April 24, 2014

FDA Approves Neurotoxic Flu Drug For Infants Less Than One

pharma influenza FDA Approves Neurotoxic Flu Drug For Infants Less Than One

by Sayer Ji
GreenMedInfo.com

Whereas the flu is self-limiting, the FDA’s capacity for bad decisions is not…

The recent decision by the FDA to approve the use of the antiviral drug Tamiflu for treating influenza in infants as young as two weeks old, belies an underlying trajectory within our regulatory agencies towards sheer insanity.

Tamiflu, known generically as oseltamivir, has already drawn international concern over its link with suicide deaths in children given the drug after its approval in 1999. In fact, in 2004, the Japanese pharmaceutical company Chugai added “abnormal behavior” as a possible side effect inside Tamiflu’s package.  The FDA also acknowledged in its April, 2012 “Pediatric Postmarket Adverse Event Review” of Tamiflu that “abnormal behavior, delirium, including symptoms such as hallucinations, agitation, anxiety, altered level of consciousness, confusion, nightmares, delusions” are possible side effects.[i]

Recent animal research on Tamiflu has found that the infant brain absorbs the drug more readily than the adult brain,[ii]  [iii]lending a possible explanation for why neuropsychiatric side effects have been observed disproportionately in younger patients.

The very mechanism of Tamiflu’s anti-influenza action may hold the key to its well-known neurotoxicity. Known as a neuromindase inhibitor, the drug inhibits the key enzyme within the flu virus that enables it to enter through the membrane of the host cell.  So fundamental is this enzyme that viruses are named after this antigenic characteristic. For instance,  the “N” in H1N1 flu virus is named for type 1 viral neuromindase.

Mammals, however, also have neurimindase enzymes, known as ‘sialidase homologs,’ with four variations identified within the human genome so far; NEU1,NEU2,NEU3 and NUE4.  These enzymes are important for neurological health. For example, the enzyme encoded by NEU3, is indispensable for the modulation of the ganglioside content of the lipid bilayer, which is found predominantly in the nervous system and constitutes 6% of all phospholipids in the brain.

It is therefore likely that neurimindase-targeted drugs like Tamiflu are simply not selective enough to inhibit only the enzymes associated with influenza viral infectivity. They likely also cross-react with those off-target neurimindase enzymes associated with proper neurological function within the host. This “cross reactivity” with self-structures may also explain why the offspring of pregnant women given Tamiflu have significantly elevated risk of birth defects (10.6%) relative to background rates (2-3%), according to a 2009 safety review by the European Medicines Agency.

Beyond the recognition of Tamiflu’s intrinsic toxicity, there are two additional problems with the use Tamiflu in infants:

  1. Infants do not yet have a sufficiently developed blood-brain barrier capable of keeping the chemical out of their rapidly developing brains
  2. Their detoxification systems are not sufficiently developed to remove the chemical rapidly enough to prevent harm

The FDA’s decision to include infants under one as treatable with Tamiflu is all the more disturbing when you consider that a 2010 study published in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal found that of 157 evaluable infants (mean age 6.3 months) treated for influenza with Tamiflu, complications due to the medication were found in the majority (54%) of the treated group.

According to the study

Complications were recorded in 84 patients (54%), the most serious of which were meningitis in 1 infant (1%), pneumonia in 9 (6%), and otitis media in 2 (1%).

Are meningitis, pneumonia and otitis media (ear infection) acceptable risks for treating influenza? Apparently for the FDA, it is.

How about death? Is that an acceptable risk of Tamiflu treatment for flu, a self-limiting disease?

In 2011, the International Journal of Vaccine Risk and Safety in Medicine published an article titled, “Oseltamivir and early deterioration leading to death: a proportional mortality study for 2009A/H1N1 influenza,” described 119 reports of Tamiflu-induced death. According to the study:  “of 119 deaths after Tamiflu was prescribed, 38 deteriorated within 12 hours (28 within 6 hours).”

The study concluded:

These data suggest Tamiflu use could induce sudden deterioration leading to death especially within 12 hours of prescription. These findings are consistent with sudden deaths observed in a series of animal toxicity studies, several reported case series and the results of prospective cohort studies. From “the precautionary principle” the potential harm of Tamiflu should be taken into account and further detailed studies should be conducted.

So, how did the FDA justify its decision to consider Tamiflu safe in infants under one year? Did it use controlled, randomized, placebo-controlled trials to ascertain safety?  Of course not. Testing drugs on infants is unethical, and no parent in their right mind would enroll their newborn in such a trial. Lacking definitive evidence of safety, the FDA’s expanded approval in children younger than one year was based on extrapolation of data from previous results in adults and older children.[iv] This, of course, is inappropriate as it denies the aforementioned differences in the susceptibility to drug toxicity and neurotoxicity between infants and older individuals.  It also avoids proper consideration of the studies in the biomedical literature indicating its potential for severe, if not life-threatening toxicity to infants, children and adults alike.

