Man who let snakes bite him 200 times spurs new antivenom hope
There are around 600 venomous snakes in the world today. (AFP pic)
PARIS : Tim Friede was feeling particularly down on the day after the Sept 11 attacks, so he went to his basement and let two of the world's deadliest snakes bite him.
Four days later, he woke up from a coma.
'I know what it feels like to die from snakebite,' Friede told AFP via video call from his home in the small US town of Two Rivers, Wisconsin.
This experience might put most people off snakes entirely, but Friede simply vowed to be more careful next time.
From 2000 to 2018, he allowed himself to be bitten by snakes more than 200 times. He also injected himself with their venom over 650 times.
Friede endured this pain because he wanted to achieve total immunity to venom, a practice called mithridatism which should not be tried at home.
After a couple of years, Friede started to believe he could be the basis for a better kind of antivenom. The former truck mechanic, who does not have a university degree, long struggled to be taken seriously by scientists.
But last month, a study published in the prestigious Cell journal showed that antibodies from his blood protect against a range of snake venom.
The researchers now hope Friede's hyper-immunity could even lead to the development of a universal antivenom.
This would fill a major need, because currently most antivenoms only cover one or a few of the world's 600 venomous snakes.
Up to 138,000 people are killed by snakebites a year, while 400,000 suffer amputations or other disabilities, according to the World Health Organization.
These figures are believed to be vastly underestimated because snakebite victims typically live in poorer, remote areas.
'Pain every time'
Friede's first bite was from a harmless garter snake when he was five years old.
'I was afraid, I cried, I ran away,' said Friede, now 57.
Then he started bringing snakes home and hiding them in pickle jars. His mother sought counselling, but his interest in snakes persisted.
Things escalated after Friede attended a class that taught him how to 'milk' snakes for their venom.
How antivenom is made has changed little over the last 125 years.
Small doses of snake venom are injected into animals such as horses, which produce antibodies that can be extracted and used as antivenom.
However this antivenom usually only works for bites from that particular species of snake – and it includes other antibodies from horse that can cause serious side-effects including anaphylactic shock.
'I thought, well, if they make antivenom in horses, why can't I just use myself as a primate?' Friede said.
He started working through the venom from all the deadly species he could get his hands on, such as cobras, taipans, black mambas and rattlesnakes.
'There is pain every time,' he said.
'Proud'
For years, the scientists he contacted to take advantage of his immunity refused to bite.
Then in 2017, immunologist Jacob Glanville, who previously worked on universal vaccines, turned his attention towards antivenom.
Glanville told AFP he had been looking for 'a clumsy snake researcher who'd been bit accidentally a couple times,' when he came across a video of Friede taking brutal back-to-back snake bites.
When they first spoke, Glanville said he told Friede: 'I know this is awkward, but I would love to get my hands on some of your blood.'
'I've been waiting for this call for a long time,' came the response, Glanville said.
The antivenom described in the Cell paper includes two antibodies from Friede's blood, as well as a drug called varespladib.
It offered mice full protection against 13 of the 19 snake species tested, and partial protection for the remaining six.
The researchers hope a future cocktail will cover far more snakes – particularly vipers – with further trials planned on dogs in Australia.
Timothy Jackson of the Australian Venom Research Unit praised the immunological research, but questioned whether a human needed to be involved, pointing to synthetically developed antibodies.
Glanville said the ultimate goal of his US-based firm Centivax was to develop a universal antivenom administered by something like an EpiPen, potentially produced in India to keep the costs down.
Friede said he was 'proud' to have made a 'small difference' in medical history.
Now working for Centivax, Friede stopped self-inflicting himself with venom in 2018 to save the firm from liability issues.
But he hopes to get bitten by snakes again in the future.
'I do miss it,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
14 hours ago
- Malay Mail
Where artificial persons can profess a faith — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 23 — Ever heard of Hobby Lobby? No, it's not a rock band, local or foreign. It is a United States (US) family-owned company, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. (Hobby Lobby). Today it has more than 1000 stores with over 46,000 employees operating in 48 states. On September 12, 2012, Barbara and David Green, along with their children Mart Green, Steven Green, and Darsee Lett, filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on behalf of Hobby Lobby. According to David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby, all of the stores that he had founded, including the first store which opened in 1972, incorporated his Christian beliefs into their everyday functions. In 2012, David and his son Steven, who was the president then, maintained ownership of all of Hobby Lobby stores. Now, a little background on the case. On March 23, 2010, then US President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) into law. The ACA was a legislative overhaul of the US healthcare system that sought to minimise the number of uninsured US citizens. Many of the ACA's reforms were directed towards healthcare insurers and mandated which services they were required to cover. The ACA included a provision requiring employer-sponsored health insurance plans to cover certain preventative health services at no cost to the individual. In the provision, the ACA granted the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in Washington DC authority to determine which preventive services health insurance plans must cover. On February 15, 2012, the HHS, the US Department of Labor, and the US Department of Treasury finalised regulations that detailed which preventative health services insurers had to cover, which included all contraceptive methods approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Accordingly, all employer-sponsored health care plans had to cover 14 methods of contraception, free of cost to all female enrollees. However, the HHS regulations included exceptions for certain corporations such as non-profit religious organisations. The Greens filed their suit against the director of HHS, and challenged the contraceptive mandate of the ACA. They argued that the contraceptive mandate of the ACA violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. According to the Greens, the contraceptive mandate interfered with their and Hobby Lobby's rights to exercise their religious beliefs by forcing their employer-provided health plans to cover