Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/21/2001 4:39:01 AM EDT
This was published by the CDC. Very disturbing. They are telling the guys what to do to us. Not that they already havent planned it. A long read but interesting. [url]http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/inglesby.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:20:06 AM EDT
Thanks to Uncle Sugar, I've been innoculated against Anthax. So once you all are done choking to death, I'll be by to pick your AR's! [peep]
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:37:39 AM EDT
Makes me sleep better at night that I live 15 miles from the CDC. Shit!
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:46:28 AM EDT
This stuff scares the hell out of me.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 8:56:28 AM EDT
CATM, I hate to put it to you like this, but the Anthrax vaccine just drops the fatality rate from 100% to 83.9%. There is still a good chance of croaking. If it was 100% effective, Anthrax would not be a problem.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 9:28:20 AM EDT
[url]http://www.emergency.com/anthrax.htm[/url] A partial quote from the above weblink: "RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THERAPY The standard therapy for inhalation anthrax is intravenous penicillin G by continuous infusion, 50 mg/kg or 80,000 U/kg in the first hour, followed by 200 mg/kg or 320,000 U/kg over the following 24h. No data are available on the value on penicillin IM, but it would likely be less effective and larger doses might be required. Streptomycin, 1-2 g/24h IM has been described to be synergistic in combination with penicillin. An alternative regimen is erythromycin, 4g/24h by continuous infusion. In a biological warfare situation, however, I would recommend that vancomycin be a part of any regimen, in a dose of 500 mg every 6 hours. Intramuscular injection of vancomycin is painful. An inferior but possibly useful substitute for vancomycin would be oxacillin, methicillin, or nafcillin in appropriate dosages (use the PDR). Other drugs to which B. anthracis is generally considered susceptible include the first-generation cephalosporins, tetracycline, and chloramphenicol. Adjuvant therapy with hydrocortisone, 100-200 mg/day may be helpful in the case of malignant chest-wall and neck edema. As soon as in vitro susceptibility data are available, therapy should be adjusted to include effective drugs, and drugs to which the isolate is resistant should be eliminated. In animal models, therapy for less than 2 weeks was ineffective due to persistence of infective spores in the lungs -- no data are available in humans. If antibiotics are present in limited quantities, the least ill patients should be treated first, as patients in the second phase of the illness have a poor prognosis even with effective therapy. I do not agree with the recommendation of Col. Wiener (see below) of creating test groups to be treated each with only one drug to see which works. Unless communications and support services degenerate to a point of complete chaos, in vitro susceptibility testing will provide equivalent data more rapidly. It is, however, appropriate to treat as many people as possible with whatever antibiotics if limited quantities are available."
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 10:24:04 AM EDT
fluoroquinolones (ciprofloxacin is one example) and tetracyclines (doxycycline, esp) are good alternatives. Inhalation anthrax has a fatality rate near 100% even with treatment. 10-20% for cutaneous anthrax without treatment and rare fatality with treatment. Gastointestinal anthrax is very rare but generally responds to antibiotics. Bottom line: if inhaled take care of your affairs.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 1:22:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 1:27:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: guys anthrax is over rated as a biological agent. there are much worse things out there that are just as easy to spread. Ebola would be just as easy to spread, much more lethal and no vaccine available. Even ebola is not the worst of it. mike
View Quote
Any Bio weapon is bad. Anthrax is over rated till you are the one has it, and you only have little time left with your wife and seven year old son. Thats not the way I want to go out.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 1:31:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Beer_Slayer: blah blah blah Ebola blah blah
View Quote
First, they'd have to find and obtain the ebola virus. This would involve significant risk to whomever does it. Then they'd have to find some way to spread it. Again, lots of risk to whomever does it. And finally, with proper sanitation, it isn't that enormous of a risk. The biggest problem in Africa is that the people have all sorts of stupid rituals that they engage in out in the villages, and in the "modern" areas, the hospitals are little more than pestholes anyway -- they don't even dispose of single-use disposable syringes, because they cost too much to throw away. Slamming an airliner into a building is very different from infecting oneself with a deadly plague. If they go biological on our ass, I think I know what it would be, but I sure ain't gonna say it.
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 3:59:11 PM EDT
The question is... will you have enough ammo to fend off those that want to strip you and yours of your m-40 or MCU mask? _FS
Link Posted: 9/21/2001 4:31:19 PM EDT
Top Top