3 ms·
From my understanding when an antibody attaches to a virus it causes a signal for T-cells to eat the and destroy the virus. So the antibody would be effective i
by christkv 7y ago
From my understanding when an antibody attaches to a virus it causes a signal for T-cells to eat the and destroy the virus. So the antibody would be effective in getting the body to destroy any virus found. However I don't think it would create any sort of immune memory which is what a vaccine or recovering from the illness by yourself would do.
That said it would be fantastic in that it could provide some immunity protection for a while why the antibodies are active in your body allowing health care workers to be safer. Might also be very helpful in creating firewalls in institutions like old folks homes or hospitals.
- dmix 7y agoAre there some examples of antibodies like this being employed successfully like that? I find it fascinating how the body is able to adapt to new entrants and the immune system figures out how to uniquely bind to the virus - but seemingly based on the article only when it changes into an active infection mode and exposes a certain part. Potentially ignoring it unless it’s an active threat to the body.
- AstralStorm 7y agoYes, there have been some trials in avian flu at least, and a few attempts in original SARS and MERS, with success. The problem here is the mediocre quality of evidence. Mostly limited sizes, but also lacking randomization. Also rabies, tetanus and hepatitis B and C sera are available. Those have high quality evidence for working.
- koheripbal 7y agoThis is exactly the problem. It would only work in the short term - but would not provide any immunity. It might not even eliminate the virus - so once you stop the antibody treatment - the patient might relapse. Still better than nothing and in extreme situations, it would give your body more time to produce an adaptive response.