[steve86]

I concluded from my reading, that if you are exposed and begin to show symptoms, taking Tamiflu is useless.

Ex, a respectable amount of evidence exists to the contrary. Lives have been saved by Tamiflu recently, after exposure, infection, and influenza symptomatology (H5N1). Spend some time on the influenza forums and you will see. Many people, including "professionals" have been mistaking antibiotic-type genetic resistance for the H5N1 situation, where resistance is seen due to the incredibly prolific replication ability of the virus. In other words, it overwhelms a normal dose and course of Tamiflu. Better results have been seen with a double or triple dose, for twice the time of the normal course. Hence my PM question about probenecid, which increases the level and duration of Tamiflu in the body.

I'm not about to bet my family's lives solely on Tamiflu, but one of the best anti-virals out there definitely seems like a good start, even if imperfect. Comments welcomed.

[Oorang]

I have to agree with you BearWash. I know on various flu forums there seem to be two Tamiflu camps, pro and con. I would rather have it on hand and not need it than the other way around.

Both my doctor and my husbands agreed it was best to have it on hand and readily wrote prescriptions. After reading up on probenecid, makes a lot of sense, I'm going to talk to the docs about that as well.

I'd rather have a "full arsenal" of natural and prescription immune system support for initial use then antivirals for later use. Staying fully armed has always been a good idea to me, and fully armed can have a variety of meanings. Just my humble opinion.