Man who injected himself with venom hundreds of times could revolutionize snakebite treatment

CNN - May 2nd, 2025

Immunologist Jacob Glanville and snake expert Tim Friede have collaborated to create a groundbreaking antivenom, offering protection against bites from 19 species of venomous snakes. This innovation stems from Friede's unique immunity, developed over nearly 18 years of self-exposure to various snake venoms. The research, involving Columbia University's Peter Kwong, utilized antibodies from Friede's blood and a venom-blocking drug, varespladib, to protect mice against these deadly toxins.

The traditional method of producing antivenom, which involves using animal antibodies, has been fraught with challenges and side effects. This new approach, combining human-derived antibodies and a small-molecule drug, has the potential to revolutionize snakebite treatment, which is a major cause of injury and death in the developing world. Although the new antivenom has not yet been tested in humans, its success in mice suggests a promising future, especially if further research can extend its efficacy to viperid snakes as well.

Scientific Research Columbia University Jacob Glanville Tim Friede Centivax Antivenom Snakebite Immunology Peter Kwong Varespladib

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a well-rounded and largely accurate account of the development of a potential new antivenom, highlighting both the scientific innovation and the personal story of Tim Friede. It effectively communicates the significance of the research and its potential impact on global health. However, the article could benefit from additional perspectives and more detailed transparency regarding the research process and potential conflicts of interest. While the article is engaging and accessible, further exploration of the ethical considerations and potential criticisms could enhance its depth and balance. Overall, the story is informative and relevant, with the potential to influence both public opinion and future research in the field of snakebite treatment.

Accuracy

The article presents a largely accurate account of Tim Friede's self-immunization process and the development of a potential antivenom. Most claims, such as Friede's exposure to snake venom over 18 years and the subsequent research, are well-supported by external sources. However, there are some discrepancies, such as the specific number of snake species protected against by the antivenom and the exact number of venom exposures and bites. The article states that the antivenom protects against 19 species, which is consistent with the study, but does not clarify the extent of protection for all species. Additionally, the claim about the potential for fewer side effects due to human-origin antibodies is plausible but remains unverified in human trials.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by including perspectives from both the researchers involved and an external expert, Steven Hall, who offers an independent assessment of the research. However, it could have been more balanced by including perspectives from other experts in the field or from those who might question the ethical implications of self-immunization. The article predominantly focuses on the positive potential of the research, which may overlook potential challenges or criticisms.

Clarity

The article is well-written and clearly explains complex scientific concepts in an accessible manner. The structure is logical, with a clear progression from Friede's self-immunization to the development of the antivenom. However, the article could improve clarity by providing more context about the traditional antivenom production process and how the new approach differs.

Source quality

The article references credible sources, such as the scientific journal *Cell*, where the research was published, and includes quotes from the researchers involved in the study. The inclusion of an external expert, Steven Hall, adds to the credibility. However, the article could have enhanced source quality by providing more direct links to the study and additional expert opinions to corroborate the claims made.

Transparency

The article is relatively transparent about the research process and the collaboration between Glanville and Friede. It explains the methodology used to develop the antivenom and acknowledges the limitations, such as the current lack of human testing. However, it could improve transparency by providing more detailed information about the study's funding and any potential conflicts of interest, particularly given that Glanville is the CEO of Centivax.