I hope this works, but poor Dr. Brantly is going to be running out of blood, if they don’t find another way to treat this disease.
RE: but poor Dr. Brantly is going to be running out of blood, if they don’t find another way to treat this disease.
Hey, there’s always his missionary companion — Nancy Writebol.....
if it does work then can she not donate to someone else of the same type??
Not a biologist/Dr,but guess theres none in the CDC either
Well, like the virus, the antibodies will “spread” if we have more people survive.
The other patients who’ve survived could donate blood to the next level of victims, and so on. I do not think Brantley will be the only one available!
Any one Dr. Brantly help save, and other survivors will be the “force multiplier” (sorry for the borrowed term).
Plus the vamping up of the several drugs in development.
As long as we don’t see a sudden uptick of more cases breaking out all over, we “could” contain it.
As for gubmint agencies and this WH admin, their motif and their handling of Ebola are suspect.
Three things.
They may not need to take that much blood.
Your blood level does return its former level.
Each new person with his blood, becomes another source of the antibodies.
How can he run out of blood? Our blood keeps regenerating.
“I hope this works, but poor Dr. Brantly is going to be running out of blood, if they don’t find another way to treat this disease.”
No, because he is actually donating his plasma only. When he donates, the red cells are separated from the plasma by centrifugation, and then he gets back his RBC’s. That prevents him from becoming anemic.
OTHOH, plasma donors are tested before each donation because too frequent donations can deplete the donor’s serum albumin, putting his body chemistry out of whack.
Still, he should be able to safely donate plasma rather frequently. Plasma is where the antibodies (i.e. globulins) are.
Inoculation against smallpox involved using a knife, lancet, or scalpel to make a cut in the arm or leg of the patient and then transferring biological matter taken directly from the oozing pustule of an infected person. This process, called arm-to-arm inoculation, resulted in the inoculated person developing a form of the illness, but the course tended to be shorter in duration and milder in symptoms. Some people died as a result of inoculation, but those who recovered were immune to smallpox for life.As the incidence of smallpox increased in North America during the 1700s, inoculation (or variolation, as the procedure had come to be known) against the virus became more widely used. Two of the most well-known proponents of variolation were Rev. Cotton Mather and Dr. Zabdiel Boylston. Mather and Boylston performed and promoted the procedure among the citizens of New England, beginning in 1721. Their activities were well-received by some but many people were suspicious of the practice and variolation was as dangerous as contracting smallpox naturally. Using statistical analysis to compare the death rate among the approximately 6,000 citizens of Boston who contracted smallpox during the 1721 epidemic, Mather and Boylston demonstrated that among those who were variolated the death rate was 2%. Among those who contracted the naturally-occurring form of smallpox, the death rate was 14%.
Well, if it works they will have more survivors to give blood. If it doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter.