Sure hope this ends up being discredited.

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10970

Info from initial post, but see thread for developing discussion...:

"Radio show on now is featuring Michael Osterholm who is supposedly a national expert on bio terrorism, and former MN state epidemiologist. Currently works with MN Center for Infectious Disease Policy at the U of MN and is author of book "Living Terror."

He says all the anthrax testing going on right now is "a disaster within a disaster." He says that if a person is exposed to anthrax spores, those spores are only detectable for 24-48 hours after the exposure. A negative test result if the test is performed 24-48 hours after exposure basically tells you nothing useful at all. The person could have been exposed and have the disease 'cooking' and have no spores in the nasal passages. If the disease is 'cooking' the body may not show an antibody response, which would be detected by a blood test, for 2-3 weeks. He says a negative nasal test followed by a negative blood test, depending upon the time line, may give people a false sense of security. He said the majority of the testing going on right now is "testing that is telling us nothing useful."

So, a positive test is for sure a positive, whether that is for exposure (spores in the nasal passages) or for antibody response...but a negative test tells you nothing. Several times as he talked about the testing he said, "This is nothing short of a disaster."

He also mentioned that the 'smart cards' many police officers carry to detect bacteria are totally useless. "Someone did a great job of marketing those, but they are useless."

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Answers

Hot Link courtesy of me.

LOLOLOLOL

I hope this is discredited real quick, too! Am undecided whether to print it out or not and take it to work. If I can get my printer to respond! Can't reload the software cuz I ain't got it with me.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

after reading the thread, I see that some people there are spreading mis-information.

Whether it is intentional or not, I can't say.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Barefoot, thanks for the link (somehow I knew you would come through!). It's one of those posts I need to see where it heads. There are certainly diseases where there are windows of opportunity screen, just that the consequences of a false negative are so high in this case.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Yesterday, while enjoying the day off, I watched a little Fox News. There was a bio expert on, as well as a doctor, which said just giving people cipro is a bad idea. They both agreed that if someone has been exposed to anthrax that taking cipro just based on being exposed is harmful. Seems the anthrax could lie dormant in the body while one is taking cipro. After they quit taking the drug, then the anthrax would do it's nasty work. Seems like cipro doesn't kill it, just cause it not to be harmful. After 60 days on the drug, your body may become immune to the drug as well.

They both suggested that the government/doctors/ABC agencies involved should not put people on cipro until they show signs that they indeed are infected. They are (possibly) causing people more harm than good.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

I guess they should just test them every morning as they come to work?

"Hi Mr. Rather, just put your nose in here so we can get a sample, please."

"Like this?"

"Yes, thank you. have a nice day!"

Oh geez! Is this what we are heading toward? The logistics of doing such at work would be a nightmare! Probably cheaper than supplying the drugs, tho. And it would allow the stock of the drugs to rise so that there would be enough on hand when it is really needed.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Barefoot, if this information is true, then you have to wonder whether it was part of the plan. Sending envelopes of powder seemed like such a lame thing to do. But it has been very successful in its own way. I think if there is an attempt to disseminate a really nasty strain, it won't be in a manner that would give someone an early heads up that there might be a problem. It would be in a way that folks wouldn't know they had been exposed until symptoms started to develop.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

too true, Brooks.

And you can bet your life that somewhere someone is working on a more lethal strain.

If you hear a plane overhead...

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Gawd, I hope it's not true, either. The victim at CBS showed a skin problem around September 30 so you figure if there had been more, they would have shown up by now. I hope. What we need to remember is that an exposure or a positive nasal swab is not a 100% guarantee that you will get or have anthrax. There has to be a certain number of spores involved to get anthrax.

The info re antibiotic resistance sounds legit.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Y'all might want to read this article by the same guy. It was written before the year 2000 but doesn't say when. I'd cut and paste but it won't let me do that.

Michael Osterholm Article

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Many more interestign articles here. Should have mentioned this is from a PBS Frontline program.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Probably different from the article that Git has linked (I haven't waded through the signin screen yet) is a Jama Consensus Statement on Anthrax as a Biological Statement, of which Osterholm is one of the contributing authors. (Of course, he could have been a dissenting opinion, but it ads to his legitimacy.) Undated, based on information published 1966 to 1998. Lots more information, but under the heading of Diagnosis...:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v281n18/ffull/jst80027.html#a6

"Given the rarity of anthrax infection and the possibility that early cases are a harbinger of a larger epidemic, the first suspicion of an anthrax illness must lead to immediate notification of the local or state health department, local hospital epidemiologist, and local or state health laboratory. By this mechanism, definitive tests can be arranged rapidly through a reference laboratory and, as necessary, the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Md.

