Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
This week’s announcements stating that the number of people
experiencing side effects from Tamiflu has exceeded 50% has led to calls
for well designed, timely conducted randomised controlled trials to be
carried out to assess the affects and benefits of Tamiflu1. It also led to
criticism regarding the hotline which is allowing patients to self
diagnosed and gain Tamiflu with perceived ease. I have therefore drafted
the abstract for the current trial of Tamiflu in order for the government
and Department of Health to submit a rapid access paper for publication.
Maybe the NIHR may consider it as a starter for their proposed research on
this issue2?
Swine flu and Tamiflu: A random trial or master plan?
Dr David Gwynfor Samuel – Observer, junior doctor and confused member of
the public, not yet infected with the virus
Aim: To cause widespread hysteria amongst the British Public
Methods: To distribute Tamiflu in random ways by utilising non-
specific diagnostic criteria, self diagnosing internet sites and hysteria
– sorry, help hotlines (England Only)
Design: Random, non controlled trial of Tamiflu with ad-hoc
prescribing accompanied by quantitative patient interviews online or by
telephone
Results: Lots of people with other viruses, summer colds and
psychosomatic influenza being given Tamiflu, In addition, many other
important and serious diagnoses overlooked or ruled out by aforementioned
non-specific diagnostic criteria including tonsillitis, meningitis and
measles. The national treatment strategy led to a significant (~50%) side
effect rate including some of the initial swine flu symptoms. Other common
side effects included night terrors – including dreams of flying pigs and
other psychotic phenomena
Outcomes: Mild flu like virus has diverted immense spotlight
attention of the MP expenses saga and the resulting illness has at present
remained mild. Pharmaceutical companies are now chomping at their fingers
waiting to role out national vaccine programmes with estimated profits
worth 6 billion pounds. The epidemic has also resulted in another reason
to scan people at airports as well as launch new ideas from the Department
of Health. Swine flu has also increased awareness regarding the role of
public health and microbiology as specialities and could helped
recruitment for the 2010 cohort
Limitations: Bias possible in answers given due to the anxiety of
patients to obtain Tamiflu before their neighbours
Conclusion: Random uncontrolled prescribing of Tamiflu has doubled
hysteria levels, trebled profits and quadrupled demands placed on
hospitals. And all this in the weeks leading up to EWTD compliance of a 48
hour week – yes and pigs might fly!
Funding: Billions of the tax payers money
Competing interests: An attempt to find anything to deflect attention
on MP’s
1. Andrew Herxheimer, Mike Clarke, Ralph Edwards, Tom Jefferson, and
Yoon Loke
Time for case-control studies of NSAIDs and oseltamivir. BMJ 2009; 339:
b3048
2. NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies, National Institute for Health
Research, Liverpool L69 3GF
Swine flu and Tamiflu: A random trial or master plan?
This week’s announcements stating that the number of people
experiencing side effects from Tamiflu has exceeded 50% has led to calls
for well designed, timely conducted randomised controlled trials to be
carried out to assess the affects and benefits of Tamiflu1. It also led to
criticism regarding the hotline which is allowing patients to self
diagnosed and gain Tamiflu with perceived ease. I have therefore drafted
the abstract for the current trial of Tamiflu in order for the government
and Department of Health to submit a rapid access paper for publication.
Maybe the NIHR may consider it as a starter for their proposed research on
this issue2?
Swine flu and Tamiflu: A random trial or master plan?
Dr David Gwynfor Samuel – Observer, junior doctor and confused member of
the public, not yet infected with the virus
Aim: To cause widespread hysteria amongst the British Public
Methods: To distribute Tamiflu in random ways by utilising non-
specific diagnostic criteria, self diagnosing internet sites and hysteria
– sorry, help hotlines (England Only)
Design: Random, non controlled trial of Tamiflu with ad-hoc
prescribing accompanied by quantitative patient interviews online or by
telephone
Results: Lots of people with other viruses, summer colds and
psychosomatic influenza being given Tamiflu, In addition, many other
important and serious diagnoses overlooked or ruled out by aforementioned
non-specific diagnostic criteria including tonsillitis, meningitis and
measles. The national treatment strategy led to a significant (~50%) side
effect rate including some of the initial swine flu symptoms. Other common
side effects included night terrors – including dreams of flying pigs and
other psychotic phenomena
Outcomes: Mild flu like virus has diverted immense spotlight
attention of the MP expenses saga and the resulting illness has at present
remained mild. Pharmaceutical companies are now chomping at their fingers
waiting to role out national vaccine programmes with estimated profits
worth 6 billion pounds. The epidemic has also resulted in another reason
to scan people at airports as well as launch new ideas from the Department
of Health. Swine flu has also increased awareness regarding the role of
public health and microbiology as specialities and could helped
recruitment for the 2010 cohort
Limitations: Bias possible in answers given due to the anxiety of
patients to obtain Tamiflu before their neighbours
Conclusion: Random uncontrolled prescribing of Tamiflu has doubled
hysteria levels, trebled profits and quadrupled demands placed on
hospitals. And all this in the weeks leading up to EWTD compliance of a 48
hour week – yes and pigs might fly!
Funding: Billions of the tax payers money
Competing interests: An attempt to find anything to deflect attention
on MP’s
1. Andrew Herxheimer, Mike Clarke, Ralph Edwards, Tom Jefferson, and
Yoon Loke
Time for case-control studies of NSAIDs and oseltamivir. BMJ 2009; 339:
b3048
2. NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies, National Institute for Health
Research, Liverpool L69 3GF
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests