Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Idle

Woman Develops Peanut Allergy After Lung Transplant 146

Posted by samzenpus
from the no-extra-charge dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A woman in need of a lung transplant got her new lungs from someone with a peanut allergy who died of anaphylactic shock. Seven months after the surgery, the woman was at an organ transplant support group when she ate a peanut butter cookie and had a violent allergic reaction. So how had the woman's new lungs brought along a peanut allergy? A blog post dives into the medical details and explains that immune cells in the donated lungs couldn't have lived in the new body for long enough to cause the reaction... however, if they encountered an allergen (i.e. something peanuty) shortly after being transplanted, they could have trained the woman's native immune cells to respond."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Woman Develops Peanut Allergy After Lung Transplant

Comments Filter:
  • by autocracy (192714) <slashdot2007 AT storyinmemo DOT com> on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @01:18PM (#33963032) Homepage

    Where do you find these pictures? Did somebody get paid to go buy a container of peanuts and make that? Idle indeed...

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by TheKidWho (705796)

      Google it?

    • by Andy Dodd (701)

      Welcome to the wonderful world of stock photography.

      • by autocracy (192714)

        You know, despite doing photography sometimes selling stuff to newspapers or through stock sites... I just didn't expect that.

        Dear /., please spend more time editing, less time playing with your new stock photography subscription. At least I learned something new with the allergy transfer.

    • by kalirion (728907)

      here's a clue [istockphoto.com]

    • by Pharmboy (216950)

      All you need is a couple of peanuts and photoshop or gimp. You can easily make the same peanut unique enough to be 3 or 4 peanuts by flipping and/or flipping and add/remove some shadows. For someone who uses photoshop daily, this is max 30 minutes work from shoot to post.

  • Idle? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by emkyooess (1551693) on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @01:22PM (#33963084)

    I wouldn't call this an "idle" article. It's more of a real article that some of them lately.

    • Re:Idle? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @01:31PM (#33963210) Journal

      Agreed. At first I Thought "Well the only sources appear to be blogs" so I understood the idea of putting it under idle.

      BUT, it's on the NCBI Medical Publication website, here:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18926410 [nih.gov]

      So I don't know why they didn't just link that and put this under... I dunno... Is there a Bio or medicine section? Science if nothing else.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Sponge Bath (413667)
        Reuse the Gates Borg image. I always thought he was nuts and he does cause a bad reaction in some people.
    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by organgtool (966989)
      Slashdot editors can't win. Everyone used to complain about stories that weren't considered newsworthy appearing on the front page. It looks like the editors are now a little skittish about borderline-newsworthy stores, so they are dumping them into the Idle section. Oh well, at least everyone has something to bitch about.
      • In my experience, most people love nothing more than to complain and complain.

        I can't fucking stand people for that reason, and many others which I don't go into here, I don't want to go off on a rant. But like car subwoofers, for example...

      • by vegiVamp (518171)
        Well, this is like those people who drive half the speed limit on the highway, because they're afraid of getting a speeding ticket. Is it really so hard to stick to a reasonable middle ground ?
    • by MoonBuggy (611105)

      Incidentally, what's going on with comments on Idle? On the rest of /. clicking a comment title expands it in the thread, but here it opens briefly then refreshes the page to only that comment (meaning you can't open up multiple bits of a thread without waiting for a bunch of page refreshes). Off topic, I know, but it's more irritating when a decent story might be discussed in Idle.

      • Idle's been like that for a year.

        • s/a year/ever/

          I think it serves as a testbed for any new wanky-assed UI the slashtards come up with.

          Give them some credit. It would appear they go drinking with somebody who has enough common sense to tell them not to commit their latest wizawd hakx to the bits that people actually read - at least until they almost nearly sort of work.

      • I've wondered this myself, it's quite annoying.
      • Re:Idle? (Score:4, Informative)

        by EvanED (569694) <evaned&gmail,com> on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @02:17PM (#33963816)

        Remove the "idle." from the URL.

        • by c6gunner (950153)

          Hah. I can't believe that worked. Thanks for the tip.

        • by MoonBuggy (611105)

          Very useful, thanks!

          The slashdot.org/article.pl... links just redirect back to idle.slashdot.org/article.pl..., but the slashdot.org/story/... ones don't.

      • by Rich0 (548339)

        My workaround is to middle-click on the comment headline to expand it AND open it in another tab. That doesn't collapse the rest of the thread in the current window. Then every minute or two I hit Ctrl-W 50 times to clean up.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by LazyBoot (756150)

          My workaround is to middle-click on the comment headline to expand it AND open it in another tab. That doesn't collapse the rest of the thread in the current window. Then every minute or two I hit Ctrl-W 50 times to clean up.

