Anthrax Hits Daschle Staffers - first full story

AP | Wednesday, October 17, 2001

[JohnHuang2]

WASHINGTON (AP) - More than 20 people in Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's office have tested positive for exposure to anthrax, sources said Wednesday.

The tests were conducted after a letter sent to Daschle's office was found to contain a highly refined form of anthrax, suggesting it was produced by experts.

One official with direct knowledge of the test results said 22 Daschle staffers had tested positive for exposure to anthrax. All of them are taking the antibiotic Cipro. Another source said that more than 20 had tested positive. Both sources insisted on anonymity.

The FBI is investigating strong similarities in handwriting and style, including identical anti-American language, between the letter sent to Daschle in Washington and a letter with anthrax sent to NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw in New York.

Elsewhere in the country, four people are known to have contracted anthrax and nine others have tested positive for the bacteria.

Hundreds of people were tested Tuesday after the suspicious letter was opened in Daschle's office Monday. Nasal swabs were used on the staffers to see if there were any anthrax spores in their noses. A positive finding does not mean the person has the disease or will get the disease.

About 8,000 spores must be inhaled for a person to develop inhalation anthrax.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., said about 200 people on Capitol Hill are taking Cipro because of the anthrax scare, including himself.

Lieberman, who has not tested positive for anthrax exposure, said during a CNN interview on Wednesday that his taking the antibiotic ``is probably unnecessary, but why not?''

Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said of the anthrax scare: ``There's no question that right now we are in a period of the unknown.''

For Education And Discussion Only. Not For Commercial Use.

[Iwo Jima]

"Daschle will not be jumping ship on the war effort right away."

Very curious, wouldn't you say? Daschle will probably no longer oppose the terrorism bill being pushed by the administration; in fact, he and the other Democrats will probably ramrod it through. And Tom Brokaw and his counterparts will doubtless have a whole new perspective on the war against terrorism.

Why would the terrorists want to radicalize these two factions who previously were not as suuportive of the war effort as other aspects of American society? Are the terrorists just that stupid? How can someone who can manufacture or have access to weapons grade anthrax possibly be that stupid?

Hmmmm?

[Sabertooth]

"Bush ought to warn them to do so, publically and expect them to hand over Bin Ladin dead or alive, or Baghdad is toast."

A big part of me agrees with you, but consider this:

That might not be an offer Hussein wouldn't refuse.

Remember the "War of the Cities" between Iran and Iraq in the 80s? That was initiated by Iraq.1.5 million civilians died on both sides. Those are what Hussein considers "acceptable losses."

These anthrax attacks are escalating. We know Hussein has more. We know he has smallpox. We suspect he has Ebola.

We know he has chemical weapons. We suspect he has nukes.

We are either being provoked, or warned. Hussein either wants a fight, or wants us to butt out while he goes after other objectives: Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Israel.

Hussein believes he is the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar, the Sacker of Jerusalem, Captor of the Jews, and the Great conqueror of Babylonian history. He's not dealing with a full deck, but he has dangerous aces up his sleeve.

This is World War III. Not sure I wouldn't give Hussein the nuclear ultimatum you suggest, maybe in concert with Russia. But it's also time to start playing our "I" cards.

Israel...

India...

Iran.

[Brian_Baldwin]

Opps! looks like I misread your post, though you said Daschle WOULD be jumping ship on the war effort - I agree, I don't think he will be jumping ship, this act of war against the Senate will unite the effort, we could be looking at a Congressional declaration of war against a nation very soon, e.g. if/when the weapons grade anthrax is linked to a government . . . again, weapons grade anthrax means without doubt a government was behind this . . . again, laugh, but many see a thread if you look at it closely and the political enemies, who these enemies are communicating with, et all, from Iraq to Cuba then on to Florida as a possible route for Anthrax . . .

[slimer]

We really need to get a handle on our terms here. What does "tested positive for exposure" mean? Do they have anthrax, or just the antibodies?

It means they have been exposed to anthrax. It does not mean they are infected.

[Brian_Baldwin]

The "I" cards - correcto . . .

[Diogenesis]

"Stupid" is the wrong word. They are unable to see the short term future clearly.

Hence, each of the terrorists got into trouble with someone on their way to the airports.

In Boston, they had a fight with the parking attendant.

They have a frontal lobe defect -- in addition to being reprehensible.

[wjeanw]

Or that there was a lot of it in the envelope! Obviously the person sending the material knew people are being cautious, so he/she went for the maximum exposure in the quickest time.

[constable tom]

Remember that the terrorist's main goal in this psychological war is to turn us against each other and against our country, to dimish our ability to act.

