9 ms·

Oseltamivir. (Tamiflu) My ex-girlfriend (7years) is a big deal chemist at GILD. So I share some under the covers knowledge here. GILD produces some of the best

Oseltamivir. (Tamiflu) My ex-girlfriend (7years) is a big deal chemist at GILD. So I share some under the covers knowledge here. GILD produces some of the best anti-virals on the market [i] (HIV is now a condition). When GILD discovered the power of Oseltamivir it knew they would not be able to produce the scale needed. They sold their rights to Roche. Roche being a sick pro-profits-first company basically shelved the product. Roche wasn't interested in the 'cure' for the flu they were interested in treating the symptoms. But, as it turns out, china was impacted with bird flu during this period -- and gave no shit about patents and wanted to just save their population. Phone calls were made and china basically was going to produce it at at massive scale. Thus, Roche quickly started producing the product. Oseltamivir is amazing at fighting the flu virus. The original purpose was to take Oseltamivir when you have sick family members or know you might be coming down with symptoms. Recently, I came down with the flu (I had the vaccine), I took 4 pills over 2 days and it was turned into a slight cold. It could save lives. Doctors know this and are reluctant to prescribe it -- since they know it is in short supply and critical populations should get it first. Ironically, doctors reluctance to prescribe it - actually reduces the supply. I say to you, get it, keep it in your refrigerator -- when your 65+ year old dad gets the flu give it to him immediately. [i] https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/02/07/gilead-gild-biktarvy-hiv-aids-genvoya.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/02/07/gil...

