CDC tests show no bioengineering of anthrax; spores similar to ones that infect animals

Oregonian ^ | 10/25/01

[SAMWolf]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Genetic testing shows the bacteria in the anthrax-by-mail attacks have not been bioengineered and are quite similar to natural strains that sicken animals, federal health officials said Thursday.

"These strains cannot be distinguished from other anthrax isolates that are known to have caused disease in barnyard animals" in the United States and Europe, said Dr. Julie Gerberding of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

While CDC says the anthrax so far is susceptible to penicillin, preliminary tests suggest it also may contain an early signal of developing penicillin resistance. Thus CDC said Thursday that patients with inhaled anthrax should not be treated with penicillin alone.

But from an investigative viewpoint, that discovery "is entirely consistent with the natural biology of the organism," Gerberding said. In nature, anthrax strains often show that chemical signal.

"We have absolutely no evidence to suggest these isolates have been genetically altered or engineered in any way," she added. "We're quite relieved that their susceptibility profile looks like what we would expect from a naturally occurring strain."

So far, the CDC hasn't finished genetic tests on anthrax spores recovered from the Washington postal facility where two workers have died and two others become infected with inhaled anthrax. Those tests are important to help determine whether the anthrax came from the same batch as the bacteria in letters mailed to Florida, New York and a Senate office.

Then there's the nation's other antibiotic resistance worry -- that some 10,000 people now are taking Cipro while CDC figures out whether they were exposed to anthrax and thus are at risk. All of that Cipro use, infectious disease specialists worry, could cause everyday bacteria to mutate so that Cipro won't be useful against other infections.

The CDC won't be able to detect if that's happening right away, Gerberding said, "but I would be surprised if it was a zero impact."

[TomB]

Except we have no reports of anyone being infected by someone who is on antibiotics. It is highly unlikely that any of us will be infected by someone who contracts anthrax and additionally all those exposed so far had first hand exposure from the letters. How do you explain resistance unless the anthrax was previously exposed it to anti-biotics ?

Will you relax?!

If you reread my post, it was in response to a general question about how organisms develop an tolerance to antibiotics, we weren't discussing anthrax. However, now that you mention it, naturally occurring bacteria, because of the ubiquitousness of penicillin, are known to develop resistance on their own. If the fact that the anthrax being investigated is beginning to show a resistance to penicillin is true, it would argue that the strain began as a naturally ocurring bug. Although that is not near to being conclusive.

[That Poppins Woman]

something communicable shows up

It already has, stupid. They're doin' a reverse play. Introduce the communicable FIRST, i.e., West Nile, Hanta, HIV, etc., (and I wouldn't put it past them to come over with hemorrhagic fever). THEN herd us into decimating our immune systems with anthrax scares, i.e., taking antibiotics, setting us up for ultimate damage from the FIRST COMMUNICABLE diseases.

And Saddam still has SCUDS chock full of his little cocktail.

[Sabertooth]

Hah!