Slashdot Mirror


Freeze-Dried Blood May Save Soldiers' Lives

SpaceAdmiral writes "An Israeli company is working on a method to freeze-dry blood. This would enable soldiers to carry a packet of their own blood on the battlefield. If a soldier is injured and needs blood, medics could mix the dried blood with water and give the soldier a transfusion of his or her own blood. From the article: 'The idea is to take a soldier's blood, freeze it in laboratory conditions, take out the ice crystals leaving only the blood components. It will look like freeze-dried coffee in a little bag.'"

140 comments

  1. comedy reply based solely on title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Save them from starving? Mmmm, blood.

  2. Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Polyheme is an artificial blood that is in the final stages of field testing in the USA. Taken together, these two technologies promise to significantly reduce deaths caused by trauma on the battlefields and highways.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    1. Re:Two technologies by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Polyheme also happens to be the stuff that they tested on accident victims without consent .

      They used it in ambulances under some exception to the general rule requiring informed consent for clinical trials.

      You can read more about it by poking around Google
      http://www.google.com/search?q=polyheme+consent
      There was a big ethical brouhaha when the testing made the papers.

      So, when you say "final stages of field testing" you really mean
      "used on accident victims without their permission."

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Two technologies by theelectron · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, if you were passed out from a heart attack and couldn't give anyone 'consent' and an EMS rolls up with paramedics who are certified in CPR they wouldn't be saving the person's life, they would be "using CPR on a victim without their permission"?

    3. Re:Two technologies by mrxak · · Score: 1

      But did it work? I think that matters a bit more than exactly how the testing was conducted. If it was perfectly safe, and people were saved as a result, what's the big deal?

    4. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, that is exactly what I meant. As an EMT I am required to know the law. People's lives were saved in these informed consent trials. The people who really need this stuff are in no position to sign anything. It is designed for people who will die without it, so what's the problem?

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    5. Re:Two technologies by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      They were testing it, so it was unknown if it was
      perfectly safe or not.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    6. Re:Two technologies by zamboni1138 · · Score: 0, Troll

      "...promise to significantly reduce deaths caused by trauma on the battlefields..."

      For Israel anyway. Instead of the 10:1 loss ratio we are seeing right now, they might be able to get to 15:1 or 20:1 against Hezbollah/Lebanon civs.

    7. Re:Two technologies by jnik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Implied consent means that if you're so incapacitated you can't refuse treatment, a trained individual may treat you according to training. That's a little different from trials of an unapproved substance--to extend your analogy, it's closer to rolling up with a class of EMT's-in-training.

    8. Re:Two technologies by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Yes, but before anything is tested on humans (consent or no), there has to be a reasonable expectation of a result as good as or better than traditional methods. And look, if you're unconsious and bleeding in the back of an ambulance, you're not "perfectly safe" to begin with. That's why you have to weigh the potential consequences.

    9. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      There are several kinds of consent. Aside from the "Yes you can do this to me and I will sign an afidavit to that effect" type, there is also implied consent. If a reasonable average person would consent to me doing something to him but he is not able to consent, I can treat him under implied consent. This applies to unresponsive patients of course, but it is also used with children without parents present and some mentally ill. How many people know anything about what is onboard an ambulance? No one is in a position to object to my shoving a CombiTube down his throat (basic blind intubation) to make it easier to breathe for him, so why would the same patient have an objection to a paramedic (who has more training then an EMT) replacing the blood that he lost?

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    10. Re:Two technologies by SpeedBump0619 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey I can play that game too:

      So, instead of "used on accident victims without their permission" what you advocate is "withheld from dying people because they couldn't say yes."

      Explain to me how that's better. I agree that oversight is needed for such a program. But the rules of the program only allow it in critical cases where no alternative is available. The only thing that bothers me about it is the continuation of its use once in the hospital.

      If you are going to complain about this trial, don't just take one aspect of it in isolation and whine about that. Yes, no prior consent is received...but it only matters in cases where option 'b' is die.

    11. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "it's closer to rolling up with a class of EMT's-in-training"


      That's called rotations, and the students at my school all have to do them at different times. Believe it or not you may have an EMT in training assisting the full timers in patient care next time you call an ambulance.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    12. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      I am taking an objective medical point of view on this thread. The same IV for administering PolyHeme could also be used in lethal injection, but let's stay on topic. My point is that the aforementioned technologies are poised to save lives regardless of whose lives are being saved.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    13. Re:Two technologies by mikael · · Score: 1

      Read the PolyHeme FAQ - PolyHeme FAQ


      What are the potential risks of participating in the study?

      Rash

      Transmission of hepatitis and HIV viruses

      Unforeseen happenings


      You trade the chance of dying against the chance of requiring a liver transplant, or a chronic
      illness requiring lifelong medication, no medical insurance, your family not wanting to be near
      you, and having no employer wanting to employ you.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    14. Re:Two technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      But did it work? I think that matters a bit more than exactly how the testing was conducted.


      The ends don't justify the means.

    15. Re:Two technologies by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't/didn't recall the bit about Polyheme being used where "no alternative is available", nor do I recall anything about its continued use in the hospital.

      The basic ethical argument against using experimental treatments (without informed consent) "in cases where option 'b' is die" is that it leads you down a slippery ethical slope in which you test all kinds of stuff on (terminal) patients.

      Hopefully this doesn't Godwin the discussion, but the very first point of the Nuremberg Code (enacted as a response to Nazi medical experimentation & effectively a part of U.S. Law) lays out that "The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential."

      So... while the ethics board may have OKed this particular experiment, it's not a boundry anyone should want to see pushed.

      Don't forget, the worst case scenario isn't that the patient dies, it's that they live but end up with physical or neurological damage.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    16. Re:Two technologies by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      One word: experimental.

      I don't think there should be an FDA, but so long as FDA approval is the difference between what is experimental and what is not, it is ethically unacceptable to us it on persons who have not accepted.

      Furthermore, I requested one of their "opt-out" bracelets. The have completely ignored my request. I am a motorcyclist and I don't want it if I experience a trauma.

      Also, you ignore the fact that they withhold it from 50% of potential recipients as a control. If we accept your position (which I don't) then this is borderline Nazi twins trials stuff.

      -Peter

    17. Re:Two technologies by mrxak · · Score: 1

      But if the end is "yay, I'm alive, not dead" and the means is "oh noes, I didn't tell them they could save my life even though I was unconscious", I'd say the ends justify the means. No?

