prefer to know the true science (risk and benefits), and many times, it is withheld. Not to mention, some in the CDC are biased because they profit from drug companies, personally. That's a whole other topic, though. I never assume the greater good is the true motive when money is lining the pockets of those who are pushing the meds. Greed is.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/21/medical-science-has-data-problem-284066.html

 

[arkieb1]

We had one of the worse flu seasons ever here in Australia winter time just gone, people that got the flu vaccine died because they were not covered for the strains that were killing people, scientists admit they misjudged which ones to put into them. My Mother's cousin's wife died from the flu and she was only in her late 60s to early 70s - in the 20th century that shouldn't happen.

 

[whitewave]

Viruses can and do kill people in the 20th century. Medical science will never be able to eradicate them all. Medical science also cannot eradicate or prevent the cytokine storm that happens with the flu in some people that kills them.

The flu vaccine is about 35% effective in the US (it was 10% effective in Australia this year).

 

[lyra]

I believe those numbers refer to effectiveness against the most virulent(?) strain for this year. You still get some immunity from other strains which are also circulating. It is a gamble, but I don't even have a choice, I have to get the flu vaccine as an immuno suppressed individual. Everyone around me has to get it too. I haven't had the flu since I was a child, but if I got it today I could very well end up in the hospital or worse. You still get some effectiveness even if they don't guess the proper strain for the year. Even a small percentage or even 50-50 is better than nothing for those at risk.

 

[tyty333]

Well, thats a pretty scary side effect of tamiflu.

About the article, my SIL is a nurse. She said about 20 years ago or so Drs. pushed certain drugs because they got kick backs. She thinks it still goes
on today its just not as blatant as it use to be.

Sad that companies dont publish the results of clinical trials that dont turn out the way they want. Does sound like there is still valuable info to be learned
from the results and the information gathered. Seems like if we (the government), provides any money towards the trial than it should be with the
understanding that it will be published no matter what.

 

[whitewave]

Well, thats a pretty scary side effect of tamiflu.

About the article, my SIL is a nurse. She said about 20 years ago or so Drs. pushed certain drugs because they got kick backs. She thinks it still goes
on today its just not as blatant as it use to be.

Sad that companies dont publish the results of clinical trials that dont turn out the way they want. Does sound like there is still valuable info to be learned
from the results and the information gathered. Seems like if we (the government), provides any money towards the trial than it should be with the
understanding that it will be published no matter what.

No. Kickbacks are completely against the law and have been since the early 2000s-- not even Pens or trips either. It all ended right as DH was entering private practice. He has never seen one dime, one pen, nothing..... (as it should be)

 

[whitewave]

I believe those numbers refer to effectiveness against the most virulent(?) strain for this year. You still get some immunity from other strains which are also circulating. It is a gamble, but I don't even have a choice, I have to get the flu vaccine as an immuno suppressed individual. Everyone around me has to get it too. I haven't had the flu since I was a child, but if I got it today I could very well end up in the hospital or worse. You still get some effectiveness even if they don't guess the proper strain for the year. Even a small percentage or even 50-50 is better than nothing for those at risk.

This is very true and for some people (even healthy ones), that vaccine or Tamiflu will be the difference between life and death.

The psychosis link to Tamiflu is very rare.... as the article mentions, the risk of dying from the flu is greater than a rare side effect from Tamiflu. (But if you are that one person, none of the rest matters).


All pharmaceuticals and medical procedures are taken on a risk vs benefit scale to be determined by patient and doctor.....

 

[VRBeauty]

The flu has reached epidemic levels in California. A story published in the LA Times today cites 127 flu deaths in Los Angelos and San Diego counties alone. (These counties together account for about 1/3 of California's total population. Statewide flu death numbers aren't readily as for some reason the state and gathers flu death statistics only four people under 65 years of age.) I have first-hand experience with how virulent this year's flu can be. I think I caught it at a small Christmas Eve gathering - three of the four guests came down with the flu about the same time - and managed to pass it on to my brother and sister-in-law before I realized I was sick. My brother and SIL, by the way, knew a woman who died as a result of this year's flu. She was 42 years old.

