|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ebola | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
You don't pass antibodies to your descendants. Cannot moms pass antibodies to their unborn children? I know that other posters seem to be talking about some kind of inheritance, but that would be some kind of Lamarckian nonsense.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined:
|
Sure, mother's antibodies stick around in the baby for a few months. That doesn't seem very relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You don't pass antibodies to your descendants. Yes, I should have said ... In case 1 you have 10% survivors or 1,000 survivors with antibodies, ~500 which can pass them on to descendants. If the 1,000 are carriers then potentially 90% of human population could die. Thanks
Message 62: Sure, mother's antibodies stick around in the baby for a few months. That doesn't seem very relevant. Antibodies are passed from mother to child, not just in the womb but via mother's milk. Once acquired they are there for life. This is one of the ways mammals have an advantage for survival.
Message 54, Taq: 10,000 people is not the 6 billion person human population. In this scenario, you would have 9,000 dead. What I am trying to contrast is the mortality rate vs. the rate of infection. And I thought I was clear that the potential was there IF they were carriers. Personally I would think that the potential effect on the whole breeding population of a species is a more accurate gauge on how worrisome a disease should be, and this is based on both infection rate and mortality. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:No, you really don't pass antibodies on to your descendants; antibodies are proteins, and they do not last for life. Infants stop being protected by maternal antibodies 3 - 6 months after birth (see e.g. here).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No, you really don't pass antibodies on to your descendants; antibodies are proteins, and they do not last for life. Infants stop being protected by maternal antibodies 3 - 6 months after birth (see e.g. here). Curiously I don't think your link says what you think it says:
quote: Artificial antibodies (vaccines) offer less protection than evolved. Further, this study does not compare live virus vaccines to dead or completely artificial vaccines. As someone who has had to have their antibodies replaced due to chemo\cancer treatments I find the argument that all antibodies disappear after a couple of months very curious ... especially when quite an effort was made to "restore" my defenses. A look at other studies shows a discussion of an exponential decline over time, which I would expect absent any (re)infection, but a retained arsenal against future infection. Otherwise we would be revaccinating children every 6 months, which would be rather impractical. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:I really suggest you read up on the immune system. Vaccines are not antibodies. They present antigens -- characteristic proteins found on pathogens -- to the immune system, and thereby teach the body to generate antibodies against those antigens. You retain immunity against infection because you have cells (memory B cells) that are genetically wired to produce a particular antibody for that virus. Immunity from infection is often stronger and longer-lasting than immunity from a vaccine, especially if the vaccine presents only a small number of antigens (in contrast to a live-virus vaccine, which uses a weakened form of the virus itself to trigger the immune system). Rather than vaccinating, you can also directly give antibodies to someone who has been exposed to a virus, as a short-term way to prime their immune system. That's why convalescent serum is being given to Ebola patients (natural antibodies from recovered Ebola patients), and that's what ZMapp is (artificially generated antibodies against Ebola). But this does not give long-lasting immunity.
quote:Please point to one of those studies that shows long-term immune capability resulting from maternal antibodies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
Good summary of the state of the outbreak from the Economist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
removed
Edited by NoNukes, : i was wrongUnder a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Cannot moms pass antibodies to their unborn children? I know that other posters seem to be talking about some kind of inheritance, but that would be some kind of Lamarckian nonsense. Any type of inheritance would much more likely involve other immune proteins (e.g. HLA markers) or the proteins in the host cell that the virus interacts with (e.g. CRC4/5 mutants and HIV resistance). Other than that, you inherit the entire suite of antibody gene segments from your parents. You hacked these gene segments up during B-cell maturation to make your own library of antibodies. You don't inherit your mother's B-cells which is what you would need to pass on any longer term immunity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Artificial antibodies (vaccines) offer less protection than evolved. As mentioned earlier, vaccines most often present non-infectious antigens to your immune system. B-cells are the antibody factories. Each B-cell has one antibody that it makes. If an antigen binds to that antibody on the surface of the B-cell, then that B-cell is told to divide a whole bunch and start pumping out that antibody. Different types of antibodies offer short and long term immunity, as well as immunity in different parts of the body (blood vs. mucous membranes). This is called active immunization. Some of the recent Ebola treatments are purified antibodies from humans that have been infected, or genetically modified mouse antibodies that have been raised against the virus. These can bridge the gap between nasty initial infection and the time frame that a person can mount their own immune response. This is called passive immunization, and is similar to what mothers supply for their newborns. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
But that's not what you did. You contrasted the total number of infected, rather than the rate of infection. As long as the reproduction rate is greater than 1, the epidemic is going to continue growing; all the transmission rate affects is how quickly it grows. An epidemic that doubles in size every week will infect the entire planet in 8 months. An epidemic that grows at 1/4 the speed will take 2.5 years -- but everyone still gets sick. I should have been more clear, then. What I meant to compare was the total number infected in a specific outbreak.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You should wonder why they don't eat meat from domesticated animals known to be safe. As has been pointed out, people all of the world eat something other than domesticated animals. I don't need to wonder why people without access to domesticated animals don't eat domesticated animals.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So they double-glove, but I don't understand how that solves the problem. You pull the right one off, then contaminate the one underneath it when you pull the left one off. Same problem. Double gloving provides protection during the exposure even (while working with patients). At removal time, the idea is to remove the gloves without transferring any contamination to the skin. The interior side of the interior glove can be assumed to be uncontaminated. If your de-gloving procedure involves contacting that only that surface of a glove with your bare hand, you should be able to remove that second glove without contaminating either hand, by stick your thumb under that glove and turning the glove inside out as you remove it. The procedure would require a high level of care. The potential for error seems extremely high. You might even put on a clean, loose fitting glove on your bare hand before removing that second glove. Using some kind of glove puller for the interior gloves does seem to be a safer option. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9970 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Using some kind of glove puller for the interior gloves does seem to be a safer option. Decontaminating with something as simple as 70% ethanol before attempting to remove the gloves would seem to be the safest of all. Although I wouldn't recommend it, after a good decon with alcohol, you could probably remove the gloves with your teeth and not have to worry about it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024