"The team discovered much higher levels of PD-1 than is normal in HIV patients, which S茅kaly said keeps virus-fighting T-cells too relaxed.By stimulating the PD-1 protein, S茅kaly succeeded in preventing the virus from making the immune system's T-cells dysfunctional and allowed them to get on with the job of fighting the virus."According to this they can reactivate the CD4+ T cells that are inactive due to the virus. Would the immune system then be able to remove the virus?
Answers:
The main problem with this theory is that HIV has a tendency to hide from the immune system. By the time that the immune system is able to recognize the HIV, it's already been attacked.
This technique may work if you can catch the HIV in early stages, or right after exposure. It could be a great way to prevent HIV after exposure, like the series of medications that are given to medical personnel when they are exposed to HIV or AIDS due to needle stick or other accidental contamination.
I don't think it would work as well for someone whose immune system has already been compromised.
Got to this site: glycoscience.org and also read what I wrote about HIV in Africa on my page.A strong immune system is the key to all disease, viruses and infections period.MIT says We Will change the world of health care.
I don't think so
Sunday, May 23, 2010
is it possible to regain blood?
Answers:
In normal situations, your body has its ability to manufacture blood cells comprising the whole blood (red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets) mostly in the bone marrow especially of the vertebrae , ribs, pelvis, skull, breastbone. Each red blood cell has a life span of about 4 months. Each day, the body produces new red blood cells to replace those that die or are lost from the body. White blood cells life spans vary from a few days to months. New cells are constantly being formed in the bone marrow especially if there is infection production is ncreased. Platelets survive only about 9 days in the bloodstream and are constantly being replaced by new cells.In unusual situations where there is severe blood loss, your body is unable to make rapid blood production to replace it that is why blood transfusions are given. In non dangerous situations, the body is given time to replace the blood lost. Good nutrition and iron supplements are important to help the body to cope up with blood production.Now, just in case you want to know if the blood taken out from you can be returned back: there is no question about that provided the blood was taken out of your body in due process. It can be safely transfused to you as the process to regain it. (Though this is least likely to happen, I am just giving you this idea as one of the possibilities of what you are trying to ask because you have not elaborated your question further.)鈾?
Yes, otherwise you couldn't donate any.
yes
yes. We make it all the time
yea. Drink Up!
yes--if you cut yourself and bleed--say 3 ounces of blood--your body will self regulate and replenish the loss; if however, you sever your arm and lose 3 pints.you'll need a transfusion.but otherwise, yes, your body regains blood loss naturally!
You can donate blood every 3 months or more.The following info was taken from the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center website:4. How long will it take to replenish the pint of blood I donate?Your body will replace the blood volume (plasma) within 48 hours. It will take 4 to 8 weeks for your body to completely replace the red blood cells you donated. The average adult has 8 to 12 pints of blood. You will not notice any physical changes related to the pint you donated.
Yes after you lose a pint (through donation) you regain the liquid part (plasma) within a few hours (if you drink enough liquid to help your body replace it). It then takes 56 days to rebuild the red blood cells that you lost (that's why they make you wait between donations). Bone marrow is responsible for the formation of new blood. I hope this helps
Your bone marrow produces blood (a process called hematopoiesis).
Your blood cells die and replenish themselves every three days. You are constantly regaining blood cells. If you donate blood, it takes about 3 weeks to regain that amount of blood, but they don't take it more often than 6 because it stresses the body. :) If you are anemic (or don't have enough red blood cells) try taking iron as it ecourages red blood cell growth. Also, if you have donated blood, foods high in iron for a few days are always a good idea.
yes your bone marrow produces red blood cells every second of everyday. i dont know how much is produced on a daily basis but i have donated blood a pint at a time and in 2 weeks i gave another pint.however if you give blood like every 10 days your iron will drop severely and cause you to get sick.you would become anemic and have to take either iron injections or iron pills.maybe both if your blood is very low in iron.giving blood not only depletes your body of iron but potassium as well and many other minerals that are needed for the body to function normally.
if you are speaking of a case where you say, just cut yourself or have a small wound that bleeds, even quite a bit (i'm not talking a gusher here.) then yes, your blood supply regenerates itself on it's own. That's why in cases of a huge trauma when someone has lost say 1/4 of their blood supply it is urgent that they be given a transfusion of their same blood type, so that the body doesn't go into shock and start realizing that something is very wrong with the blood supply and go into shock. of course, some people have adverse reactions to transfusions, but generally the outcome is ok. as a general rule, our RBC's (red blood cells) usually regenerate themselves every 120 days, WBC's (white blood cells) regenerate much faster. hope this helps.
