The Tamiflu trials have been published in the BMJ. Basically, the drug is rubbish. But very profitable when governments can be conned into stockpiling it. Some highlights from the BMJ editorial are below. Read the full articles. Spot similarities to the ISO management accreditation hoax.
“Important benefits have been overestimated and harms under-reported. In particular, the review found no compelling evidence to support claims that oseltamivir reduces the risk of complications of influenza, such as pneumonia and hospital admission, claims that were used to justify international stockpiling of the drug.”
“The review’s conclusion should lead to serious soul searching among policy makers. So too should the story behind the review, illustrating as it does the entrenched flaws in the current system. Why did no one else demand this level of scrutiny before spending such huge sums of money on one drug? And why do we have a system of drug evaluation and regulation that is incapable of providing patients, clinicians, and policy makers with timely, reliable, and independent information. Indeed, the current system seems to be designed with the opposite end in mind.
“The Cochrane authors uncovered what they characterise as “multisystem failure.” Reporting problems caused the reviewers to believe that most of the trials of oseltamivir were at high risk of bias. Important endpoints, such as pneumonia, were poorly defined. None of the trials was independent of the drug’s manufacturer. All were against placebo rather than against standard drugs for relieving symptoms, such as paracetamol. No trial was undertaken during the pandemic—a squandered opportunity that may come back to haunt us…”
“The regulators were reported to have been under political pressure to provide a pharmaceutical solution to the threat of a pandemic. The World Health Organization was reported to have been influenced by industry’s paid opinion leaders. Yet again this prompts questions as to whether the current regulatory system is fit for purpose, over stretched as it is and insufficiently independent of industry and government…”
“The Cochrane reviewers’ exceptional efforts have achieved what should have been a matter of routine—the independent scrutiny of deindentified clinical trial data. They have shown with greater clarity than ever that the current system is broken. There are substantial battles still to fight before we have a system of drug evaluation and regulation that truly serves patients and the public interest.”
ISO accreditation is a similar plausible, pseudo-scientific scam. It starts with a bad ISO standard to make all management inspectable. It requires victims to pay para-State assessors to pick holes in what they do according to a standard designed to be vague for this purpose. This is like employing corrupt cops or indoctrinated colleagues that find crime where there is none. Unlike many countries with bad cops, there are no courts in which the assessors’ evidence – which is often simply opinion – can be tried.
Good laws are specific and predictable. Good courts throw out bad interpretations of the law. In a free country, everything that is not illegal is permissible. With a hunger for income and influence, Britain has contradicted centuries of developing jurisprudence by using the vague BSI/ISO management standards to support the employment of inspectors who bring no proven benefit. The standards operate as a semi-voluntary, semi-legal protection racket. They are commercially coercive; not law yet backed by law.
We need doctors and scientists to publish data on the effectiveness of accreditation that can eventually be assessed to Cochrane standards with appropriate assessment for bias.