Slashdot Mirror
Human Blood Substitute Could Help Meet Donor Blood Shortfall
Zothecula (1870348) writes According to the World Health Organization, over 107 million blood donations are collected around the globe every year, most of which goes on to help save lives. However, while the need for blood is global, much of that which is donated is not accessible to many who need it, such as those in developing countries. And of the blood donated in industrialized countries, the amount often falls short of requirements. To help address this imbalance, scientists at the University of Essex are developing an artificial blood substitute. It would be able to be stored at room temperatures for up to two years, which would allow it to be distributed worldwide without the need for refrigeration and make it immediately accessible at the site of natural disasters.
I read about this in Wired more than 5 years ago.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
And soon we'll be hearing about how vampires actually exist...
You know what else would help the shortage? Let gay men donate.
I know some people reject blood transfusions based on religious beliefs - if any of those are here, would you have an objection to artificial blood?
It sounds like they just got awarded funding to do the research, which is nice and all. If money was the solution to all of the world's medical problems, surely we would have solved all sorts of issues by now, but science just doesn't work that way. Now don't get me wrong, I hope they succeed in producing a blood substitute, but I'll get excited when they have an available product.
Agreed. The only reason they were ever banned from donating is the fear of disease. A fear that's bigoted and unfounded. Just force all blood donors to get tested for infection, regardless of orientation, then give the clean ones a certfification with expiry. Re-test as required to continue donating.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
They have been working on artificial blood for, at least, 20 years. It seems they have been very close for a long time, but it never seems to quite get there.
Then i found outnhow much blood banks were making selling donated blood to hospitals and other places that nneded blood or plasma. It was discusting, not to mention the huge salaries that were supported basted on these fees. I think one story was based on the Central Florida Blood Bank. I think NPR's Planet Money did a show on this also. Do not believe all those " our reserves are low, donate now". Sorry, it was Radio Lab - http://www.radiolab.org/story/...
"A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
This is the beginning of the Zombie Apocalypse when that artificial blood turns green, it is the end..
immediately accessible at the site of natural disasters.
...So a nutcase decides to start the new revolution by blowing up a park, or an incompetent building contractor builds an apartment complex that collapses... but the victims do not get the precious artificial blood, because their disaster was unnatural.
Engineers do not play well with appeals to emotion.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
... sell the naming rights to HBO
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Mudblood
True Blood
Blood Ties.
Come on guys, there's plenty of material here for jokes
ands wd-40 us ecvn wporswe
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I wish the site had more details on the molecules(s) the groups is working on. I worked on a similar project in the in the 1990s, also using E. coli as the host organism for producing the rHb, using an engineered gene to link the dimers together with a short run of amino acids to keep the tetramer together and reduce the nephrotoxicity of free native Hb in the bloodstream. This topic as long been of interest even though I've been out of the biotech game for almost 15 years now. I hope they can pull this off and bring the product to market, that would be exciting!
Of course, a Zombie Apocalypse would almost as much fun....
Seriously. No mention of if vampires can drink it? News articles are useless.
I don't know about a cure for Cancer, but I do know that Cancer can largely be prevented by abstaining from sex in October.
Jehovah's Witnesses readily accept expanders not made from human blood. I used to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses but stopped about a year ago after discovering contradictions in the denomination's other doctrines. My own personal interpretation of "the life is in the blood" (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11, 17:14, Acts 15:29) means I'd reject red and white blood cells, but platelets and plasma are acceptable in a pinch because those aren't living cells.
A zombie apocalypse would end as quickly as it starts.
It's incredibly ridiculous that people are asked to donate blood as a charitable act, while every other person and organization along the line, makes a hefty profit on processing and selling your donated blood, at astronomical rates, to people who have no alternative but immediate death.
If they offered even a trivial amount of money ($5 per pint) the numbers would be shored up in short order. Those with major reservations wouldn't suddenly run to the blood bank, but those who were thinking about it, anyways, would be encouraged not to procrastinate. And for the poor, struggling from paycheck to paycheck, $5 might just balance their budget during the occasional shortfall.
They already pay good money for plasma, so it's hardly unheard of.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You need to read that book.
Taking money for blood might have the opposite effect on the supply. In the book from the title, Swiss were asked if their community would be willing to host a nuclear waste storage facility for the good of the country. Many Swiss were on board with it--for the good of their country. A subset of Swiss from the same community were asked if they'd store the waste for $. Those Swiss said NO WAY. The good of their country was far more motivating for the Swiss than $.
And take me for example. $5 is in no way compensation for the enduring the needle stick and the time involved. I doubt $20 would motivate me. Maybe not even $100. However, I've donated 2 gallons or more. I do it because of this thought: one small needle stick for me, and a bit of time, and maybe someone gets to live.
And I'm the least-risk group of donors, selected partly by my lack of $ motivation. I don't need money for drugs because I don't take them. D'you really want to give drug addicts motive to donate blood to get money? Sometimes there isn't time for blood to be exhaustively screened before use.
Also, recent experience shows that the most powerful motivator for blood donation is solidarity. Blood donation went through the roof after 9/11 and other disasters. They literally couldn't stick people with needles and drain 'em fast enough.
I really think that if we want more blood supply, we need to beat the solidarity drum, and make it really convenient for people to donate.
Best,
--PeterM
i remember reading a harvard business case study about a similar product called biopure in the mid-00s - that didn't end well if i remember right
I don't need money for drugs because I don't take them. D'you really want to give drug addicts motive to donate blood to get money?
That depends on to what extent health insurance covers drugs.
I'm well aware of such counter-effects, but they are very unlikely to overwhelm the gains. As I said, this is used for plasma donations quite successfully.
They have been... quite extensively... and are still coming up short.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
FWIW, they apparently have a paper and a website...