No! Once lost, it can never be regained. Be careful not to spill a drop!
That's what the cookies and punch at the blood donation stations are for.
Yes, Cells multiply
Blood is all the time being regenerated in the body. so yes it is very possible o regain blood.
Yes. After you donate a pint of blood, it takes your body about 4- 6 weeks to replenish itself. That's why you can't gi ve blood for at least 4 weeks after having already donated.
The rfed cells are constantly being replaced with a life span of 120 days. In blood loss, the spleen supplies some and the bone marrow works harder to produce new cells.
is it possible to recover the condition if substance joining 2 hip bones loosed?
I am 22 yrs old unmarried girl. From 2 years I have problem in which substance that joins 2 hip bones is loosing slowly slowly. Still today the problem is not detected by the doctors. Now problem is increased beyond the limit that the gap is formed between 2 hip bones and the middle bone (i.e. present on the front side) is locked in that gap. due to this i cant work properly. Is this damage is recoverable? If yes what is the solution? Can I become a mother in such condition? I am very disturbed by thinking and now I came on thinking about sucide Please give me quick reply. my mummy is thinking about my marriege.
Answers:
2001-Duke-82 Arizona-72
2002- Maryland-64 Indiana-52
2003-Syracuse-81 Kansas-78
2004-UConn-82 Georgia Tech-73
2005-North Carolina-75 Illinois-70
ur descrption is not very clear. there r two bones that come together to form the hip bone. they r joined in the front by a cartilage known as the pubis symphysis and at the back by the sacral bone also by cartilage and ligaments. so what r u trying to say? ur pubis symphysis is loose?and if so what is the middle bone bcuz there is none as far i know.
Answers:
2001-Duke-82 Arizona-72
2002- Maryland-64 Indiana-52
2003-Syracuse-81 Kansas-78
2004-UConn-82 Georgia Tech-73
2005-North Carolina-75 Illinois-70
ur descrption is not very clear. there r two bones that come together to form the hip bone. they r joined in the front by a cartilage known as the pubis symphysis and at the back by the sacral bone also by cartilage and ligaments. so what r u trying to say? ur pubis symphysis is loose?and if so what is the middle bone bcuz there is none as far i know.
Is it possible to recieve radiation poisoning and be sterile for the next 5 years?
My friend was working in the navy for a good 3 1/2 years. He wasn't in a nuclear ship, he was a signalman (no more signalmen in the navy, they converted to quartermaster). There were radio and communication equipment that he worked closely with and recieved radiation poisoning from the equipment. The doctor said that the radiation cut 10 years off of his life and that he'll be sterile in the next 5 years. He's on the 3 year mark and the sperm tests confirmed that he isn't sterile. Is it possible that the diagnosis of the doctor could be wrong?
Answers:
Yes. Please bear with the length of my answer.First and foremost, the United States Navy uses great amount of care in how much radiation both the people who work with the nuclear gear ("nukes") and the folks who don't ("coners" on a sub, anyone not associated with the engine room). The radiation levels that sailors receive is well, well, well below the legal limits specified by the federal government for your average nuclear worker. So, the guy who plays Homer Simpson on a daily basis has a higher limit than sailors do. Furthermore, being on the land and playing games in the sun exposes you to more radiation than a nuclear trained sailor will get in a year. The radiation that the radio gear gives off is less potent than the reactor can put off, so if that gives you any indication as to the faith I put in the doctor's prognosis.Short answer, your friend is fine. He should be able to have kids if he wants, and they should all have just two eyes and ten fingers (unless three eyes is a dominant gene in his family.)Hope that helps.
The doctor could be wrong.but he could be right, as well. AND your friend's sperm could be affected in ways that are not apparent from sperm counts. Any children he fathers could have severe birth defects if he really had a lot of exposure to radiation.
Was this a military doc? If so, there's a good chance he's wrong. Tell him to get a second opinion from a civilian doc.
