Handing of Joint Memorandum to Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz by Islamic NGOs at the Parliament House on March 20, 2006

Handing of Joint Memorandum to Datuk Seri Nazri Abdul Aziz by Islamic NGOs at the Parliament House on March 20, 2006
by Puan Azra Banu

The turn out was excellent and the mood was one of enthusiasm and buoyancy.

Members from the various Islamic NGOs were seated very early, all impeccably dressed. From the onset, before the arrival of the Minister, it was quite clear that everyone shared a warm sense of camaraderie and it was almost already congratulatory for having come this far.

The Minister duly arrived and after brief formalities, Dr. Mazeni Alwi, Chairman of the Muslim Professionals Forum (MPF) started by thanking the Minister for his time and everyone else for their support and briefly outlined the objectives of the afternoon. The handing over of the memorandum then took place, following which the chair was handed over to Puan Farah Abdullah, a founding director of MPF who expounded the Executive Summary, a position jointly agreed upon by the Islamic NGOs involved.

The Minister then threw the session open to all present, encouraging them to voice any concerns they might have and there were a few raised. A few representatives expressed their disquiet at the interference of non-Muslims, ignorant in Islamic texts and jurisprudence, in what is clearly an Islamic issue.

The President of ABIM, Mr. Yusri questioned the attempt to base Islamic laws purely on human rational thinking with ill respect and regard for the hierarchy of the sources of knowledge in the divine text, traditions of the prophet and the consensus of classical scholars . Puan Soraya Khairudin of Islamic Information and Services Foundation, highlighted the funding of seminars, organized by certain Muslims on issues like apostasy and moral policing by foreign institutions like Friedrich Neumann and Konrad Adeneur Foundations. These institutions are clearly liberal and secular in nature and aim to promote their ideals, and it is alarming that they’ve been allowed a foothold here.

But the punching bag for the day was most certainly the press, with all who spoke taking their best shot. It started out tamely enough with polite requests for more balanced reporting on the part of the press.

Before long, stronger punches were being delivered. But the knock out blow was inflicted by Dr Musa Mohd. Nordin of MPF, when he said, unlike his colleagues who were being most polite, he was doing no such thing. He expressed his bitter disappointment as a citizen of this country at the total lack of professionalism he sees in the media. As a doctor, his profession is evidence based medicine reflected in best practice clinical guidelines. Unfortunately, he sees very little of evidence based journalism in our mainstream media, let alone being investigative reporting.

Letters in response to some very inflammatory articles never see the light of day, and when a few occasionally do, are so badly truncated as to render them diluted and often beyond recognition. He seemed to open the floodgates for other individuals representing the 43 organisations to ventilate their frustrations at the Islamophobic nuances of the mainstream.

Even the Minister jumped on the bandwagon, instructing the media to use better judgement in exercising their powers He warned, the government will not hesitate to take action against anyone inciting the sentiments of Muslims, adding he can say with absolute confidence that no Muslim has ever written to the media, insulting other faiths, and as Muslims we expect the same courtesy.

The discussion then took an amusing turn as the Minister touched on the handful of Muslims who have been opposing and running down the Islamic Family Law and in the process denigrating Islam, before focusing on an unnamed individual, referred to as ‘nyamuk’ who has been doing just this, even on the international arena.

This ‘nyamuk’ became the buzzword for the next few minutes. It was stressed that this ‘nyamuk’ does not represent the views of the majority of Muslims and if the press cared to look, they’ll find many “Sisters in Iman” right before them.

The press was accused of being ‘in love’ with this ‘nyamuk’ giving ‘it’ wide coverage. A recent rebuttal to one such ‘nyamuk’ by the MPF was completely ignored by our local press but was given wide coverage by the British and Australian press. Jonathan Kent of the BBC wrote to MPF “don’t say the BBC doesn’t strive to put across all views”

A member of the press then asked the Minster who might this ‘nyamuk’ be, but the answer was left to her intelligence.

The Minister then asked if the press had any questions and as if cowed into silence or shell shocked, only the reporter from Al Jazeera International managed one, asking how will the press know what they can print and not. Again, the answer being obvious, the Minister replied that as intelligent beings and citizens of this multi faceted nation, they shouldn’t have to be instructed.

The session ended soon after with the Minister thanking us for our support and saying he felt comfortable in our presence. He informed us that the Islamic Family Law will be tabled again in Parliament with amendments, and expects it to be passed without problems. In addition he stated that Article 121 1 (A), protecting the sanctity of the Shariah Court will not be repealed.

