Why You Do Not Need the H1N1 Flu Vaccine
November 4, 2009 by admin
Filed under Columnists, Economics, Low Wei Xiang, Opinion
By Low Wei Xiang, Social Correspondent
It has been reported that the government will start selling the H1N1 vaccine – one million doses of it for our population of nearly five million – likely eliciting a rush to hospitals and clinics for those eager to be amoung the first to lay their hands on it. Should you be one of them?
Instead of blindly joining in like how Singaporeans queued for hours to get their hands on the Hello Kitty plush toys offered by McDonalds sometime back, it would be useful to have an understanding – even if it is a layman’s one – of the virus, vaccine and what you could be in for.
The H1N1 flu is not new to us – a variant of H1N1 killed millions worldwide during the Spanish flu epidemic from 1918 to 1919. This current one afflicting the world is a new variant, but really, perhaps it is time the general public got a sense of perspective instead of treating the H1N1 flu with uptight reverence.
H1N1 is perhaps similar to known seasonal influenza strains in more ways than some imagine.
The key differences are that H1N1 seems to affect a younger demographic, especially those pregnant or with pre-existing medical conditions, and that it is also seeing high activity at a period where seasonal strains are known to be more dormant.
Other than that, symptoms of H1N1 and seasonal strains remain largely similar (vomiting and diarrhea may occur additionally for H1N1). More importantly, the death rates of both are comparable, with estimates agreeing on a mortality rate of substantially below 1%. On 11 Jun 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) raised the H1N1 alert level to that of a pandemic, but it is important to understand that this is a reflection of the geographical prevalence of the virus rather than its lethality, which remains way below that of SARS (about 15%) and the bird flu or H5N1 (about 75%).
Perhaps the reason why alarm bells were sounded for H1N1, creating worldwide media ruckus, is because the strain is a mix which the world has not seen before and has no defense against.
But as long as we understand that the flu is highly contagious but is otherwise not virulent or deadly to most, with a mortality rate similar to that of the seasonal flu, there is no need for unnecessary panic or alarm.
The only thing we should be afraid of right now is that the current strain would further mutate into a deadlier one.
What is a virus?
The H1N1 flu is caused by viruses. Viruses are parasites – they do not metabolize (break down food for energy) and thus have to inhabit in host cells, “leeching” off their hosts to survive and replicate themselves. Without host cells, they are nothing.
According to an article by Associate Professor Paul Ananth Tambyah from Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine in NUS, by Darwin’s theory of evolution, virus strains that are able to survive longer (which also means keeping their hosts alive) will find themselves replicating and infecting new hosts, while strains that kill their hosts will perish and gradually fade out themselves.
The genital herpes (watery blisters or ulcers) virus, for example, is the model virus – there is no cure and it remains in the human body for life, causing “little” more than recurring pain or itch for its host, but whose life is otherwise not endangered. The human host is thus able to live an average lifespan, and similarly, the herpes virus is kept alive too.
Thus it is safe to assume that as long as the H1N1 flu virus does not mutate into a new strain which is uncompassionate to the host, it should otherwise be relatively harmless and we should expect a continued low death rate, because there is no incentive for a virus which has been doing well for its survival to suddenly turn on its back and kill the hand that feeds (and also “committing suicide” in the process).
In addition, the WHO estimates that up to a third of the world population would be hit by H1N1. If this is the case, this “fortunate” group of people would likely have developed some form of immunity against it, and are likely spared from this particular H1N1 strain.
The danger is this – what if the H1N1 flu virus, by interacting with another influenza strain, mutates to form a deadlier version compared to its predecessor which people have no immunity against?
What are vaccines and how do they work?
When viruses (like H1N1) invade our body, our immune system will cause the creation of antibodies (substances to fight the viruses). However, it might be too late by the time antibodies are produced. In this case, vaccines aid us – by using deactivated harmless viruses to stimulate an antibody reaction from our body’s defense mechanism, our body would be armed and prepared should the actual virus attack.
However, vaccines are specific workers and would protect us from viruses that they can actually recognize (i.e. that of the same strain). In other words, should the H1N1 flu virus mutate into a new strain, existing vaccines would probably be rendered ineffective, and many Singaporeans would have queued up for nothing.
What does this mean?
So much talk has been given to the dangers of a new strain springing up – has it happened yet?
We are currently entering the peak season of seasonal influenza – traditionally, most flu outbreaks occur between November to April. Judging by the speed at which flu viruses replicate themselves, it would not be foolhardy to say that the new H1N1 virus might interact with an existing seasonal flu virus and emerge as a newer, hardier, not-so-seasonal strain which the world has not seen before.
Whether this newest strain would be deadly or not remains another question – the pertinent issue is that the vaccines that the world spent the past few months in researching and producing could potentially go to waste. The one million machine guns that Singapore spent money in procuring for the defense of the country’s health might turn out to be only able to shoot blanks.
One might wonder that if flu viruses are constantly mutating and coming up with new versions of themselves every year, it would then seem that vaccines are not useful in even protecting us against the seasonal flu, let alone H1N1. Not so – according to Shannon Brownlee, a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation, every year the WHO and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “collect data from 94 nations on the flu viruses that circulated the previous year, and then make an educated guess about which viruses are likely to circulate in the coming fall. Based on that information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues orders to manufacturers in February for a vaccine that includes the three most likely strains.”
Thus vaccines are actually products of human calculations, presumptions and projections – all of which have room for human errors, one might add. This is why vaccines were never a surefire way of protecting us against flu viruses – we can only hope that the projections the scientists have made turn out accurate.
However, the H1N1 virus strain is new and we might not have the privilege to archives of information or knowledge collected about it to be able to predict with certainty future paths that the virus might take. What scientists probably relied on was data collected over the past few months that the virus has surfaced, but basing predictions on calculations done over such a short period of time would actually provide space for more human errors in the vaccine production.
And consider this – a recent preliminary study conducted in Mumbai by pathologists who studied the tissue samples of those suspected to have died from H1N1 found that “two-thirds of those suspected to have died of swine flu did not have the virus, despite showing all clinical symptoms”. In other words, while they appeared to have been afflicted by H1N1, it seems that the virus in question is not a genetic match to the H1N1 strain we know of. In fact, a main finding of the study is that the “new” virus causes “a more potent viral infection” than the existing H1N1 virus – a mutation, anyone?
Top research agencies and companies spent a few months rushing to produce a vaccine for the world, only to find out that they could potentially have been beaten to the finish line by the faster virus. Can we say for sure that we have kept up with the mutation of the H1N1 strain and produced a vaccine that will curb the spread of the latest strain for this upcoming flu season?
Chances are that the H1N1 vaccines are ineffective – is it still urgent that people should rush to grab hold of the vaccine before it runs out of stock, especially if its side effects are still not established? You decide – after all, you do not want it to be like the Hello Kitty toys which we used to hanker after, but which have since been stashed away collecting dust.
Related articles:
>> Cost price of H1N1 vaccine revealed
>> H1N1 flu vaccination begins
EDITORS’ NOTE:
If you like our work and would like to support us, please transfer your donations via paypal to our account (temasekreview@gmail.com). Any amount will be greatly appreciated! Alternatively, you can also help boost our advertising revenue by clicking on the ads displayed. Thank you!
Join our tweet at: http://www.twitter.com/temasekreview
About the Author:
Low Wei Xiang is a proud graduate of Hwachong Institution and a self-dubbed writer with journalistic aspirations. Aged 20, he has been writing short stories and social commentaries for the past 3 years and will be entering NTU’s Wee Kim Wee School of Communications and Information in 2010.
Loading ...
Exposer on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 3:18 pm
By the way, how much it cost to inject the H1N1 Flu Vaccine in Singapre ?
Please someone aka MIW, don’t tell me that cost doesn’t matter as far as your life is concerned. If it is not threatening, no point wasting money in the land Of PayAndPay.
Agents Provocateur on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 3:29 pm
“…because there is no incentive for a virus which has been doing well for its survival to suddenly turn on its back and kill the hand that feeds…”
While it is true that a virus that tends not to kill its host will flourish, it would be inaccurate to therefore assert that we may continue to expect a relatively low death rate. Mutation doesn’t occur according to the dictates of reason, of which we may reasonably expect a virus to lack. A virus does not sit back in your cells and think, “Hmm, if I kill this body, I’ll die too!”
That would be artificial selection. Natural selection is rather more capricious.