    18. Re:Two technologies by mrxak · · Score: 1
      Rash
      Oh no, a rash. I bet I'll have to rub some lotion on it now. Oh why oh why couldn't they have let me die and spare me this terrible fate?
      Transmission of hepatitis and HIV viruses
      I can only assume these risks come from improper use of needles. I might be wrong, but if you're dealing with trained EMTs, there wouldn't be much cause for concern.
      Unforeseen happenings
      Standard legal coverage, whatever. The point is, all of their potential side effects are pretty weak compared to bleeding to death. Even the possible liver damage is minor compared to death. And remember that your normal blood transfusion comes with some rather serious risks as well (including, guess what, liver damage). You have to realize, all of those potential side effects are small probabilities, weighed against the enormous benefits (saving your life) that come with a higher probability. You can bet that some statistician took a look at the numbers before the trials began.
    19. Re:Two technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Explain to me how that's better. I agree that oversight is needed for such a program. But the rules of the program only allow it in critical cases where no alternative is available. The only thing that bothers me about it is the continuation of its use once in the hospital.

      If you are going to complain about this trial, don't just take one aspect of it in isolation and whine about that. Yes, no prior consent is received...but it only matters in cases where option 'b' is die.


      Look, fucktard: if you're going to administer an accepted and approved medication/blood infusion when somebody is incapacitated that's one thing, but you don't go beta testing in the field just since your testee can't say "no". If option 'b' is to die, then it's tough shit. Neither you, nor the hospital, nor the manufacturer have the right to say "well hell, they're gonna bite it anyway.. guinea pig time". It's an ethics issue, one that you obviously don't grok.

      Somebody ought to be sued SHITLESS, from the EMT and hospital up to those sanctioning the testing.

    20. Re:Two technologies by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      The basic ethical argument against using experimental treatments (without informed consent) "in cases where option 'b' is die" is that it leads you down a slippery ethical slope in which you test all kinds of stuff on (terminal) patients.

      I don't see any slipperly slope here. The cases where this kind of treatment would be used are quite limited. It's essentially only in emergency situations where the patient is going to die without it, you can't reach a parent or spouse to get consent, and there's no other non-experimental treatment available. That slope sounds very non-slip to me.

      --
      AccountKiller
    21. Re:Two technologies by mrxak · · Score: 1
      Also, you ignore the fact that they withhold it from 50% of potential recipients as a control. If we accept your position (which I don't) then this is borderline Nazi twins trials stuff.
      How is that different from giving a placebo to somebody who has given informed consent to try an experimental drug? It's perfectly standard to do this, because it's important to see if a treatment is actually effective or not. Somebody made a decision based on all available data that the potential risks of trying a new drug did not outweigh the potential benefits. And at the same time, if it's not known how much more effective the new treatment will be, they have to have a control.
    22. Re:Two technologies by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Quite. My reaction was to the "well, it
      worked, so, there was no risk..."
      kind of thinking from the
      post I responded too. I thought about putting
      in something about "I would rather have this
      experimental thing done than die" proviso
      in my post, but I didnt, silly me.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    23. Re:Two technologies by NemosomeN · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the Wall Street Journal (The only paper I read. Is is great? Well, it's free for me. Free as in mandatory subscription.) they said it was linked to several heart attacks. Before the testing on accident victims. Something happened, unrelated, that ruled that trial invalid, if I remember correctly, so they didn't have to tell anyone that there was a risk of heart attack.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    24. Re:Two technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The contriversy is the details of the trial. Its a 2 phase trial for each patient. Phase I is using Polyheme in the field instead of Saline Solution. Phase II is the continued adminitration of Polyheme for up to 12 hours afterwards even if supplies of whole blood are available for transfusion. Whole blood tranfusion is the currently accepted standard treatment.
      The whole trial was granted under an Emergency Treatment Exemption regulations were one can not get Informed Consent. But one very important criteria is that no other standard treament being avaliable. Once the patient is at the Emergency Room, whole blood for tranfusions is mostly likely available. This blows Phase II of their Polyheme Trial out of the Emergy Exemption Waters. The FDA F'ed up. They F'ed up very badly! They should never has approved the Polyheme trial.
      And why a 12 hour period on Polyheme? It sounds like they are trying to similate soldier's being injured and treated under field conditions. Why in the hell didn't they trial it with the DoD? The Army gave the company developing Polyheme millions of dollars. The military is most likely going be their first and biggest customer. Ah. But they had the next best thing here at home. The US public and an FDA willing to bend their own rules. Power to the People. (Sheesh ya' right!) Gineau Pig's R Us. Even if Polyheme turns out to be the next big thing, it come after being shaft by our govenment.

    25. Re:Two technologies by pete-classic · · Score: 1
      How is that different from giving a placebo to somebody who has given informed consent to try an experimental drug?


      Um, lack of consent?

      -Peter
    26. Re:Two technologies by blike · · Score: 1
      Somebody ought to be sued SHITLESS, from the EMT and hospital up to those sanctioning the testing.
      Why? What's the worst that could happen? They die. Oh well, they were going to die anyways. They live? Great. They wake up with AIDS? They run the same risk by receiving transfused blood. I don't see anything ethically wrong with this. If you think this is the first time things like this have been tested, then I have a bridge to sell you. How do you think we have all the techniques we have now? You think they all had consent forms or familial consent? Sorry, can't try to save your life right now, you didn't sign the papers!

      Seriously, unwad your panties.
    27. Re:Two technologies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      That's called rotations, and the students at my school all have to do them at different times. Believe it or not you may have an EMT in training assisting the full timers in patient care next time you call an ambulance.

      I think what the PP was saying was that it was like having only EMTs in training showing up, which would be considerably more dangerous.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Two technologies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If this comment is correct, then the problem is that once they got to the hospital they could have administered real blood, instead of continuing with the trial without the consent of the patient, which is clearly both illegal and unethical.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:Two technologies by pdbaby · · Score: 1
      why would the same patient have an objection to a paramedic (who has more training then an EMT) replacing the blood that he lost?

      IANBO (I Am Not Bleeding Out) but I'm guessing they might object to having their lost blood replaced with an untested synthetic substance?

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    30. Re:Two technologies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Why? What's the worst that could happen?

      They could have some kind of religious phobia, leading them to depression and murder-suicide.

      (since you ask)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Two technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is that subtle difference between treatment and experimentation that must be considered... it is considered a normal practice to infuse persons with blood products. Infusing them with chemical substances which are not yet approved by the FDA for general use requires a different level of consent, as it is by definition experiment and there is not yet a reasonable expectation of efficiacy.

    32. Re:Two technologies by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      How would you propose testing this specific tool then? If it does what it is supposed to do, it would be extremely significant. Synthetic blood means no risk of bloodbourne pathogens being transmitted to the patient through that vector. In addition to the alleviation of the current donated blood supply (when was the last time you gave blood, btw?)

      Obviously, you need to do a lot of paperwork for ordinary clinical trials, say.. cancer treatments. But emergency medicine is an area where it's always going to be difficult to obtain adequate permissions. Especially improvements that only really make sense in an emergency situations. Should that mean we make no attempts?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    33. Re:Two technologies by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Standard legal coverage, whatever.

