[FairOpinion]

Fascinating case -- virtually certain it was anthrax, yet blood tests didn't detect anthrax.

Could it be that our tests are not sensitive enough, and anthrax can cause serious illness in quantities so small we can't detect them?

[Dick Vomer]

Well here's a thought. Maybe it was a form of anthrax that hadn't been seen before. Maybe we've or "they've" developed an "anthrax" that takes the toxic part of the bacteria and puts it on another bacteria or has somehow altered the surface of the anthrax in order to change the type of antibodies you develop when infected.

Therefore the immune response you develop wouldn't be to a "known" anthrax or sub type but to another bacteria altogether. Since the anthrax antibodies are different than those you screen for, your test will be negative.

If the correct culture media wasn't used to screen the patients or if the serology tests weren't placed in the correct tubes for storage, transfer, or analysis then the tests would be "negative" but the patient will still have the disease.

The key is if the patient gets "better" or doesn't die if the appropriate antibiotics( doxycyline, penicillin, ciprofloxin) are started.

Even if you live, inhaled anthrax is a mother and may result in permanent lung and heart damage due to the lung problems and even if treated has anywhere from 45-75% mortality rate.

[neverdem]

Could it be that our tests are not sensitive enough, and anthrax can cause serious illness in quantities so small we can't detect them?

It shows how much we don't know.