KAM on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 4:37 pm
1. In Europe, most of the countries provide the vaccine free of charge. Why? Someone said it is because the govts are realistic and compassionate. Others accuse them of making guinea pig experiments, and therefore it is a free product, voluntarily taken at your own risk.
2. Vaccines are rushedly tested. No one can be sure of their effectiveness. Some old people in Sweden were reported to have died within 2 days of taking the vaccine, although they had other underlying problems.
3. Vaccines are manufactured with controversial adjuvants. A kind of chemical catalyst which was/is not approved in the US, is now being used in the US. US govt has signed a special bill (law) which protects the vaccine makers from law suits in the event of death or side effects.
Some say it is a moneymaking scam, but other say it is necessary to sign this, to press the Pharma firms to speedup the rollout of the vaccine.
4. Rumours has it, that there are 2 kinds of vaccines. 1 for the public (lousy kind) and one for the key personnel like army and police. The US has openly asked that these 2 types be switched over.
Only rumours.
5. Pharma stand to make billions from this. Some time ago, long before H1N1 was discovered, a memo was leaked from a leading Pharma exec to topup the production of 531% for Tamiflu. How did he know? Looks like a Robocop film story?
6. In the end, will you take the vaccine in Singapore? It is 5 million people in 700 sq.km. I would take it but not both parents. Take 1 parent only. Children should not take? Take more vitamins and stay home more. Wash your hands with soap, etc.
Kiasu a bit better than die early.
btan on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 4:53 pm
TR, you have to be careful when you tell people that vaccination is not needed as you probably don’t have qualify medical person to make that statement.
It is better that your article should tell people to consult their doctor on the final decision.
streetsmart73 on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 5:14 pm
hi there
1. want a free jab, dream on in sinkie city or country!
2. well, it alleges to cost something between s$29.00 to s$32.00
3. yes, down under, it is foc too.
4. here, it is your biz to get the jab at your own cost and convenience.
5. i am confident that such crap shall be vomitted “well, you pay what you want mah!”
6. one more to add to the “wound”, pls include gst hoh!
fres on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 5:54 pm
very glad you finally include pictures in your articles! Please use left align function so that the text flows around the pic.. because it saves space and looks professional.
admin on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 5:58 pm
Hi btan,
But we have medical personnel who vetted the article before it is published.
Under the U.S. CDC guidelines, the vaccine is only recommended for certain groups of people such as the very young, pregnant and very old. H1N1 vaccination has not been made compulsory in other countries yet though some European countries offered mass vaccination for its citizens for free.
H1N1 influenza is a mild disease with a low mortality rate. Besides, more than 60 per cent of Singapore’s population probably had the virus already and had developed antibodies to it, rendering the vaccine unnecessary.
admin on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 5:59 pm
Hi Exposer,
It costs $29 in polyclinic. Some clinics offer like Healthway Medical Group offers only $26 per jab excluding GST. Others like Dayspring charge a flat $30 rate.
amy on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 6:16 pm
The author do have a good point and I do have the same views. When I saw the title, I was expecting some “alternative views” to be aired.
There are many “alternative views” out on the net voicing against vaccinations in general and also specifically about H1N1 vaccination. And not only that, for H1N1 flu there are also a number of alternative remedies being talked about.
For those who distrust mainstream and do believe in alternatives, this should be an interesting subject.
Exposer on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 6:49 pm
TR,
thank for info. I think that the cost should be included in the main post.
Anyway, I will be expecting the health minister to claim that the health ministry has incurred over hundred million dollars deficit over this vaccine because some place sell the vaccine for $100, the very same kind of creative accounting use by HDB, TH, GIC…
JanetNT on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 6:57 pm
Dear TR,
Your medical personnel vetted the article, what did he vet it for? Dose the article have medical ground or vetted it for typo?
Pardon me but i can’t help feel skeptical reading an TR article on why i should not get vaccinated, as the title suggest base on a article by a 20 year old who did not study medicine.
JanetNT on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 7:04 pm
“Chances are that the H1N1 vaccines are ineffective”
This is a very bold statement…
deoxin on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 7:53 pm
hehe . . young punk plays docter.
there’s not even a single reference or link.
Damon Yeo on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 8:21 pm
@JanetNT
I see your concerns after reading this article. However, what I like to say is that this is an opinion piece, backed by well-researched points and facts. With internet these days, you get polar views on same topics so I believe this article is setting things straight by offering an alternative view, something you will not get on mainstream media. Information (from all angles) is power, so one should take in more information to make an informed decision.
