It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Scientists Find A Cure For Late Stage Anthrax Infection

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Scientists at the University of Texas have engineered a high-affinity anitbody for anthrax. The antibody not only removes the lethal toxins that the athrax bacteria produces inside the body, but it also kills the anthrax bacteria itself. Dr. Brent Iverson and Dr. George Georgiou working in conjunction with a research team headed by Dr. Jean Patterson made the breakthrough.
 



www.spacewar.com
A new anthrax antibody engineered by scientists at The University of Texas at Austin protects and defends against inhalation anthrax without the use of antibiotics and other more expensive antibodies.

The high-affinity antibody, an anthrax antitoxin, successfully eliminated both anthrax bacteria and its deadly toxins in animal tests. If future tests concur, this could be the first successful treatment for late-stage anthrax infection, even for an anthrax strain that has been designed to resist antibiotics.

The new antibody treatment, reported in the December issue of Infection and Immunity, is the result of collaboration between the labs of Dr. Brent Iverson and Dr. George Georgiou at The University of Texas at Austin and a research team led by Dr. Jean Patterson at the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research (SFBR) in San Antonio.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




This is wonderful news and I can just see the terrorists throwing out their trays of monkey kidneys now. A cheap and highly effective cure for anthrax is not far on the horizon now thanks to the good doctors at the University of Texas.

Let's hope there's similar breakthroughs with other biowarfare agents and naturally occuring harzards.




posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Great find subz. And good news.


Thank you.

Now, let's hope they get to work on prions.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:29 PM
link   
good news for the new world we live in. its a shame that mankind spends all his money on toys and guys . just think what we could accomplish medically if we spent intelligently.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Well, well, all the news isn't bad. What a great discovery, I hope it all checks out in field trials and we get to eleminate a very serious & dangerous biowarfare agent from our concerns. Further, what great news for the cattle industry--for the very first time it may be possible to treat, rather than destroy infected animals. I'll have to keep all my fingers & toes crossed for this ones success.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
That's excellent news.

I really hope the trials go well and this medicine is available in large quantities as soon as possible. Anthrax is a particularly scary bioweapon, as it's non-contagious nature effectively protects it's user from the possibility of blowback.

Contagious bioweapons like smallpox variants and the like always present a serious threat to the very powers that would deploy them, as contagious diseases don't recognize national borders.


[edit on 11/30/05 by xmotex]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Occupational Hazards

Great work!


Here's hoping these fine scientists won't fall victim to any unfortunate incidents as a consequence of their work.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I never heard of any terrorist using anthrax. Don't they use AK's and jumbo jets?

This antibody was tested on animals, they haven't found anything. They didn't say whether it kill all bacteria. It just said 'killed the bacteria'. That could mean that it killed 4% but left the other 96% somewhere inside you. More misinformation by ATSNN.



Iverson cautions it's not yet clear that this antibody treatment is as effective as the IgG antibody produced by Elusys, and that he and his collaborators are doing more studies to confirm that.


And it is not yet a late stage cure, keep pilling up the misinformation.


If future tests concur, this could be the first successful treatment for late-stage anthrax infection, even for an anthrax strain that has been designed to resist antibiotics.


[edit on 30-11-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
frosty u said u never heard of any "terrorist " using anthrax. im sorry u dont remember the anthrax scares on the east coast , shortly after 9/11.correct me if im wrong but didnt people die and others get sick. hell i think a baby even became infected with anthrax. befoer u lol at any misinformation on atsnn. maybe u should stop spreading your own. www.osha.gov...

[edit on 30-11-2005 by elitegamer23]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Hard Of Hearing


Originally posted by Frosty
I never heard of any terrorist using anthrax. Don't they use AK's and jumbo jets?

As elitegamer23 pointed out, you're probably one of the few people in the world that hasn't heard about the anthrax deaths here in the U.S., and the extensive measures taken to deal with it.

Americans have died from it and we've even had members of Congress exposed to it. I'm surprised you were unaware of that.

There are several threads dealing with anthrax on ATS, too, if you're unaware of them.

And yes, whoever released anthrax in the U.S. was a terrorist, by definition.

Elimination Round


Originally posted by Frosty
This antibody was tested on animals, they haven't found anything. They didn't say whether it kill all bacteria. It just said 'killed the bacteria'. That could mean that it killed 4% but left the other 96% somewhere inside you.

Here's what the article actually says:


From the source article:
The high-affinity antibody, an anthrax antitoxin, successfully eliminated both anthrax bacteria and its deadly toxins in animal tests. If future tests concur, this could be the first successful treatment for late-stage anthrax infection, even for an anthrax strain that has been designed to resist antibiotics.

Please don't misquote the article, particularly if you're going to split hairs about terminology. It discredits you and invalidates your demonstrably false claim.

Look Who's Talking


Originally posted by Frosty
More misinformation by ATSNN.

