Tamiflu Hoax
| January 10, 2010 | Posted by Clive Hayden under Culture, Darwinism, Evolution, Science |
Hoax as defined by Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:
: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
According to a recent article, Tamiflu doesn’t prevent the flu, nor does it cure the flu once someone has it. The notion that Tamiflu has any efficacy in fighting the flu is actually the result of a well orchestrated hoax, relying on faulty science and marketing schemes, it says. This sounds familiar. The “Anthropocentric-Global-Warming-Climate-Change-Greenhouse-Gas-Effect” hoax comes to mind as well. So does the Darwinian notion of an “Undirected-Evolution-Of-A-Molecule-To-Man” hoax. The fraudulent science on all fronts, just to promote a particular fancy, is really alarming. Remember Ida and Ardi and the Piltdown Man and Haeckel’s embryos?
Tamiflu’s maker, Roche…claims there are ten studies providing Tamiflu is both safe and effective. According to the company, Tamiflu has all sorts of benefits, including a 61% reduction in hospital admissions by people who catch the flu and then get put on Tamiflu.
The problem with these claims is that they aren’t true. They were simply invented by Roche.
A groundbreaking article recently published in the British Medical Journal accuses Roche of misleading governments and physicians over the benefits of Tamiflu. Out of the ten studies cited by Roche, it turns out, only two were ever published in science journals. And where is the original data from those two studies? Lost.
The data has disappeared. Files were discarded. The researcher of one study says he never even saw the data. Roche took care of all that, he explains.
So the Cochrane Collaboration, tasked with reviewing the data behind Tamiflu, decided to investigate. After repeated requests to Roche for the original study data, they remained stonewalled. The only complete data set they received was from an unpublished study of 1,447 adults which showed that Tamiflu was no better than placebo. Data from the studies that claimed Tamiflu was effective was apparently lost forever.
Lost, like the raw data that was lost by the East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. The parallels are uncanny. It seems that the business of science has become a science of business. If the data and evidence isn’t saying what you want it to say when you want it to say it, just say it anyway, and sell the product to the masses.
42 Responses to Tamiflu Hoax
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Scurvy – caused by a deficiency of vitamin C.
Beriberi – caused by a deficiency of Vitamin B1.
Pellagra – majorly caused by a deficiency of vitamin B3.
These and other diseases share common symptoms and syndromes with polio (in cases where symptoms manifest themselves), but no microbe has ever been pinpointed as the culprit. Healing has always come on the heels of nutritional deficit reversals. The question is, has there been any studies that looked at the possible connection between the incidence of polio cases and such nutritional disorders, and whether the introduction of better and effective food delivery systems had any role in reducing polio, insofar as the “polio-like” medical signs are concerned ?
Lenoxus:
“Would this Tamiflu scandal perhaps not have occurred if scientists had only considered non-naturalistic hypotheses for the origin and spread of diseases?”
I don’t think methodology is in question here. It has more to do with attitude, professional arrogance, exclusivity, and the restrictive powers and dangers of consensus thinking. Factors that should also be looked out for in the “non-naturalist” camp, or any other line of thinking.
To continue in the same vein, what happened to smallpox?
Wikipedia,
I remember from my schooldays, Pirquet testing every year. Negative’s would be vaccinated. After vaccination, the Pirquet test usually would be positive.
My question then is: Was the presence of TBC antibodies, which I presume is quite an effective protection against contracting the disease, not a result of the vaccination?
I decided to do some fact checking. Googling ‘flu deaths global’ took me to the WHO’s webpage where they write
(emphasis added)
So I’m even more curious about where Mrs. O’Leary got her figures from.
Leviathan at 23 and Seversky at 24, I would never assume that the reported causes of death are the same as actual ones.
Many people die with no reported cause of death, or no seriously examined one.
Flu stalks vulnerable people, whose immune system is already compromised.
If it kills many people in Canada (where we have a reasonably competent health system for emergencies), I must suppose it does so elsewhere – especially where one might question the health care policies (self-prescription, non-scientific medicine, etc.).
Admittedly, I don’t know how many people die of various flus but I doubt anyone does know, and it is likely much higher than reported.
I don’t have a problem with the vaccines. They either work or they don’t.
What? So why do so many healthy people get flu? Perhaps you didn’t read my post @24, where I quoted an epidemiologist:
Back to Mrs. O’Leary
On what basis are you making the claim that the statistics are underestimates? Do you have a reason to suggest that the methods used are underestimates?
Hi all. Glad to be here.
This is in reference to iPod’s comments regarding the “lab escape.” This is crazy. I didn’t know about that tidbit at all. Sadly, neither has anyone in my immediate family or circle of friends, at least the ones I’ve asked.
I am really disgusted in how the major news networks are handling this or any other such controversies. At the same time, I am glad for websites like UD, which are not in the business of stifling information, however uncomfortable they may seem to our sensibilities or preconceived notions. Hopefully other people will become aware of the Truth as long as dissent is given a wider voice.
Heinrich at 35, many regions simply do not have reliable statistics because they do not have lab results (to begin with).
That is how swine flu became a ‘demic in Mexico.
Estimates can be way over or way under. In a panic, who knows?
My best guess is that – because flu commonly (not always) targets people who were expected to die anyway in a couple of years – it is an underreported cause of death.
Yes, some young people get H1N1 and die – we’ve had that here – but it is not the pattern.
Anyway, get your shots.
Added: Here’s some stuff on reported deaths from 2003. It will probably rise significantly due to the aging of the population.
Mrs. O’Leary, with all due respect, are you aware of the saying in psychology that common sense is not enough? Often our common sense is simply wrong on a variety of topics. Saying that you doubt something in one instance simply because of your subjective experiences does not mean that it occurs exactly the same, or even differently, in another instance. Investigation is needed, especially when reporting it to masses via journalism.
This is not a personal attack, but merely an observation.
Leviathan at 40, just roll up your sleeve and get the shot, okay?
I am merely making an observation: On the whole, it is better for people – especially older people – to get flu shots than not to get them.
I have little faith in statistics whose provenance I do not know; much more in practical prevention.
You cannot know when or how your health may be compromised. It could happen in a situation you did not expect and could not predict.
Leviathan,
I have a degree in psychology, and I must agree with you that time and again researchers show that human common sense is often way off base.
But science is based on logic, which relies in part on common sense assumptions, such as principles of symmetry. It’s kind of a philosophical conundrum.