Answers:
Yes. Please bear with the length of my answer.First and foremost, the United States Navy uses great amount of care in how much radiation both the people who work with the nuclear gear ("nukes") and the folks who don't ("coners" on a sub, anyone not associated with the engine room). The radiation levels that sailors receive is well, well, well below the legal limits specified by the federal government for your average nuclear worker. So, the guy who plays Homer Simpson on a daily basis has a higher limit than sailors do. Furthermore, being on the land and playing games in the sun exposes you to more radiation than a nuclear trained sailor will get in a year. The radiation that the radio gear gives off is less potent than the reactor can put off, so if that gives you any indication as to the faith I put in the doctor's prognosis.Short answer, your friend is fine. He should be able to have kids if he wants, and they should all have just two eyes and ten fingers (unless three eyes is a dominant gene in his family.)Hope that helps.
The doctor could be wrong.but he could be right, as well. AND your friend's sperm could be affected in ways that are not apparent from sperm counts. Any children he fathers could have severe birth defects if he really had a lot of exposure to radiation.
Was this a military doc? If so, there's a good chance he's wrong. Tell him to get a second opinion from a civilian doc.
Is it possible to prevent brain death?
If the brain controls the body through an electro-chemical reaction of sorts and the body sustains the brain by providing it everything else then would it be possible to prevent brain death in patients being transported from the scene of injury?Would it be possible to revive a recently dead brain through somewhat similar technologies (I am leaning towards organ re-animation coupled with brain stimulation)?The technology of medicine has advanced so greatly and yet I feel that in some ways we are still very backwards. So what is your opinion on this matter?
Answers:
As is so common, some semantics is involved in your question. Death is a state from which no organism, organ, or tissue can return using medical techniques. If it is "revived" then, by definition the subject matter was only near-death.This is based on a long accepted biological principle that life does not spring from non-living things. Theoretically, if some portion of the brain has not undergone irreparably rapidly degenerating conditions, then it is possible to maintain life in some portion of it and perhaps restore some semblance of health and homeostasis. This would require a constant source of oxygen and glucose (among man other things.) I see no reason that a brain could not be kept alive without most of the body, provided science advances far enough. There is far more that is unknown about the body and mind than is known. In that sense we are very backward. However, getting a brainstem to meaningfully graft onto a spinal cord is one of many extremely difficult barriers to brain transplantation."Reanimating" a heart is not really a matter of converting dead tissue to live tissue. It is most commonly simply restarting the electrical cycles that keep the live heart muscle tissue pumping, either by stimulating a stunned intrinsic system (like the sinoatrial node) or by artificial impulses through a pacemaker. If all the muscle tissue is dead, then "codes blue" are fruitless. In this case, a heart transplant could help if the rest of the body could be maintained alive in the interim.
Brain cells die after 4 minutes without blood flow because of loss of oxygen.Brains retain knowledge by etching chemical signatures on individual cells, and in bundles of cells. When those cells no longer operate, the knowledge is lost.Unlike heart, kidney, or other less critical organs, it is impossible to cool the brain to prevent the massive cell death that results when blood stops pumping. You'd have to remove the brain from the cranium - which isn't all that hard, it's the putting back that is the real challenge.
Another reason for brain death, which doesn't necessarily have to do with organ failure, is when there is a traumatic brain injury the brain swells up and since it has no where to go because of the cranium, it herniates - then death.
Answers:
As is so common, some semantics is involved in your question. Death is a state from which no organism, organ, or tissue can return using medical techniques. If it is "revived" then, by definition the subject matter was only near-death.This is based on a long accepted biological principle that life does not spring from non-living things. Theoretically, if some portion of the brain has not undergone irreparably rapidly degenerating conditions, then it is possible to maintain life in some portion of it and perhaps restore some semblance of health and homeostasis. This would require a constant source of oxygen and glucose (among man other things.) I see no reason that a brain could not be kept alive without most of the body, provided science advances far enough. There is far more that is unknown about the body and mind than is known. In that sense we are very backward. However, getting a brainstem to meaningfully graft onto a spinal cord is one of many extremely difficult barriers to brain transplantation."Reanimating" a heart is not really a matter of converting dead tissue to live tissue. It is most commonly simply restarting the electrical cycles that keep the live heart muscle tissue pumping, either by stimulating a stunned intrinsic system (like the sinoatrial node) or by artificial impulses through a pacemaker. If all the muscle tissue is dead, then "codes blue" are fruitless. In this case, a heart transplant could help if the rest of the body could be maintained alive in the interim.