          Chrome has a nice feature to help you there... "Close tabs to the right" or just "close other tabs"

      • by Coren22 (1625475)

        Go to address bar, remove "idle." hit enter. Problem fixed!

        • Whenever I do that it just redirects me back to the idle. page :(

          • by Coren22 (1625475)

            Which browser? This has always worked for me on Firefox and Chrome, haven't tried with IE or Safari though I have them.

      • how to workaround the above issue

        go to the story as normal
        click on the title of the first post, it will close up briefly than take you to a new page with that post at the top and comments.pl in the url.
        edit the url to remove idle.
        now click the more button as many times as needed to load the rest of the comments and start using the comments system as normal

        • Interesting. The idle section requires twice as much work as everywhere else. I spent several minutes this morning trying to adjust my settings via mobile device because I thought something was borked by recent system upgrade.
    • by arielCo (995647)
      Indeed - I hadn't thought of that and it's a very serious consideration. Would you pass on an organ from an allergic donor, or that comes with some other risk?
      • Re:Idle? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by leonardluen (211265) on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @02:15PM (#33963790)

        it is strange occurrences like this that can have huge impacts on medical science. research into this could very well yield insight into how food allergies develop and possibly ways to treat or reverse them, or also new ways to keep a person's body from rejecting a newly transplanted organ. both of which are immune responses.

    • by jez9999 (618189)

      Because the Idle comments GUI is now the least ugly of the lot.

  • Prices to pay (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @01:23PM (#33963098)

    Developing an allergy like that has got to be pretty annoying, but if I had to choose, I'd still prefer new lungs and an allergy over no allergy but no lungs either.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by timeOday (582209)
      Well, sure.. But from my extensive medical knowledge (gleaned solely from the slashdot editor's blurb) she might have avoided the allergy simply by avoiding the allergen until a short while after the transplant, when all the donor's immune cells expired. That idea sounds worth exploring.

      Conversely, if there were a way to safely transplant the acquired immunity of a guy in India who drinks from the ganges every day, that would be great.

    • if I had to choose, I'd still prefer new lungs and an allergy over no allergy but no lungs either.

      I take lungs now, gills come next week!

    • by PCM2 (4486)

      Peanut allergy is a little more than an annoyance. Check the packages of snack foods next time you're in the store. Most of them will have a little note on the side explaining that they were manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts. That's because, for some people, just that small amount of trace peanut dust is enough to send them to the hospital. People with peanut allergies spend a lot of time reading little warnings on packages.

    • by frisket (149522)
      A guy had a penis transplant, and when he woke up he found he was straight!
  • Transplant drugs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vlm (69642) on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @01:38PM (#33963302)

    I believe if you get a lung transplant you get to take immunosuppresive drugs for life. So, she's on a heavy diet of drugs that deeply mess with her immune system, her immune system malfunctions, therefore it must be some mystical connection to a dead person.

    If you hear hooves, think horse not zebra.

    • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @01:51PM (#33963466)
      It was my understanding that allergies are an over-reaction of the immune system. People without allergies have immune systems that have minimal responses. I would have thought that the transplant drugs would function the same as allergy medication in that they dampen the response.
      • by vlm (69642)

        Maybe its like antibiotic resistance, where killing the 99.99% that are immune means the remaining 0.01% replicate like crazy, causing an unintentional negative outcome.

        So an immune system that ignores 99.99% of "stuff" goes bonkers on the 0.01% that it is actually allowed to react to, in this situation, peanuts, causing an unintentional negative outcome.

        An interesting model might be that most people's immune system expends most of its effort on relatively reasonable stuff like dirt and stuff in food. But

        • by geekoid (135745)

          While not the stupidest thing I have ever read about the immune system, it's still stupid.

      • by crepe-boy (950569)
        Most immunosuppressant drugs block cell-mediated immunity, and so attempt to prevent cytotoxic T-cell killing of the donor lung tissue. Unfortunately the lung tissue will also contain a large number of the donor's immune cells (mast cells, macrophages and any eosinophils that are in the tissues). It is acute triggering of these cells, and release of bronchoconstricing mediators, that results in anaphylaxis. These are relatively long lived cells so the graft-mediated peanut sensitivity will take a long ti
      • I would have thought that the transplant drugs would function the same as allergy medication in that they dampen the response.