The delegation of NGOs was clearly satisfied with his statements and in return thanked him again. Right after his departure, there was much back slapping for a job well done as everyone agreed that it was a good meeting. And almost without exception we knew that we’ve still got a long road ahead but together we can ease the path, Insha Allah.

Puan Azra Banu
azrabanu@gmail.com

Representatives from the following media organizations attended the event:

  1. New Straits Times
  2. The STAR
  3. Utusan Malaysia
  4. Malaysiakini
  5. Sin Chew Daily
  6. Nanyang Siang Pao
  7. China Press
  8. Oriental Daily
  9. Bernama
  10. Al Jazeera International
  11. Channel News Asia International
  12. TV3
  13. MPF TV

One Flu Over The Human Nest

One Flu Over The Human Nest
by Lee Tse Ling

The Star Online > Health
Sunday March 5, 2006
One flu over the human nest

Vaccination is one of the greatest achievements of medicine and has spared millions of people the effects of devastating diseases. It’s clear it has a vital role to play in the ongoing concerns over the bird flu.

THAT the next influenza pandemic is on its way is not mere hyperbole. It’s a very real risk, with serious implications.

“We had three pandemics in the last century, and there is no reason to believe there won’t be one in this century,” Nature quoted Klaus Stohr, chief influenza expert of the World Health Organisation (WHO), in May 2005.

We are in our 39th year since the last pandemic outbreak, the longest period the world has gone between pandemics. And nobody can predict how long this window will last.

What sort of numbers are involved when we use the word “pandemic”? In a normal year, the WHO estimates between 5% and 15% of the world’s population is affected by influenza. That’s between 300 million and nearly a billion people. Out of this, up to one million die from influenza-associated complications.

According to Stohr, a severe pandemic-level attack (infection rate: 35%) could result in up to a billion people becoming ill, 28 million hospitalisations, and seven million deaths worldwide. Again, these figures are not hyperbole – the 1918 Spanish Flu attack rate approached 40% at its worst, claiming at least 20 million lives. The 1957 Asian Influenza and 1968 Hong Kong Influenza claimed another four million each.

The crucial difference between 1918 and 1957/1968, and indeed between what happened then and what may happen now, was and still is pandemic preparedness as individuals, as a nation and as a global community. And a crucial element of any preparedness plan will be an effective vaccination policy.

Flu virus 101

There are three types of influenza viruses: A, B and C. All three can infect humans.

While type B viruses have been known to cause epidemics, they have never caused pandemics. (Terminology/Definitions: If a disease is endemic, it is restricted or peculiar to a locality or region. An epidemic affects an abnormally large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time. A pandemic occurs over an even wider geographic area [i.e. globally] and affects an exceptionally high proportion of the population.)

Type C viruses only cause mild illness in humans.

The high-pathogenic influenza A H5N1 infection on the other hand has a mortality rate of almost 100% in poultry, and 50% in humans. That is, it has killed almost every infected bird, and one in two infected humans.

Only type A viruses are classified into subtypes by the unique haemagglutinin and neuraminidase proteins found on their surfaces. These proteins are given identification numbers e.g. H1 and N5 and are used in combination to identify type A subtypes e.g. H1N1, H1N2 and H3N2 – the A subtypes in common circulation amongst humans.

All are further classified into strains. Strains develop due to gradual genetic changes. This process is known as antigenic drift – where many small changes accumulate over time e.g. random mutations that occur in a virus particle’s RNA, making its surface proteins less recognisable to the immune system.

Think of it this way: it’s as if a friend of yours gradually grew a moustache and beard. They haven’t changed that much, but you might not recognise them initially over time. And what the immune system can’t recognise quickly, it can’t kill quickly.

Sudden change generates new subtypes through a process known as antigenic shift – where the virus particle acquires a surface protein combination that has not been seen in humans before, or not been seen for a long time.

Because our immune systems have never encountered such a foe, everyone – not just people with young or compromised immune systems – will be susceptible to infection. Think of it this way: it’s as if your friend has gone for drastic plastic surgery now. They’ve changed completely and you can’t recognise them at all. And what the immune system can’t recognise at all, it can’t kill, period. This is what a high-pathogenic H5N1 virus capable of infecting humans will be like.