neves 9y ago
Cochrane Collaboration is a network of independent scientists. They analyzed the evidence and said that Tamiflu is no more effective than Paracetamol: http://www.cochrane.org/news/tamiflu-and-relenza-getting-full-evidence-picture http://www.cochrane.org/news/tamiflu-and-relenza-getting-ful...
- neves 9y ago
  A little more info: "Tamiflu (the antiviral drug oseltamivir) shortens symptoms of influenza by half a day, but there is no good evidence to support claims that it reduces admissions to hospital or complications of influenza." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140411091937.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140411091937.h... Or the complete review: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4/abstract;jsessionid=D0952B85723A29FF11B3087DB5F71938.f03t02 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965...
- huhtenberg 9y ago
  YMMV. On my trip to Japan I came down with a flu (Influenza-B). Got 40c fever, full-body muscle pain, the whole shebang. Slept through two whole days, occasionally taking ibuprofen to knock the fever off enough to be able to eat something. Then finally went to a doctor, who without any hesitation prescribed Tamiflu, a stock of which they keep in the office at all times. Two tablets later - the fever is gone, replaced with some dry cough and a bit of a runny nose. I know my flu. I had plenty of them and if I have one, it lasts for 3-4 weeks before the temp drops below 38c. There is no doubt in my mind that I recovered from the last flu in 2 days exclusively because of Tamiflu and seeing it compared to Paracetamol makes no sense.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Your story is why we don't run single patient clinical trials. In fact, Tamiflu has pretty limited efficacy if not taken in the first 24-48 hours.
    - huhtenberg 9y ago
      Do you mind clarifying who are these "we"? It might be my old BBS habit kicking in, but I really don't appreciate a random person on the Internet taking on themselves to speak on behalf of others with no apparent reason. And it is a single anecdote, so, no, it'd be indeed very strange to base the results of a "clinical trial" on it alone. It does however mean that in at least one case the drug worked and it worked very well. As I said above "YMMV".
      - jsight 9y ago
        From context, "we" is the drug company running the clinical trial. And his first sentence did read very strangely, as you clearly weren't talking about anything other than an anecdote. :) Having said that, his point other point seems to be valid. Tamiflu does not make a claim as to helping someone in your case, afaik.
      - Xylakant 9y ago
        There is not strong indication that the drug worked well or even at all. It was taken long outside the window where its best applied. Chances are that in your case, the illness has run its course and the pills were taken at the time you would have gotten better anyways. I’d bet that sleeping two days had a much stronger effect on your recovery than two doses of tamiflu. That’s why we - as a society - do not accept clinical trials that do not conform to a minimal scientific standard, statistical significance being one of the requirements.
agumonkey 9y ago
IMO this is technically criminal. States should be able to buy the rights and make a steady supply. Roche is low on this.
- dv_dt 9y ago
  Though China can be criticized on many fronts, I'm a little envious over the pragmatic strong arming of Roche with a "produce it or we will" approach in order to secure a supply. There are serious things wrong with our system when the best allocation of capital is to acquire and park IP. "Non practicing" IP should have strong incentives to make it accessible. What are possible policies for that: taxation incentive, compulsory licensing, or others?
  - agumonkey 9y ago
    I can accept a dose of business cynicism, but viruses are outside this box. Also, it reminds me the allegedly Chinese proverb saying doctors there weren't paid, but would pay if they didn't cure you. Different cultures ...
sametmax 9y ago
If at 65 sombody dies from flu, the problem was not the flu. 65 is not old age anymore.
- monkmartinez 9y ago
  You simply can not say this. Medical history is super important here.
  - sametmax 9y ago
    Then the medical history is the problem, not the flue. A sane robust body is not supposed to be killed by the flue. If our society produce people that the flue kills, let's focus on those causes. Not the flue. It's like focusing on making all houses flood proof. Most houses don't need it. If one needs it, relocating the house is probably a better idea that trying to make a new law saying all house should have floaters. The problem is that our society let us build houses on floodable area, not the flood.
virusduck 9y ago
