[Sukie note: This cross-post is a bit unusual because the individual who
wrote it is not a specialist in the field.  There were a few parts I
didn't know about but after reading the following comment from Dr. Karen
Purcell:
 
>This is excellent.  Thank you for having more details than my foggy
>brain could provide.
>
>-Dr. Karen
 
I was reassured that both Rob and I actually were both thinking clearly
enough and figured that there are likely to be others on the FML who enjoy
the "whys" of things, and appreciate that people DO learn things on their
own throughout life.  (Heck, that is a decent chunk of the essence of
living.)]
 
  ----------
 
X asked:
 
>>Rabies question (animals in general, not just ferrets) - Why are animals
>>that have bitten killed and a brain sample taken?  More accurately,
>>why are they still handled this way?  I recall this practice from my
>>childhood decades ago--surely someone has developed a less drastic method
>>of checking for the rabies organism?
 
And Karen Purcell answered:
 
>Nope, that is the only choice we have.  Believe me, all vets would prefer
>something less gruesome than decapitation.  I have clients routinely ask
>me to test their animals for rabies - apparently the method is not common
>knowledge.
 
I think the answer to Ms. X's question lies with negative specificity.  XX
started on it when she described the way rabies progresses.  Rabies virus
will eventually turn up in corneal and saliva samples of infected animals
but we want to be sure the animal *couldn't* transmit rabies, not that it
could.  The only method we currently have to assure a bite victim (or PH
official) that the animal is/was 100% incapable of transmitting the
disease is by staining and fluoroscoping brain tissue.  If the brain
tissue sample shows positive the animal may or may not have been shedding.
If the brain tissue is negative then we're certain the animal could not
have been shedding at the time of the bite.
 
Rob
[Posted in FML issue 3560]