I would really like to know if yesterday's public revelation that one of the 9-11 hijackers sought treatment for cutaneous anthrax is the result of an intentional tip from government sources, or whether it represents true investigative journalism by the NYT. If it's the former, then we might infer that the administration feels it has a handle on the threat, and that there is no further benefit to delaying an attack on Iraq. That would dovetail with the ramping up of anti-Iraq rhetoric, and the US and British government's recent warnings to Saddam that we are willing to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for attacks with non-nuclear WMD. On the other hand, this could just be an example of a journalist stepping off the reservation and doing some real digging around, in which case, unfortunately, no such optimistic inferences follow.
Yes, some people can have a bad reaction to the antitoxin. They can get serum sickness. But that is better than certain or highly probable death.
Read Ken Alibek's Biohazard. He recounts one incident where one of his fellow workers was exposed to anthrax and appeared to be about to die (the anthrax was cutaneous, but it was on the man's neck, so that the swelling threatened to block his breathing.) As a last resort, the man was administered what Alibek calls "antiserum" (which I assume must be the antitoxin,) and that saved his life.