Ah, the voice of reason. Well said, sanchmo.

If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs...

[tracer]

"We really need to get a handle on our terms here. What does "tested positive for exposure" mean? Do they have anthrax, or just the antibodies?"

Neither -- yet. One day is insufficient for either antibodies or an active infection to develop. "Tested positive for exposure" apparently means that spores were detected from nasal swabs and that PCR-based DNA testing for the genome of Bacillus anthracis likely is underway.

It is almost certain that the latter could be completed in 24 hours, given that the number of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) replication cycles would be many, given the likely small number of spores recovered. In addition, hybridization with appropriate DNA probes takes some time as well, as does reading and analyzing the result.

The assessment that the anthrax organisms in question are the result of "super science" is, IMO, overblown. If indeed the inoculum in question consists of small-sized spores, it is likely that they were derived by isolating individual bacteria (i.e., clones of a single bacterial cell) that exhibits the production of small spores in contrast to other bacteria present in the starter culture -- which could be isolated from "natural" sources.

Such isolation and selection procedures have been around for decades and a highly sophisticated laboratory, military or otherwise, would not be necessary to produce the bacterial spores in question. indeed, the aforementioned technology, for the most part, is encompassed in laboratory exercises taught in undergraduate bacteriology or microbial genetics courses. A familiar example is the antibiotic susceptibility testing done every day in hospital laboratories around the world. In this example, bacteria that are insensitive to the antibiotics being tested can be selected for cloning on the basis that they are present and alive in the presence of a given antibiotic.

Accordingly, a highly sophisticated laboratory, military or otherwise, would not be necessary to produce the bacterial spores in question.

This, of course, does not rule out the possibilty that the Bacillus anthracis in question were in fact genetically modified for antibiotic resistance. If the isolates from the Caitol Hill staffers are shown to be resistant to ciprofloxin (Cipro), the designation of "weapons-grade" truly would be appropriate.

The First Amendment notwithstanding, it would be appropriate for the news media would police itself and leave the reporting of this and other events to responsible and well-informed reproters with graduate degrees in the general areas in which they work. The public deserves better than reportage by the uninformed.............

[Sabertooth]

We really need to get a handle on our terms here. What does "tested positive for exposure" mean? Do they have anthrax, or just the antibodies?

It means they have been exposed to anthrax. It does not mean they are infected.

Ain't that a tautology?

BTW, exposure doesn't necessarily mean infection, but doesn't rule it out, either.

I know what "exposure" probably meant in this context, but my point is that the way this story is breaking, the news media needs to be very precise was they get the information out there.

[Clinton's a rapist]

Or that there was a lot of it in the envelope!

NPR reporting that anthrax has been found in the Capitol ventilation system. The letter was probably more for psychological effect, something along the lines of "Congratulations. You have just been murdered." (Any Avengers fans remember that episode?)

[CELTICGAEL (Celt)]

Per Fox..Spores have been found in Gov. Pataki's office. He will have a press conf. at 12:30 eastern

[xJones]

I did read on Fox News today where Bayer said they wouldn't jump the cost on Ciprio and are working full blast to produce more.

[Terrorista Nada]

"Damn! The FBI said it wouldn't have a return address."

Governor of New York, "You've got mail." (Just announced on Fox News)

[dbbeebs]

This is Russian, or Iraqi made Anthrax. Period.

IIRC, I've read where any good biology lab could do this.

[Musket]

And what happens when they've got this mess cleaned up and another "message" is delivered and the whole clean-up process starts all over again. There is only one answer-

DEPORT!!!!!!!!! DEPORT-DEPORT-DEPORT!!!!!!!!!!!

[Terrorista Nada]

"I've read where any good biology lab could do this."

You read wrong.

[dbbeebs]

the US Congress needs to vote a declaration of formal war on any nation found linked to it

If this attack was nation-based, we'd know about it by now. There is no "nation" to attack.

[Sabertooth]

For everyone who's posted
in response to my questions at #44 on this thread:

We really need to get a handle on our terms here.
What does "tested positive for exposure" mean?
Do they have anthrax, or just the antibodies?

First, thanks for your input. However...

I'd actually already answered my own questions at #60. There's a new feature on FR, "View Replies." It works quite well, and using it before posting will prevent unnecessary or repetitive posts. Not that you all didn't provide additional useful information, but if you'd been aware that the question was already answered, we could have cut to the chase more quickly on the other stuff.

Use"View Replies"
It Works!

Thanks,

Sabertooth

[riri]

Thanks, I never knew that was there. Honest.