Brain cells die after 4 minutes without blood flow because of loss of oxygen.Brains retain knowledge by etching chemical signatures on individual cells, and in bundles of cells. When those cells no longer operate, the knowledge is lost.Unlike heart, kidney, or other less critical organs, it is impossible to cool the brain to prevent the massive cell death that results when blood stops pumping. You'd have to remove the brain from the cranium - which isn't all that hard, it's the putting back that is the real challenge.
Another reason for brain death, which doesn't necessarily have to do with organ failure, is when there is a traumatic brain injury the brain swells up and since it has no where to go because of the cranium, it herniates - then death.
Is it possible to poot through something other than your butt?
Answers:
I once pooted through someone else's butt.
a woman can fart air through her vagina. its called a queef.
no
I DO NOT THINK SO
Why the heck would you ask a question like that?? you sound like a little kid talking about farting! that's ridiculous!
The gas created has to exit through your colon, so no.
if there is a colostomy bag present then the waste will collect in there.
sure. ever hear of diarrhea of the mouth?
Yes, if by 'poot' you just mean excreting bowel waste. For instance a surgical proceedure called a colonostomy cuts the bowel higher up and attaches it to an opening through the skin above the hips. Other, natural conditions can also cause an opening to form where it isn't usually found. Obstetrical fistula is a condition that can occur when very young women (who's bodies are still smaller than adult size) give birth. In this condition a tear develops between the lower bowel and the vagina whild delivering the baby and subsequently, bowel contents leak out through the vagina. This is a problem in some african countries right now.
The first answer is correct..Women really can do that.Sometimes in happens during sex and can be quite embarassing.
A woman cannot fart through her vagina as the intestinal tract and vagina are not connected. However sometimes when a woman farts the air goes up the vagina and is then expelled sounding like a fart. This is just due to the anus and vaginal opening being so close together. This causes no harm.
Is it possible to make a nicotine patch?
nicotine is mainly transmitted by breathing or tasting
but i know that working in a tobacco field and making contact with the tobacco also transmits nicotine
so why not buy your favorite brand and tape or bandage the tobacco to your skin
Answers:
nicotine patches have liquid nicotine in them, cigarettes have a lot less nicotine in them. Taping tobacco onto your skin will do nothing for you.
Because nicotine patches are made with carefully measured doses of nicotine. If you try to make your own you can actually end up overdosing on nicotine and getting poisoned.
Medicated patches are manufactured to constantly deliver a set amount of drug over a certain period of time. This is researched and tested. Just applying tobacco to your skin would cause erradict amounts of nicotine to reach your skin. Different species of tobacco leaves would have differently levels of nicotine in them. For that matter, different leaves from the same species will vary. You'd have to consider species, condition of the plant, time you picked the leaves, processing, and a hundred other variants. Even if you could come up with a standard amount of nicotine how would you deliver it? Would nicotine from a leaf be absorbed accross the skin? Remember, nicotine is a powerful drug. Too much can kill. The lethal dose is really not that much. Basically, you have the same problems the herbal industry has. No standard product or delivery system. Then there is the question why go through all this? A number of companies have already done this work and sell this product without the need for a prescription.
but i know that working in a tobacco field and making contact with the tobacco also transmits nicotine
so why not buy your favorite brand and tape or bandage the tobacco to your skin
Answers:
nicotine patches have liquid nicotine in them, cigarettes have a lot less nicotine in them. Taping tobacco onto your skin will do nothing for you.
Because nicotine patches are made with carefully measured doses of nicotine. If you try to make your own you can actually end up overdosing on nicotine and getting poisoned.
Medicated patches are manufactured to constantly deliver a set amount of drug over a certain period of time. This is researched and tested. Just applying tobacco to your skin would cause erradict amounts of nicotine to reach your skin. Different species of tobacco leaves would have differently levels of nicotine in them. For that matter, different leaves from the same species will vary. You'd have to consider species, condition of the plant, time you picked the leaves, processing, and a hundred other variants. Even if you could come up with a standard amount of nicotine how would you deliver it? Would nicotine from a leaf be absorbed accross the skin? Remember, nicotine is a powerful drug. Too much can kill. The lethal dose is really not that much. Basically, you have the same problems the herbal industry has. No standard product or delivery system. Then there is the question why go through all this? A number of companies have already done this work and sell this product without the need for a prescription.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)