Some thoughts about a treatment for Ebola ?

[lassez]

I have some thoughts about a treatment for ebola. I know that the treatment it self will be able to be carried out, it is based on well known medical practice.

 

I have been a blood donor for meany years, and also got salt water as transfusion. So the procedure ar well known and is in daily use on all hospitals.

 

So if you can fill up a blod bag from the patient, and outsid of the body treat it with het, light or any of the other treatments that could make the virus unharmful then just give it back as a ordinary blood transfusion.

 

If it is possible to find the ultimate treatment for the blod in the transparent bag, then we will be able to transfer back the blood with it's all immune cells still fit for fighting the virus in the body, and if we are even luckier, the weakened virus would not harm, but still trigger the production of more immune cells.

 

I do not se this's as anny thing but an emergency treatment, when ther is no medicine or vaccine awalible.

 

But as it is such a well known procedure, it cold be carried out of ordinary nurses, the stock of blood bags world wide, aught to be sufficient to treat a whole lot of peopl. With out problems too the rest of the world. It is possible to start treating patients as son it is tested. If it works.

 

I don't think it is a good idea, and probbably it has already been discussed. I have a lot to other thoughts around the subject, but won't take up mor of it now.

 

Sorry for the spelling, I am a dyslectic Swedish retiree.

[CharonY]

That won't work as ebola spreads rather rapidly throughout the body and invades various cell types. Even if there was a way to clear virus particles from blood, the patient would continue to release them. Effectively you would just giving the patient a blood transfusion, which would not do much to diminish the viral load.

[Externet]

If the blood donor is a patient that somehow survived ebola; would it transfer effective 'experienced' antibodies to a healthy recipient, sort of a vaccine ?

[CharonY]

It is not true vaccination per se, but providing plasma transfusion is indeed one of the current treatment strategies. Typically it is done in early stages to suppress the virus sufficiently to inhibit spread. The limitations are obviously to find donors that survived ebola and are compatible. I do not know whether there is sufficient data to assess efficacy, though.

[Robittybob1]

It is not true vaccination per se, but providing plasma transfusion is indeed one of the current treatment strategies. Typically it is done in early stages to suppress the virus sufficiently to inhibit spread. The limitations are obviously to find donors that survived ebola and are compatible. I do not know whether there is sufficient data to assess efficacy, though.

Can they culture the cells that are producing the antibodies? (possibly Lymphocytes and culture them). Like do transfusions of immunocompetent cells.

What are the cells that produce antibodies against Ebola?

Can they be specifically isolated and even encouraged to multiply in cell culture?

It seems to be B Cells. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_cell

 

B cells or B lymphocytes are a type of lymphocyte in the humoral immunity of the adaptive immune system. B cells can be distinguished from other lymphocytes, such as T cells and natural killer cells (NK cells), by the presence of a protein on the B cell's outer surface known as a B cell receptor (BCR). This specialized receptor protein allows a B cell to bind to a specific antigen. In birds, B cells mature in the bursa of Fabricius.^[1] In mammals, immature B cells are formed in the bone marrow.^[2]

The principal functions of B cells are to make antibodies against antigens, to perform the role of antigen-presenting cells (APCs), and to develop into memory B cells after activation by antigen interaction. B cells also release cytokines (proteins), which are used for signaling immune regulatory functions.^[3]

[lassez]

Actually my thoughts was to do the blood draning / treatment / transfussioned multiple times, but I can understand that it is a to slow process to work on a fragile patient.

 

If the immune cels can survive than it cold maybe work as giving blood from a survivor of Ebola, with te advantage thath it would not give the patient any desesis from a foringe blood doner!

 

My initial thougt was actualy to drain a newly dead persons blood, treat te blood and then change the blood on a person. This treatment does need that you find out both the patients blood group. It will only work, if you can kill the virus only, and not the immune particles. If it would work you then you have a new sample of blood to treat and use for anew patient.

To me it seems to be rather violent to the patient.

 

 

I do not think I harm anybody by sharing my dumb thoughts.

Edited October 16, 2014 by lassez

[Robittybob1]

Actually my thoughts was to do the blood draning / treatment / transfussioned multiple times, but I can understand that it is a to slow process to work on a fragile patient.

 

My initial thougt was actualy to drain a newly dead persons blood, treat te blood and then change the blood on a person. This treatment does need that you find out both the patients blood group. It will only work, if you can kill the virus only, and not the immune particles. If it would work you then you have a new sample of blood to treat and use for anew patient.

To me it seems to be rather violent to the patient.