Your girlfriend is overstating the case. In tissue culture, almost 100% of circulating strains of flu are susceptible to oseltamivir. However, clinical and epi studies have shown, at best, a very modest effect on disease in otherwise healthy adults. It may reduce transmission, but it comes with an increased likelihood of vomiting and diarrhea. It is far more critical for those at risk of complications (the elderly, those with underlying respiratory conditions). Widespread usage of oseltamivir will almost certainly lead to widespread resistance, and there aren't many other options for future, particularly nasty flus. This is the reason for the US stockpile--even though the data wasn't conclusive on its benefits, oseltamivir was the best plan for pandemic flu. http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3266 http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3266 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2545 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2545 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62449-1/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...
sithadmin 9y ago
> Doctors know this and are reluctant to prescribe it -- since they know it is in short supply and critical populations should get it first. Ironically, doctors reluctance to prescribe it - actually reduces the supply. Yet during the swine flu scare, Roche handed out massive amounts of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) like it was candy to their employees (at least at the SF Genentech campuses). You'd call into a doctor, who would do nothing but verify your identity and issue a prescription. You'd then pick up the drugs on campus. Unfortunately pretty typical for Roche-Genentech, which is prone to fairly disgusting levels of spending on excesses.
refurb 9y ago
Your ex-gf's story seems a bit off. First, Gilead didn't license it to Roche until 1996 and it was approved in 1999. About the time it takes to conduct clinical trials and get FDA approval - no apparent delay. The major Asian bird flu epidemic was ~2005, after it was already brought to market. Tamiflu isn't a "cure", the effects are pretty limited, but it's used because we have nothing else. Tamiflu has been wildly successful product for Roche, why would they not develop it and instead try to treat "symptoms"? Tamiflu is not in short supply by any means, Roche produces huge stockpiles for the US gov't and the shelf life is pretty long. There is plenty to go around. To summarize, your ex-gf's story sounds like a could-be-true story (for those who don't know better) that plays to the typical stereotypes for "big pharma". I'll also add that the cost to treat someone with Tamiflu before it went generic was ~$100. Pretty reasonable considering what drug costs are like in general.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ransom1538 9y ago
  First, the CDC recommends Tamiflu: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-cli... Second, in 2003 Roche upped production. So yes they sat on it. SARS was in 2003 - and it takes 12 months to produce. What Roche was producing pre 2002 would prove or disprove the story, but I can't find this information anywhere -- I would gamble not much. "It's pointless to look at ways for outsiders to produce Tamiflu, Roche's Reddy says. He notes that Roche can meet demand expectations faster than anyone else because it is familiar with the challenging production process. To meet current orders, Roche has quadrupled production capacity since 2003," http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i35/8335tamiflu.html http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i35/8335tamiflu.html
  - mustacheemperor 9y ago
    Your answer does not address the criticisms in the comment you are replying to. If the Asian bird flu epidemic was in 2005 there is no correlation to an increase in production in 2003. Could reduced production in the first 4 years of the drug's approved existence be explained by a challenging production process?
psychometry 9y ago
>Recently, I came down with the flu (I had the vaccine), I took 4 pills over 2 days and it was turned into a slight cold A much more convincing explanation is that your symptoms were ameliorated by your vaccination, which is a thoroughly-documented effect.
- ryanwaggoner 9y ago
  Actually, this is interesting as an explanation. My toddler woke up yesterday with fever and I was starting to feel like I was coming down with something as well (no fever yet), so we went to the clinic. They tested her, flu confirmed, gave us all Tamiflu. I started feeling markedly better about 6-8 hours after first dose. Today, we’re all completely normal except for mild cold symptoms. And this happened basically exactly the same last year. So I find all these studies about how Tamiflu basically does nothing to be pretty hard to take seriously... EXCEPT that we were all vaccinated, which I didn’t even consider until now. I had assumed that getting the flu was a binary thing, and the vaccination just protected you from coming down with it, but wouldn’t ameliorate the symptoms or cause you to recover faster. That’s a much more compelling story if true.
  - Lewton 9y ago
    I’m no doctor But a vaccine is basically giving your immune system a new toolbox for fighting diseases, so it would make sense to me that even if it didn’t stop you from getting the disease, it still equips your immune system to ease the severity
    - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
      It makes sense, but I just never hear about that as a reason to get the vaccine, which seems crazy. The flu is miserable, so if the actual benefit of the vaccine is that you probably won’t get sick, and if you do, it’ll be for 36 hours instead of ten days, that seems to be a huge benefit they’re underselling.