Several facts make it difficult to eradicate type A viruses. To begin with, they are naturally resident in wild bird populations, which spread them across the globe during their annual migrations. Not only are they persistent in the environment, they are also capable of lying “silent” and can therefore spread undetected in domestic ducks. Lastly, they undergo both shift and drift – producing a source of new and infectious strains and subtypes.

For the moment, the virus does not spread easily from birds to humans. This becomes obvious when you compare the very large number of domestic birds exposed to H5N1 (more than 150 million culled so far), their close proximity to humans, especially in village communities with backyard flocks, to the small number of humans who have contracted the disease from them (approximately 100). Furthermore, the outbreaks of H5N1 have only occurred in small clusters, indicating that it is not easily transmitted from human to human.

Vaccines

In the face of this, vaccines will play a two-fold role in keeping a pandemic in check. The obvious solution is a vaccine that confers protection against human H5N1. However, it will be some time before this new vaccine will make it from the producers to the rest of the world.

In the first place, until H5N1 begins infecting humans in earnest, it is unlikely a highly effective formulation can be developed. That’s because in order to get past our immune systems, the virus will have to evolve a completely novel trait, one our current vaccines have not forewarned our systems about and primed them against.

In the second, vaccine distribution will be limited by production capacity and locality. The vaccine industry is one that never manages to meet demand. World production capacity is currently 300 million doses per annum. That is, enough doses to vaccinate just 5% of the world’s population. Compare that with the postulated attack rate of 35%.

Furthermore, most of the world supply of influenza vaccine is produced in Europe and the US. A small amount is manufactured in Japan. Asia is almost exclusively dependent on Europe for its vaccine supply. It is a tricky situation US vaccination and public policy expert Dr David Fedson brought up in an interview with the Asia-Pacific Advisory Committee on Influenza (APACI).

“We still need to deal with the political implications of distributing pandemic vaccine to countries that do not have production companies of their own. It is likely that the political leaders of countries in which vaccine companies are located will nationalise the production of pandemic vaccine, preventing export until all of their citizens have been vaccinated,” he said.

According to the National Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Plan (NIPPP), it is unlikely Malaysia will receive the H5N1 vaccine until at least six months after large-scale production begins. What can be done in the meantime?

The rationale for vaccination

The best thing we can do to slow the pandemic is to limit the chances of antigenic shift happening. The chances of this happening are high when two influenza viruses – e.g. the high-pathogenic H5N1 bird flu and any human flu virus – infect a human at the same time.

Once in this “mixing vessel”, the viruses can genetically re-assort. That is, they can trade packets of genetic information. What you don’t want the human flu virus to pass on to the H5N1 bird flu virus is a manual titled How to Infect Humans. So first things first – vaccinate the normal hosts: poultry. Second, vaccinate the mixing vessels: humans.

“A strategy to bar the meeting of the viruses in the human body would go a long way towards preventing the emergence of a deadly new virus. It would reduce the opportunities for simultaneous infection of humans with the avian and human flu viruses, decreasing opportunities for reassortment. I believe this can be achieved with higher immunisation rates with the influenza vaccine,” says consultant paediatrician and neonatologist Dr Musa Mohd Nordin.

Besides slowing the evolution of such a virus, increased vaccination will encourage the growth of vaccine production capacity and vaccination infrastructure.

“Perhaps the best we can hope for is to develop the global capacity to produce as many doses as possible, so that they can be supplied to non-producer countries sooner rather than later,” said Fedson in the same APACI interview.

“Too much attention has been focused on curative strategies. My back-to-basics virology and vaccinology would suggest that during this inter-pandemic period, influenza immunisation would be the best option for protection against influenza and would help to mitigate the emergence of a pandemic virus. This investment would prove to be a cost-saving policy. It would undoubtedly decrease the health burden of annual influenza flu epidemics and prevent influenza morbidities and mortalities,” says Dr Musa.

He adds: “Quite evidently, the pandemic clock is ticking; we just do not know what time it is!”



A guide to vaccination

CHILDREN

Consultant paediatrician and neonatologist Dr Musa Mohd Nordin recommends the influenza vaccination for all children, in particular those above the age of six months and below nine years.

Past six months, the immune system is mature enough to make protective antibodies. But at that young age, the child is still vulnerable to infection, as his/her immune system may not be experienced enough to cope with an attack.

