Now you're getting it.
Well done, most people would read that and believe it without question.
And if you scroll to the bottom of the page: "ConsumerAffairs is not a government agency. Companies displayed may pay us to be Authorized or when you click a link, call a number or fill a form on our site."
Also: "Further testing of the dual-mutant variant showed that it was 16 times less susceptible to Tamiflu"
Tamiflu is another dangerous and ineffective pharma drug.
https://www.cochrane.org/news/tamiflu-and-relenza-getting-full-evidence-pictureSince 2002, governments around the world have spent billions of dollars stockpiling neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) such as Tamiflu® (oseltamivir) and Relenza® (zanamivir) in anticipation of an influenza pandemic. Thistrendincreased dramatically following the outbreak of the H1N1 virus (swine flu) in April 2009. It was initially believed that NIs would reduce hospital admissions and complications of influenza, such as pneumonia, during influenza pandemics. However, the original evidence presented to government agencies around the world was incomplete, raising questions about the accuracy of these claims and theefficacyof both preparations. An international team of researchers, based in Australia, Italy, Japan, the UK, and the US, working with theCochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group, expanded their research beyond the typical systematic review analysis, which focused on using published trial reports available in scientific journals. These reported on only a small percentage of the research carried out on theeffectivenessof NIs. Over the last six years, following publication of the first Cochrane Reviews of oseltamivir and zanamivir, the Cochrane NI Research Group has accessed and reviewed more than 160,000 pages of regulatory documents in order to examine the full evidence picture.
The latest updated Cochrane Review, published on 10 April 2014, is based on full internal reports of 20 Tamiflu and 26 Relenza trials. These trials involved more than 24,000 people and the findings challenge the historical assumption that NIs are effective in combating influenza. The review confirms small benefits on symptom relief, namely shortening duration of symptoms by half a day on average. However, there is little evidence to support any belief that use of NIs reduces hospital admission or the risk of developing confirmed pneumonia. The evidence also suggests that there are insufficient grounds to support the use of NIs in preventing the person-to-person spread of influenza.
This latest Cochrane Review has benefited from access to more complete reports of the original research, now made available by the manufacturers, Roche and GlaxoSmithKline. Along with documenting evidence of harms from use of NIs, the review raises the question of whether global stockpiling of the drugs is still justifiable given the lack of reliable evidence to support the original claims of its benefits.
Dr David Tovey, Editor-in-Chief ofThe Cochrane Library, commenting on the release of the updated Cochrane Review, said: “We now have the most robust, comprehensive review on neuraminidase inhibitors that exists. Initially thought to reduce hospitalisations and serious complications from influenza, the review highlights that [NIs are] not proven to do this, and it also seems to lead to harmful effects that were not fully reported in the original publications. This shows the importance of ensuring that trial data are transparent and accessible.”
So this latest flu variant (invention?) doesn't respond to Tamiflu, but then Tamiflu turns out to be next to useless anyway so I'm not sure what to make of the Consumer Affairs article, I'm fairly confident it's safe to ignore it.