That's a serious charge. If you have evidence that ATSNN itself is producing misinformation, let's see it. Otherwise, I recommend against making such a libelous claim.

The article is accurately sourced, cited and quoted -- at least by others than yourself. That isn't “misinformation”, it's a reference to an article on spacewar.com provided by a member for other members to discuss.

Deliberately misquoting an article, on the other hand is disinformation. I'm hoping that was just an error on your part, and not intentional.

Skepticism requires an open mind, cynicism requires the opposite.

I recommend providing substantiation for your claims if you wish them to be considered credible.

So far, it doesn't look good.
:shk:



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Hard Of Hearing


Originally posted by Frosty
I never heard of any terrorist using anthrax. Don't they use AK's and jumbo jets?

As elitegamer23 pointed out, you're probably one of the few people in the world that hasn't heard about the anthrax deaths here in the U.S., and the extensive measures taken to deal with it.

Americans have died from it and we've even had members of Congress exposed to it. I'm surprised you were unaware of that.

There are several threads dealing with anthrax on ATS, too, if you're unaware of them.

And yes, whoever released anthrax in the U.S. was a terrorist, by definition.


Wasn't there evidence that the anthrax during the time of the big anthrax scare actually originated from a United States government lab?

[edit on 30-11-2005 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
The Strain Game


Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
Wasn't there evidence that the anthrax during the time of the big anthrax scare actually originated from a United States government lab?

As far as I know, the question of the origin of the anthrax spores released in the U.S. has not been conclusively resolved.

In the article you linked to, Barbara Rosenberg gave her opinion, but that's all it was. She offered no proof.

The answer to the Ames Strain question varies considerably, depending on who you ask.

At this point, I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions about the source of the anthrax weapon used against the U.S., other than that it has not been positively identified.

The whole Anthrax Scare affair, however, is something I view with a great deal of suspicion.

I don't think we're being told everything we should know about this.






[edit on 11/30/2005 by Majic]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:17 PM
link   
it doesnt matter if it was made in usa or made in china. and it doesnt matter if an arab, disgruntled american , or the usa goverment acted it out; it was an act of "terrorism"

[edit on 30-11-2005 by elitegamer23]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23
it doesnt matter if it was made in usa or made in china. and it doesnt matter if an arab, disgruntled american , or the usa goverment acted it out; it was an act of "terrorism"

It doesnt change the definition of what the act is called, but it does matter when blame is placed on Al-Qaeda automatically with no proof given.

Thanks for the beautifully written rebuttal Majic, I could not of been so eloquent and it saved me from having to reply



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23
frosty u said u never heard of any "terrorist " using anthrax. im sorry u dont remember the anthrax scares on the east coast , shortly after 9/11.correct me if im wrong but didnt people die and others get sick. hell i think a baby even became infected with anthrax. befoer u lol at any misinformation on atsnn. maybe u should stop spreading your own. www.osha.gov...

[edit on 30-11-2005 by elitegamer23]


Where in that filth you posted was it mentioned that there was any terrorist? All I see is 'deliberate terrorist blah blah blah'. This could have been a result of poor handling of anthrax by a government/university lab for all we know. Which terrorist were indicted? I see, government tells you it terrorist you eat it out their hand?



Originally posted by MajicAs elitegamer23 pointed out, you're probably one of the few people in the world that hasn't heard about the anthrax deaths here in the U.S., and the extensive measures taken to deal with it.


Once again, eat out the hand. It most likely just our government releasing deadly toxins into the public...which if you research has been done time and time again. THey test on their own soldiers. Plenty of threads here on ATS. Really, go and look.




Here's what the article actually says:


From the source article:
The high-affinity antibody, an anthrax antitoxin, successfully eliminated both anthrax bacteria and its deadly toxins in animal tests. If future tests concur, this could be the first successful treatment for late-stage anthrax infection, even for an anthrax strain that has been designed to resist antibiotics.

Please don't misquote the article, particularly if you're going to split hairs about terminology. It discredits you and invalidates your demonstrably false claim.


Let me smack my forehead. Where does it say all anthrax bacteria and deadly toxin was eliminated? Please read correctly. I never misquoted anything. I suggested something. Live with it or move on but do not accuse me of false accusations.



The article is accurately sourced, cited and quoted


No it is not. Please find me where in the article it is stated that this is a cure for late stage anthrax. I actually posted the snip from the article saying it is not. Blah! In fact here it is:


If future tests concur, this could be the first successful treatment for late-stage anthrax infection, even for an anthrax strain that has been designed to resist antibiotics.


Notice here the keyword COULD. I highlighted it so that this wouldn't happen, but...what do you know?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   
What I Know


Originally posted by Frosty
Notice here the keyword COULD. I highlighted it so that this wouldn't happen, but...what do you know?

You post here talking trash about the scientists in the article working on a cure for a deadly disease, quibble about wording while misrepresenting it yourself, then issue a broad defamation of ATSNN -- with a smiley, as if that negates the fact that you have insulted everyone else here with your baseless accusation.

