Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Homeland Security -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RocketMan who wrote (158)	10/27/2001 7:25:55 PM
From: Jill	Respond to of 827

This is very very interesting. The anthrax spores remind me of the famed (and debated) cyst form of lyme disease, which is a form the bacteria supposedly take that is kind of inert, evaded by the immune system, and can "regerminate" and causes the relapses people experience when they go off antibiotics. However I think the guy in Florida got some very intensive IV treatment. But ing eneral, bacteria that form cysts or spores do it precisely so they can go into latency under harsh conditions, and then the abx tend not to kill them because they aren't active, don't present antigens to the immune system, and aren't actively reproducing. However, one would hope in the case of anthrax at least, that if you've wiped out the actively reproducing bacteria, that the immune system has now created its own "vaccine"--i.e. it knows enough to keep it in check. That's one concern I've had though in the cutaneous cases--I'm glad they're keeping them on 60 days of treatment even for cutaneous, instead of 7-10 days. I don't at all mind the CDC groping their way sincerely towards the best treatments. I do mind the pat reassurances--for instance that many abx could work. Clearly the anthrax is somewhat penicillin resistant, so that wasn't true.