The Newsweek story is sobering, and to this lay reader, at least, it does point to the need for more transparency in how drugs are tested and approved.

I found it interesting that in all of the examples of psychotic responses to tamiflu given in the article, the patients were teenagers or younger. Teenagers are also known to be more at risk for psychotic responses, including suicide, to some anti-depressants and other psychiatric drugs... and the Newsweek article mentioned that Tamiflu works in part by changing some reactions in the brain. I hope someone is studying whether and why the teenage brain seems to be more susceptible to psychotic responses to these types of medications... and whether medication protocol should changed to reflect this. But as the article also suggests, economic interests can influence both what gets researched and what's reported.

 

[tyty333]

No. Kickbacks are completely against the law and have been since the early 2000s-- not even Pens or trips either. It all ended right as DH was entering private practice. He has never seen one dime, one pen, nothing..... (as it should be)

Why you telling me "No"? I have only told you what she told me about her experiences.

 

[tyty333]

VRBeauty - That's what scares me about this years flu. Seems like healthy adults are dying from the flu in a short time span (24-48 hrs of being admitted).
I know this probably happens to a few people every year and we just dont hear about it. I was just hearing yesterday that we (the US) is running low on
IV bags due to the hurricane. Some hospitals are scrambling to locate bags so it doesnt hinder treating flu patients.

 

[partgypsy]

Tyty33, you are correct it used to be that drug and other companies could do research, and then not publish the studies that were not favorable, or not significant. That's not true anymore in the US. Any trial that is government-funded, as well as clinical trials involving U.S. Food and Drug Administration-regulated drug, biological and device products, have to register before collecting data, about the design, what is being tested, what are the independent and dependent variables, and then after the study is complete, the data needs to be reported. This is a good development.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...more-information-about-clinical-trials-public

The flu this year is no joke. My nephew is healthy in his mid twenties but was extremely ill and missed weeks of work. He missed all of Christmas. My brother (his Dad) was shocked when he saw him, he lost so much weight. He's now back to work but still recovering.

 

[VRBeauty]

Thank you for that update, partgypsy. That is good to know! I'm glad your nephew is recovering from his bout of the flu.

 

[tyty333]

Tyty33, you are correct it used to be that drug and other companies could do research, and then not publish the studies that were not favorable, or not significant. That's not true anymore in the US. Any trial that is government-funded, as well as clinical trials involving U.S. Food and Drug Administration-regulated drug, biological and device products, have to register before collecting data, about the design, what is being tested, what are the independent and dependent variables, and then after the study is complete, the data needs to be reported. This is a good development.

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/new...more-information-about-clinical-trials-public

The flu this year is no joke. My nephew is healthy in his mid twenties but was extremely ill and missed weeks of work. He missed all of Christmas. My brother (his Dad) was shocked when he saw him, he lost so much weight. He's now back to work but still recovering.

That is good to know partgypsy...so glad your nephew is doing better. Like I said, frightening.

 

[partgypsy]

It is frightening! I haven't had the flu this year, but I got something, and have had over a week of, GI stuff going on. And I normally have an iron stomach.

 

[whitewave]

Why you telling me "No"? I have only told you what she told me about her experiences.

It doesn't happen. They are VERY strict on this...

She speculated on it. Based on before 20 years ago she would be right, but no longer.

If she honestly thinks it is happening, she needs to report the doctor to the state attorney general for prosecution.

 

[tyty333]

It doesn't happen. They are VERY strict on this...

She speculated on it. Based on before 20 years ago she would be right, but no longer.

If she honestly thinks it is happening, she needs to report the doctor to the state attorney general for prosecution.

I didnt know you knew my SIL! Small world. I mean, you must know her right to be so sure of your answer.

I'm glad you have so much faith in the medical industry. I for one do not.

Cheers!

