Sharp doc. The kind I would want to have if I came down with something like this.

Guidelines for treatment of anthrax.

I wonder if anthrax antitoxin ought to be administered to people showing the symptoms of inhalation anthrax. It's the toxins that the bacteria emit that kill. As I understand it, the antitoxin neutralizes those toxins.

Earlier AP article on same subject: Sharp Doctor Saved Anthrax Victim.

Do you have a link that describes this "antitoxin"?

Here's a link to a Scientific American article on an anthrax antitoxin being developed at Harvard: BIOTECHNOLOGY New Drug Neutralizes Anthrax Toxin in Rats . I know from reading about it here on FR that another anthrax antitoxin is being developed at the University of Texas, and is in the late research phase.

The problem with the "anthrax antitoxin" is that it was discovered VERY recently: we're talking within the last few weeks. Yes, it neutralizes anthrax toxin in vitro, but we still have to test it in vivo. Until we do, and then ramp the tests up to humans, we don't know whether the anti-toxin is, of and by itself, toxic, or has other nasty side effects.

It's the usual problem of translating cutting-edge basic science into useable products: it does NOT happen immediately . . .

Until we do, and then ramp the tests up to humans, we don't know whether the anti-toxin is, of and by itself, toxic, or has other nasty side effects.

I don't think that means we should not use it on people whose prognosis is bad without it. Plus, if we use it on them, we will have some of the necessary testing on human beings.

If someone is dying of anthrax toxins, which Cipro won't cure, what's the harm of experimenting with antitoxins?

I realize there's all sorts of rules, ethics and practical treatment preparations that need to be overcome and made. (If only this were Star Trek were things could be synthesized and replicated quickly. Oh well.)

But, really, why not see if these research projects can't be moved up for some sort of human trials in battlefield testing? Otherwise, people will die and potential scientific trial data could be lost with those deaths. I know it isn't how we do things in America in peace time, but this is warfare...perhaps we need to think differently and more agressively in our approach to medical science and experimental treatment approval.

Fortunately, anthrax is realsonably difficult to inflict and will effect a relatively tiny number of people in high risk jobs. There are steps one can take to protect against this. Smallpox is another mess entirely.

Bump...Good health care for a change!

Well, there are additional problems, as I recall. Synthesis of the anti-toxin is fairly difficult and produces only small quantities (this is referring to the Texas group).

Question is, if it's mildly toxic, and you give it to an already-weakened "no-hope" pulmonary anthrax patient, you stand a very good chance of killing him/her quickly. And you get no data.

Unfortunately, with new drugs, etc., there are definite protocols for determining safety, efficacy, etc. Otherwise, why not execute death-penalty criminals and use THEM a guinea pigs ??? It's the safe kind of reasoning that jumps from initial lab success and synthesis to immediate human clinical trials. . .

I think it will kill more quickly if the person contracting it has prior respiratory problems, or is susceptible to lung infections. If someone had a tendency to colds, flu, or has chronic bronchitis, the conditions are there for the anthrax toxins to work much more quickly.

The man in Washington DC who died several hours after being admitted to the hospital was reported to be the kind who went to work even when he was sick. He let it go too long, but I guess in the past he'd probably done the same thing, and he thought it was just the flu again. In the case of any disease, those who are healthier to begin with are the ones who will be able to fight another infection.

If 73-year-old Ernesto Blanco could survive, I would imagine the chances for survival of young and healthy people would be excellent, provided they get proper treatment.

The terrorists have so far CHOSEN a method that infects a relatively small number of people in a few high risk jobs. The question is how much do they have? Can they powder a densely populated area?

Modern medicine has been able to save an encouraging number of people, with intensive care. If hundreds or thousands come in with inhalation anthrax, the survival rate is going to plummet.

There is another kind of anti-toxin, old technology, serum from innoculated horses. It is still used to treat botulism, was used to treat diptheria many years ago, and China claims to use it today for anthrax. Serum sickness can result, but better than anthrax death. As for this new anti-toxin, bring it on. I'm sure any victims would love to be lab rats.

Mrs VS

This article from abcnews.com says China has stockpiles of antitoxin, and that it's cheap and easy to make. Why don't we?

True, there can be side effects such as "serum sickness," but it doesn't sound much worse than potential side effects of Cipro.

And better that than dead.

If I understand VeritatisSplendor correctly, it is the same antitoxin used for botulism, and I know we already have the botulism antitoxin in stock.

Your#14) Double Bump.............BUMP-BUMP!!!

This cite is from a 1983 reprint of Nursing Reference Library: Diseases, so it's possible it's no longer accurate, on the treatment of botulism: "Treatment consists of I.V. or I.M. administration of botulinum antitoxin (available through the Center for Disease Control)."

Thanks

No, it's a different antitoxin, produced by the same method. I'm just saying that similar antitoxins are used in current medical practice.

Mrs VS

Aha, different antitoxin, same method. But, if the method is used for the botulin antitoxin, I would imagine large quantities of the anthrax antitoxin could be produced quite quickly. And, if China already has the anthrax antitoxin in stock, it should be a simple matter to buy and airship quantities from there. I wonder if anybody has taken it into his head to do that.