four FDA-approved contraceptive methods that they considered as inducing abortions. The Greens further argued that under their and Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs, life begins when an egg is fertilised and that emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices both have the potential to prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus. The Greens objected to methods inducing abortions by terminating fertilised eggs. They claimed that being mandated to cover those contraceptive methods violated their and Hobby Lobby's rights to exercise their religious freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and protected by the RFRA. In response to the arguments, the HHS contested Hobby Lobby's ability to make claims under the RFRA. The HHS argued that the RFRA, as drafted by US Congress, protected only an individual's right to freedom of religion, not for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. — Pexels pic In response to the arguments, the HHS contested Hobby Lobby's ability to make claims under the RFRA. The HHS argued that the RFRA, as drafted by US Congress, protected only an individual's right to freedom of religion, not for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. According to the HHS, Hobby Lobby was a corporation or company composed of individuals with many different beliefs. The HHS further argued that Hobby Lobby could not claim that the contraceptive mandate burdened the corporation's religious beliefs, as they were a non-religious corporation composed of individuals capable of exercising their personal religious beliefs. To cut the story short, the case went to the US Supreme Court which granted the federal government's request for review. The case was consolidated with a similar case from Pennsylvania which challenged the contraceptive mandate of the ACA on similar grounds. On March 25, 2014, the US Supreme Court began to hear arguments for the case. Three months later in June, the US Supreme Court decided by a slim majority (5:4) in favour of Hobby Lobby. The majority held that the contraceptive mandate of the ACA placed a burden on the exercise of religion of Hobby Lobby, a corporation but nonetheless a person with the ability to practise religion. The majority ruled that for-profit corporations are 'persons' by reference to the Dictionary Act 1871 which defines 'person' to include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals. The majority rejected the federal government's argument that for-profit corporations, which existed primarily to make money, could not exercise religion. Accordingly, Hobby Lobby had the ability to practise — profess if you like — religion. [See Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014)] The majority decision has been much welcomed and well received as protecting religious freedom in the US, including that of corporations — otherwise called artificial persons. So yes, artificial persons can profess a faith. * This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Malay Mail
4 days ago
- Malay Mail
‘I told them I was allergic': Passenger sues Singapore Airlines after shrimp meal triggers emergency landing
SINGAPORE, June 20 — A Singapore Airlines flight from Germany to the United States was forced to make an emergency landing in France last October after a business class passenger suffered a severe allergic reaction to shrimp — a food she had warned cabin crew she could not consume. The passenger, Doreen Benary, 41, has since filed a negligence lawsuit against Singapore Airlines in a US federal court, according to court documents dated June 17, as reported by Mothership. Benary boarded Flight SQ026 from Frankfurt to New York on October 8, 2024. In her complaint, she alleged that she had informed flight attendants of her 'specific' allergy to shrimp at the start of the flight. 'Despite the aforesaid warnings,' a crew member allegedly served her a meal containing shrimp, the lawsuit stated. Benary reportedly began to feel unwell 'nearly immediately' after consuming part of the meal. When she alerted the crew, the flight attendant admitted to the mistake and apologised, according to the complaint. The aircraft was then diverted to Paris, where Benary received emergency medical care at two separate facilities. The lawsuit described the treatment as 'painful', and claimed the incident left Benary with 'great pain, agony, and mental anguish' as well as financial losses. It was not stated whether Benary was carrying an epinephrine injector, commonly used to treat severe allergic reactions. The lawsuit accuses Singapore Airlines of breaching its duty of care and failing to follow its own safety protocols. The airline has yet to respond publicly to the allegations. This is not the first time the airline has faced scrutiny over allergy incidents. In 2017, a toddler with a severe peanut allergy began vomiting on board a Singapore Airlines flight after peanut snacks were opened nearby. In response, the airline stopped serving peanuts as snacks across all cabin classes in April 2018. These were replaced with alternatives such as peas and crackers. While Singapore Airlines offers passengers the option to request non-strict nut-free meals at least 48 hours before departure, it does not guarantee an allergy-free environment on board. On its website, the airline advises travellers with severe allergies to consult their doctor prior to flying and to take necessary precautions. 'We request that you take every necessary precaution, bearing in mind the risk of exposure,' the advisory reads.
Malay Mail
4 days ago
- Malay Mail
Elon Musk's SpaceX Starship explodes during ‘routine' Texas test, no injuries reported
HOUSTON, June 19 — One of tech billionaire Elon Musk's SpaceX Starships exploded during a routine test late yesterday in Texas, law enforcement said, adding that no one was injured. The Starship 36 suffered 'catastrophic failure and exploded' at the Starbase launch facility shortly after 11pm (0400 GMT Thursday), a Facebook post by the Cameron County authorities said. Musk's Space X said the rocket was preparing for the tenth flight test when it 'experienced a major anomaly while on a test stand at Starbase'. 'A safety clear area around the site was maintained throughout the operation and all personnel are safe and accounted for,' Space X added on social media. 'There are no hazards to residents in surrounding communities, and we ask that individuals do not attempt to approach the area while safing operations continue.' Starbase on the south Texas coast, near the border with Mexico, is the headquarters for Musk's space project. Standing 123m tall, Starship is the world's largest and most powerful rocket and central to Musk's long-term vision of colonizing Mars. The latest setback follows an explosion of a prototype Starship over the Indian Ocean in late May. The biggest and most powerful launch vehicle ever built had lifted off on May 27 from the Starbase facility, but the first-stage Super Heavy booster blew up instead of executing its planned splashdown in the Gulf of Mexico. The previous two outings also ended poorly, with the upper stage disintegrating over the Caribbean. — AFP