      15,000 Thalidomide children don't quite agree with your "whatever". And that was a drug that had passed this stage of testing before the side-effects were known. I won't post a link to a picture of one of these kids as it's now illegal to goatse someone.

      The point is, all of their potential side effects are pretty weak compared to bleeding to death.

      Typical polar argument, you're either with us or against us, right? Well, there is a third option. Give the patient REAL blood. The point of this trial isn't that we are low on blood. What the artificial blood has in it's favour is shelf life. Nothing more.

      You have to realize, all of those potential side effects are small probabilities

      Potential side effects of replacing a few units of blood are "small"? I guess you aren't a doctor. This is an experimental blood replacement. The "potential" side effect is death. Less serious risks include brain damage, organ damage and loss of limbs. Your blood circulation is essential to your functioning, it's such a fundamental body system that experiementing without concent is morally reprehensible.

      This trial is completely unethical in every respect. Ever doctor/nurse I have told about it has been completely dumbfounded. They don't believe me and I have to send them a link to it. It may be technically legal, but it's morally corrupt. It's indicative of the "technically legal" world we live in, where integritty was outsourced long ago. Any EMT involved in this is breaking their hippocratic oath:

      I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

      This trial does not benefit the patients (i.e. it's not "for the good of my patients") and has the very real potential of causing serious harm. It's just wrong wrong wrong.

    34. Re:Two technologies by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      But if the end is "yay, I'm alive, not dead" and the means is "oh noes, I didn't tell them they could save my life even though I was unconscious", I'd say the ends justify the means. No?

      In other situations that may apply. However, this is a replacement for regular blood, not an experiemental treatment that might save you. It offers nothing new over real blood other than unknowns. It has a better shelf life, that's all, something completely irrelevant to the patient in a western urban environment where real blood is readilly available.

    35. Re:Two technologies by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      People's lives were saved in these informed consent trials.

      That's bullshit and you know it. It's a whole-blood substitute, not some revolutionary new treatment. Whole blood would have likely been better for the patients even without considering the unknown risks with this stuff.

      It is designed for people who will die without it, so what's the problem?

      Because whole-blood wasn't designed, it evolved. If anything our bodies are designed around blood. Just give them the real thing and stop being so cheap. If you need to test experimental treatments, take it to a war zone like we usually do.

    36. Re:Two technologies by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      How is that different from giving a placebo to somebody who has given informed consent to try an experimental drug?

      Because the argument used for giving them this blood substitute is that "they'll die without it". That's clearly not the case if you are doing the experiment with a 50% control group. It's randomly assigned which group you are in. Doctors do not make potential life-saving decissions based on the toss of a coin.

    37. Re:Two technologies by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      I think when you've bleed out and will die without replacement blood, you will tap your vein with donkey piss if it just might help just a little. Personally, if I was passed out from blood loss and laying on the highway, and they had now way of knowing my blood type for a normal transfusion and was too far gone to be helped just by bloodstream fluid replacement, I would let them pump their minimally tested synthblood in to chance staying alive.

    38. Re:Two technologies by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      significant risk of heart attack is much better than dying of blood loss. Much better. I have severe hypertension (BP 190/120)so I have good risk of a heart attack, and I'd still take experimental synthblood over hoping I can survive without O2 a bit longer.

    39. Re:Two technologies by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      Just to play devils' advocate, what if you don't know if you have compatible blood? O- doesn't grow on trees. In this case, experimental fake blood is much better than dying on the field.

    40. Re:Two technologies by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Just to play devils' advocate, what if you don't know if you have compatible blood? O- doesn't grow on trees. In this case, experimental fake blood is much better than dying on the field.

      I hear your point but if people are dying then don't you think the solution would be to sort out the supply of O- and then work on a long-term solution in the lab? I've not heard of a specific O- shortage, have you? If it was a genuine emergency, then an experimental substitute could be used without ethical issues. But that's not the current sitution, it's a proper field study taking part on unwilling patients. Uncool.

    41. Re:Two technologies by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

      "other than unknowns" - like HIV and hepatitis? Those are unknowns that have been present in whole blood before. The risk has been significantly reduced by donor screening, but getting HIV or hep from blood transfusions still happens.

      Oh yeah, the fact that whole blood supply is dependent on donations from healthy citizens is a big negative for whole blood. There's barely enough supply for the demand now, and there are any number of things that could cause an increase in demand or a drop in supply. For example, diabetes is becoming an increasingly common illness, I know for a fact that Type Is are ineligible to donate blood due to their treatment regimen of daily injections, and Type IIs might also be ineligible due to their somewhat fouled up blood chemistry.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    42. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      Do you have any idea what the alternative is? Pumping people full of saline in order to restore lost blood volume. Saline cannot carry any oxygen, meaning that it does little to assist perfusion. Polyheme carries oxygen just like real blood and can keep the patient's organs alive for the 10 minutes on scene and 6-20 minutes in the ambulance (over 20 minutes and you're generally calling a helo). Even though medics are trained to perform transfusions, it is too complicated to perform them in the field. Blood does not last very long and it is expensive and takes a lot of space to carry on an ambulance. It also must be stored in specific conditions. The medics would also need to check the patient's blood type on scene which wastes precious time. The Department of Transportation protocols give us (EMTs and Paramedics) 10 minutes to get off scene with a critical patient. That is not much time, considering that includes access, assessment, bandaging, and packaging. And that is without considering IV time!


      In conclusion, the only difference between current protocol and Polyheme is that the fluid being administered will be red and will actually help carry O2 instead of being clear and doing nothing.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    43. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      I do understand that, but informed consent does apply in these trials. I do not see why this is such a big deal; there was a device that did not work in field trials and was pulled. That device should be the one under fire, not this wonderful liquid.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    44. Re:Two technologies by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      Don't be so ridiculus. Are you astro-turfing for them or something? I'm not saying that blood replacements should not be tested. Of course the traditional method has risks of disease but as you yourself say; screening has all but removed that risk.

      The ONLY time an experimental treatment is valid WITHOUT CONSENT is when it's a life-or-death situation. The risk of disease from transfusion is so low that NO WAY IN HELL is this ethical. Not even in the slightest.

      What the hell is happening in the US right now? It seems like everyone has completely abandoned all pretense of being moral and just. As long as you can find a legal means to do it, then it's alright apparently.

    45. Re:Two technologies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Obviously though you don't understand the base issue. How wonderful the liquid is... that's not even being discussed here. What's being discussed is the trial. If, as has been alleged, they continued to administer the artificial blood without patient consent at the point at which they reached the hospital, when real blood was available, then they can no longer hide behind implied consent. (I don't know where you get "informed consent", you can't be informed of shit while you're unconscious.) The fact [?] that they [allegedly] continued to perform the trial when it was no longer necessary is what makes their actions unacceptable.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    46. Re:Two technologies by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      In conclusion, the only difference between current protocol and Polyheme is that the fluid being administered will be red and will actually help carry O2 instead of being clear and doing nothing.

      The only difference? To put this in context, the UK has just recently had a major news item when one of these trials went horribly wrong back in March. The last of the victims has only just been released from hospital now in July. At least one is now permamently disabled (loss of fingers and toes). Google news search.

      Hence the bold in the "only". "heart, liver and kidney failure, pneumonia, and septicaemia." are not "only differences". The potential for harm here is quite large and it is without consent. As such it's unethical. I honestly cannot believe people are debating this.

    47. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      If you read the literature on Polyheme, it is also designed for use in hospitals. Even though human blood transfusions may have been available, it makes sense that the trials would require it to be used in a hospital setting.


      As a student of Emergency Health Services, most of my knowledge stops in the ambulance receiving bay. Aside from ER rotations, I have no firsthand experience in a hospital.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    48. Re:Two technologies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      If you read the literature on Polyheme, it is also designed for use in hospitals. Even though human blood transfusions may have been available, it makes sense that the trials would require it to be used in a hospital setting.

      That is utterly irrelevant. My point was that there is a valid reason to administer the stuff in the ambulance, where you don't have stocks of blood. However, while you can provide treatment without explicit consent if a patient is not in a position to give it, or to make a rational decision due to their mental and/or physical state, continuing the trial without explicit and informed consent when it is not necessary is not only unethical, but also illegal. See, before you get to the hospital, where there are alternatives, it's not a trial, it's emergency medical care. When you get to the hospital, and you continue using it while there are alternatives, it is no longer necessary emergency medical care, it's just a trial, and you can't perform trials on people without their permission, period, end of story. Otherwise, as others have pointed out, we slide down the slippery slope into Nazi experiment territory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      First off, I could simply cite Godwin's Law and declare victory, but instead I will answer all of your allegations.


      Let's get something straight: even in the ambulance this is a trial. It is a trial after the medication has been proved safe, but it still counts as a trial. There is an alternative in the ambulance: saline! That alternative is used in almost all Advanced Life Support vehicles in the country. Also, when the medics unload their patient there is a doctor making the choice of treatment. He has far more training than we do (or the medics do) and can make the choice of what to use for treatment. Blood banks often run low on blood and this is a wonderful way to counter that. Are you absolutely sure that they even started fresh lines of Polyheme at the hospital? To me it seems like they may have just let the bag run out that had been attached en route. I would like to see the specific claims made in this case and some more links about this. I have heard of the field trial controversy in EMS journals, but I have read nothing of it in Emergency Medicine medical journals.


      Put yourself in this position: you have a 19 year old female patient who was run over by a semi while crossing the street in the dark. You hear the siren approaching your hospital and you see blood on the floor of the ambulance as the doors fly open. The medics give you their (fairly) standardized report as they breath for her and hopelessly try to keep fresh bandages on her. You grab a scalpel and start putting in chest tubes and the doing other limited number of things that can be done in the ER. Do you stop and take the time to order the large bore IV that is delivering Polyheme removed? Are you telling me that by not cutting off the life-sustaining supply of fluid the doctor is now a NAZI?


      Considering the things that EMTs, paramedics, doctors and nurses do without consent, I am surprised that this is such an issue for you. There was another EMS field trial that was suspended because it "lowered survivability." Why aren't you yelling about that one instead of this one that is saving lives as we type? The distinction you draw between pre-hospital care and definitive (hosptital) care puzzles me. Paramedics have two years of initial training and doctors have an insane amount. Paramagicians do truly amazing things that astonish me, but what makes them so much more competant?

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    50. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      From the article you linked to: "The healthy volunteers were testing an anti-inflammatory drug."


      This was not Polyheme! These were people who consented to an experimental presciption treatment. I have no idea how you can compare the two trials. Polyheme had to pass human trials before starting field trials. In those trials I imagine they administered it to healthy adults. This is the stage at which the linked study went so wrong. That drug never made it to the point where Polyheme is now. Also you are talking about national legalities and you link to a foreign country.


      QED

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    51. Re:Two technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psst, your sig, it's HANGAR.

    52. Re:Two technologies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Are you absolutely sure that they even started fresh lines of Polyheme at the hospital? To me it seems like they may have just let the bag run out that had been attached en route.

      No, I am not sure, and have made that abundantly clear to anyone actually reading my comments all along.

      You grab a scalpel and start putting in chest tubes and the doing other limited number of things that can be done in the ER. Do you stop and take the time to order the large bore IV that is delivering Polyheme removed? Are you telling me that by not cutting off the life-sustaining supply of fluid the doctor is now a NAZI?

      Putting words in my mouth will not accomplish anything but pissing me off and making me not want to talk to you, so please stop it. I probably should have said "naziesque" - I'm not arguing that they are literally Nazis. Of course, a reasonable person would not draw that conclusion in any case.

      Anyway, I'm not arguing that the Doctors necessarily did anything wrong unless they were intentionally, consciously involved with the trials. The personally who administered the treatment and trial without consent, however, should be held responsible for stopping it when it was feasible to do so. Failure to do so is unacceptable and I would sue everyone in sight if such a thing happened to me, and not even feel bad about it.

      The distinction you draw between pre-hospital care and definitive (hosptital) care puzzles me.

      The distinction I drew over and over again was between where there were alternatives to the artificial blood, and where there were not; these places happened to be outside and inside the hospital. If you cannot determine this from my rather deliberate writings, then you are clearly without two neurons to rub together, or you are being deliberately obtuse in order to make a point about something I don't even disagree with, which makes you a jackass.

      The most important thing is not to win an argument, but to remain rational and approximate the truth as closely as possible. This doesn't mean I won't sling any mud; if I feel it's deserved, I go ahead and throw it. Obviously. But what it does mean is that if you feel compelled to argue, you should argue about things that someone actually said, not just what you imagined, hallucinated, or constructed.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    53. Re:Two technologies by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      Polyheme's advantage over regular blood is that is does not require blood type matching. It requires blood to manufacture it. Interesting but not quite as interesting as being able to expand your own blood you carry around in a Nescafe 'instant AB-' jar ;).

      --
      Loading...
    54. Re:Two technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I am not mistaken, this is an *experimental* technology, still being tested. That means, the effectiveness of it is NOT YET KNOWN. That means, it could do ANYTHING, have COMPLETELY UNPREDICTABLE side effects. Remember that the human body is *incredibly* complicated - rigorous testing on new medicines is done for a reason.

      Some things are worse than death. Use your imagination.

      THAT is why this type of testing is unethical. Do you get it yet?

      If I was in this situation, and the choice was either letting me die, or trying some bizarre new untested treatment (a completely unrealistic scenario, btw), I say let me die.

    55. Re:Two technologies by pete-classic · · Score: 1

      In fairness, the bracelet showed up yesterday.

