By Matt Ridley, The Times 06/01/14
It’s not only Tamiflu where inconvenient data goes unpublished. Try climate science and psychology too
Perhaps it should be called Tamiflugate. Yet the doubts reported by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee last week go well beyond the possible waste of nearly half a billion pounds on a flu drug that might not be much better than paracetamol. All sorts of science are contaminated with the problem of cherry-picked data.
The Tamiflu tale is that some years ago the pharmaceutical company Roche produced evidence that persuaded the World Health Organisation that Tamiflu was effective against flu, and governments such as ours began stockpiling the drug in readiness for a pandemic. But then a Japanese scientist pointed out that most of the clinical trials on the drug had not been published. It appears that the unpublished ones generally showed less impressive results than the published ones. […]
To illustrate how far this problem reaches, a few years ago there was a scientific scandal with remarkable similarities, in respect of the non-publishing of negative data, to the Tamiflu scandal. A relentless, independent scientific auditor in Canada named Stephen McIntyre grew suspicious of a graph being promoted by governments to portray today’s global temperatures as warming far faster than any in the past 1,400 years — the famous “hockey stick” graph. When he dug into the data behind the graph, to the fury of its authors, especially Michael Mann, he found not only problems with the data and the analysis of it but a whole directory of results labelled “CENSORED”.
This proved to contain five calculations of what the graph would have looked like without any tree-ring samples from bristlecone pine trees. None of the five graphs showed a hockey stick upturn in the late 20th century: “This shows about as vividly as one could imagine that the hockey stick is made out of bristlecone pine,” wrote Mr McIntyre drily. (The bristlecone pine was well known to have grown larger tree rings in recent years for non-climate reasons: goats tearing the bark, which regrew rapidly, and extra carbon dioxide making trees grow faster.)
Mr McIntyre later unearthed the same problem when the hockey stick graph was relaunched to overcome his critique, with Siberian larch trees instead of bristlecones. This time the lead author, Keith Briffa, of the University of East Anglia, had used only a small sample of 12 larch trees for recent years, ignoring a much larger data set of the same age from the same region. If the analysis was repeated with all the larch trees there was no hockey-stick shape to the graph. Explanations for the omission were unconvincing.
Given that these were the most prominent and recognisable graphs used to show evidence of unprecedented climate change in recent decades, and to justify unusual energy policies that hit poor people especially hard, this case of cherry-picked publication was just as potentially shocking and costly as Tamiflugate. Omission of inconvenient data is a sin in government science as well as in the private sector.
Full story (subscription required)
h/t to The GWPF
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@xanonymous – While I am a terrified pandemic monger, at the same time I am a flu shot denier…. Flu shots are at best a panacea, at worst a major health risk. Vaccines targeted at stable viruses are good, and should be mandatory, worldwide. Vaccines targeted at unstable viruses are bad, and should be banned.
Biology is funny. If the posters here think that predicting weather is hard, predicting biological outcomes is even harder!
X Anonymous says:
January 6, 2014 at 4:25 pm
“I’ll live in modern society enriched with science,”
Hardly.
X Anonymous says:
January 6, 2014 at 4:25 pm
Sorry, your argument was simply a bad one. There is little reason to expect that Tamiflu would be effective against any viral agent other than the one for which is was designed.
TAD’s argument was much more convincing.
Flu vaxs are a joke period. Unless you are taking care of someone/people with the flu the chance of a flu vax preventing you from getting the flu is far less likely then getting hit by lightening, twice in the same day.
As to H5N1 overblown fear mongering as with many of these events to make the WHO rich and noticed. By the time something like H5N1 makes it to countries that are stockpiling “vaxes” Tamiflu or others the flu will likely have changed a dozen times and said treatment will be far less effective if effective at all.
Having proper containment procedures and such is far more useful then stockpiling questionable drugs that will likely expire before ever being used. Instead of wasting money of flu vax one can do the sensible thing and send people home for a few days to get better. Any “killer flu” that comes along and is a true threat isn’t something that one can make a vax for ahead of time and stockpile…. that simply not how the flu works.
The neuaminidase inhibitor was developed by the CSIRO at the expense of the Australian taxpayer. (Contrary to popular opinion, corporations don’t invent all new drugs.)
The U.S. FDA delayed approval of the topically applied Australian drug until an inferior U.S. chemotherapeutic version was developed. Approval for the U.S. drug was rapid.
The superior Australian drug, Relenza, is very effective when taken early (I’ve used it 3 times in 5 years) – just like antivirals that prevent cold sores from surfacing are effective if taken at the first hint of infection.
That’s the true story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanamivir
addendum:
Big difference.
TAD claims,”H5N1 was 100% lethal overnight in chicken farms. That’s every f’ng chicken in a barn ok the night before, dead by morning. If that doesn’t terrify you, then you are a braver man than I.”
H5N1 kills at most 1%-3% among domestic chicken breeds and in the neighborhood of 0.5%-2% of other birds. Avian flu acts on birds like human flu acts on people, most birds that get it become sick (runny nose, congestion) a day or two and then they recover. ONLY among specific breeds of chickens —inbred and linebred for over 500 generations for specific growth characteristics and no thought for immunity— are the avian flues serious or fatal.