Secondly, to say that because it is written by 20-year-old the article is not credible is not correct. The article should be judged by the value it adds, not the writer. To say that because he does not have a medical he is not credible is not correct either, dont forget our health minister does not have a medical degree too (correct me if I am wrong).
A lot of credit should be given to Wei Xiang for not just a well-written piece, but also for that fact that he is willing to reveal his young age. If you read the Economist, none of the articles have a writer’s name attached to it, for all we know they might be written by teenagers.
janetnt on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 8:53 pm
Damon,
I admire the writer’s courage and he has indeed done some homework for this. I give him credit for that. But this is also not a normal blast PAP article we see around here.
As his bold statement and (misleading?) title suggest, his opinion is that we should not take the vaccine. I believe both him and TR would need more to back it up. Only then we can say TR and its writer are a responsible lots unlike the MSM which they always blast as spin doctor.
admin on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 9:17 pm
Hi Janetnt,
Please read the article carefully again.
The part on “chances are that the H1N1 vaccines are ineffective” must be read in the context of the paragraph above – that the H1N1 flu virus, like all other flu viruses, have a high rate of mutation.
According to the MOH circular, the vaccine is effected from a period of 6 months to 1 year which means that the immunity it rendered will start falling after a few months. A different strain of the vaccine will be needed.
We have medical doctors in our team and the article has been vetted for factual accuracy. Hope that clarifies.
beware H1N1 vaccine on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 9:33 pm
Some of the new H1N1 (swine flu) vaccines are going to be made by Novartis. These shots will probably be made in PER.C6 cells (human retina cells) and contain MF59, a potentially debilitating adjuvant. MF-59 is an oil-based adjuvant primarily composed of squalene.
All rats injected with squalene (oil) adjuvants developed a disease that left them crippled, dragging their paralyzed hindquarters across their cages. Injected squalene can cause severe arthritis (3 on scale of 4) and severe immune responses, such as autoimmune arthritis and lupus.
Read the full article at :
http://drtenpenny.com/the_truth_about_the_flu_Shot.aspx
Read Dr. Andrew Moulden’s interview here:
http://vactruth.com/2009/07/21/dr-andrew-moulden-interview-what-you-were-never-told-about-vaccines/
Dr Moulden lists numerous severe side effects of taking the shot. Considering the low mortality of the H1N1 virus, is it worth the extra risk that is associated with taking the vaccine?
indexer on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 9:37 pm
The photo “h1n1vaccine.jpg” shows the antiviral drug Relenza. Relenza is not a vaccine.
cy on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 10:08 pm
生死有命、富贵在天
even if you take the vaccine, you could be involved in a car accident. touch wood!
don’t woory too much abt this virus, if you kena, just accept it, the percentage of deaths is very low, unless you are very “suay”
Low Wei Xiang on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 10:37 pm
Hi all,
Although I believe that the comments are self-moderating, I feel that I should step in to somewhat defend my article lest I am seen as someone without spine who runs away after writing an article.
The article is aimed to inform die-hard believers that vaccines may not be as effective as what we or the media make them out to be.
Some have questioned by age and my credibility to be authorized to write such an article.
This is what I feel – facts are facts, whether provided by a 20-year-old, a 40-year-old, a layman, or a doctor.
The “claims” in my article were precipitated after 5 hours of hard research, and I believe that the same “claims” would have been produced by someone older or more qualified with the same angle or point of view that I have.
If it makes the reader feel more comfortable thinking that the writer of the article was someone older, then by all means delete my age off the by-line. Age should not be an issue in the article because the “claims” were actually gleaned off online and newspapers research – and the same “claims” would have been produced by someone older with the same slant.
As for qualifications, I admit that I might not be the most qualified to write the article. However, people of medical background have proofread my article. In addition, facts still remain as facts. These “claims” were extracted and quoted from, I repeat, research from established, qualified sources. The only difference this time is that the person quoting it is a 20-year-old deemed as “not having the credentials to make such comments”. But I did not make the comments. I quoted them, and angled them to fit the slant that my article took on without changing its scientific basis.
Facts can undeniably be disputed by more facts, and this is perhaps when someone with the qualifications can choose to refute me. I will gladly accept and learn from new insights which may or may not disprove anything I’ve said.