      -Peter

    56. Re:Two technologies by NemosomeN · · Score: 1

      But this isn't a case where no blood is available. This is a case where there's real human blood, but synthetic is used so that it may be tested. Dying of blood loss isn't the alternative, receiving real blood is.

      --
      I hate grammar Nazi's.
    57. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      I agree that the two have different target audiences but they can be used in conjunction with each other. Personally I wonder if I can get my O+ in decaf.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    58. Re:Two technologies by Assmasher · · Score: 1

      I'll take an 0+ half-caf vente sanguinae with a twist...

      --
      Loading...
    59. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      I'll take mine iced... oh wait.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    60. Re:Two technologies by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      These were people who consented to an experimental presciption treatment. I have no idea how you can compare the two trials. Polyheme had to pass human trials before starting field trials.

      So, you are saying drug trials never go wrong in the latter stages of testing? Wow, you have a lot of naive confidence. There's been drugs that have gotten all the way through and regularly prescribed by doctors that later turned out to have horrific side-effects. Unexpected bad things can happen at any stage in medicine, even after rigourous testing.

      Now, you yourself bolded the word "consented". That's my point. Experimental drugs should never be given without consent ever. Even when it's a do-or-die situation (which Polyheme most certainally is not!), doctors still need consent from next of kin to take such risks.

      I have to ask; are you a doctor? Please please please say no. I'll be horrified if you are. Personally, I reckon you are a drugs rep.

      Also you are talking about national legalities and you link to a foreign country.

      Since when did ethics have borders?

    61. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      I am actually an EMT. I am also a college student studying public policy and Emergency Health Services. I personally do not like doctors all that much, but I realize that our emergency medical system is based around their expert opinions.


      The distinction that I am drawing is that PolyHeme is in Phase III clinical trials, whereas the aforementioned drug failed much much earlier. PolyHeme has already been shown to be safe; now they need to know if it is effective.


      My point in indicating the difference in country is that FDA regulations have no bearing whatsoever in England. If you notice, that drug never made it across the pond for testing.


      Straight from the FDA, here is the difference in the three stages of clinical trials:
      Most clinical trials are designated as phase I, II, or III, based on the type of questions that study is seeking to answer:

      1. In Phase I clinical trials, researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people (20-80) for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.
      2. In Phase II clinical trials, the study drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people (100-300) to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.
      3. In Phase III studies, the study drug or treatment is given to large groups of people (1,000-3,000) to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely.


      The alternative to this study would be to run a larger test on the exact same groups they used for the past two trials: healthy consenting adults. The drug would pass the test again and would be utilized by thousands of medics across the country without ever having been tested in real trauma patients in a real trauma enviroment. Instead of 600 people being put at risk, everyone in America would face that same risk that you mention. Historically there have been EMS practices applied without being tested and it sometimes takes years to figure it out.


      Here is a great quote from another emergency worker at the EMT City forums about this issue: What are we left with without doing studies this way? Guesswork. Guesswork that brought us high-dose epi, isoproteronol, MAST trousers, and other debunked practices since nobody tested them on the population they were designed to help before cutting them loose on the street. Widespread use of unproven science will result in far more harm to far more people than a study population.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    62. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      I think this thread needs some data. I would like to see more cites from experts in the field regarding your statements. It is worth reading my comment here that I just posted.


      My NAZI comment was directed at your slippery slope argument. There have been unethical experiements in the past, but they hardly bring us to being NAZIs. Milgram's Obedience was specifically designed to model NAZI behavior, but it did not take us down a slippery slope. There is a reason that Godwin's Law exists, after all.


      What alternative do you propose? If you read the data, 11 patients of what will ultimately become the 600 patient study group have already refused to be a part of the study in the hospital. When they are able, patients are explained everything and given a choice. People who want to be excluded can pick up free bracelets. Thousands of these bracelets have been distributed.


      You fail to realize that this is a clinical trial both in the hospital and in the field. It is a randomized sample between different treatments. The FDA has not yet officially approved the drug for use in more than a few hundred patients. They have not yet officially said that it works better than than saline, either. This is a test to see if all of the data gathered over the past years that says PolyHeme works for trauma patients is true in the field. Thus far it has been. When field trials start accumulating bad results they are quickly cancelled.


      Considering the fact that they have already tested this on healthy adults and consenting hospital patients during the first two phases of clinical trials, what do you propose they do in order to determine efficacy in the hospital setting? Shock needs to be treated in the Golden Hour and that is when Polyheme works the best. Stopping Polyheme treatment until the patient is alert and oriented (assuming he doesn't die anyway even with "real" blood or end up in a coma) or waiting for next of kin to show up will prevent data gathering during this golden hour. What has been done in the past is approving a substance at this point and using it in the field without real life scenarios. The three possibilities are FDA rejection, FDA approval without these trials, or waiting to see the outcome of the trials then deciding on approval.


      Imagine hospitals never running out of blood. That would be truly amazing. When it passes its trials this product will revolutionize emergency medicine. Every one of these news items shows why we need this in our hospitals now. Currently 20% of trauma patients die from their injuries. By carrying this on Advanced Life Support units they can reduce that horrible mortality.


      On an aside, I am surprised that politicians are not speaking out in favor of Polyheme. It could help lower the murder rate. Maybe it's just because I'm in the Philly area and it has a horrible murder rate, but improved EMS keeps more people alive and makes the statistics look better.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    63. Re:Two technologies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Imagine hospitals never running out of blood. That would be truly amazing. When it passes its trials this product will revolutionize emergency medicine. Every one of these news items shows why we need this in our hospitals now. Currently 20% of trauma patients die from their injuries. By carrying this on Advanced Life Support units they can reduce that horrible mortality.

      Are you a paid corporate shill, or what? I never took issue with the potential of the stuff. It might be the greatest invention since sex for all I know, but what we're talking about here is the propriety, or lack thereof, of methods used in researching the drug. Talking about the ends justifying the means doesn't make it so.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    64. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      "It has a better shelf life, that's all, something completely irrelevant to the patient in a western urban environment where real blood is readilly available."


      I hate to tell you, but "real blood," as you call it, it not available in ambulances regardless of where you are. You need to compare it to sterile saline instead.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    65. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      "The ONLY time an experimental treatment is valid WITHOUT CONSENT is when it's a life-or-death situation."


      Uh, life or death situations are the only time that PolyHeme is being used without direct consent. Considering that trauma patients have as little as an 80% chance of survival, I can't think of a situation that is more life or death!

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    66. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      Actually people are permitted to opt out of the treatment using wrist bands, thus defeating this objection of yours.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    67. Re:Two technologies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Actually people are permitted to opt out of the treatment using wrist bands, thus defeating this objection of yours.