 

 

I do not think I harm anybody by sharing my dumb thoughts.

I wouldn't want to use the blood of a "newly dead person" - no way!

[lassez]

I wouldn't want to use the blood of a "newly dead person" - no way!

Lots of people can liv with te hart from a dead person.

[CharonY]

Actually my thoughts was to do the blood draning / treatment / transfussioned multiple times, but I can understand that it is a to slow process to work on a fragile patient.

 

If the immune cels can survive than it cold maybe work as giving blood from a survivor of Ebola, with te advantage thath it would not give the patient any desesis from a foringe blood doner!

 

My initial thougt was actualy to drain a newly dead persons blood, treat te blood and then change the blood on a person. This treatment does need that you find out both the patients blood group. It will only work, if you can kill the virus only, and not the immune particles. If it would work you then you have a new sample of blood to treat and use for anew patient.

To me it seems to be rather violent to the patient.

 

 

I do not think I harm anybody by sharing my dumb thoughts.

 

That would not work as endothel and eventually organs of the patient would be continuously producing viruses. A transfusion alone does not help, it has to contain sufficcient and efficient antibodies.

 

 

 

Can they culture the cells that are producing the antibodies? (possibly Lymphocytes and culture them). Like do transfusions of immunocompetent cells.

What are the cells that produce antibodies against Ebola?

 

Typically not. The host is producing a vast range of antibodies, of which each cell only produces a single form. Isolating the effective cell(s) out of this complex mix is rather hopeless. Also, sometimes only combinations are effective in triggering a proper response. It is easier to identify effective antibodies in vitro, rather than in vivo. One can create monoclonal lines and test them individually or in combination. I think there is at least one group who was going that route. I do not know the outcome, however.

[lassez]

As I understand ther has been some good experiensis of transfuse blood from people that has survived Ebola. Seems to be one of the present treatments to day. Ther is a lot of information of treatments from WHO link below

http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/ebola/en/

 

But I still do not think that ther is a treatment that can neutralise the Ebola virus in a blood collection bag, and still have the immune cells activ, to give it back to the patient. If it was, ther wold be a much simpler way to treat Ebola, than to use the WHO suggested treatment with blood transfusions. No need of storing, no need to match blood group.

[Arete]

As I understand ther has been some good experiensis of transfuse blood from people that has survived Ebola. Seems to be one of the present treatments to day. Ther is a lot of information of treatments from WHO link below

http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/ebola/en/

 

But I still do not think that ther is a treatment that can neutralise the Ebola virus in a blood collection bag, and still have the immune cells activ, to give it back to the patient. If it was, ther wold be a much simpler way to treat Ebola, than to use the WHO suggested treatment with blood transfusions. No need of storing, no need to match blood group.

 

 

I think you're misunderstanding - hemorrhaging is a symptom of ebola which can result in death. Transfusions do not "cure" a person of ebola, they relieve this symptom of the virus by replenishing lost blood. Ebola can infect cells of the body other than blood cells, and these cells shed viruses, which subsequently infect other cells, including blood. Therefore, even if you could somehow remove ALL of the blood from a patient, remove the virus from it and put it back in the patient, you wouldn't cure them of ebola.

[Robittybob1]

Lots of people can live with the heart from a dead person.

But they weren't dead when they took the heart, they may have been brain dead and on the respirator. The heart tissue was always alive AFAIK.

It is when and before they turn off the respirator that they take the organs isn't it? But if someone is dead with ebola that blood could be used to make a serum or plasma but not much else. In industry they do use blood from dead animals for pharmaceutical use, but not for transfusions AFAIK.

No sorry, they do take blood from cattle at abattoirs to treat other cattle suffering from Theileriosis (which causes an anemia).

So that is from healthy animals moments after they have been stunned so in a way they are really still "alive".

Edited October 16, 2014 by Robittybob1

[CharonY]

If the patients died of ebola, it would be unwise to use their blood for anything (other than research, maybe).

[John Cuthber]

If the patient died it rather suggests that they didn't mount an adequate immune response so their blood probably isn't the best place to start.

On the other hand, people who survived ebola may well have valuable antibodies (etc) in their blood.

[Robittybob1]

If the patients died of ebola, it would be unwise to use their blood for anything (other than research, maybe).

I wouldn't want the job of doing that research. One slip up and you'd be the next bit of experimental material.

[CharonY]

I wouldn't want the job of doing that research. One slip up and you'd be the next bit of experimental material.

 

That has already happened, actually. But luckily the technician survived.