I asked this a little while ago, but I think that I was not clear enough. I just saw a documentary about World Health Organization doctors treating an ebola epidemic in Africa. After the first wave of infection and death, there were a few infected villagers who pulled thru and recovered. When there was a smaller secondary outbreak, some of the doctors did transfusions from the survivors to the new cases. And all the transfusion receipients survived. Why can't this technique be used to cure any disease, as long as their is one person who has overcome it?
I am not refering to a full blood replacement, but rather the normal transfusion of a few pints from the disease survivor to the currently infected. And I am not asking if this would be a good panacea technique, but rather if it could work for some infectious diseases that we have no better treatments for.
2006-09-17 10:51:16 · 5 answers · asked by juicy_wishun 6 in Health ➔ Diseases & Conditions ➔ Infectious Diseases
I was not able to get your first question a while ago but i will share my knowledge on this one. It sounds like they just treid this technique but did not do a thorough examinations on the future results. Yes they did survive but it would not be enough to establish it as a cure for ebola when transfusiuon itself could be a more health risk. There are so many blood-borne diseases that can not be easily diagnosed. There are what if's that could be against the humanitarian law, like if the blood transfused is not compatible with the patients (not just the ordinary ABO group..there are lots of rare blood group present) or the donor is at his window stage for AIDS which is hard to detect. Doctors also follow a strict rule in blood transfusion.As long that it is not deem necessary, they won't risk their license for it. Yes, i can see your concern on this case. God bless!
2006-09-17 16:24:32 · answer #1 · answered by justurangel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont THINK they would have done this by giving the infected villagers blood, I think they would have made a vaccine from the blood/plasma of the villagers who were once infected, but lived. If you dont get an answer on here, write the WHO and see if they will tell you.
2006-09-17 19:26:30 · answer #2 · answered by kimberleibenton 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rather than transfusing blood, antibodies are isolated from blood and injected. This is known as passive immunization. If the modified or genetically - engineered antigen is injected, that is active immunization. In active immunization, the recipient himself produces antibodies, giving immunity.
2006-09-18 13:32:57 · answer #3 · answered by yakkydoc 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
wow, what a concept.....why aren't they running with this???? of course it would only apply to viral infections, but hey, wouldn't THAT a least save some lives? i'll be watching for information on this one for sure...
2006-09-17 17:58:59 · answer #4 · answered by panamm 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What you are actually talking about is a vaccination.
2006-09-17 17:57:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