It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CDC Engaged in Anti-Viral Favoritism?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   
The CDC (Center for Disease Control) recently advised doctors against prescribing amantadine and ramantadine, urging them instead to prescribe tamiflu. The CDC claims that lab results indicate 90% of flu samples were resistant to the two drugs.



www.cbsnews.com...

CDC officials took the unusual step of calling a Saturday news conference to announce that the predominant strain this season — the type A H3N2 influenza strain — was resistant to the older drugs.

"Clinicians should not use rimantadine and amantadine ... because the drugs will not be effective," said CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding.

She said the lab tests, which CDC scientists had been analyzing since Friday, surprised health officials and the health agency rushed to get the word out.


Now, for the sake of context, the two drugs named by the CDC as ineffective are both available as a low cost, generic alternative to more expensive anti-virals, while tamiflu is exhorbitantly expensive, and cannot (to my knowledge) be purchased in generic form.

Add in the fact that powerful, influential members of the American government realize profits based on tamiflu sales, and I'd say there's something to discuss. Could elements of the CDC have manipulated the lab results at the behest of Rummy or one of his pals? Does this press release stink of marketting? It does to me...

Any thoughts?




posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   
Is it not just possible that the new flu virus is resistant to the old drugs? It happens quite often. That's why you have to swtich some people from penicillin to ampicillin or streptomycin, the bacterial strains are resistant, much as some viruses become resistant to certain drugs. There have been some agreements between some Eastern European and Central Asian , as well as a few American drug manufacturers to produce generic Tamiflu in the event of a pandemic. So why would Roche allow this to happen in a situation where they would make the most money? I suppose you could say for PR, but wouldn't better PR be to lower the general price of the drug year round? Or give lower costs to the elderly and children? I'm not talking about a dramatic price cut, just lowering it slightly, but making sure to get it into the media so that everyone thinks "Roche is really looking out for the little guy".

www.alertnet.org...

Seems to me that the idea of the CDC playing "anti-viral favoritism" is a bit far fetched and full of holes.

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   


Is it not just possible that the new flu virus is resistant to the old drugs?


Sure, that's a possibility. In fact I'd say that's probably the case. My thread wasn't intending to state anything as fact. I just provided another possibility for thought.



It happens quite often. That's why you have to swtich some people from penicillin to ampicillin or streptomycin, the bacterial strains are resistant, much as some viruses become resistant to certain drugs.


Yes, absolutely. Although, to my knowledge, such a severe spike in resistance is unheard of. Do you know of any other instances where a strain of influenza managed to increase its resistance to treatment X by 80% over the course of a single season?



There have been some agreements between some Eastern European and Central Asian , as well as a few American drug manufacturers to produce generic Tamiflu in the event of a pandemic. So why would Roche allow this to happen in a situation where they would make the most money?


I don't understand your question, could you rephrase it please?



I suppose you could say for PR, but wouldn't better PR be to lower the general price of the drug year round? Or give lower costs to the elderly and children? I'm not talking about a dramatic price cut, just lowering it slightly, but making sure to get it into the media so that everyone thinks "Roche is really looking out for the little guy".


Yeah, that would be great PR. It would also be the decent thing to do. Then again, we're talking about companies who are legally indebted to their shareholders, but not to their customers (you know, the sick people). Therein lies the problem.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   

quote:
Is it not just possible that the new flu virus is resistant to the old drugs?


Sure, that's a possibility. In fact I'd say that's probably the case. My thread wasn't intending to state anything as fact. I just provided another possibility for thought.

quote:
It happens quite often. That's why you have to swtich some people from penicillin to ampicillin or streptomycin, the bacterial strains are resistant, much as some viruses become resistant to certain drugs.


Yes, absolutely. Although, to my knowledge, such a severe spike in resistance is unheard of. Do you know of any other instances where a strain of influenza managed to increase its resistance to treatment X by 80% over the course of a single season?

quote:
There have been some agreements between some Eastern European and Central Asian , as well as a few American drug manufacturers to produce generic Tamiflu in the event of a pandemic. So why would Roche allow this to happen in a situation where they would make the most money?


I don't understand your question, could you rephrase it please?