But I stress again, this article is made up of facts, and is, in fact, an opinion article based on actual facts. Whether people take it or have other beliefs of their own (supported by facts, hopefully) is up to the individual.
Low Wei Xiang on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 10:39 pm
Hi all,
Although I believe that the comments are self-moderating, I feel that I should step in to somewhat defend my article lest I am seen as someone without spine who runs away after writing an article.
The article is aimed to inform die-hard believers that vaccines may not be as effective as what we or the media make them out to be.
Some have questioned by age and my credibility to be authorized to write such an article.
This is what I feel – facts are facts, whether provided by a 20-year-old, a 40-year-old, a layman, or a doctor.
The “claims” in my article were precipitated after 5 hours of hard research, and I believe that the same “claims” would have been produced by someone older or more qualified with the same angle or point of view that I have.
If it makes the reader feel more comfortable thinking that the writer of the article was someone older, then by all means delete my age off the by-line. Age should not be an issue in the article because the “claims” were actually gleaned off online and newspapers research – and the same “claims” would have been produced by someone older with the same slant.
As for qualifications, I admit that I might not be the most qualified to write the article. However, people of medical background have proofread my article. In addition, facts still remain as facts. These “claims” were extracted and quoted from, I repeat, research from established, qualified sources. The only difference this time is that the person quoting it is a 20-year-old deemed as “not having the credentials to make such comments”. But I did not make the comments. I quoted them, and angled them to fit the slant that my article took on without changing its scientific basis.
Facts can undeniably be disputed by more facts, and this is perhaps when someone with the qualifications can choose to refute me. I will gladly accept and learn from new insights which may or may not disprove anything I’ve said.
But I stress again, this article is made up of facts, and is, in fact, an opinion article based on actual facts. Whether people take it or have other beliefs of their own (supported by facts, hopefully) is up to the individual.
Meanwhile, I am truly grateful to those who have stepped in to defend me
amy on Wed, 4th Nov 2009 11:32 pm
Seems like majority of people here are “mainstream” believers in the area of health and medicine, unlike in politics where one can see many alternative views here. No one here believe in alternative views or alternative remedies?
Notgonnahappen on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 12:11 am
i’m scarred
hopeless on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 1:18 am
“These “claims” were extracted and quoted from, I repeat, research from established, qualified sources. The only difference this time is that the person quoting it is a 20-year-old deemed as “not having the credentials to make such comments”.”
-it would help if you had listed your sources, then such quotes and claims can be verified
Low Wei Xiang on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 6:22 am
Hi hopeless,
Knowledge that I felt were general/generic – like symptoms and mortality rates of the different flu, definitions of viruses, vaccines and how they work – do not have sources listed because they were generally agreed by virtually every (reliable) source you will come across and it will be impossible to attribute it to any one source. In fact, for all you know, they could have been taken out of my personal knowledge from Biology lessons and readings (and indeed, some of them were).
Specialized knoledge were given the appropriate recognition – several claims by WHO, that of Associate Professor Paul Ananth Tambyah who devoted an entire article on why he felt the H1N1 will be harmless, and that of Shannon Brownlee who explained how vaccines were products of “educated guess(es)”.
The rest were my analysis/opinions of the issue after consolidating the knowledge garnered from hours of research, giving the article its slant.
However, I understand the concerns and agree that I could have taken more pains to list my sources out clearly. I had not done so as I felt listing too many sources in its full details would impede in the easy/comfortable reading for the reader, especially for an article as long as it already is. My aim was to make the article as light/understandable for the layman as possible, but I understand that some readers would invariably have higher expectations, and I will take this as a learning point.
Thank you for raising this up.
Ascott on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 7:39 am
H1N1 vaccine is lab cultured pig microbes. Is is not?
Therefore, has the top Islamic clergy from Cairo or Riyadh or eleswhere given the green light/fatwa for Muslims en masse around the world to introduce such a vaccine into their blood system?
Cow on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 10:25 am
With Malaysian Khaw’s unpopular statement that Singaporean oldies will be shipped to Batam and Johor in order to save his hospitals costs, this vacine is seen as his only card to win back votes. Will people buy his vaccines, is left to be seen.
csl on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 10:27 am
I do recall that the vaccine is made from chicken eggs too. Saudi Arabia when holding the Haj will demand that the pilgrims have to furbish proof that they have been vaccinated against H1N1. The last thing the Arabs want in such a huge congregation of human beings is to have a spread of H1N1 during Haj which then continues to wreck havoc on their healthcare system.