      Uh, the drug is still in trial. We're talking about the trial. No one knows about this shit at all. Thus you are talking about something utterly irrelevant to the current conversation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    68. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1

      Irrelevent? It is the trial that is offering the opt-out wristbands! They have had TV ads, newspaper ads, and town hall meetings proclaiming the details of this study! If someone is a member of a church that objects to PolyHeme, at least one member of even a tiny congregation would have noticed this and alerted the minister.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    69. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      "If you think this is the first time things like this have been tested, then I have a bridge to sell you. How do you think we have all the techniques we have now?"


      I really wish that I could tell you that you are 100% correct. We got a lot of the techniques we have now without the benefit of randomized field trials. There are several cases of things being pulled off of the street because they were eventually proven to be harmful to patients. If only there were more trials like this one, those devices never would have made it to widespread use. I am glad that there are other people smart enough to realize that this trial is not the start of the fourth reich. Tell me, blike, do you have a background in medicine or just common sense?


      Oh, and I do not think that PolyHeme carries any risk of HIV infection, though I would have to check NorthField's information for that.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    70. Re:Two technologies by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Irrelevent? It is the trial that is offering the opt-out wristbands! They have had TV ads, newspaper ads, and town hall meetings proclaiming the details of this study! If someone is a member of a church that objects to PolyHeme, at least one member of even a tiny congregation would have noticed this and alerted the minister.

      Unless, of course, that church's tenets including ignoring the [perpetually corrupt] media...

      Anyway, this is the first I've heard of it; I don't watch TV, I only read the paper on sundays, and I sure don't go to town hall meetings.

      Maybe you meant in your area - in which case, I want to know what is done to protect visitors?

      And finally, the whole idea of an opt-out process is quite frankly appalling. I should not need to constantly wear a wristband in order to elect not to be part of a medical study against my will. If I got the stuff pumped into me against my will, I'd sue their fucking asses right off whether it helped me or no. I don't need a wristband to have rights, at least not in this country, and not yet.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    71. Re:Two technologies by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      Repeating myself yet again, there are only two alternatives to this study: release it to the general public now or cancel it. They have already performed many tests on consenting patients and it passed. There have been many practices in the past that have been put into the field without randomized field testing and some of them have had bad results.


      If you need PolyHeme you are already dieing, so don't worry about the lawsuit. And what makes you think that this field trial is going on in your area? Also, you must realize that by virtue of being in a major trauma situation and unable to speak (or breath in many cases) you are losing some of your rights to the trained responders who assist you.

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  3. My hope by nizo · · Score: 1
    It will look like freeze-dried coffee in a little bag.


    I really really hope they label these bags clearly, or that morning cup of coffee may not taste quite right. Never fix your early morning coffee in the dark either.

    1. Re:My hope by JesseL · · Score: 4, Funny

      Vampires would love it though.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    2. Re:My hope by Inverted+Intellect · · Score: 1

      For those of us who happen to have Porphyric Hemophilia, this would probably make an excellent substitute for coffee. Wait, what am I saying? It'd probably work best to add both ground coffee beans and this freeze dried blood in a single drink... I think I'll call it... Haima Coffee! Why does it have a sort of red-brownish tinge, you ask? Oh, it's just that its... umm... greek? Yeah, greek coffee!

    3. Re:My hope by KE1LR · · Score: 1

      Vampires would love it. Brew a fresh cup to get you going in the, umm, evening.

    4. Re:My hope by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      Heh, instant blood, comes in Thai, Mexican and Indian falvors.
      Just add water and serve.

    5. Re:My hope by FrankDrebin · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...we've secretly replaced the Count's normal drink with new Soldier's Crystals. Let's see if he notices the difference...

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
    6. Re:My hope by Kelson · · Score: 1
      Vampires would love it though.

      Wesley: Blood. I don't... usually drink in front of humans.
      Mr. Bryce: Don't insult me, go on. It's fresh.
      Wesley: Dear God! That's... nummy!

    7. Re:My hope by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      You owe me a keyboard :)

      --
      Fnord.
  4. funny how the eyes work.. by MrShaggy · · Score: 3, Funny

    when I read the above title; 'freeze-dried bloody mary's may save soldiers lives.'

    My heart was racing.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
  5. OKay... by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Funny

    " It will look like freeze-dried coffee in a little bag."

    Okay... but what about the flavor ?

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:OKay... by Bot+Jockey · · Score: 3, Funny

      We've secretly replaced this soldier's freeze-dried blood with Folger's crystals... let's watch!

    2. Re:OKay... by Donut2099 · · Score: 4, Funny

      'Tom never has a second transfusion at home...'

    3. Re:OKay... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Okay... but what about the flavor ?

      Sangria?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    4. Re:OKay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha! You deserve mod points.. but I doubt others will get it.

    5. Re:OKay... by mph · · Score: 1
      Okay... but what about the flavor ?
      Can't be any worse.
    6. Re:OKay... by mikeinthemoment · · Score: 1

      You know wha' they say: See a broad to get that bodiac lay'er down an' smack 'em yack 'em! Holm NEEEEEEED some serious funny mod mofo pointin'!

    7. Re:OKay... by fbjon · · Score: 1
      It seems like it's made from a Robusta source, so it's probably bitter, with a hardened tone, forcibly overpowering anything you try to add to it.

      Now, on the other hand, if it were from an Arabica source, it would have a softer, more cultivated tone, less aggressive and not quite as dominating.

      Yes, I prefer Coffea Arabica, why do you ask?

      </bashing>

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    8. Re:OKay... by saucercrab · · Score: 1

      Better than the coffee that comes out of an MRE packet.

  6. Taster's Choice - Bleah! by krell · · Score: 1

    Looking forward to the commercials with the suave vampires.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Taster's Choice - Bleah! by teknoboy · · Score: 1

      Commercials with vampires wearing Ray-Ban Sunglasses and carrying freeze dried blood in small bags.... The possibilities are endless! *insert evil laughter here*

    2. Re:Taster's Choice - Bleah! by mikeinthemoment · · Score: 1

      I see some really bad Blade war sequel idea a-brewing based on this freeze-dried blood concept.

  7. Cup O' Blood by GillBates0 · · Score: 1

    And needless to mention, it works great as backup rations when actual food is hard to come by! Stir in a little water, heat over a low flame and it's done!!

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  8. Tastes nutty. by krell · · Score: 1

    " really really hope they label these bags clearly, or that morning cup of coffee may not taste quite right. Never fix your early morning coffee in the dark either...."

    ....especially in the lab, after an all-nighter analyzing Fat Bastard's stool sample.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
  9. Will someone please think of the robots? by Eudial · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Such insensitive clods! Don't they realize that there are robots out there in just as big a need of emergency oil transfusions!?

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    1. Re:Will someone please think of the robots? by andrewman327 · · Score: 1
      At the temperatures at which robots function, anything reconstituted using water would vaporize and create unbearable pressure and would probably destroy the robot.


      What's that? What do you mean "he was trying to be funny?" This is /. he ought to be modded down for that! Oh wait...

