ReviewTransactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association2002
Recognizing the real threat of biological terror.
Review in Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Weapons of mass destruction can be used to harm and terrorize populations. Such weapons include those with chemical, nuclear or biological properties. Obviously computer viruses can add additional barriers to a quick response. The most effective, least costly and greatest threats are biologicals. Biological terror is not new, and biological weapons have been used for centuries. However, as a result of modern technology, the risks are greater now and the outcomes more terrible. Today they include live pathogens, various toxins, and theoretically "bioregulators"--biochemicals affecting cell signaling. Altered cell signaling could be used to induce apoptosis-cell death, or a heightened outpouring of cytokines mimicking overwhelming sepsis, or even an intracellular, biochemical "strike" causing cellular paralysis. Biological weaponeers now have the frightening ability to alter the genetic makeup of pathogens, rendering them resistant not only to available antibiotic therapy but also to currently effective vaccines. In dark corners of some fringe groups, bioweaponeers are searching for the capability of designing pathogens that target specific races, by virtue of discriminating ligands (1). The resulting morbidity and mortality from use of any biological weapons will be accompanied by chaos, governmental and social instability, panic, an extraordinary utilization of available resources, and an ongoing epidemic of sleepless nights (2,3). Herein I will review some of the issues and some of the currently available biological weapons. The major goal is to highlight the clinical presentations of patients with infections that could be used as biological weapons.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12053717PMC2194471What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.