And then you get all blustery, belligerent and pejorative when you get called on it.

What do you expect when you carry on like this? Hugs and kisses?


For what it's worth, I would have preferred to see the words “possible cure” in the headline, but I choose to let the article speak for itself rather than engage in sweeping, unjustified and juvenile insults of the article and my fellow members.

If you want to intelligently and honestly discuss the actual topic, then great! I would love to see more of that on ATSNN and ATS in general.

If instead you wish to continue behaving like this -- derailing the topic and insulting other members -- I have absolutely no use for it whatsoever.

That's my opinion based entirely on what you have posted, and nothing more.

Make of it what you will.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajicYou post here talking trash about the scientists in the article working on a cure for a deadly disease


Mod Edit: Removed personal insult/attack.


For what it's worth, I would have preferred to see the words “possible cure” in the headline


That what I am saying.


but I choose to let the article speak for itself rather than engage in sweeping, unjustified and juvenile insults of the article and my fellow members.


Part that be the title giving then a link to main article. You can wallow in slant and misinformation all you want, I won't.

....

I make it as simple as possible for you. The title of the ATSNN article is Scientists Find A Cure For Late Stage Anthrax Infection. Ok, got that? Here the quote from the article saying 'not' a cure:


If future tests concur, this could be the first successful treatment for late-stage anthrax infection, even for an anthrax strain that has been designed to resist antibiotics.


Ok? Maybe you think succesful treatment and cure not mean same thing. Cause it not say anything about cure in article from what I see. So I think cure mean succesful treatment.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Frosty]

[edit on 1-12-2005 by ZeddicusZulZorander]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Frosty - "eliminate" generally means gone.

As far as the "could" - scientists always cover their butts. Their first tests were successful. They elimated the anthrax and its toxins. Now other scientists in other facilities need to duplicate the test results. ...They should be able to, but just in case they can't, the word 'could' is used.

I don't get your problem here, but your motives seem suspect - or else you're not expressing yourself well. Maybe if you backed off on the name-calling and just focused on your questions and difficulties it would help.





Hmmm. I scanned before I posted, but didn't read carefully. Just read the first line of your above post. NOT acceptable. Please apologize to Majic.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by soficrow]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
The Sleep Of Reason


Originally posted by Frosty
Shut up please. I am not talking trash about any scientist. Take off the retarded cap for just one second, m'kay?

This is what I mean by behavior I have no use for.

I've made my point, you've made yours, and people reading this thread can decide for themselves, which is what this is ultimately all about.

Take care.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Hmmm. I scanned before I posted, but didn't read carefully. Just read the first line of your above post. NOT acceptable. Please apologize to Majic.

Indeed...

There's no need for the use of that kind of language....Keep your mouth shut if you can't speak your opinion without verbally assaulting other members...



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Getting Back Into The Anthrax

First off, I may have come on a bit strong, and to the extent I did so, I'm sorry about that. I think we can do better than this.

Hopefully we can put the drama behind us and get back to the topic, which is an important one -- at least, from my standpoint as an American who has seen what kind of effect the Anthrax Scare has had on my country.

Everyone will tend to have differing opinions about the veracity of the article and what it actually means, which is something I consider healthy, so here's my take on all this:

My Take On All This

1. I would prefer to see the words “possible cure” in the ATSNN headline, because the article does not claim that this is actually a cure -- yet (the article itself is titled New Antibody Shows Promise As Cure For Anthrax). So that can be misleading.

2. However, in fairness, if what the article claims is true, and the engineered antibody really did eliminate the anthrax bacteria and toxins from the test animals, then it is indeed a cure for them. The fact that they survived indicates a successful cure in the literal sense of the word: not just a possible cure, but one that worked.

Technically, the headline subz authored did not claim that a cure for anthrax in humans had been found, just a cure. If we want to split hairs, the article claims that all the test animals treated with this antibody -- exposed to 250 to 625 times an LD50 dose -- survived and were healthy, while those who did not receive the treatment succumbed to the infection.

That's what a cure does, by definition, hence my not getting too bent out of shape about the semantics. Well, at least not originally.


3. The fact that this cure may be effective in the late stages of anthrax -- and may also be effective against weaponized strains -- means that this antibody could provide a cure for humans who have been infected by anthrax weapons.

4. Such a cure could effectively neutralize anthrax as a biological weapon and as a means of inducing fear as a tool of terrorism.

5. And that is a big deal.

But as in all things, I advise skepticism (not cynicism), since this article could be wrong, misleading or intentionally deceptive.

I don't think it is, but I find it wise to allow for the possibility -- always.

Your mileage may vary.






Edit: Insertion of additional and possibly gratuitous weasel words, and way too much semantic massaging for my tastes.



[edit on 12/1/2005 by Majic]




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join