      --
      Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
  10. Blood Libel by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 2, Informative
    An Israeli company is working on a method to freeze-dry blood.
    Great, though I hope this doesn't encourage the Blood Libel people; that sort of thing still quite popular in "certain" parts of the world.
    --
    Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
  11. Murder mystery by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sounds like the makings of a murder mystery. Hate a guy? Give him freeze-dried blood of a different type than what he's compatible with.

    1. Re:Murder mystery by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Or just kill him in a less complicated way...

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    2. Re:Murder mystery by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I thought that's what murder mysteries were about. Maybe I watched too much CSI.

    3. Re:Murder mystery by rbarreira · · Score: 1

      Well, knowing the frequent paranoia in slashdot I thought you were implying that it could be dangerous for the reason you said. My bad! :D

      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
  12. good to the last drop! by aberson · · Score: 1



    [ok I'm punching out]

  13. fresh freeze dried by humungusfungus · · Score: 1


    Vampire 1: Gah, my aching head. Got anything to kick off the evening? I'm knackered.

    Vampire 2: Well....I...just a sec. Bah!

    Vampire 1: What is it?

    Vampire 2: Well, I've got this freeze dried stuff, but it tastes like shit.

    Vampire 1: Yeah. Lets go out and see what we can find.

    --
    No sig.
  14. Like Astronaut Ice Cream for Vampires! by Hoplite3 · · Score: 1

    Will it be overpriced too?

    --
    Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
  15. Freeze-dried plasma was used in WWII by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I was just at a WW2 faire, and they were showing dried powdered plasma used for injured soldiers. This may be a step up but isn't a brand new concept.

  16. Old idea and a difficult problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is an idea that has been around for a long time, but as far as I know no one has gotten it to work. The problem is probably that biological membranes have a hydrophilic surface and a hydrophobic core. In water they are happy that way - the hydrophobic part hidden from the water - but once the water is removed - then they are completely unstable (air/vacuum is effectively hydrophobic). Rehydrating probably gives some incredible mess of membranes. One can add molecules like sugars to try to compensate for the loss of water, but the fact that this was not done 20 years ago tells me that must not be enough - and that there is not some trivial answer. I did not see anything in the article that made me think that these guys had some break through concept.

    1. Re:Old idea and a difficult problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't know why you didn't get modded up. Must be the anti-AC bias.

      The problem is probably that biological membranes have a hydrophilic surface and a hydrophobic core.

      Not just the membranes but also the proteins. While there are some proteins that are tough enough to handle being freeze dried (lyophilized), the vast majority are going to stick together irreversibly when you try to rehydrate them (if they haven't already been destroyed by the freeze drying).

      I mean, maybe they could dry and then redisolve some of the hemoglobin proteins in red blood cells but no way is anything like an immune system cell going to survive freeze drying. As to the proteins floating around in the blood outside of cells, a bunch of those are clotting proteins. Clotting proteins are very unstable and form clots in response to just about anything so rehydrating them isn't going to be a picnic either.

      So maybe these guys can find a way to rehydrate some hemoglobin and maybe some of the hemoglobin will even still be within the red blood cell membranes but no way are they going to be able to have a powder where you just add water and get back real blood with all its components.

  17. Andromeda Strain by Ranger · · Score: 1

    From the blurb I was reminded of the movie Andromeda Stain. When I saw it I remember the scene where they cut open a dead man's wrist and all these red granules poured out.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  18. Blood Flakes by Truman+Starr · · Score: 1
    This reminds me of the old Batman movie, when the joker/riddler/penguin group dehydrates the UN into little piles of flakes.

    But seriously, is it really as simple as adding water? IANAD, but I would assume that plasma has some fundamental differences than water. Maybe it would just be as simple as a medic carrying blood-flakes for everyone, and only a few doses of the necessary plasma or whatever catalyst is needed.

    1. Re:Blood Flakes by sensei85 · · Score: 1

      By freeze-drying your blood and removing the water crystals, all you need to put back in is the water. Everything else stays in the bag (all the salts, proteins, cells, etc). That's why they call it freeze-dried...

      Granted, you have to add the correct amount of water. But I'm sure they've thought of that, and instead of running around w/ pints of blood, they'll have pint bags with the right amount of water in them, and all you have to do is dump your dry blood in the top.

    2. Re:Blood Flakes by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Blood is water, cells, and various dissolved substances. Plasma is blood without the cells. This stuff is blood without the water.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  19. It's like Tang... by Churla · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tang for Vampires....

    Little vampire kids could run around with a bag of it licking their fingers and sticking them in it...

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  20. Ouch! by In_Awe · · Score: 1

    The first thing I thought on seeing the post title was "Man, that's going to hurt going in!"

  21. Works great, until you add confusion & nature by sco08y · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So you're going to have a little baggy with a sticker.

    If they're smart, they'll make sure that blood has to go into containers with the blood type in big letters, so that even if they get mixed up you can look at your dog tags to be sure you're not getting the wrong type of blood.

    Then you also need clean water...

    Today, when soldiers are wounded in action and need a blood transfusion in the battlefield or out in the field, military medics and doctors usually give them a transfusion of water and salt.

    I just got done with CLS yesterday. The IV bag we use is a 500 ml bag; works great for a hangover. I guess you could mix the saline solution with this stuff but you still need a container to mix it in.

    But it's hard enough to give someone an IV... now, by the time you were doing the transfusion you'd already have a saline lock in them. But imagine having to mix this stuff up and get it into a practical container while someone's going into shock.

  22. The Scottish divisions of the British Army... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...are going to love this. They'll be able to make their favorite food out in the field whenever they want.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  23. Battlefield lifesaver by konigstein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a soldier, I would be ecstatic if this were to work as it should. I've stabilized many good friends who got plasma and blood just in a knick of time, because none was immediately available.

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  24. Saw this in 1971... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    They did this in the Andromeda Strain.
    OK maybe not "they" but something did...

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  25. Re:Works great, until you add confusion & natu by CaptainFlyingToaster · · Score: 1

    Why not start a 500cc bolus of NS running so you can increase their BP and keep your access, then mix up the freeze-dried blood and piggy-back it onto the NS?

    Peace,
    Captain Flying Toaster, EMT, Nurse Interim Permitee

  26. Re:Works great, until you add confusion & natu by bcattwoo · · Score: 1

    It doesn't seem like it has to be all that complicated.

    Soldier has his freeze dried blood in a deflated sealed IV bag. Medic or CLS carries water (or saline) in appropriately sized bag. Water bag is attached to blood bag and water is squeezed/drained in. Mix as necessary. Proceed as usual.

    Sure there are a couple more steps, but the logistics are not insurmountable.

  27. Eh... by oofoe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Speaking specifically about Israel's and neighbors current shenanigans, forget about the soldiers, let's save some civilians! Hmph.