So indeed, your illustration reinforces the OP’s point that “inconvenient data goes unpublished”, sometimes so that scare stories about something technical or scientific —a flue that will kill “every f’ng chicken in a barn” overnight [your quote]— sounds realistic to those who don’t know the reality.
Khwarizmi @ur momisugly January 6, 2014 at 5:43 pm, subpatre @ur momisugly January 6, 2014 at 6:16 pm
Thanks for the other side. Lots to consider…
Khwarizmi says:
January 6, 2014 at 5:43 pm
“The superior Australian drug, Relenza, is very effective when taken early…”
Yet, your Wikipedia link says:”There is low to moderate evidence that it decreases the risk of one’s getting influenza by 1% to 12% in those exposed.”
Are such rates of effectiveness considered “good” in the communicable disease arena? Personally, I don’t see those odds as particularly comforting. Not that Tamiflu’s seem any better by comparison.
Never took tamiflu until yesterday when I was having a relapse of the flu going through Houston.
My Dr. buddy called it in and it made me better already. I was unaware of any controversy regarding it. But he is a prof. and practicing physician in a specialty that deals with patients with extreme immunity issues and cannot be sick around them and he thinks it works.
At any rate, I suppose the important thing for this thread is that Tamiflu’s makers did, indeed, apparently suppress adverse results for the efficacy of the drug. And, so we see again that subversion of science for ulterior ends is very widespread, and not confined merely to the shenanigans of the Climate Brigades. Very sad.
Some info on the Polar Star from Nat. Geo., Jan. 6, 2014: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140106-antarctica-ship-polar-star-icebreakers-trapped-science-world/
“”I would expect it could run circles around those other ships,” said Lawson Brigham, a retired U.S. Coast Guard captain who is now a professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.”
The question is… is Tamaflu effective against any virus?
Resistance is absolutely guaranteed in any population (eg. prostitute in Africa who is immune to aids). A drug that works one day may not work the next. In fact, as soon as you have an effective drug it begins to be ineffective through usage and selection. Whether a virus mutates into something of significance or not is simply due to statistical chance (or luck):
“while no flu samples, seasonal or pandemic, showed any resistance to zanamivir”
Not yet.
Indeed, there is a very sound argument that with many of the diseases which humans have developed effective drugs against, that these diseases should be maintained in the general population. That way when a mutation does occur and resistance develops, there is a greater statistical chance the strain is similar to what the drugs are effective against. Some control is always going to be better than none.
Ideally you want a big stock pile of all the possible “cures”, since the drugs effectiveness can vary between individuals. Some will be immune anyway (human resistance).
And as for the 500 million pounds for the stockpile of Tamiflu, it is money well spent as long as it has not effected supply of other drugs such as zanwhatever, which maybe Matt Ridleys argument. I would argue that half a billion is a drop in the ocean for one of the worlds largest economies, and all drugs that have potential against future pandemics should be made at the ready. Thats’ what the US military are doing (clever people).
I have had the seasonal flu jab every year for at least the last 20 years. The only time I got the flu was the 2009 swine flu which I hadn’t been vaccinated against. The swine flu was NOT mild for me as it went quite deep into my lungs. I started taking Tamiflu on about day 3. The symptoms improved a lot within hours, especially my breathing. Tamiflu is not claimed as a cure but reducing the severity of the disease can mean the difference between life and death.
The UK has also stockpiled smallpox vaccine. It’s the people who stockpile smallpox virus that worry me. That’s the US and Russia by the way.
Bart,
The “low to moderate” success in “preventing influenza” was the reason given by the FDA for delaying approval of Relenza for nearly a decade while a U.S. company was developing a less effective drug.
But in reality, you have to get infected with influenza before the drug can work on the mechanism it was designed to interrupt, so all you can expect is a reduction in the severity of the infection while your immune system configures a response.
So “getting influenza” is probably not the best measure of Relenza’s efficacy, just as “having herpes” is not the best measure for the efficacy of aciclovir.
Irving Langmuir, I think, had some discussion with Joseph Rhine (Duke University no less) about his ESP research, and having been shown files containing the results of millions of trials asked Rhine whether all these had been incorporated into his results. Rhine said no; said that some of the data showed no ESP effect or even an anti-ESP effect, but this data having come from people who didn’t like him (Rhine), he had decided to disregard it. What we now call “cherry picking” has a long history in science, and became one of Langmuir’s signs of pathological science.
Tad 2:18 pm
I have always thought that story about people killing all the passenger pigeons to be ridiculous. (A Greenie’s wet dream.) I pegged it for some sort of quickly spreading disease. Passenger pigeons traveled in huge flocks and seemed to need the presence of large numbers to enable breeding. How easy for disease to sped and then low numbers prevented restocking.
(Think of the amount of ammunition needed to kill their millions!)
Examples of such extinctions are not ultra rare though not common either.