Rephrase my question? All I was asking was why would Roche allow companies to make generics of Tamiflu in the face of a pandemic when a pandemic is the situation where Roche would sell the most Tamiflu and thus make the most money? Isn't that a bit backwards?

As for the resistance spike, it happens every year, that's why we change vaccine. We vaccinate people for influenza A virus, which is the class that undergoes the highest rate of antigenic shift. The name H5N1 (avian flu) refers to subtype H subtype N, and the numbers refer to surface receptors. These receptors can change annually, and we often don't know which set will more prevalent in a given year until the new infection are seen in Asia, where they tend to appear first before infecting us in Europe and then you people in the Americas. There was an outbreak of flu in Hong Kong which was nearly completely resistant to any treatment in the late 1960s, and there have been small outbreaks in Russia and New Jersey in the 1970s. These both indicate a high antigenic shift rate.

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
As I recall from previous reading, the scary thing about this round of viral-immunity is that the strain was only about 11% immune last year, and this year is overwhelmingly so - a development unprecedented in its rapidity.

...Certainly there are economic games being played - there also are alternatives to Tamiflu.

Should we trust our handlers and decision-makers to give us accurate, complete and balanced information?




posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Sofi
Indeed, the rapidity of the shift is what made me question the authenticity of the CDC report, along with their pro-Tamiflu stance. I had just never heard of a flu bug becoming 90% resistant to treatment in what amounts to the blink of an eye.

How's this for a theory? What if pharma moles at the CDC engineered and released the strain that is immune to the cheap drugs and susceptible to the expensive ones?


I guess I should have posted this thread in Skunk Works, eh?


bsl4doc


All I was asking was why would Roche allow companies to make generics of Tamiflu in the face of a pandemic when a pandemic is the situation where Roche would sell the most Tamiflu and thus make the most money? Isn't that a bit backwards?


Okay, I understand the question now, thank you. I think the answer is fairly simple: necessary measures to prevent unmanageable public outrage. Besides, they're going to sell TONS of Tamiflu, and make an obscene amount of money doing so. Providing a generic version to folks who couldn't otherwise afford Tamiflu only increases their net gain, it's not a charitable act so far as I can tell.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Sofi
Indeed, the rapidity of the shift is what made me question the authenticity of the CDC report, along with their pro-Tamiflu stance. I had just never heard of a flu bug becoming 90% resistant to treatment in what amounts to the blink of an eye.


I think it's legit - something happened biologically around 2003. Now, all kinds of bugs are mutating super fast. ...My Bird Flu podcast thread has references - captioned 'Super Bugs and Super Flu' I think.

...Looks like Cheney -and others- positioned with Tamiflu because they had inside info on the coming bio-crises.




How's this for a theory? What if pharma moles at the CDC engineered and released the strain that is immune to the cheap drugs and susceptible to the expensive ones?





Methinks they just started the ball rolling and let mother nature do the rest. Too bad they triggered an avalanche. They didn't mean to do it you know, poor boyz.






posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   
I will have to agree that it may be some play in these change of treatment.

Taking in consideration the money and profits at stake I agree that this is all for the money and to promote tamiflu.

After all we must remember that the government already allocated money for the pandemic.Right?

Or it was to promote Tamiflu



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Here's an even BIGGER conspiracy theory? What if, and this is a big what if, what if Mother Nature was involved in a major conspiracy theory? She is just sitting there, watching and waiting for the human population to pollute its environment, expand it's borders, lower it's immune system through anitbacterial drugs, soaps, and foods, until one day, she releases a bug that for centuries wasn't harmful but today, BAM, deadly flu? Wouldn't that be too much of a coincidence if nature's own self-defense mechanism against overpopulation and the human race's need to purge itself of natural bacterial flora coalesced in a lower immunity for a virus naturally occuring every year? Man, that is too much of a coincidence for me to believe. It's got to be Mother Nature in cahoots with the CDC, I knew it all along.
< /sarcasm>

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I think I am going to stick for now with:

Bird Flu: A Corporate Bonanza for the Biotech Industry
Tamiflu, Vistide and the Pentagon Agenda,

Taking in consideration the conflict of interest on the inside trading I will stick with money, profits and who works for who and benefits from what.