Edit...oh gosh WW, I just google "kickbacks" and well, it is still happening. I guess these are the ones
that are being reported I bet we'll be able to google next year and find more that are going on this
year.

 

[lyra]

Getting back to the Tamiflu, it's definitely not something I would ask for, ever. If I was in the hospital and a doctor said I needed it, okay. Everything I've read about it today makes it seem like it doesn't do very much, but it MIGHT help in extreme cases, and it's usually people over 65. There is also a similar but slightly different anti-viral that is inhaled. It has it's own set of side effects, but psychosis is not on the list.

 

[House Cat]

I’m really put off by the fact that they are now giving Tamiflu for instances of normal flu as a means for shortening the length of symptoms. It used to be given to high risk groups or severe flu cases only.

I remember the first year H1N1 came onto the scene. Children with asthma and the elderly were dying. Of course, my immunosuppressed child with asthma got H1N1. I got him to the doctor at the first sign of fever. He never gets a fever because of his suppressed immune system. The doc gave him Tamiflu and we were able to avoid tragedy. My son was still very sick for two weeks...but he didn’t have to be admitted to the hospital.

Tamiflu has its place but I don’t believe that it should be prescribed for the common flu. That is where I see greed taking over.

 

[lyra]

@House Cat , I'm glad your son did well on it. That would be considered appropriate usage of the drug. That is the protocol here.

I remember my youngest daughter didn't get her flu shot that year that H1N1 hit hard. She got so sick! The rest of us had our vaccines and none of us got sick. I think that was 9 or 10 years ago? I don't think I'd survive at all if I got as sick as my daughter did back then. I'm okay with being a hermit and staying away from people.

 

[VRBeauty]

Based on what I've been reading, I think this year's flu qualifies as a "not ordinary" flu.
http://m.sfgate.com/healthredesign/article/Flu-kills-San-Jose-mom-40-who-liked-to-run-12499691.php

 

[House Cat]

Based on what I've been reading, I think this year's flu qualifies as a "not ordinary" flu.
http://m.sfgate.com/healthredesign/article/Flu-kills-San-Jose-mom-40-who-liked-to-run-12499691.php

Yes, I agree.

I am referring to last year’s commercial that advertised Tamiflu for the basic flu. Honestly, I jumped out of my seat. I knew this drug was used for extreme cases.

Using Tamiflu this year would be prudent.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

No. Kickbacks are completely against the law and have been since the early 2000s-- not even Pens or trips either. It all ended right as DH was entering private practice. He has never seen one dime, one pen, nothing..... (as it should be)

It doesn't happen. They are VERY strict on this...

She speculated on it. Based on before 20 years ago she would be right, but no longer.

If she honestly thinks it is happening, she needs to report the doctor to the state attorney general for prosecution.

It definitely does happen, but they are not necessarily called kickbacks. They are called bonuses. They are given by insurance companies for giving a list of vaccines by a certain age. Some of them definitely could be opted out of, and the doctor loses the bonus if the parent opts out of one. I personally know of pediatrician practices who will not take a patient who even wants to spread out the vaccines so fewer are given at one time or even omit one vaccine such as the flu vaccine. I think that's good information to know, because I certainly would never take my child to a doctor who wasn't looking out for each child's best interests instead of protecting his bonus.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508536/

https://www.askdrsears.com/topics/h...incentive-get-their-patients-fully-vaccinated

http://www.bcbst.com/docs/providers...ity_Incentive_Program_Letter_to_Providers.pdf

 

[whitewave]

It definitely does happen, but they are not necessarily called kickbacks. They are called bonuses. They are given by insurance companies for giving a list of vaccines by a certain age. Some of them definitely could be opted out of, and the doctor loses the bonus if the parent opts out of one. I personally know of pediatrician practices who will not take a patient who even wants to spread out the vaccines so fewer are given at one time or even omit one vaccine such as the flu vaccine. I think that's good information to know, because I certainly would never take my child to a doctor who wasn't looking out for each child's best interests instead of protecting his bonus.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508536/

https://www.askdrsears.com/topics/h...incentive-get-their-patients-fully-vaccinated

http://www.bcbst.com/docs/providers...ity_Incentive_Program_Letter_to_Providers.pdf

The first article is from 1999. The second doesn't have a date and the third is an insurance company working with a doctor to get their members vaccinated, not a kickback from "big pharma"....