      - hycaria 9y ago
IgorPartola 9y ago
My ex (5 years) is a clinician who works the ER, pediatrics, and urgent care, amongst other things. She has the opposite view: Tamiflu reduces the length of the flu by a total of 12 hours and most people don't need it. Wish she was on here to defend this view, since I am not qualified to debate it.
- refurb 9y ago
  That's the generally accepted view on Tamiflu. Modest effect that you only see if started early on in the disease. However, it's one of the very few options we have, so if the shit does hit the fan with a severe flu, it will save lives.
robbiep 9y ago
Tamiflu will shorten flu by 1 day in Most good studies. In Aus Tamiflu is often prescribed. In fact, significantly over prescribed. $100+ for a box of tablets, that someone needs to start taking before we even have actual PCR confirmation of flu virus? Does the benefit outweigh the costs? Probably in elderly or in situations with decreased immunity. For the rest of people, it is probably good to go through a fever cycle once in a while. Your immune system needs something to run at, or else it can end up attacking itself, or missing cancers. The firm evidence base for this is low but my belief (as a biochemistry major and doc with heavy interest in immunology) is that if you are otherwise healthy and you get the flu, then it is probably doing ok for you. We need to stop pathologising all sickness. It’s normal to be sick sometimes, in fact it’s probably necessary for optimum function. [0] - quick link from google as I am on mobile but well known to me in my professional capacity - http://www.center4research.org/tamiflu-not-tamiflu/ http://www.center4research.org/tamiflu-not-tamiflu/
- shrimp_emoji 9y ago
  On the other hand, a lot of diseases (including lifelong, autoimmune ones) are triggered, at least in part, by infections[0]. Without ever experiencing even a common cold, it stands to reason that some cases of those diseases could be precluded. Also, for the elderly, respiratory illness should be avoided because it puts undue stress on the cardiovascular system[1]. We need to be come robots[2]! [0] https://www.labroots.com/trending/health-and-medicine/4999/autoimmune-diseases-triggered-infection-how https://www.labroots.com/trending/health-and-medicine/4999/a... [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flu-tied-to-heart-attack-risk-in-elderly/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flu-tied-to-heart-attack-risk-i... [2] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/02/00/2EF55A5500000578-3341000-According_to_the_calculator_waiters_and_waitresses_have_a_94_per-a-26_1449015200147.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/02/00/2EF55A550000057...
  - robbiep 9y ago
    And there’s also strong evidence that infection with ie. parasites decrease lifetime autoimmune infections, and fevers have been known to send cancer into remission
usaphp 9y ago
> I came down with the flu (I had the vaccine), I took 4 pills over 2 days and it was turned into a slight cold. What makes you think you had a flu in the first place and not just a cold?
amluto 9y ago
> Recently, I came down with the flu (I had the vaccine), I took 4 pills over 2 days and it was turned into a slight cold. A couple months ago, I came down with the flu. I, too, had a flu shot. I didn't take antivirals. 18 hours later, I was fine. Anecdotes aren't terribly useful in medicine. P.S. If you look up the latest studies and CDC guidance, you may learn that (a) the flu shot seems to cause a decent fraction of people who subsequently get the flu to get over it very quickly and (b) Tamiflu, while probably effective in the "statistically determinable to be better than nothing" sense is only very slightly better than nothing.
throwaway5752 9y ago
Lol, post the studies not some business journal. What you find, as you try to dig actual medical results up, is that it maybe knocks as day or two off the course of the flu, has side-effects, and is less effective than the vaccine. Having some knowledge about both subjects, this is surrealistically close to the difference in how experts vs nonexperts think will keep them safe online (https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2015/soups15-paper-ion.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2015/sou...)
masto 9y ago
My family came down with the flu right before I was scheduled to return from a business trip and turn around two days later to spend two weeks out of the country. We took as many precautions as possible to avoid spreading it to me (frequent hand washing, not sharing food, all of that) but I also got a preventative Tamiflu prescription. It didn't seem to be in short supply or hard to get -- I literally just described the situation over my healthcare provider's chat app and they sent a prescription to the pharmacy for me to pick up on my way home from the airport. Cost me $10. Whether the stuff works or not is a different question. I read some of the research and meta-analyses and meta-meta-analyses and it didn't seem cut and dry. I can say I didn't get the flu, but there are many other times I didn't get the flu without taking anything.

