Jump to content

Talk:Blood substitute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jehovah's Witnesses

[edit]

That Jehovah's Witnesses link in the External Links section is not very relevant to this page. It's mostly an argument from biblical authority against using real blood. I intend to remove it eventually, but since it's been on this page a long time with no dispute, I would like to solicit other opinions on the matter here first. Teflon Don 23:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear violation of Wikipedia:EL#Links normally to be avoided. Feezo (Talk) 21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an external link it's inappropriate, as a reference it might be useful for explaining why this group acts the way it does (thought it appears that section got the axe). The JW prohibition on "consuming blood" makes them a quirky population in medicine when a transfusion is indicated, and it's a group where blood substitutes give physicians a decent option between two absolute moral imperatives: care for the patient, and respect the patient's wishes, and it's far from a dead issue. [1].Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theatrical Blood

[edit]

Can theatrical blood really be called artificial blood? I'd hope that I'd be a better writer so I could correct that without asking anyone. Santtus 22:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think that this category "theatrical blood" be taken out of this entry. Shireesh P Apte.

The section about theatrical fake blood has been removed. It didn't belong in this article and wasn't very informative anyway. -QFlyer 07:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I used the info from that section and made it into it's own article: theatrical blood. OlEnglish (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(inappropriate comment removed Somedumbyankee (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Advantages of Substitutes

[edit]

6. Transfused blood is currently more cost effective, but there are many reasons to believe this may change. The cost of blood substitutes will fall as manufacturing becomes refined. At the same time the cost of transfused blood will only increase as further tests are administered to ensure a safe blood supply.

Does the last sentence really need to be in there? While more testing may very well increase costs, what about advances in current testing making them cheaper or more comprehensive testing so one test can check for a greater variety of diseases/problems? It's not a big deal, but I don't think it adds anything to the advantages for using substitutes. (SSJPabs 08:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)=SSJPabs)[reply]

This appears to be a direct quote from this page. It's since been changed. I've referenced it anyway.

Article re-written

[edit]

I've re-written the article to remove some inaccuracies, improve formatting and add updated information. Joema 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling changes

[edit]

This regards my rv of the spelling changes by 137.205.29.13. Nothing wrong with British spelling, but it should be consistent within an article, not mixed. Below are the Wikipedia guidelines on this. Joema 13:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodless surgery

[edit]

We need an article on bloodless surgery as this is becoming more and more common. Bloodless medicine in general encompases these two topics already and should have its own article as well. George 19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oxycyte

[edit]

Why isn't there a seperate article on this? I search for it, and I get redirected here. That shouldn't happen, as I didn't search for general information on blood substitutes, I searched for a specific one.


Look on the company's website Synthetic blood international or there's a current article on the popsci web page

Plastic blood

[edit]

Recently heard about it. Is it here already or where in Wikipedia can I read about it? Berserkerz Crit 11:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

kidney uptake leads to liver damage?

[edit]

Just wondering if this is an error if I simply misunderstood what was written. The last line of the Polyheme paragraph is: "Also, free hemoglobin can be taken up by the kidney causing liver dysfunction and failure." How does uptake by the kidney lead to liver failure? Should it be renal failure? Thanks. Sk8cello 18:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be common knowledge but I can't find any information about hemoglobin's renal toxicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testem (talk • contribs) 19:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear line

[edit]

"Patients who receive blood substitutes are 2.7 times more likely to have a heart attack and 30% more likely to die." Are they 30% more likely to die from a heart attack? (If so, Is that 30% of all patients, or just the ones that have heart attacks?) Or are they 30% more likely to die from whatever caused them to need a blood transfusion in the first place? APL (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording was taken verbatim from Wired Magazine article. However the Wikipedia paragraph was redundantly referring to the same study as the previous paragraph. I merged the references, fixed non-working ones, provided a working URL to the Wired article so readers can read it themselves, and removed the redundant paragraph. Joema (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

