tamiflu...tamiflu...tamiflu..tamiflu, page-13

re: tamiflu...you guys are missing the point The key reason the Aust government is sending Tamiflu is that the Aust govt already has a very large stockpile of Tamiflu (some 3.5mill doses from memory) which it purchased before Relenza's birdflu fighting virtues were widely recognised. The govt is not going to make a special, time-consuming purchase of Relenza when it has so much Tamiflu able to be shipped at short notice.

This is partly what the $400mill litigation is all about. Glaxo was not supporting the drug at the time the Aust govt made its purchase, nor was Glaxo producing the drug at stockpile size production runs, so Aust govt purchasers naturally went for Tamiflu.

In fact, it was the CSIRO that initially established Relenza's birdflu effectivity, and not its manufacturer (Glaxo), which is a disgrace.

So the reason why Relenza was not chosen by the Aust govt when it made its big stockpile purchase has nothing to do with the effectivity of the Relenza, as some have suggested. In fact it has now been established by independant scientists that Relenza is more effective than Tamiflu (google the Lancet article for more information). But, to repeat my point, the Aust govt purchasers had no idea that Relenza was the better drug at the time they made their purchase. And so now the Aust govt only has Tamiflu to send to Indonesia, and no Relenza.

I have no doubt that if the Australian govt were to purchase its stockpile today, it would be a 50-50 mix of Relenza and Tamiflu. And as soon as Glaxo pulls its finger out (not likely until after the litigation has been resolved), it will be producing Relenza in sufficient quantities (with sufficient marketing support) to allow all future govt stockpile orders to be 50/50.