neves 9y ago

Cochrane Collaboration is a network of independent scientists. They analyzed the evidence and said that Tamiflu is no more effective than Paracetamol: http://www.cochrane.org/news/tamiflu-and-relenza-getting-full-evidence-picture http://www.cochrane.org/news/tamiflu-and-relenza-getting-ful...

neves 9y ago
A little more info: "Tamiflu (the antiviral drug oseltamivir) shortens symptoms of influenza by half a day, but there is no good evidence to support claims that it reduces admissions to hospital or complications of influenza." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140411091937.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140411091937.h... Or the complete review: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub4/abstract;jsessionid=D0952B85723A29FF11B3087DB5F71938.f03t02 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965...
huhtenberg 9y ago
YMMV. On my trip to Japan I came down with a flu (Influenza-B). Got 40c fever, full-body muscle pain, the whole shebang. Slept through two whole days, occasionally taking ibuprofen to knock the fever off enough to be able to eat something. Then finally went to a doctor, who without any hesitation prescribed Tamiflu, a stock of which they keep in the office at all times. Two tablets later - the fever is gone, replaced with some dry cough and a bit of a runny nose. I know my flu. I had plenty of them and if I have one, it lasts for 3-4 weeks before the temp drops below 38c. There is no doubt in my mind that I recovered from the last flu in 2 days exclusively because of Tamiflu and seeing it compared to Paracetamol makes no sense.
- refurb 9y ago
  Your story is why we don't run single patient clinical trials. In fact, Tamiflu has pretty limited efficacy if not taken in the first 24-48 hours.
  - huhtenberg 9y ago
    Do you mind clarifying who are these "we"? It might be my old BBS habit kicking in, but I really don't appreciate a random person on the Internet taking on themselves to speak on behalf of others with no apparent reason. And it is a single anecdote, so, no, it'd be indeed very strange to base the results of a "clinical trial" on it alone. It does however mean that in at least one case the drug worked and it worked very well. As I said above "YMMV".
    - jsight 9y ago
      From context, "we" is the drug company running the clinical trial. And his first sentence did read very strangely, as you clearly weren't talking about anything other than an anecdote. :) Having said that, his point other point seems to be valid. Tamiflu does not make a claim as to helping someone in your case, afaik.
    - Xylakant 9y ago
      There is not strong indication that the drug worked well or even at all. It was taken long outside the window where its best applied. Chances are that in your case, the illness has run its course and the pills were taken at the time you would have gotten better anyways. I’d bet that sleeping two days had a much stronger effect on your recovery than two doses of tamiflu. That’s why we - as a society - do not accept clinical trials that do not conform to a minimal scientific standard, statistical significance being one of the requirements.

agumonkey 9y ago

IMO this is technically criminal. States should be able to buy the rights and make a steady supply. Roche is low on this.

dv_dt 9y ago
Though China can be criticized on many fronts, I'm a little envious over the pragmatic strong arming of Roche with a "produce it or we will" approach in order to secure a supply. There are serious things wrong with our system when the best allocation of capital is to acquire and park IP. "Non practicing" IP should have strong incentives to make it accessible. What are possible policies for that: taxation incentive, compulsory licensing, or others?
- agumonkey 9y ago
  I can accept a dose of business cynicism, but viruses are outside this box. Also, it reminds me the allegedly Chinese proverb saying doctors there weren't paid, but would pay if they didn't cure you. Different cultures ...

sametmax 9y ago

If at 65 sombody dies from flu, the problem was not the flu. 65 is not old age anymore.

monkmartinez 9y ago
You simply can not say this. Medical history is super important here.
- sametmax 9y ago
  Then the medical history is the problem, not the flue. A sane robust body is not supposed to be killed by the flue. If our society produce people that the flue kills, let's focus on those causes. Not the flue. It's like focusing on making all houses flood proof. Most houses don't need it. If one needs it, relocating the house is probably a better idea that trying to make a new law saying all house should have floaters. The problem is that our society let us build houses on floodable area, not the flood.

virusduck 9y ago

Your girlfriend is overstating the case. In tissue culture, almost 100% of circulating strains of flu are susceptible to oseltamivir. However, clinical and epi studies have shown, at best, a very modest effect on disease in otherwise healthy adults. It may reduce transmission, but it comes with an increased likelihood of vomiting and diarrhea. It is far more critical for those at risk of complications (the elderly, those with underlying respiratory conditions). Widespread usage of oseltamivir will almost certainly lead to widespread resistance, and there aren't many other options for future, particularly nasty flus. This is the reason for the US stockpile--even though the data wasn't conclusive on its benefits, oseltamivir was the best plan for pandemic flu. http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3266 http://www.bmj.com/content/358/bmj.j3266 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2545 http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g2545 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62449-1/abstract http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67...

sithadmin 9y ago

> Doctors know this and are reluctant to prescribe it -- since they know it is in short supply and critical populations should get it first. Ironically, doctors reluctance to prescribe it - actually reduces the supply. Yet during the swine flu scare, Roche handed out massive amounts of oseltamivir (Tamiflu) like it was candy to their employees (at least at the SF Genentech campuses). You'd call into a doctor, who would do nothing but verify your identity and issue a prescription. You'd then pick up the drugs on campus. Unfortunately pretty typical for Roche-Genentech, which is prone to fairly disgusting levels of spending on excesses.