The first evidence of a clandestine release of anthrax as a biological weapon most likely will be patients seeking medical treatment for symptoms of inhalational anthrax. The sudden appearance of a large number of patients in a city or region with an acute-onset flulike illness and case fatality rates of 80% or more, with nearly half of all deaths occurring within 24 to 48 hours, is highly likely to be anthrax or pneumonic plague (Table 1). Currently, there are no effective atmospheric warning systems to detect an aerosol cloud of anthrax spores.47

Rapid diagnostic tests for diagnosing anthrax, such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for protective antigen and polymerase chain reaction, are available only at national reference laboratories. Given the limited availability of these tests and the time required to dispatch specimens and perform assays, rapid diagnostic testing would be primarily for confirmation of diagnosis and determining in vitro susceptibility to antibiotics. In addition, these tests will be used in the investigation and management of anthrax hoaxes, such as the series occurring in late 1998.48 They would also be of value should suspicious materials in the possession of a terrorist be identified as possibly containing anthrax.

If only small numbers of cases present contemporaneously, the clinical similarity of early inhalational anthrax to other acute respiratory tract infections may delay initial diagnosis for some days. However, diagnosis of anthrax could soon become apparent through the astute recognition of an unusual radiological finding, identification in the microbiology laboratory, or recognition of specific pathologic findings. A widened mediastinum on chest radiograph (Figure 2) in a previously healthy patient with evidence of overwhelming flulike illness is essentially pathognomonic of advanced inhalational anthrax and should prompt immediate action.23, 42 Although treatment at this stage would be unlikely to alter the outcome of illness in the patient concerned, it might lead to earlier diagnosis in others.

Microbiologic studies can also demonstrate B anthracis and may be the means for initial detection of an outbreak. The bacterial burden may be so great in advanced infection that bacilli are visible on Gram stain of unspun peripheral blood, as has been demonstrated in primate studies (Figure 1). While this is a remarkable finding that would permit an astute clinician or microbiologist to make the diagnosis, the widespread use of automated cell-counter technology in diagnostic laboratories makes this unlikely.41

The most useful microbiologic test is the standard blood culture, which should show growth in 6 to 24 hours. If the laboratory has been alerted to the possibility of anthrax, biochemical testing and review of colonial morphology should provide a preliminary diagnosis 12 to 24 hours later. Definitive diagnosis would require an additional 1 to 2 days of testing in all but a few national reference laboratories. It should be noted, however, that if the laboratory has not been alerted to the possibility of anthrax, B anthracis may not be correctly identified. Routine laboratory procedures customarily identify a Bacillus species from a blood culture approximately 24 hours after growth, but most laboratories do not further identify Bacillus species unless specifically requested to do so. In the United States, the isolation of Bacillus species most often represents growth of Bacillus cereus. The laboratory and clinician must determine whether its isolation represents specimen contamination.49 There have been no B anthracis bloodstream infections reported for more than 20 years. However, given the possibility of anthrax being used as a weapon and the importance of early diagnosis, it would be prudent for laboratory procedures to be modified so that B anthracis is excluded after identification of a Bacillus species bacteremia.

Sputum culture and Gram stain are unlikely to be diagnostic, given the lack of a pneumonic process.30 If cutaneous anthrax is suspected, a Gram stain and culture of vesicular fluid will confirm the diagnosis.

A diagnosis of inhalational anthrax also might occur at postmortem examination following a rapid, unexplained terminal illness. Thoracic hemorrhagic necrotizing lymphadenitis and hemorrhagic necrotizing mediastinitis in a previously healthy adult are essentially pathognomonic of inhalational anthrax.38, 43 Hemorrhagic meningitis should also raise strong suspicion of anthrax infection.23, 38, 43, 50 Despite pathognomonic features of anthrax on gross postmortem examination, the rarity of anthrax makes it unlikely that a pathologist would immediately recognize these findings. If the case were not diagnosed at gross examination, additional days would likely pass before microscopic slides would be available to suggest the disease etiology."

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

With respect to the comments in the last paragraph regarding post mortems, I asked Dad (retired pathologist) whether he had ever done an autopsy on someone with anthrax. No Way! Sounds like he doesn't believe it would go undiagnosed. He said there would be no autopsy because of the difficulty of decontaminating the area afterwards.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Sounds like it's all up for grabs, to me. Last night on (?)CNBC, I heard a report regarding the second man from Florida, and the family's confusion as to whether he has full-blown Anthrax. Even the different medical authorities can't give the family the same answer, as they're using different tests, on different areas /secretions from his body.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

I hate to bring this up...you know the commercial where the indian says "Maybe it's not really a minivan..."?

Maybe it's not JUST anthrax.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

The question of whether it is a cocktail mixture of some kind has certainly been raised. I don't feel comfortable that it has really been addressed.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001

Regarding the first article, it is mostly accurate. I spoke with a friend in the medical profession and she said that ANY positives mean that all people in the general area must be treated because not everyone is going to register the exposure at the same rate--- basically. If there were zero positives, that would mean they didn't need to treat anyone.

Inhalation anthrax must be treated prior to exhibition of symptoms to be truly successful.

-- Anonymous, October 18, 2001