High priority groups include those with:

# Pulmonary conditions e.g. asthma, chronic lung disease of immaturity

# Heart conditions e.g. congenital heart disease

# Kidney dysfunction

# Blood disorders e.g. thalassaemia

# Metabolic disease e.g. diabetes

# Compromised immune systems, including those with HIV infections

The vaccine should not be administered if the child:

# Is under six months of age

# Has a known allergy to eggs, chicken proteins, neomycin (an antibiotic) and other active substances in the vaccine e.g. formaldehyde

# Has had an adverse reaction to the vaccine in the past

# Has a fever or is experiencing an acute illness (in which case, simply postpone the vaccination)

Dosages

# Children aged between six months and 35 months should receive a half-dose (0.25ml)

# Children aged three years and above should receive a full-dose (0.5ml)

# Children below nine years who have not previously received the vaccination should be given a second booster dose one month after the first

# Children above nine years should receive an annual dose

ADULTS

In general, anyone who wants to reduce their chances of contracting influenza should get vaccinated annually. However, high-priority groups include:

# People living in nursing homes and long-term care facilities

# People with the chronic conditions listed under high-priority for children

# People with impaired respiratory function (those conditions that make it difficult to breath or swallow e.g. brain or spinal cord injuries; seizure disorders; and nerve or muscle disorders)

# Women who will be pregnant during the influenza season

# Anyone who can transmit influenza to others in high-priority groups e.g. healthcare workers and caregivers

THE ELDERLY

The elderly typically have weaker immune systems and may experience chronic diseases that render them more susceptible to infection and complications following infection. Consultant geriatrician Dr. Rajbans Singh recommends annual influenza vaccination for all persons above 60.

“Patients who have taken their influenza and pneumococcal vaccines have less incidence of chest infections. I also find the vaccine safe with no side effects,” he says.

The vaccine should not be administered if the elderly persons in question:

# Has a known allergy to eggs, chicken proteins, neomycin (an antibiotic) and other active substances in the vaccine e.g. formaldehyde

# Has had an adverse reaction to the vaccine in the past

# Is febrile

# Is immunocompromised

Note: Information compiled from the US Centre for Disease Control (CDC), vaccine manufacturer Sanofi-Pasteur and local specialists.


Dispelling myths about influenza vaccination

Myth #1: The common cold is the same as influenza

According to consultant paediatrician and neonatologist Dr Musa Mohd Nordin, influenza is often erroneously equated with the common cold.

“Hence the myth that it is a relatively mild illness which improves rapidly over two to three days, and that lots of rest, fluids, vitamin C and aspirin are all that is required. On the contrary, they have strikingly different pathologies (i.e. collection of abnormalities). Influenza is often associated with high-grade fever lasting three to four days; severe muscle aches, chest discomfort, early and severe physical weakness and generalised fatigue, which could last up to three weeks,” he says.

The two are both respiratory illnesses caused by different viruses. Anyone who has experienced a bad attack of viral influenza will know the difference. If you haven’t, have a look at the accompanying table, Flu or cold?

Myth #2: The current influenza vaccine will protect you from bird flu

When medical practitioners recommend vaccination as the primary means of preventing influenza, they’re referring to the normal influenza vaccine – meaning, the influenza you are being vaccinated against is not the H5N1 subtype, but the endemic subtypes that normally circulate and cause the seasonal epidemics we are familiar with.

It is unlikely the current vaccine formulation will confer any cross-protection against a virulent H5N1 subtype. By definition, a pandemic can only occur when a new subtype emerges or when a subtype has disappeared over many generations re-emerges.

Myth #3: The influenza vaccine only protects me

Herd immunity, or community immunity arises when enough individuals in a population are protected from a given infection. Since nobody catches the infection, nobody spreads it, so the infectious agent never has a chance to get a foothold. While a few vaccinations may protect individuals, widespread vaccination protects everyone. This is how smallpox was eradicated completely by 1980.

Myth #4: The influenza vaccination is only for travel

Current data shows the influenza vaccine is an effective, vital and common pre-travel protective measure. Vaccination rates among Malaysians as a whole are low – about one in every four hundred people (0.3%).

On the other hand, vaccination rates among travellers are high – a 2000 study on vaccine effectiveness in Malaysian Haj pilgrims showed a rate of up to 88%. That’s nearly every nine out of 10 people, thanks to the constant recommendations made by the Haj Authority.

The study also showed that the influenza vaccine was 78% effective in protecting recipients from clinic visits for influenza-like-illness. Why stop there? School environments, offices, and public transport all are environments in which influenza can be transmitted too.

