Sir,The recent report by Samra et al., on the risk of H1N1-chemoprophylaxis with oseltamivir among the health care personnel (HCP) is very interesting.[1] Samra et al., concluded thus: “Chemoprophylaxis with oseltamivir is not recommended for HCP working in areas of high aerosol generation like ICU, if infection control measures are adopted as there is no significant difference in the incidence of flu-like illness in HCP with and without intake of oseltamivir.”[1] Based on the findings in the present study, it seems that the chemoprophylaxis by oseltamivir is useless and the adverse effect is of serious concern. Indeed, there is no doubt that adverse effect of oseltamivir can be observed.[2] However, the question is whether the risk of adverse effect is higher than the benefit of using it. Indeed, oseltamivir is accepted as a standard drug for both therapeutic and prophylactic purposes.[3] There is no doubt that the medical personnel are at risk for getting H1N1 infection. The study by Samra et al., focused on the specific worker dealing with intensive care unit. In real life, there are many other medical workers at high risk but they are usually forgotten. The risk to get infection will be significantly higher among those with low experience and education (such as hospital maid,[4] medical students,[56] etc.). Focusing on the common adverse effects of oseltamivir, nausea and vomiting are confirmed as the cause of incomplete of oseltamivir use in prophylaxis course.[7] However, it is not confirmed that the prophylaxis is not useful and downgraded by the drug's adverse effect. In a large-scale surveillance during the epidemic, Strong et al., concluded that mass distribution of oseltamivir was more useful than targeted distribution.[7] Based on the mathematical simulation model, it is proved that prophylaxis, either pre- or post- exposure alternative, is better than no prophylaxis.[8]