Locally, those who are attending this year’s Haj will be given priority to take the vaccine.
BoomzShingz on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 11:22 am
It is only the flu. Why are people so afraid? Your immune system is well capable of defending your own body. The flu virus has co-evolved with humanity for eons. The probablity of it turning into a highly pathogenic strain is unlikely since it has acquired many adaptations to the human host.
The media likes remind us about the Spanish flu in 1918 which killed millions and then try to insinuate that it could happen again. What they conveniently forget is that many of those who died in 1918 were due to a secondary pneumonia infection. And they died because penicillin WAS NOT discovered yet! We have antibiotics today to combat secondary infections. Often times, it is not the virus that kills but a secondary infection. But this they don’t tell you.
Another thing they don’t bring up in the media is that in 1976, swine flu broke out in an army camp in USA. A national campaign was started for mass vaccination. People bought into the media hype and as many as 40 million were vaccinated. As it turned out it was a mild strain of flu but because of the vaccinations, as many as 4000 people came down with Gullian-Barre syndrome, a paralyzing neurological disease. The vaccine did more harm than good.
What’s happening today is more akin to what happened in 1976 than what happened in 1918.
So the question remains, why are people so scared? Have we not learnt anything from history?
Zen on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 11:44 am
the h1n1 vaccine is called panvax from an australian company called csl. just google and you’re see relevant info on panvax.
the sticking point with me is that the govt tries to shove the burden of healthcare to the citizens as usual. a lot of countries are offering foc. singapore is especially vulnerable given our high density and openness. singapoire is also darned rich, and yet citizens are “encouraged” to pay out of their own pockets.
i’m not comfortable with the trend of pushing healthcare costs onto the citizens. i see this firmly in place, the last example being the compulsory pneumoccal vaccination to be borne by citizens. it’s like singapore is getting more and more expensive, and you just have to pay up and shut up (= it’s for your own good)
btan on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 3:33 pm
Hi TR,
Is your medical personnel a doctor then?
As mentioned before, all medical advice, even given by a medical doctor, should always end with the caveat that one should consult one’s physician.
For your information, the vaccine is not suitable for children under 3 years. So while it is recommended for the “very young”, children under 3 should not go for the vaccine.
btan on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 3:42 pm
@BoomzShingz on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 11:22 am
[[So the question remains, why are people so scared? Have we not learnt anything from history?]]
It’s a two-edged sword. If you do not warn people of dangers, and if many died, then you carry the death of people in your hands.
If you warn people of dangers, and no one dies, then people will say you are a fear mongerer.
We have to put things into perspective. H1N1 is a new virus, albeit it is part of the family of flu virus. People have died because of it, albeit these people are those already with medical condition in the first place.
When it comes to new diseases, sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry. At the same time, we should also not go too far, like slaughtering pigs for nothing.
Information and appropriate balance is key.
It is ironic we are so afraid of this new disease and want vaccination but we still have bad social habits of coughing into people’s face, not wearing a mask when having flu and worse, going to work even though doctor gives MC to rest at home.
admin on Thu, 5th Nov 2009 5:05 pm
Hi btan,
The only reason why the H1N1 vaccine is not recommended for those under 18 years old is because the clinical trials for this age-group has not yet completed.
Once the trial has confirmed that it is safe for use in children, it will be recommended for those under three as well, like the influenza flu vaccine.
PK on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 12:04 pm
Hi Low Wei Xiang,
Well written & informative.
raxip on Fri, 6th Nov 2009 12:16 pm
Wait till someone you know/love dies due to H1N1 and you will find yourself changing your tone totally.
It’s just like the difference between a recession and a depression. A recession is when your neighbour loses his job while a depression is one when you lose yours.
sick of lies on Sun, 8th Nov 2009 4:24 am
I believe that $29 does not include doctor’s consultation. And I believe that we can’t have the vaccination without a consultation. A normal consultation costs $25 at all government hospitals. Total=$57.78 incl GST.
What a brilliant way to earn money!
delphine on Tue, 10th Nov 2009 3:08 am
Dear Wei Xiang,
great post. I enjoyed reading it!
keep up the good work! ((: