Here is a VERY interesting commentary about anthrax. It was written
by David Willhite (a REAL person --- checkout the
website for his biography and list of related publications), a biochem
professor at the Univ of Houston who worked with b. anthracis (the
Anthrax
bacterium). Hopefully, this summary will help to dispel the hysteria
produced by the recent fear mongering that is permeating the press ...


Because I have studied Bacillus Anthracis, the bacterium that causes
the
disease anthrax, many of my friends and family have been asking me
questions recently for obvious reasons. I've decided to write a short
blurb (that's turned out not so short) which I hope you all find
interesting, with the intent that information is the best way to
combat
fear.

First, I do not claim to be an "expert", and am only writing this as
someone who is fairly well informed on the subject. I have two
publications on anthrax (though technically incorrect, I will use the
terms anthrax and b. anthracis interchangeably).

1. Willhite, D.C. & Blanke S.R. (1998), Soluble Expression and
One-Step Purification of Recombinant Bacillus Anthracis Protective
Antigen. Protein and Peptide Letters 5, 273-278.
2. Willhite, D.C. & Blanke S.R. (1999), Turning Sword into
Plowshare: Engineering Bacterial Toxins as Molecular Delivery Systems.
SAAS Bull Biochem Biotechnol 12, 46-61.

For my not really up-to-date, but more complete c.v., see
<<http://home.bchs.uh.edu/~sblanke/PEOPLE/DavidWillhite.html>>. I
worked on
anthrax toxin as a potential delivery vehicle for nucleic acids, a
project
which didn't work, so I moved on to other things. During the work, I
developed a new way to make the vaccine, which would reduce the
number of
illnesses from it, but the Army wasn't interested at that time.

In no particular order, here's some info on anthrax. I wont take the
time
to make it "flow" so please bear with me if your interested. (This
turned
out to be much longer than I'd intended).

Anthrax is a bacterium, not a virus. A bacterium, usually, is able to
grow in something like chicken broth as an independent organism, and
can
be killed using antibiotics. A virus cannot live without a host, and
cannot be eradicated with antibiotics. The media should not use these
terms interchangeably. Anthrax is a relatively simple pathogen, in
that
we know the primary reasons it is able to survive in a host. It forms
a
capsule around itself to evade the immune system, and it secretes a
three-part toxin, known as anthrax toxin, which kills and swells host
cells.

When we research most aspects of the bug, we work with a strain which
has
either the capsule formation capability or the toxin production
knocked
out. Iraq apparently produced great quantities of one of these strains
for bio-warfare, much to their disappointment (it is believed the
error
was subsequently corrected by obtaining a new strain). The vaccine is
the
toxin in the absence of the bacterium, which sort of gets the immune
system ready in case of a real infection. People who are particularly
susceptible to the effects of the toxin get sick after taking the
vaccine,
but they can't get anthrax per se.

There are three "forms" of anthrax: cutaneous, gastro-intestinal, and
pneumonic. Translated in the order appearing --- you got it on your
skin,
you ate it, or you breathed it in. It's all the same bug, the
difference
is where it infects. Even if left untreated, death is not very likely
in
cutaneous or intestinal anthrax. You will definitely go to the doctor
if
you get one of these forms, as you'll see large black lesions on your
skin, or become violently nauseous, respectively. The problem with
pneumonic (inhalation) anthrax is that by the time you show symptoms,
it's
probably too late to cure with antibiotics, and the fatality rate is
about
90% in rats. We don't really know the rate for humans because there
are
too few cases. The symptoms are very much like the flu, which will
probably mean people all over the country will be going to the doctor
this
winter thinking they have anthrax. I may have told some of you in the
past that the incubation period (time between infection and symptoms)
is
two days. In the context of bio-warfare, where the anthrax is assumed
to
be competently made, this is the case. However, if infected with lower
doses, or "clumped" anthrax (I'll explain below), the incubation
period
can be up to sixty days, though I can't find a specific reference on
this
figure.

It has been quoted in the media that 50 kilograms of anthrax released
could kill 100,000 people. Forgive my response --- bullshit. This is
from a politically motivated 1970 World Health Organization report
and an
equally baseless 1993 congressional report. I'm not sure how they
reached
these conclusions (Ouija board?), but you would really have to make
some
bizarre assumptions about the weather, perfect distribution, and just
how
many people would be outside at just the right times. The difficulties
with predictable release prompted the U.S. military to abandon
anthrax as
a biological agent. The Japanese cult that released the serin gas
actually had grown anthrax and botulism and released it in Tokyo from
buildings at least eight times, with not a single clinical case
reported.

This brings me to "weaponizing" anthrax. Anthrax has survived the
centuries by sitting in the grass and being eaten by herbivores.
Natural
human inhalation exposure is almost completely confined to third world
textile factory workers where it can be stirred up from animal hides.
To
deliver it in any reasonable quantity that can be inhaled, you would
grow
it, and then dry it as spores. Now there's a problem. You have this
big
clump of spores that have little chance of sprouting wings to get to
anyone's lungs. You would now have to break up these clusters very
carefully. Break them up too much and you'll probably kill them, don't
break them up enough and you still have the wing problem. To
aerosolize
anthrax, it needs to be less than 5 micrometers in diameter. The
spore is
about one micrometer in diameter. I'm not sure how one would go about
doing this. If I were doing it, I'd try several methods, then test the
efficacy on rats. This procedure would most likely be suicide for one
not
equipped with a level four lab, and the testing alone would be
extremely
expensive. Even if one were vaccinated, a high dosage infection would
kill you, even if only through septicemia (toxic shock from immune
system
overload). This is why I am not concerned about the current "crisis"
(1
death compared to 42,437 motor vehicle related deaths in 1999 does
not, in
my mind, constitute a crisis). While I am impressed by the terrorists'
ability to have granulated the spores at least to some extent, I am
sure
they expected a much greater efficacy than one. I also suspect we will
discover a dead terrorist in a house somewhere.

The strain of anthrax thought to be involved in the recent incidents,
contrary to media reports, is not man-made. In fact, it is not
possible
with current technology to "man-make" a bacterium. We can introduce
some
new genes to an existing strain that, for example, may provide certain
drug resistances --- this still does not make it man-made. The strain
in
question was isolated from an anthrax outbreak in Iowa, I believe in
1952.
It has no genetic modifications, nor did we have the capability to
make
such modifications until the late seventies. Researchers use it to
test
vaccines because it is a very virulent (potent) strain.

It is possible to confer antibiotic resistance on an existing strain.
Russia is thought to have done this in a bio-weapons program. I find
it
unlikely that a terrorist would be able to do so. First, the technical
knowledge necessary to obtain, culture, and transfer the drug
resistance
elements is not trivial. Assuming that they obtained an existing drug
resistant strain, the resistance would need to be maintained by
continuously growing the strain in the presence of the drug. This is
very
expensive, and it is unlikely that a terrorist would know the
resistance
must be maintained, and would probably have difficulty calculating the
correct concentrations of drug to use. It is not even remotely
possible
with current technology to make a strain of anthrax which is able to
circumvent the vaccine, as some rumors have suggested the Russian
strain
does.

I feel I should mention in association with antibiotics that anthrax
is
susceptible to nearly any bloodstream antibiotic, not just Cipro.
Tetracycline and others would work just fine.

MORE MESSAGES on ANTHRAX : HOW CAN WE PREPARE OURSELVES?


In Love & healing,

MARIA VILLARTA, RN

http://www.healingifts.com