Very interesting essay here, and although it’s disturbing, it is not surprising.

I’m not sure how Roches convinced doctors and the public of the leap connecting Tamiflu with H1N1 flu treatment. I started looking for published studies last summer during the peak of the hype on what effect (if any) Tamiflu has on H1N1. In September ’09, I wrote an essay (The Ethical Nag: Marketing Ethics for the Easily Swayed) called: “Stock Market Tip: How To Profit From The Swine Flu Scare” – http://ethicalnag.org/2009/09/14/swine-flu/

For example:

“Jim Cramer, the nightly face of ‘Mad Money’ on CNBC, suggests that stock market investors should climb aboard the gravy train that’s headed for big drug company profits thanks to anti-viral drugs. “Who do I think is the swine flu winner?” is his rhetorical query. “Gilead, a biotech company that developed Tamiflu in 1999. Gilead gets 80% of its sales from its fabulous HIV franchise. But it also earns royalties on the sales of Tamiflu.”

“This is apparently how stockbrokers talk – referring to the HIV virus and accompanying drug sale profits as a “fabulous franchise”.

“Although researchers in the U.K. are already warning that Tamiflu will be useless agains H1N1 if the virus strain mutates (as flu viruses are annoyingly prone to do), nervous governments worldwide have started stockpiling the drug.”

Roche, like all drugmakers, is in the business of creating profits for their shareholders, and of course that is why there were substantial “difficulties” in getting Roche to cooperate with the Cochrane reviewers. It is not in the best interests of Big Pharma to suddenly start telling the truth, to stop withholding negative results, or to cease their “obstructive” techniques. Nor will they ever, until Big Government becomes as savvy as Big Pharma.

I like to think it’s happening, slowly, but it is truly discouraging, isn’t it?

I enjoy your blog tremendously.
cheers,
Carolyn