Thursday, April 10, 2014

Swine flu, Tamiflu and how UKIP exposed the swine swindle in 2010

The Daily Telegraph today carried an article covering the release of an investigation by Oxford University which looked into the government's stockpiling and subsequent use of Tamiflu (oseltamivir).

Back in 2010 when I was working in Brussels, I undertook a review of the use of Tamiflu at the height of the 'Swine Flu' hysteria. The results of my investigation are available at www.swineswindle.blogspot.com, but in précis the outcome of an analysis of existing medical trials and regulatory reports was that:

  1. Tamiflu was potentially more dangerous than swine flu
  2. Young people were particularly at risk from adverse reactions including psychotic episodes and increased suicide risk
  3. It was not particularly effective in treating A/H1N1
All conclusions also reached by Oxford University after 5 years of study. My list of conclusions did not stop there, however:
  • The European Medicines Agency extended the shelf life of Tamiflu to prevent political embarrassment to national governments caused by the destruction of £100's of millions of unused medicine
  • The subsequent widespread use of Tamiflu has been driven by political concerns related to the above
  • The ability of the A/H1N1 group virii to develop resistance to Tamiflu was accelerated by this widespread use
  • The stockpiling of Tamiflu was a result of EU policy
UKIP was not alone in reaching these conclusions, but the medical community was reluctant to rock the political boat, despite evidence published by the British Medical Journal. My own response to that is attached below, with the link to it's publication in the BMJ below.



Publicly available information


4 January 2010


I make no claims to be experienced in understanding clinical trials, nor even to have a medical background: I am by training an engineer. However, it was clear as long ago as June that the use of oseltamivir in combating the current 'pandemic' A/H1N1 strain was neither straightforward, nor without an element of risk. 
 
Under the auspices of Godfrey Bloom MEP (Yorkshire & North Lincolnshire) I undertook an analysis of existing publicly available information relating to oseltamivir treatments and arrived at conclusions which, to a layman such as myself, do not differ greatly from those in this report. 
 
Several questions arose from this research which deserved an answer much earlier in the debate. These included:
 
  • whether the widespread use of oseltamivir would result in increased resistance as appeared to be suggested by de Jong, Thanh and others (New England Medical Journal, 12/2005) and Dharan, Gubereva, Meyer et al (Journal of the American Medical Association)
  • Whether oseltamivir was more dangerous than the A/H1N1 it was supposed to treat/prevent, as suggested by the US FDA (Pediatric ADRs to Tamiflu, 2007), Maxwell's Tamiflu and neuropsychiatric problems in adolescents (BMJ) and the work of Rokura Hama.
  • Whether the rush to use oseltamivir to treat A/H1N1 was related to the imminent expiry of stockpiles purchased in 2005 in the previous 'bird flu' scare which would have lead to the destruction of pharmaceuticals worth £500m in the UK alone. 
As someone involved in advising policy on these matters, I was mystified as to why the scientific community could not address these issues at the time and, worse, actively sought to deflect dissent to the prevailing view which appeared to amount to 'unless we all take oseltamivir we'll die of H1N1'.

I am perfectly happy to accept that my understanding of medicine may well be at fault in my interpretation of at least some of the studies I quote, but there has always been a significant body of opinion which has questioned both the seriousness of the supposed A/H1N1 pandemic, and the efficacy of oseltamivir as either a treatment or a prophylaxis. For any who are interested, my own analysis was published at www.swineswindle.blogspot.com . My apologies for the title, but I am a journalist and not a medical professional.

Yours faithfully,
Mark Croucher
Head of Media
Europe of Freedom & Democracy Group (UKIP), European Parliament, Brussels
 
Competing interests: None declared


Thursday, April 3, 2014

How the EU has introduced 13,242 new pieces of legislation since May 2009

With Nick Clegg still insistent that only 7% of UK legislation comes from Brussels, I did a little research.

Using the Official Journal of the European Union, I went through and counted up all of the legislation contained within the 'Legislative' issue of the Journal since the European elections in May 2009. The results were nothing if not predictable.

Since May 2009, the European Union has introduced the following:

6646 Regulations
501 Directives
6014 Legislative Instruments (modifications to existing legislation, treaties, corrigenda, etc)
81 'other', including Commission guidelines and recommendations.

All of which gives a grand total of 13,242 pieces of legislation.

In a similar period (Jan 2009 to 31st March 2014), the British Parliament at Westminster has introduced 162 pieces of primary legislation (Acts of Parliament) and 14,125 Statutory Instruments (those laws which are introduced either by ministerial diktat or through delegated powers).

The full table by month is shown below for the European legislation:

Month Regulations Directives  Legislative Instruments other
2009
May 93 18 89 0
June 115 20 108 0
July 132 8 95 0
August 94 27 48 0
Sept 123 9 128 0
Oct 130 23 97 0
Nov 116 14 79 0
Dec 139 17 209 0
2010 0 1931
Jan 120 21 114 0
Feb 77 10 83 0
Mar 109 11 128 0
Apr 94 6 81 0
May 106 1 64 0
June 112 10 91 0
July 119 8 97 0
August 89 12 57 0
Sept 98 2 144 0
Oct 118 7 95 1
Nov 113 9 95 0
Dec 171 14 119 3
2011 2609
Jan 71 7 70 2
Feb 121 8 90 1
Mar 115 19 108 1
Apr 119 22 91 3
May 104 4 77 1
June 108 1 120 4
July 114 11 120 4
August 115 1 43 2
Sept 103 6 179 2
Oct 125 3 114 8
Nov 131 7 94 3
Dec 159 9 175 2
2012 2797
Jan 77 2 67 1
Feb 94 3 83 5
Mar 115 6 112 3
Apr 82 2 55 0
May 87 1 71 0
June 121 2 107 0
July 120 3 115 1
August 82 2 93 2
Sept 109 1 93 3
Oct 112 5 179 1
Nov 109 14 107 1
Dec 153 7 168 3
2013 2579
Jan 83 4 98 1
Feb 89 7 55 2
Mar 122 2 107 0
Apr 92 0 54 2
May 106 5 75 4
June 136 22 102 2
July 107 4 87 0
August 89 5 67 0
Sept 106 0 46 1
Oct 131 2 123 0
Nov 158 5 210 0
Dec 190 10 151 1
2014 2663
Jan 86 17 70 2
Feb 104 7 96 1
Mar 133 18 121 8
6646 501 6014 81 13242
UA-9983464-2