“Flu Drugs Tamiflu and Relenza Wouldn't be Effective Against
Pandemic: New Research”, published on April 10th 2014 by New York Daily
Times, is a riveting article concerning controversial drugs used in flu
prevention and cure. This article mainly concerns itself with the political and
economic ramifications of stock piling drugs against a potential flu epidemic.
However, as this article explains, not only are the drugs in question universally
uncertified, but recent research has shown that it has little beneficial effect
but many harmful side effects. Such cons include nausea and prolonged vomiting
with only a shortened duration to prove for it. As Carl Heneghan, one of the
lead investigators of the review and a professor of evidence-based medicine at
Britain's Oxford University disclosed, “money has been thrown down the drain because,
until now, the full data had not been seen by regulators, governments, doctors
or patients.” Thus, in essence, governments all over the world have potentially
wasted billions on a medicine that would do little should an epidemic occur.
However, many are hopeful that these measures will decrease the risk of another
epidemic like that of the Spanish Influenza of 1918.
I found this article
particularly interesting because it relates directly to our Spanish Influenza
unit as well as our antibiotic and biotech explorations. Because bacteria and
viruses are ever changing and adapting I am curious to know if these medicines
will prove any good should an epidemic occur. Knowing the ghastly effects of Influenza,
I am comforted by our government’s actions towards protection but am doubtful
of their effectiveness.