refurb 9y ago

Your ex-gf's story seems a bit off. First, Gilead didn't license it to Roche until 1996 and it was approved in 1999. About the time it takes to conduct clinical trials and get FDA approval - no apparent delay. The major Asian bird flu epidemic was ~2005, after it was already brought to market. Tamiflu isn't a "cure", the effects are pretty limited, but it's used because we have nothing else. Tamiflu has been wildly successful product for Roche, why would they not develop it and instead try to treat "symptoms"? Tamiflu is not in short supply by any means, Roche produces huge stockpiles for the US gov't and the shelf life is pretty long. There is plenty to go around. To summarize, your ex-gf's story sounds like a could-be-true story (for those who don't know better) that plays to the typical stereotypes for "big pharma". I'll also add that the cost to treat someone with Tamiflu before it went generic was ~$100. Pretty reasonable considering what drug costs are like in general.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ransom1538 9y ago
First, the CDC recommends Tamiflu: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-clinicians.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/antivirals/summary-cli... Second, in 2003 Roche upped production. So yes they sat on it. SARS was in 2003 - and it takes 12 months to produce. What Roche was producing pre 2002 would prove or disprove the story, but I can't find this information anywhere -- I would gamble not much. "It's pointless to look at ways for outsiders to produce Tamiflu, Roche's Reddy says. He notes that Roche can meet demand expectations faster than anyone else because it is familiar with the challenging production process. To meet current orders, Roche has quadrupled production capacity since 2003," http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i35/8335tamiflu.html http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i35/8335tamiflu.html
- mustacheemperor 9y ago
  Your answer does not address the criticisms in the comment you are replying to. If the Asian bird flu epidemic was in 2005 there is no correlation to an increase in production in 2003. Could reduced production in the first 4 years of the drug's approved existence be explained by a challenging production process?

psychometry 9y ago

>Recently, I came down with the flu (I had the vaccine), I took 4 pills over 2 days and it was turned into a slight cold A much more convincing explanation is that your symptoms were ameliorated by your vaccination, which is a thoroughly-documented effect.

ryanwaggoner 9y ago
Actually, this is interesting as an explanation. My toddler woke up yesterday with fever and I was starting to feel like I was coming down with something as well (no fever yet), so we went to the clinic. They tested her, flu confirmed, gave us all Tamiflu. I started feeling markedly better about 6-8 hours after first dose. Today, we’re all completely normal except for mild cold symptoms. And this happened basically exactly the same last year. So I find all these studies about how Tamiflu basically does nothing to be pretty hard to take seriously... EXCEPT that we were all vaccinated, which I didn’t even consider until now. I had assumed that getting the flu was a binary thing, and the vaccination just protected you from coming down with it, but wouldn’t ameliorate the symptoms or cause you to recover faster. That’s a much more compelling story if true.
- Lewton 9y ago
  I’m no doctor But a vaccine is basically giving your immune system a new toolbox for fighting diseases, so it would make sense to me that even if it didn’t stop you from getting the disease, it still equips your immune system to ease the severity
  - ryanwaggoner 9y ago
    It makes sense, but I just never hear about that as a reason to get the vaccine, which seems crazy. The flu is miserable, so if the actual benefit of the vaccine is that you probably won’t get sick, and if you do, it’ll be for 36 hours instead of ten days, that seems to be a huge benefit they’re underselling.
    - hycaria 9y ago

IgorPartola 9y ago

My ex (5 years) is a clinician who works the ER, pediatrics, and urgent care, amongst other things. She has the opposite view: Tamiflu reduces the length of the flu by a total of 12 hours and most people don't need it. Wish she was on here to defend this view, since I am not qualified to debate it.

refurb 9y ago
That's the generally accepted view on Tamiflu. Modest effect that you only see if started early on in the disease. However, it's one of the very few options we have, so if the shit does hit the fan with a severe flu, it will save lives.