Your suggestion about the dinosaurs i had not thought of. That could be a major factor except i don’t see sea life effected by what would effect land animals. And were dinosaurs so closely grouped that the disease could easily spread?
I am pretty certain that buffalo numbers varied with how wet the weather was — how much grass could grow. They shot up during wet decades. I believe (but am not sure) that just as the white man and the Indians began hunting them the weather reversed and the rains ended and the grasses died. (The Indians were major traffickers in buffalo hides selling to the white traders. History often neglects to tell us about that — the Indian’s heavy participation in the slaughter.) So stress in their environment and lots of bullets combined to put the buffalo down. But without man’s help the buffalo numbers would have reduced through starvation to much lower levels.
Well, these are my thoughts — but of course — my thoughts are not data.
Eugene WR Gallun
TAD said:
January 6, 2014 at 2:18 pm
[…]
As to the readers of this wonderful website, any mol bio guy will tell you that Tamiflu was designed for very specific 3D conformation of a very specific influenza.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
How wrong could you possibly be?
The neuraminidase inhibitor was developed by the CSIRO in Australia following their discovery of a specific 3D conformation on the protein coat of the influenza virus that was remarkable for the fact that it didn’t vary between different forms of influenza. CSIRO researchers inferred that the specific and unchanging conformation played a crucial role in the mechanism of viral reproduction in all conformations of the influenza virus, and so they fashioned crude molecules to fit that conformation, hoping to interfere with its inferred function. Those first crude molecules were apparently effective at reducing flu severity in trials on monkeys.
Relenza (and the inferior latecomer Tamiflu) were designed to treat all types of influenza, not specific ones.
Funny,
You hardly ever see anything on the influence of the endocannabinoid system on the immune system. Especially with respect to cancer. There is some mention in the literature but most of the work is done outside the US. And only on animals.
Gail Combs says:
January 6, 2014 at 1:10 pm
Big pharma has no use for the endocannabinoid system. There are more endocannabinoid receptors i the body than any other receptor type. The trouble for big pharma is that even if they can patent the medicine it is easy enough to grow your own.
Most Pharma do have very thorough testing phases for their new drugs and they are conducted as a double-blind scenario where neither the doctor or the patient knows whether they get the real drug or else another drug/placebo. For serious illnesses like cancer placebo is not an option if there is no other medication. Each testing phase is carefully planned and executed with a huge paper trail. Whatever the results of any of the test phases are, they are ALWAYS available to FDA and other overseers. Of course there is still a possibility of data manipulation but that is extremely risky as anyone caught doing it would be out of the business for good with lawsuits to follow. That is a risk no established company would take and the new ones are monitored even more thoroughly if possible.
I think the Tamiflu (which BTW I have once taken with a 40c fever, dropped to normal overnight) was a desperate straw people wanted and it might even have been the governments/WHO with a motive to present it as more potent than it may have been. The possibility of another pandemia is very real, we will see if that threat realizes or not. If it does, I’d rather have a possibly potent vaccination/medication than nothing. With H5N1 it was just that, a better chance with a moderate pricetag. WHO knows if it’s effective 😉
As far as CC is considered, it has been the governments and IPCC that have had a motive to scare people with CC and collect the taxes that follow. I’d be very surprised if he hockeystick wasn’t made to order.
At comment 30, I anecdotally reported that I found Relenza to be very effective if taken at the first hint of a flu infection. That’s the key to efficacy, as I understand it. The drug provides no significant benefit after day 1. Even starting late on day 1 is too late, in my experience.
Following my report, three people chimed in with anecdotal reports on the efficacy of Tamiflu… all when taken late: even on three days into exponential duplication of virus particles by the cells lining the airways, with the drug conferring almost instant relief!
That’s like having an ugly weeping cold-sore vanish in an hour or two after applying aciclovir too late. Pretty unlikely.
Tamiflu is the greatest substance on the planet. I took it once – almost instant cure of a flu that should have wrecked me for a week at lesat. (And yes, I swabbed positive to the flu test I took at the doc so I didn’t imagine it.)
As an otherwise admirer and follower of Matt Ridley, I am now dissapointed that in the climate discussion he now he uses analogies to fields of science where hes knowledge isn’t that solid, by which he looses credibility and finally behaves and looks as an activist.
Tamiflu (Generic name Oseltamivir, discovered by Gilead, outlicensed to Roche/Genentech) was the first antiviral product on the market capable to effectively stop the replication of alltypes of influenza viruses, regardless of the specific strain they belongs to, as opposed to vaccines that need to be developed each year anew from the new (modified) strain. The effectiveness of Tamiflu was conclusively demonstrated during several years on the market, especially in Japan, the biggest Tamiflu consuming country before the bird and swine flu hypes (initiated by the WHO) came up, which made the name public and exposed the product to huge media coverage and controversy.
Problem is, that pills need to be taken within 48 hours after the first symptoms appear, symptoms which can be confused at this early stage with common colds, etc. That was the reason why the drug didn’t take off as expected in the global market (except in Japan).
I experienced within my own family and with several friends that the drug delivers what it promises, and can fully underline Andrew’s comments.