    --
    Curse you plastic mold maker!
  28. Vampire Astronaut Icecream by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

    'nuff said.

  29. My blood type is caffeine by Kelson · · Score: 2, Funny
    It will look like freeze-dried coffee in a little bag.

    There's a coffee chain in my area (Kelly's Coffee and Fudge) that has T-shirts that say, "Instant human. Just add coffee."

    Somehow, that phrase suddenly seems all the more appropriate.

  30. You will save more Israeli's by jack_n_jill · · Score: 0

    You will save more Israeli's if you end the oppression and give the Palestinians their rights. Oppression has not been working too well for you, has it?

    1. Re:You will save more Israeli's by Drakai · · Score: 1

      Ha! The palestinians do not want rights. they want Isreal to cease existing. how many Isreali lives are saved by the removal of the state of Isreal?

    2. Re:You will save more Israeli's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The palestinians do not want rights. they want Isreal to cease existing.

      Actually, it amounts to the same thing. Israel exists to deny them their rights.

      To give Palestinians their rights, Israel would have to renounce all discrimination, give the Palestinians full citizenship and probably change its name to something ethnically neutral. The thing is, even though that would be an entirely just and reasonably thing to do, by most Zionist's definition, doing that would cause Israel to no longer "exist".

      To put it another way: did Apartheit South Africa or Nazi Germany have a "right" to "exist". Certainly the people living in those countries had certain rights and, one way or another, there did need to be a government for those geographical regions. The Nazi and Apartheit governments did not, however, have "right" to "exist" in the sense that they had a "right" to engage in the policies that gained them notoriety.

      Similarly, the people living where Israel is now (both Jews and Arabs) most definitely have certain rights as individuals (even if the current government does not respect those rights) and there does need to be a government of some sort for that geographical region. However, no government of that geographical region has any "right" to engage in policies of discrimination and segregation (which is what people really mean by Israel's "right" to "exist").

  31. Minute Maid Orange Juice by pacalis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is what National Research Corporation, an MIT incubator, aimed to do in the 1940s ... It didn't work then becuase the cells wouldn't survive, but maybe they can aim for some good OJ. http://www.minutemaid.com/aboutus/history.shtml

  32. Freeze Dried Monsters by thewiz · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the Bugs Bunny/Marvin Martian cartoon where Marvin uses an eyedropper to reconstitute martian monsters from pellets.

    I wonder if they are planning on freeze drying soldiers so they can have an instant army.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  33. Re:fresh freeze dried by KitFox · · Score: 1

    Today we have gone behind the scenes at this fancy vampire restaurant and replaced their normal blood with freeze dried Soldier's Crystals. Will the guests notice the difference?

    --

    @Whee

  34. Prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already saw this but I compared it to tea instead of coffee. I assumed you just used them like teabags because they had the strings. I think they're called tampax.

  35. Re:Works great, until you add confusion & natu by sco08y · · Score: 1

    Hey, see my response to the other post.

  36. Re:Works great, until you add confusion & natu by sco08y · · Score: 1

    Why not start a 500cc bolus of NS running so you can increase their BP and keep your access

    Not sure about the jargon (and are other readers?), but I'm guessing this means giving them a saline lock (which allows you to swap different things into the catheter) and then starting them on an IV while you mix up the instant blood.

    That's pretty much what I was thinking of in the latter half of my ramb^H^H^H^Hpost.

    The biggest issue, I think is the durability of whatever you mix it in. Here's a thought: I can put a needle into an IV bag to pull some solution out. Why not make the instant blood premixed at a high concentration so I can simply put a needle into the IV bag, inject it in and shake it up? That way you're just carrying a plastic vial and you've already got the needles and IV bags.

    The reason durability is such an issue is because getting someone out of a combat area is a long and arduous task.

    Suppose someone gets hurt. Assume your people are able to get the patient to a reasonably safe place (without further injury) and they've ensured he can breathe and that blood loss is stemmed. In a serious case (where the patient needs a transfusion), the patient is already in shock from blood loss.

    So you're setting up pretty much anywhere with cover, which means you don't have a nice flat surface to work on. You've only got whatever you brought with you so you don't have a lot of spares to work with.

    Once you've got a clear route to the casualty evacuation point you're going to get the patient onto a litter. This could be a Skedco or a poncho wrapped around two sticks. A proper litter will have straps, otherwise you'd probably secure the person with your belts. So now you've got a few people, wearing gear, carrying the patient and his gear and holding the bag up, while the others are pulling security.

  37. Re:Works great, until you add confusion & natu by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
    Why not make the instant blood premixed at a high concentration so I can simply put a needle into the IV bag, inject it in and shake it up? That way you're just carrying a plastic vial and you've already got the needles and IV bags. The reason durability is such an issue is because getting someone out of a combat area is a long and arduous task.

    Maybe they'll just make it a sort of ziploc IV bag that you seal and shake up. That would make the most sense, I'd think, and eliminate the need for an additional container.

    you don't want it to be a liquid; an IV bag could conceivably take a bullet, be patched with tape, and still save someone's life (although probably causing all kinds of complications from the fact that it's filthy.) A vial, once broken, will have utterly unrecoverable contents. The powdered form probably also has a shelf life that's longer by a huge margin.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  38. Another issue not covered by sivartis · · Score: 1
    Two anonomous cowards raised the excellent point of the cellular membranes not surviving the freeze-drying process, and thus the componants that make blood work in the first place would be lost. But another question I have would be, if the purpose of this "product" is to have a lightweight supply of emergency blood but you still need purified water to reconstitute it, where are you going to get/store/transport the water?

    Not only that, but if you're going to use a soldier's own blood, you're going to have to draw a heck of a lot in order for it to be useful if he/she really needs an emergency transfusion. You put in a lot more blood in situations like that than you take out in a routine withdrawal.
    TR
    ~~~~~
    "Even pirates like chocolate chip cookies."

    --
    "Even pirates like chocolate chip cookies." www.youtube.com/musecast5
  39. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But does it come in DeCaf?

  40. Didnt judah folkman do this in the 60s? by HoldenFrost · · Score: 1

    From http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2805cance r.html In 1961 the U.S. Navy introduced the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. It was designed to stay at sea for months at a time. But there was a problem. The blood supply could only be stored for about three weeks. To help find a long-lasting substitute for whole blood the Navy drafted young doctors, among them a surgeon named Judah Folkman. JUDAH FOLKMAN: I was assigned to work on the problem of, "could you dry the hemoglobin part of blood, the red part, like you dry coffee, and then reconstitute it by adding salt water and have it all ready to go?" NARRATOR: Dr. Folkman's job was to find out if reconstituted hemoglobin could keep tissue alive like real blood does. With his colleague Fred Becker, Judah Folkman built a crude imitation of a circulatory system and attached a living organ, a rabbit thyroid. When the pump was turned on, the hemoglobin began to circulate and sure enough, the thyroid gland thrived.