The saga of Tamiflu is just the tip of a big iceberg. As we noted in an earlier article, the real point of interest is the company in California who developed Tamiflu, Gilead Sciences, listed on the NASDAQ as (GILD). As we also noted, US Secretary of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, was Chairman of the Board of Gilead Sciences from 1997 until early 2001 when he became Defense Secretary. Rumsfeld had been on the board of Gilead since 1988, some thirteen years.


Now on the war on "The bird flu" funds can be appropiated to get ready for the pandemic.

7.1 billions of it and 1 billion just for tamiflu.

Is nice to know where our tax payer money goes, we can be sure that part of the 1 billion will be on Rumsfeld pockets.




A as-yet-unconfirmed report is that Rumsfeld recently purchased additional stock in his former company, Gilead Sciences, worth $18 million, making him one of its largest if not the largest stock owners today.


www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:28 AM
link   
I couldn't have said it better myself.

Now that our oil money is gone we are clinging to healthcare, and who supports healthcare,

the pharmaceutical industry, which is a major player in government funding.

What do pharmacopias sell consistently, Antibiotics, Antivirals, and opiod derivatives

So we have left ourselves at the crossroads, and we are doing the best we can.






Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The CDC (Center for Disease Control) recently advised doctors against prescribing amantadine and ramantadine, urging them instead to prescribe tamiflu. The CDC claims that lab results indicate 90% of flu samples were resistant to the two drugs.



www.cbsnews.com...

CDC officials took the unusual step of calling a Saturday news conference to announce that the predominant strain this season — the type A H3N2 influenza strain — was resistant to the older drugs.

"Clinicians should not use rimantadine and amantadine ... because the drugs will not be effective," said CDC director Dr. Julie Gerberding.

She said the lab tests, which CDC scientists had been analyzing since Friday, surprised health officials and the health agency rushed to get the word out.


Now, for the sake of context, the two drugs named by the CDC as ineffective are both available as a low cost, generic alternative to more expensive anti-virals, while tamiflu is exhorbitantly expensive, and cannot (to my knowledge) be purchased in generic form.

Add in the fact that powerful, influential members of the American government realize profits based on tamiflu sales, and I'd say there's something to discuss. Could elements of the CDC have manipulated the lab results at the behest of Rummy or one of his pals? Does this press release stink of marketting? It does to me...

Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 05:37 AM
link   
I will NEVER take tamiflu again. Ever. I don't care if they tell me that I have bird flu and the only thing that will save me is tamiflu. I took it once, and it screwed me up so badly that it wasn't even funny. I missed one or two doses by a few hours, and when I took them later, it made me so sick for the next few hours. Luckily I was feeling better just in time to take the next dose and start it all voer again.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Zaphod58

Thanks for sharing your personal experience in the tamiflu, actually you are the first person that I have known to have taken it.

Very interesting experience.


I wonder if our government cares if the tamiflu is dangerous to us or not.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Let's not forget that the drug industry is now the largest in the world - bigger than oil even.

...We are all walking gold mines!



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Citation for that, soficrow?

I know I personally spend much more on oil every year than I do anything related to pharmaceuticals...as do many of my friends and family I would think.

Perhaps you're just being a bit overzealous?

Ciao,
~MFP



posted on Jan, 30 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Here is what concerned me the minute I saw this report, and my fears are confirmed in the report:

www.cbsnews.com...


The discovery adds to worries about how to fight bird flu should it start spreading among people. Health officials had hoped to conserve use of two newer antiviral drugs, Tamiflu and Relenza, because they show activity against bird flu, unlike the older drugs.

Now, because of the resistance issue, the newer drugs are being recommended for ordinary flu, increasing the chances that resistance will develop more rapidly to them, too, as they become more commonly used.


And let's not miss this little tidbit:


She said the lab tests, which CDC scientists had been analyzing since Friday, surprised health officials and the health agency rushed to get the word out.

"I don't think we were expecting it to be so dramatic so quickly this year," Gerberding said. "We just didn't feel it was responsible to wait three more days during a holiday weekend to let clinicians know."


So, they didn't foresee this, it. appears to be a critical suprise, and what's left if Tamiflu goes the same route long before when and if the H5N1 mutates definitavely to human to human transmission?

It just doesn't seem at this point that we have a clue and the repercussions could be devastating later on.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join