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The first article is from 1999.

Yes, and the letter from BCBS listing the bonuses is 2015.

 

[House Cat]

It definitely does happen, but they are not necessarily called kickbacks. They are called bonuses. They are given by insurance companies for giving a list of vaccines by a certain age. Some of them definitely could be opted out of, and the doctor loses the bonus if the parent opts out of one. I personally know of pediatrician practices who will not take a patient who even wants to spread out the vaccines so fewer are given at one time or even omit one vaccine such as the flu vaccine. I think that's good information to know, because I certainly would never take my child to a doctor who wasn't looking out for each child's best interests instead of protecting his bonus.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508536/

https://www.askdrsears.com/topics/h...incentive-get-their-patients-fully-vaccinated

http://www.bcbst.com/docs/providers...ity_Incentive_Program_Letter_to_Providers.pdf

In contrast, some parents may want to take their babies to these pediatricians so that they won’t risk exposing their infants and children to deadly diseases such as measles and whooping cough.

I think it’s all a matter of where we see the risk/danger and how we want to protect our children.

 

[whitewave]

I didnt know you knew my SIL! Small world. I mean, you must know her right to be so sure of your answer.

I'm glad you have so much faith in the medical industry. I for one do not.

Cheers!

Edit...oh gosh WW, I just google "kickbacks" and well, it is still happening. I guess these are the ones
that are being reported I bet we'll be able to google next year and find more that are going on this
year.

Like I said, it is against the law and she needs to report it, which she can likely do anonymously. It is obviously speculation on her part, as I will go out on a limb and say unless she is breaking into his office at night or is computing foresencially his bank accounts, she doen't know for sure...

Now, some doctors are EMPLOYED by pharmacy companies, as in the case of research doctors at teaching institutions... this is how new drugs are created.

 

[whitewave]

Yes, and the letter from BCBS listing the bonuses is 2015.

You were originally talking about kick backs from pharmacy companies. The bcbs thing is working with a doctor to get at risk populations vaccinated. That is not the same thing.

Yes. In 1999 and before, there were perks, and kick backs and trips etc from pharmacy companies.


FWIW, I wouldn't take my kids when they were little to any pediatrician who allowed patients to not vaccinate.

Oh, and I checked my husband's name on the pro publica website and in 2015, he received $58.00 from a drug company for food (likely a bought lunch at a conference)... that was the only entry.

 

[whitewave]

Check your doctor here: https://projects.propublica.org/docdollars/

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You were originally talking about kick backs from pharmacy companies. The bcbs thing is working with a doctor to get at risk populations vaccinated. That is not the same thing.

Yes. In 1999 and before, there were perks, and kick backs and trips etc from pharmacy companies.


FWIW, I wouldn't take my kids when they were little to any pediatrician who allowed patients to not vaccinate.

Oh, and I checked my husband's name on the pro publica website and in 2015, he received $58.00 from a drug company for food (likely a bought lunch at a conference)... that was the only entry.

I never mentioned kickbacks from pharmacy companies.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

In contrast, some parents may want to take their babies to these pediatricians so that they won’t risk exposing their infants and children to deadly diseases such as measles and whooping cough.

I think it’s all a matter of where we see the risk/danger and how we want to protect our children.

I am not talking about people who refuse to vaccinate. I am talking about parents who wisely, in my opinion, out of caution, choose to spread out the vaccines so that fewer are given at one time, since studies have not been done on the multiple vaccines given in the current schedule. Few babies need Hep B at birth, for example. Your baby can't catch Hep B from mine because mine has zero possibility of having Hep B. There's no risk to my child or others for me to delay that shot.