Miracle of Stem Cell Therapy

Miracle of Stem Cell Therapy
by Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin

There is universal interest in discovering and developing a permanent source of cells which would be capable of generating any cell type and which would avoid the problem of transplant rejection. These cells called human stem cells have the unlimited capability to divide and the potential ability to develop into most of the specialized cells or tissues of the human body.

Human stem cells can give rise to many different type of cells, such as muscle cells, nerve cells, heart cells and blood cells. They could therefore be potentially useful to generate replacement cells and tissues to treat many conditions including Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, leukaemia, stroke, heart attack, diabetes multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and spinal cord injury.

There are 2 major sources of stem cells.

a. Adult stem cells. They are derived from aborted fetuses, umbilical cord blood, bone marrow, blood and brain. They are less plastic (less able to differentiate into specialized cells compared to embryonic stem cells); scarce and sometimes inaccessible (in brain, retina of eyes).
b. Embryonic stem cells. They are derived from embryos as a result of in-vitro fertilization (surplus or created embryos) or from embryos created by somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning technology). There is an unceasing moral and ethical debate on the use of embryos for research.

Cord blood is a relatively rich source of haemopoietic stem cells (HSC). About 100 mls can reconstitute the haemopoietic system in small patients; usually children.

The first successful related cord blood transplant was undertaken 16 year ago. Since then, over 3,000 transplants have been done worldwide. There are a few reports of successful transplantations of adults.

The advantages of cord blood over bone marrow or peripheral blood transplantation are:

1. The donor does not have to be admitted to undergo collection procedures which may involve mobilisation of stem cells using drugs eg cyclophosphamide and G-CSF ( in case of peripheral blood donor) and anaesthesia ( in bone marrow donor)
2. Unlike the other two sources, cord blood has a reduced risk of graft versus host disease.

There are currently no clear guidelines locally to address the issue of cord blood collection and cord blood banking for future transplantation.

The National Blood Bank has already been collecting and banking cord blood as part of their non-profitable National Cord Blood Bank. The National Cord Blood Bank would be available to doctors to search the public registry for possible unrelated but matched samples as an alternative source for stem cell transplantation.

The issue is clouded further by the sales pitching and often non-evidence based medicine claims of private cord banks. The American Academy of Paediatrics warns that families may be vulnerable to “emotional marketing” at the time of birth of their child. Professor Nick Fisk, Chairman of the Royal College of Obstetrics & Gynaecology Scientific Advisor Committee said “We are concerned that commercial companies are targeting pregnant women with such emotive literature when the scientific evidence is not yet there to back up their claims”.

The risks of a child developing a disease which may require cord blood transplantation is not known. There are no accurate estimates on the likelihood of children requiring their own stored cells. The best guess of this ever happening ranges from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 200,000. There is therefore only a tiny and remote chance of children ever requiring to utilize their own stored cells.

Scientific indications for collection and banking of cord blood are far and few in between. In families where there is a known genetic disease that can be treated by HSC transplantation, cord blood collection and storage are recommended for siblings born into these families. Cord blood collection is also recommended in specific settings eg

1. A sibling who is suffering from leukemia, just in case he relapses and may require HSC transplant
2. A sibling in whom HSC transplant is indicated but has no match related donor available.

The storing of cord blood privately by private cord banks is based on the premise that the sample is stored specifically for use within the family concerned and more specifically the child’s own future use (autologous transplant).

Autologous transplantation itself maybe problematic because the use of one’s own stem cells may not cure the underlying pathology. In the case of leukaemia and other congenital disorders eg Thalassaemia and Fanconi’s Anaemia; transplanting ones own stem cells with the defective genetic and immune structure (thus causing the disease) would only be returning the disease to oneself.

The 80-100ml of umbilical cord blood collected at birth may not be adequate when the baby grows into an adolescent or adult. The volume of cells is insufficient if he should ever require it later in life.

Thus, the concept of a ‘biological insurance’ which is much hyped by the private cord banks is therefore actuarially unsound given the very low estimates on the likelihood of use, or the need of using one’s own cord blood for transplantation. The emotional marketing is however burgeoning the bank balances of private cord banks.

In the final analysis, public cord blood banking should be expanded for the benefit of the wider population. Collection of altruistic donations of cord blood and directed donations for families at high risk should be encouraged. The National Cord Blood Bank was set up to achieve these objectives at no cost. Rather than just to keep the cord blood banked for one’s own use, it should be made available to others who may need the cord blood in the allogenic (genetically different) setting.

Dr. Musa Mohd. Nordin
Consultant Paediatrician & Neonatologist
musamn@gmail.com