robbiep 9y ago

Tamiflu will shorten flu by 1 day in Most good studies. In Aus Tamiflu is often prescribed. In fact, significantly over prescribed. $100+ for a box of tablets, that someone needs to start taking before we even have actual PCR confirmation of flu virus? Does the benefit outweigh the costs? Probably in elderly or in situations with decreased immunity. For the rest of people, it is probably good to go through a fever cycle once in a while. Your immune system needs something to run at, or else it can end up attacking itself, or missing cancers. The firm evidence base for this is low but my belief (as a biochemistry major and doc with heavy interest in immunology) is that if you are otherwise healthy and you get the flu, then it is probably doing ok for you. We need to stop pathologising all sickness. It’s normal to be sick sometimes, in fact it’s probably necessary for optimum function. [0] - quick link from google as I am on mobile but well known to me in my professional capacity - http://www.center4research.org/tamiflu-not-tamiflu/ http://www.center4research.org/tamiflu-not-tamiflu/

shrimp_emoji 9y ago
On the other hand, a lot of diseases (including lifelong, autoimmune ones) are triggered, at least in part, by infections[0]. Without ever experiencing even a common cold, it stands to reason that some cases of those diseases could be precluded. Also, for the elderly, respiratory illness should be avoided because it puts undue stress on the cardiovascular system[1]. We need to be come robots[2]! [0] https://www.labroots.com/trending/health-and-medicine/4999/autoimmune-diseases-triggered-infection-how https://www.labroots.com/trending/health-and-medicine/4999/a... [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flu-tied-to-heart-attack-risk-in-elderly/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/flu-tied-to-heart-attack-risk-i... [2] http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/02/00/2EF55A5500000578-3341000-According_to_the_calculator_waiters_and_waitresses_have_a_94_per-a-26_1449015200147.jpg http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/02/00/2EF55A550000057...
- robbiep 9y ago
  And there’s also strong evidence that infection with ie. parasites decrease lifetime autoimmune infections, and fevers have been known to send cancer into remission

usaphp 9y ago

> I came down with the flu (I had the vaccine), I took 4 pills over 2 days and it was turned into a slight cold. What makes you think you had a flu in the first place and not just a cold?

amluto 9y ago

> Recently, I came down with the flu (I had the vaccine), I took 4 pills over 2 days and it was turned into a slight cold. A couple months ago, I came down with the flu. I, too, had a flu shot. I didn't take antivirals. 18 hours later, I was fine. Anecdotes aren't terribly useful in medicine. P.S. If you look up the latest studies and CDC guidance, you may learn that (a) the flu shot seems to cause a decent fraction of people who subsequently get the flu to get over it very quickly and (b) Tamiflu, while probably effective in the "statistically determinable to be better than nothing" sense is only very slightly better than nothing.

throwaway5752 9y ago

Lol, post the studies not some business journal. What you find, as you try to dig actual medical results up, is that it maybe knocks as day or two off the course of the flu, has side-effects, and is less effective than the vaccine. Having some knowledge about both subjects, this is surrealistically close to the difference in how experts vs nonexperts think will keep them safe online (https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2015/soups15-paper-ion.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/soups2015/sou...)

masto 9y ago

My family came down with the flu right before I was scheduled to return from a business trip and turn around two days later to spend two weeks out of the country. We took as many precautions as possible to avoid spreading it to me (frequent hand washing, not sharing food, all of that) but I also got a preventative Tamiflu prescription. It didn't seem to be in short supply or hard to get -- I literally just described the situation over my healthcare provider's chat app and they sent a prescription to the pharmacy for me to pick up on my way home from the airport. Cost me $10. Whether the stuff works or not is a different question. I read some of the research and meta-analyses and meta-meta-analyses and it didn't seem cut and dry. I can say I didn't get the flu, but there are many other times I didn't get the flu without taking anything.