        On a broader point of view, yes. But...

        Allergy of this type are due to the "humoral immunity" - this part of the immune system which is responsible of secreting antibodies (which, in case of allergy, end up being attached on the cell wall of masts cells)
        Graft rejection are due to "cellular immunity" - the part of the immune system which is responsible of killing un-recognized cells (either foreign cells, or cells hi-jacked by viruses)

        Most last generation transplant drugs don't shut down the whole immune sys

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      take immunosuppresive drugs for life. So, she's on a heavy diet of drugs that deeply mess with her immune system, her immune system malfunctions, therefore it must be some mystical connection to a dead person.

      Yeah, you know, they cause the immune system to react LESS than otherwise. But if you've actually RTFA, you would have read,

      If an allergic reaction is triggered during the first few days after the transplant, while the donor’s antibodies are still present, the donor’s T cells are able to train the recipient’s B cells to react to the allergen.

      This seems to be what happened: Five days after her lung transplant the recipient ate a candy bar with peanuts. She had a minor reaction but it was relatively benign due to the immune suppressing drugs she was taking for the transplant; her reaction was confused with normal complications of lung transplants. But that first taste of peanut was all that her body needed to prime her for the almost-deadly reaction seven months later. And the woman continues to be allergic to peanuts to this day.

      More interesting thing would be if something like blood donations can result in allergy transplantation as well?? I know they separate the immune system out of the blood cells, but can you separate out the antibodies too??

      • by t-twisted (937590)

        This seems to be what happened: Five days after her lung transplant the recipient ate a candy bar with peanuts. She had a minor reaction but it was relatively benign due to the immune suppressing drugs she was taking for the transplant; her reaction was confused with normal complications of lung transplants. But that first taste of peanut was all that her body needed to prime her for the almost-deadly reaction seven months later. And the woman continues to be allergic to peanuts to this day.

        Fucking Snickers, always getting the last laugh.

      • by sjames (1099)

        The antibodies alone would only cause a fleeting problem and then only if you received a large amount of blood. This is a case where over-reactive donor cells have trained her native immune system to itself over-react to peanuts.

    • If you hear hooves, think horse not zebra.

      I am a zebra, you insensitive clod!

    • Immunosuppresents typically reduce immune reactions not enhance them; they don't just "mess with her immune system" randomly. She had an ENHANCED immune reaction to something that the previous lung had, that she didn't have before. Something like that if isn't taken into account now, should probably be looked into in the future of post transplant medical knowledge and patient instruction.

    • by mutube (981006)

      Thankyou.

      While this is interesting as a 'what is going on here' question the jump to a conclusion about a link to the donor is completely unwarranted. A donor recipient is so far removed from a normal immune state and so potentially variable as to be more or less useless. What is the incidence of nut allergy in the general population? What proportion of transplant recipient with transplants from non-nut allergy sufferers go on to suffer allergies (this is previously reported - not to mention autoimmune dise

    • If you hear hooves, think horse not zebra.

      Which is the more probable :
      - The she was exposed to a trace of peanut exactly during the correct time frame for the T-helper cells to train her immune cells to produce peanuts-antibodies for the new mast cells ?
      - Or that she's simply one of the many adults who develop a new allergy with no necessary history ?

      I have no data for neither incidence, but it would be interesting to have a look which is more likely to happen.

  • by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich@aol.LISPcom minus language> on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @01:42PM (#33963358) Journal

    Sue the donor's estate

  • by xeno (2667) on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @02:06PM (#33963636)

    Sigh. Great, now the pea-nutty people have more ammo for declaring nut-free zones (from which they do not remove themselves, ironically) in schools, camps, clubs, etc etc.

    Meanwhile, in the real world.... Around a hundred people die from all food allergies combined in the US each year. Yet thousands of parents and related busybodies haul children off to alergists, and when they're told a "detectable response" exists, they start shrieking about anaphalactic shock and the deadly threat of peanuts, and buy another box of Epi-Pens.

    Nonsense. Complete, utter illogical reality-distorting nonsense. The pea-nutty holocaust has no basis in science. The *only* semi-scientific numbers indicating a spike in peanut allergy incidence was a commercial report sponsored by an Epi-Pen manufacturer several years ago with dubious data sources.

    According to the CDC (which employs actual scientists, I'm told), the deadly threat from peanut allergies affects about 1 in 30 Million people. Deadly allergic reactions to fish and fish oils are more than TWICE as prevalent as peanut allergies. Yet fish sticks are served in school cafeterias, hippie daycare providers happily much on boxed sushi with bare hands, and gramma still makes tuna sandwiches... without an epidemic of people dropping dead.