Another concern, not addressed in the FDA announcement, is that as of Dec. 15th, 2010, the World Health Organization has acknowledged that, based on over 300 tested worldwide samples of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 flu, resistance to Tamiflu is growing.[v]  Therefore, treating an infant with Tamiflu-resistant influenza would not only do nothing to combat the infection, but would poison that child and further disable their natural immune response.

The clear winner in the FDA’s decision will be the bottom line of Roche, the manufacturer of this patented chemical.  How much longer can the FDA continue to expect those subject to its regulatory decisions to maintain the illusion that it is interested in the public welfare?

We must remember that infants do not get sick from the flu as a result of Tamiflu deficiency, or flu vaccine deficiency for that matter.  They do get sick from the immune-disrupting effects of synthetic chemicals completely foreign to human physiology (such as Tamiflu), and lack of vital hormone modulating compounds that result from adequate sunlight exposure (vitamin D3), and good nutrition.

For additional information on this topic view our research on natural anti-influenza agents.

Read the full article here: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fda-approves-neurotoxic-flu-drug-infants-less-one

Flu and Flu Vaccines:
What’s Coming Through That Needle – DVD

flu and flu vaccines whats coming through that needle DVD by dr tenpenny FDA Approves Neurotoxic Flu Drug For Infants Less Than One

More Info
FREE Shipping Available!


0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

The Breast Cancer Industry Is Deceiving Women

The Breast Cancer Industry Is Deceiving Women

Are regular mammograms doing more harm than good? For the past two decades, controversy has swirled around the question of the benefits of mammography. Unfortunately, breast cancer is a huge and thriving industry, and its powerhouses have lined up squarely in support of mammography. If every woman who is recommended to get a breast exam did so, it puts $8 billion dollars a year into the pockets of the radiology industry.

But what does the science say? This past February, a twenty-five-year-long Canadian trial found no difference in death rates from breast cancer among women who had regular mammograms and those who did not. The Mammogram Myth may be beginning to crumble, but don’t wait for the dust to settle— research safer ways to prevent, detect, and treat breast cancer.

Arbitrary Definition of Osteoporosis: Aging Transformed Into a Disease

Arbitrary Definition of Osteoporosis: Aging Transformed Into a Disease

The present-day definitions of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis were arbitrarily conceived by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the early 90′s and then projected upon millions of women’s bodies seemingly in order to convince them they had a drug-treatable, though symptomless, disease. The WHO’s technical definition, now used widely around the world as the gold standard, is disturbingly inept, and as we shall see, likely conceals an agenda that has nothing to do with the promotion of health.

U.S Congressman: CDC Can’t be Trusted Regarding Vaccine Safety

U.S Congressman: CDC Can’t be Trusted Regarding Vaccine Safety

Congressman Bill Posey’s strong resolve and demands for transparency were evident as he discussed the Center for Disease Control (CDC)’s handling of vaccine safety studies which affect “our most precious resource in our nation – our children.” The 30-minute interview, conducted by vaccine industry watchdog, PhD biochemist Brian Hooker, delves into what Posey called “the incestuous relationship between the public health community and the vaccine makers and public officials.”

The Florida legislator, known as “Mr. Accountabililty,” did not mince words when criticizing current and past CDC officials including indicted fraudster Dr. Poul Thorsen; CDC director turned Merck Vaccine President Dr. Julie Gerberding; and the agency’s current spokesperson regarding autism and vaccines, Dr. Coleen Boyle.

Congressman Posey said, “The CDC can’t be trusted regarding investigating vaccine safety. Huge conflict of interest. I think the CDC should be investigated.”

Merck’s Former Doctor Predicts that Gardasil will Become the Greatest Medical Scandal of All Time

Merck’s Former Doctor Predicts that Gardasil will Become the Greatest Medical Scandal of All Time

In an interview with Dr. Bernard Dalbergue, a former pharmaceutical industry physician with Gardasil manufacturer Merck, he predicts that Gardasil will become the greatest medical scandal of all time. Dr. Dalbergue believes that at some point in time, the evidence will add up to prove that this vaccine, technical and scientific feat that it may be, has absolutely no effect on cervical cancer and that all the very many adverse effects which destroy lives and even kill young girls, serves no other purpose than to generate profit for the manufacturers.

Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare

Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare

An important new book by a recognized medical research expert describes Big Pharma as akin to the Mafia. In an interview conducted by our colleagues at ANH-Europe, Dr. Peter C. Gøtzsche exposes the flaws of the drug approval system, our reliance on dangerous drugs, and the deadly co-dependence between regulators and industry. Dr. Gøtzsche is co-founder of the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration and Cochrane Reviews, a leading journal of evidence-based medicine. The interview is particularly timely now that the FDA has decided to remove restrictions on the dangerous drug Avandia.

Dr. Gøtzsche’s new book, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, points out that the pharmaceutical industry is allowed to test their own drugs, and thus effectively be their own judge. He calls this a threat to safe medicine and asks for open access to all research data, including raw data, because otherwise, data can be easily suppressed and conclusions manipulated by industry.

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!