I suggest that the part with oxygen-carrying substances be split into a separate article, perhaps named Artificial hemoglobin, but it's just a suggestion. That article, in turn, could then be merged with Hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers. Perhaps hemoglobin substitute would be a fitting name of the target article too, but it might sound contradictory when hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers are among the potential methods. The name oxygen-carrying blood substitute would be most descriptive name, but may be rather long. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it artificial hemoglobin is a little misleading, because many of the blood substitutes are simply "repackaged" Hgb and the Hgb is not the artificial part. Merging HBOC here would probably make the most sense. SDY (talk) 02:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-artificial hemoglobin packaged into artificial capsules sounds more like neohemocytes, and I think they should have distinct articles, although both articles may mention that the two techniques may be combined. Both are a bit science-fiction, but the theoretical indications of neohemocytes may differ somewhat, potentially finding their use rather in red blood cell membrane disorders such as spherocytosis. If choosing the name artificial hemoglobin, however, that section about encapsulated hemoglobin should be merged to the main neohemocyte article. At least they would no longer be mixed up, as they currently are. Still, with the name oxygen-carrying blood substitute, the article would include both techniques. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Return oxygen-carrying blood substitute to here

[edit]

I was surprised to see the introduction of this article changed to define the scope of this article to be about oxygen-carrying blood substitute, although there already is a separate article on that subtype. However, when taking a look at Google Scholar, I don't find a single usage of "blood substitute" that isn't in the sense of oxygen-carrying blood substitute, with other types rather being termed "plasma substitute" at most. With this in mind, I think merging oxygen-carrying blood substitute would make it more representative of the scientific community. Non-oxygen-carrying blood substitutes may still be mentioned in a subsection. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll perform the merge now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Wikipedia is not a repository of links, but with the size of the "external links" of this article, it was beginning to become one. Therefore, I've pasted all those here, and we should decide which are most important and return only those. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last entry was a dead link, I've fixed it. Testem (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specify "plastic" please

[edit]

Before reinsertion, the following text needs:

  • A specification of what "plastic" is in this sense
  • A link to the original study rather than what appears to be a popular science paper.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007, scientists from the chemistry department of the University of Sheffield created artificial blood from plastic.[1] Unlike donated blood which has a shelf life of 35 days, this blood lasted for additional days without needing refrigeration. This blood was developed for five years so that it could be condensed into a paste form at room temperature and only required water to return to its liquid state. This plasticized blood mimicked hemoglobin because it held iron and could bind to oxygen.
The press release is here. I will include this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testem (talk • contribs) 19:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ University Of Sheffield (2007, May 14). Scientists Develop Artificial Blood. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 2, 2010

iron build up

[edit]

One of the main problems with an extended course of Blood Transfusions is the build up of iron in the body. Do any of these substitutes or potential treatments help avoid this problem? 24.190.137.130 (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the perfluorocarbon-based substitutes wouldn't have problems with iron toxicity. Things like erythropoeitin also don't directly introduce iron, though that's more of a "transfusion substitute" than a "blood substitute." Hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers are presumably going to have the same problems as real blood. SDY (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

A huge majority of the scientific claims in this article are missing references.Testem (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I question the reference added in this edit.

Unfortunately, oxygen transport has proven very difficult to achieve artificially, and all efforts as of 2011 have failed to overcome the challenges

It doesn't seem to mention oxygen carriers at all, instead talking about crystalloid resuscitation, which as far as I can tell is just about volume expansion (iv saline for example), nothing to do with oxygen carry. I also question the claim it references, as although there are no approved carriers on the market there are carriers currently undergoing clinical trials.Testem (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blood substitute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blood substitute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what about CO2 transport

[edit]

I think there is commonly a blind spot in the understanding of the function of the circulatory system. Specifically, that transport of carbon dioxide is just as necessary as transport of oxygen. While it is well known that most of the carbon dioxide is carried as bicarbonate ion, the carbonic anhydrase on the inner side of the red cell membrane plays an important part. I wonder about how the introduction of a synthetic oxygen carrier, that presumably does not contain any carbonic anhydrase, affects homeostasis. My guess is that one thing it does is induce hyperventilation to minimize acidosis. It seems to me that the issue must be addressed by researchers attempting to produce blood substitutes, although I have never seen a popular article that mentioned it. If there is information about why this is, or is not, a problem, it seems that the article might be improved by discussing it. --AJim (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemopure hidden

[edit]

There's a lot of info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hemopure&oldid=688387806 that was lost shortly before the article was redirected here. Hemopure is still in use and has an interesting history worth keeping documented. e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304081752/http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/04/04/navy_rips_fda_for_blocking_clinical_trial/. Seems like there's quite the collusive effort to keep such products off the market. RudolfoMD (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blood_substitute&oldid=1200193685"