Tamiflu is bad
more from info
Nov 23, 05

If you are considering taking Tamiflu, you might want to reconsider:

  1. If you take Tamiflu after you have contracted the flu, it will shorten the period of symptoms by 1 to 2 days, so instead of being sick for 7 days you might be sick for 5 days
  2. If you begin taking Tamiflu before you have contracted the flu, it might prevent you from getting the flu altogether, but it's not guaranteed and it might mean you take Tamiflu for up to 6 weeks
  3. It has a number of side effects, many of them extremely serious
  4. A number of deaths have been blamed on Tamiflu usage, although Roche denies any relationship
  5. Young people (teens and earlier) should pretty much avoid Tamiflu altogether due to the high risk of problems and symptoms

My research process started when I heard an investigative reporter on the radio discussing Tamiflu. He said that it's really bad for most people, and doesn't offer much help anyway. At best, it might prevent you from getting the flu, but the company doesn't say how effective it is at flu prevention (leaving us to wonder if it does a good job at all...), and you'll probably have side effects (keep reading). At worst (and probably the most likely scenario), you'll get the flu first, and then you'll start taking Tamiflu, and by doing so you will risk serious side effects and - at best - shorten your flu exposure by 1 or 2 days. But the reporter also discussed the links to neurological problems, and said that there are a number of deaths blamed on Tamiflu. Of course, the company says it's safe, and so the FDA. So what do you do? Who do you trust?

I found the full product info on Tamiflu at Roche's website here: http://www.rocheusa.com/products/tamiflu/pi.pdf This seemed like a good place to start. No suprise, the product info is a boring, detailed document with a bunch of crap in it. Mostly uninteresting. But a few things really jumped out:

  • When Tamiflu was administered to lab rats (1000 mg/kg dosage), they found that 14-day old rats did fine, but 7-day old rats died. When they looked at the brains of the dead, 7-day old rats, they found concentrations of the drug 1500 times higher than in adult rats (page 11).
  • They did not do any testing on human children younger than 1 year of age, because it killed the young rats and they didn't know enough about the "blood-brain barrier" in humans (page 11).
  • In a study of people without the flu, the known side-efffects that occurred in 1% or more of the study participants include: Nausea, Vomiting, Diarrhea, Abdominal pain, Dizziness, Headache, Cough, Insomnia, Fatigue. (page 12, Table 3 under "Prophylaxis")
  • There are other side effects that occurred in less than 1.0% of the participants, but I didn't list them all here.
  • Some of these side effects affected large numbers of people: 20.1% reported Headache, 7.9% reported Fatigue, 7.0% reported Nausea (page 12, Table 3 under "Prophylaxis")
  • If 40,000,000 million people in the United States take Tamiflu, that would mean 8,040,000 people with Headache, 3,160,000 with Fatigue, and 2,800,000 with Nausea.
  • In children aged 1 to 12 years, the side effects are different and occur in different numbers. 15.0% reported Vomiting, 9.5% reported Diarrhea, somewhere between 8.7% and 16.2 % (cannot determine the exact number from their data) reported problems with their ears or sinusus (8.7% Otitis media + 3.1% Epistaxis + 1.7% Ear disorder + 1.7% Sinusitis + 1.0% Tympanic membrane disorder; so if each child experiences only one of these symptoms, just add up all the numbers to get 16.2%, otherwise assume lower bound of 8.7% all children experienced Otitis and possibly one other symptom) (page 13)
  • Other reactions that have been reported to Roche (but did not occur during any study) include seizure, arrhythmia (a serious problem that can lead to heart disease, stroke or heart attack), toxic epidermal necrolysis (a life-threatening skin disorder), hepatitis (page 14)
  • In Japan, they are reporting that Tamiflu causes impaired consciousness and hallucinations in teenagers, sometimes resulting in death
  • Bearing in mind the reported links between hallucinations and Tamiflu, the Tamiflu documentation says there are reports of "confusion" and "seizure" but they do not offer any more information (page 14). "Seizure" is pretty clear, but what does "confusion" mean? Should we be concerned? How many people reported this? They make no mention of the rates of occurrence (not too suprising, they barely say anything about this at all), but let's just make a wild guess that 0.01% of the population experiences "confusion or seizure". If 40,000,000 people in the United States take Tamiflu (this estimate is intentionlally low, the actual number of flu doses will be much higher), that would put 4,000 people in the "confusion or seizure" bucket. [Note: I realize this is conjecture, but I think it is highly likely that Roche has only provided as much information as is required by law, and nothing else. For serious reports such as seizure, arrythmia, and hepatitis, they should give us an indication of how many people are affected; without that information from Roche, I reserve the right to make guesses and discuss them here.]
  • Those who stand to benefit the most are the pharmaceutical companies - it's not the people, because you can still contract the flu even if you're taking Tamiflu, and if you already caught it then you're still going to be sick even if you take Tamiflu. However, it is Roche itself who tells us that Tamiflu is good for us, that we should pay for and take their drug. Isn't that odd? We've got potentially 4,000 people who will have a seizure as a result of Tamiflu, but the company says to pay for it and take it.

This whole situation makes me wonder why people treat drug companies like trusted, unbiased, neutral information sources. They are none of these. They are in fact very biased and absolutely not neutral: they are in the business of selling drugs, and they'll do their best to convince you to buy them. All businesses work this way. Drive this car, it's the coolest! Eat this food, it's the tastiest! Wear these clothes so you can look your coolest! It's all marketing and advertising. The interesting thing is that people see the advertisements from drug companies and seem more willing to trust those than, say, ads from Wendy's telling you to eat their new Triple Double Cheeseburger. People obviously make their own choice about the burger, but they're totally fine to trust the pharmaceutical company. Isn't it clear that they're both advertisements?

Sources