what a surprise, page-13

had a gutful of this Recent report like so many out of the states.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2003200920_health16n.html

And this is my reply to him.


Mr Schwarzen

Best you look at this recent research and note that www.hhs.gov recommends Relenza as it least likely to allow a virus to develop resistance. But hey what you don’t know you can’t report or is it just ignorance.

In a corresponding release by Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention entitled “Public Health Emergency Preparedness
Cooperative Agreement, Follow –up Questions and Answers: Second Set”
(http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/coopagreement/pdf/fy06guidance_qa2.pdf), the
order intention is clarified and elaborated as follows:


“Once all of the current Flu procurements are delivered, The SNS (Strategic
National Stockpile) will reflect 85% Tamiflu and 15 % Relenza. The current goal
with future procurements is to bring that ratio to 80/20. Theoretically, there is
less risk of resistance with Relenza compared to Tamiflu”


Recent research 5th August 2006 backs this claim up.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16891631&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

In summary,

This study showed that if the flu virus develops resistance to Relenza it becomes a very weak, useless virus that is harmless, cannot kill and cannot spread. They tried and tried to make a flu virus that was both resistant to Relenza and strong enough to cause disease but they couldn't. On the other hand, many flu viruses that become resistant to Tamiflu are still quite capable of killing and spreading. The scientists found it very easy to make flu viruses that were both resistant to Tamiflu and strong enough to cause disease.

Regards