A 2006 Cochrane review of Tamiflu came to similar conclusions -- based largely on a paper that looked at ten studies, all of them funded by the company [Roche].

A 2006 Cochrane review of Tamiflu came to similar conclusions -- based largely on a paper that looked at ten studies, all of them funded by the company [Roche]. This kind of reporting annoys me. It's a logical fallacy that having a stake in the outcome makes your research invalid. And who else is going to fund a study? Nobody without a stake is going to foot the bill. If the drug is going to be used to prevent death, it seems reasonable to ask whether or not its potentially deadly side effects are outweighed Quite the opposite. If the patient is likely to die anyway, then side effects be damned. It's time for a "Hail Mary" play. Get the patients past the immediate danger, and sort the rest out later. The answer may lie in the politics of disease. Sorry to be political here, but this is exactly what you'll be getting more of when the government starts to dictate how much will be spent on what kind of healthcare. When lobbyists or constituents are pushing for something to be covered, even though they're ignorant or are just interested in profits, the politicians will tilt the rules toward the squeaky wheel rather than rational science.