As I understand it, although many previous hemoglobin substitutes have been tried and tested, the hemoglobin tends to eventually becomes toxic. Their new approach is to re-engineer the hemoglobin molecule to attach tyrosine which apparently has the effect of allowing some natural cleaning processes in the blood to reduce toxic build up before it gets to bad (in theory)...
Of course they'll have to test it eventually. Hopefully it won't be a *opt-out* processes the way they attempted to test Polyheme (an earlier effort by Northfield labs). To opt-out, of the Polyheme trial, you had to pre-order a bracelet and *wear-it-all-the-time* to prevent being randomly given Polyheme instead of blood as part of your emergency treatment by a hospital participating in that trial.
Not exactly a blood substitute but a friend who survived the killing fields told me how the used coconut juice IV's to treat blood loss.
One little letter and this is a completely different article...
Blood donation is very good for health so we want to donate blood.
...blah!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
"much of that which is donated is not accessible to many who need it, such as those in developing countries."
Gee... I wonder why that would be...
Don't the people in 'developing' (LOL) countries have blood?
An Army for free
Working to help industry;
That profit from thee.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Just force all blood donors to get tested for infection, regardless of orientation, then give the clean ones a certfification with expiry. Re-test as required to continue donating.
Back in the 80's, one of the things we learned from the opening stages of the AIDS epidemic is the possibility that a new disease agent will enter the human population, sight unseen. If such a new virus were to appear, it could spread silently for years before being identified (just has HIV did).
It is this risk which had led to the exclusion of the gay population. The elevated risk for HIV infection in that population serves as a marker -- it demonstrates that they have the epidemiological risk characteristics to become the initial host for such a new disease, should it ever appear. By excluding higher-risk groups, the idea is to slow down the opening stages of the next epidemic.
Women who undergo menopause "do not contain" a functioning ovary "and as such are physically unable of reproduction. One could argue that they are not truely living." Do you agree with how this sounds?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/a-romanian-scientist-claims-to-have-developed-artificial-blood-180947565/?no-ist
I can't speak for other countries where things may be different, but the US rules on exclusion that the Red Cross uses get more and more exclusionary every year and are now a bit nuts in my opinion. I was a regular blood donor and they used to call me and tell me that they liked to get my blood because it was "unusually clean" and was very suitable for giving to infants. Early this year I tried to donate and they deferred me for a year. Want to know why? It's because I rode on a train for no more than 60 minutes through a "malaria area". I traveled last year to China and I took a train ride of not more than 60 minutes between two large towns. The towns themselves were fine, but the area between them is supposedly a "malaria risk area". Even though I have had zero symptoms they consider my blood to be "at risk for malaria" and I can't donate until 1 year after the trip. So I'm sorry infants, but no blood from me for a while. The Red Cross had a worker who called me a few days after my deferral to talk to me about it and I told her that I felt that the Red Cross was far too exclusionary and she said she agreed with me, but there was nothing she could do about it. OK, maybe some of you will say that while there is little chance I have malaria, it's not zero and they need to be careful. OK, maybe - maybe - you have a point. Maybe. But are you aware that since last year there have been new exclusionary rules on women and now in the USA the majority of women who have ever been pregnant, even if they lost the baby, now cannot ever donate blood? Pregnant women may contain some kind of anti-body that a small number of blood recipients react violently towards so they've decided to ban something like 75% of pregnant women from ever donating again because that's about how many have this anti-body. It's going to reach the point where the only people the Red Cross in the US will ever take blood from are men who have never traveled outside the US even once. I predict that will be the next restriction.
Or if you live in a decent country where drug addicts get free treatment, including free drugs if required, meaning they don't even consider donating blood to be a good thing to do.
First thought I had was that this seemed like a plot from a bad zombie movie....
Worldwide blood shortage... scientists find a blood substitute... somehow it gets tainted... and everyone is infected with some unknown virus... turning us to zombies etc...
Gee... I wonder what would have happened if they'd been told it was for money AND the public good. And how much money? And does it go into my bank account, or into the town coffers? Huh...
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Are dark, sparkling Foldger's Crystals rich enough to keep these patients alive and well?
Spokesman: How do you feel?
Patient #1: Fine, thank you.
Spokesman: Did you know that we've replaced all of your blood with Foldger's Crystals?
Patient #1: An instant?
Spokesman: That's right.
Patient #1: I can't believe it. I feel great. I'm full of Foldger's Crystals, really?
Spokesman: Yes, and so are all the other patients in this intensive care unit. How do you all feel?
[ The other patients show reactions of approval ]
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Of course you know that with that druggie 420 in your reg'd loser name here. You are a total waste head, that much is obvious. You claim to be a programmer I see. What have you ever done that we can see or download to use? Nothing obviously. You're full of shit as well. Webpage crap is all I see you speak of. I know children in elementary school doing that. That is what smoking your 420 pot does to you. It kept you at that level your entire wasted life, loser.
Why then, if it's so high and noble for people to donate blood, don't the processing/screening services do the same? Get a unit of blood in the hospital, and check what the end cost is- there are lots of layers in there, each of which exacts a healthy charge. Every layer except the most critical one- without which none of the others would be even possible- the "donor".
That "invisible hand" is awfully hard to escape. Offer some consideration- whether cash, a true "blood bank" as others have mentioned, or some other consideration, and I think you'll find that shortages of blood, and even postmortem-donated organs would be a thing of the past. As it stands now, US federal law forbids us from receiving money from our body parts- as if the government owns our very bodies and can to dictate such a thing.
If people have problems with "altruism", nothing is stopping them from turning that money over to another charity. As it is now, the pure "altruism" model is resulting in people losing their lives. What's more important- that the most people get a chance at life, or that some people get to feel good about themselves?