Talk

Advanced search

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

Flu drigs 'unhelpful' in children

(9 Posts)
atlantis Mon 10-Aug-09 15:00:23

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8193012.stm

Good to know... Now !

How pathetic is this government, they really do not know what they are doing.

This is exactly the reason I would not vaccinate my DD with MMR or the new SF vaccine.

Sooty7 Mon 10-Aug-09 15:02:29

Message withdrawn

PerfectPrefect Mon 10-Aug-09 18:54:08

Funnily enough I have been ranting on here for the last few weeks that it is all about risk v benefit, and that Tamiflu may be unnecessary in some.....

(but to be fair I would have expected children to benefit most - but through increased risk of complications, this however is showing reduced benefit).

Musukebba Mon 10-Aug-09 23:13:56

Just what we need: another meta-analysis conducted on bad data and purporting to be 'research'.

FlightHattendant Wed 12-Aug-09 17:01:10

Musu...your thoughts would be appreciated! smile

cheerfulvicky Wed 12-Aug-09 23:05:34

Another papers version of the story, in case anyone is interested:

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/11/swine-flu-tamiflu-andrew-castle

By the way, Flight - you know I was mentioning on another thread about the possibility of the flu vaccine being made madatory? Well, looks like they're already doing that in Greece:

www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100002_01/08/2009_109461

Musukebba Fri 14-Aug-09 18:41:20

Thanks Flight... I'll try and be brief.

Meta-analyses are really only useful for indicating future areas of properly-controlled hypothesis-based research; not as suddenly revealing answers to questions that could not be found in the original studies.

The data on which this meta-analysis is poor, as admitted by the authors:

"...study quality was generally moderate, with only one of seven included studies rated free from bias, and the quality of the others was limited by poor reporting. Thirdly, studies varied both in the outcomes measured and the consistency of reporting of results, which severely hampered our ability to aggregate results."

I would encourage people to read the freely-available full article, because apart from the dense statistical table section the rest of it is quite easy to understand. Especially the limitations.

Lastly, all the studies included were on seasonal flu, not swine flu, and the risk/benefit of giving antivirals is quite different for both types of infection.

The Andrew Castle thing is a good example of how confused people can be about the side-effects of oseltamivir. It is not associated with precipitation of asthma attacks, whereas swine flu is. So rather unfair to complain that it was the medication that was at fault, when it could have been an infection itself.

Gibbspercival Sun 16-Aug-09 10:05:51

Firstly go to :
www.uktabloid.co.uk/MainNews.html
scroll down and learn the truth about this dreaded abuse of the public!

novax Sun 16-Aug-09 13:13:02

Message withdrawn

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now