[Sabertooth]

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

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?

I'm not for a second diminishing the gravity of this either way, but I'd like better information.

And either way, bomb Sadaam.

[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?

Just heard on "Good Morning America" that they found anthrax spores on the nasal swabs taken from Daschle staffers.

More tests to follow.

[ironman]

"What does "tested positive for exposure" mean? Do they have anthrax, or just the antibodies?"

Neither. The swabs or other field tests indicate the prescence of the bacteria on them (or in them). They may or may not develope the anti-bodies, and they may or may not develop an infection.

[JohnHuang2]

What does "tested positive for exposure" mean? Do they have anthrax, or just the antibodies?

It means just that -- these are preliminary results. More tests need to be conducted since the first results could be false.

[Hoboken]

I think the term "tested positive for exposure" means that these staffers were given nasal swabs on which actual spore were found. I haven't read anything suggesting a blood test, wherein antibodies were found. At this time, we know that 22 staffers have inhaled anthrax spores. We'll know soon if any have inhaled enough to come down with the disease.

[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.

[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]

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

[TheBigB]

1) Just ONE spore can give a postive response for exposure to Anthrax.

2) "Exposure" does NOT mean a person has the disease, or even will develop it. It simply means one or more spores have been found.

3) I say again, be wary, but be calm. Exactly ONE person has died from Anthrax, basically because no one was looking for it. In a nation of 250 million people, the odds of your personally being exposed are longer than your chance of winning the lottery.

4) Antibiotic treatment is VERY effective even if the disease has developed.

5) 20,000 people will die from the flu this year. No one is panicking over -that-.