    I'm sad that this gets press, not because single real events aren't tragic. I'm sad because my kids have to suffer thru more of the secondary effects: an ongoing flood of hysterical peanut hypochondria.

    • by troylanes (883822)
      I would have recently agreed wholeheartedly with your ascertains. However, having recently witness my daughter suffer a violent allergic reaction accompanied by an expensive trip to the ER by doing something as innocuous as eating a cookie, I've had to shift my stance. In places such as daycare and primary schools where a child does not have enough faculty to understand that taking a bite of a friends lunch could kill them I'm all for peanut free zones. In settings where the child is old enough to know
      • same story, but for my younger brother. Unfortunately is allergic to a whole host of different stuff, but the only one he seems to be "deathy" allergic to is peanut oil [and its associated protein].

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by Rene S. Hollan (1943)

        Perhaps your kid wasn't meant to live: you know Nature can be damn cruel bitch sometimes.

        We didn't have this crap 40 years ago when I went to elementary school, and kids weren't dropping like flies. No one ever heard of a food allergy.

        30 MILLION people have to adjust their way of life so one may live (based on the 1/30,000,000 actually having an allergy severe enough to kill them).

        There are many more allergies who's fatal response rates are much higher (fish oil, as one poster noted), and we don't accommoda

    • by sorak (246725)

      If you're going to decry the "reality-distorting nonsense", please do not start the next sentence by comparing the lack of PB&J to the holocaust. My irony allergy is acting up.

    • by Coren22 (1625475)

      Some people are so allergic to peanuts that just smelling them can put them in anaphylactic shock. When people are that allergic to fish, then we can start talking. This isn't overreacting parents, this is a real condition that some people have to live with.

      • by sjames (1099)

        And some people will die if exposed to direct sunlight.

        I'm all for reasonable accommodations, but when people get to the point of forcing the vast majority of unaffected kids from having anything to do with peanuts (effectively forced to live as if THEY have the allergy) on the off chance that they might one day come into contact with the extremely rare person who actually has an allergy that serious is just, well, nuts.

        That and the vast majority of peanut allergies are far less serious than that yet are tr

        • by Coren22 (1625475)

          I think you are using something called hyperbole. "Forcing the vast majority of unaffected kids..." My son's school has a peanut free zone. It is a small section off to the side of the cafeteria. People tend to get annoyed if you don't take basic precautions to not kill their children when you are informed of their significant allergy. Often it is considered reckless endangerment or manslaughter if you don't take these precautions. So, when you develop a life threatening allergy that can be passed thr

          • by sjames (1099)

            The approach at your son's school is fine. Other schools have done a blanket ban on peanuts and even tried to expand it to include breakfast time before the kids get to school. Not even in response to an actual student with a documented severe allergy (or even a mild allergy), but just in case.

            I would certainly characterize that as an excessive response.

            • by Coren22 (1625475)

              Agreed, that is far overboard. Perhaps my son's school is a bit more logical about it.

    • by danlip (737336)

      [Citation needed]

      "Peanut allergy is the most common cause of death due to foods" and "peanut allergies affect 2% of the population" http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=9&sub=20&cont=517 [aafa.org]

      The CDC seems to put it at more like 1% for peanuts and tree nuts combined http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/foodallergies/ [cdc.gov]

      That's a lot more than 1 in 30 million.

      • fatal to 1/(3x10^7).

        • by danlip (737336)

          perhaps (citation still needed) but that probably doesn't take into account all the people who would die if not for medical intervention (I would guess that most people with a fatal-level reaction are saved). The point being that peanut allergies really do need to be taken seriously.

          And there are more fatalities than due to fish (or any other food), which contradicts the original poster.

          • So?

            Why are other people's allergies my problem? Did I give them to them?

            Teach school-age kids to be careful, and provide them with epi-pens. Problem solved.

            Five year olds can walk a mile too and from school -- we did when I was young. (And we knew not to talk to strangers.) They can certainly be taught to not eat strange foods. Crap, when I was a kid, six and seven year old diabetic kids were giving themselves scheduled insulin injections.

            • by t-twisted (937590)

              So?

              Why are other people's allergies my problem? Did I give them to them?

              Teach school-age kids to be careful, and provide them with epi-pens. Problem solved.

              Five year olds can walk a mile too and from school -- we did when I was young. (And we knew not to talk to strangers.) They can certainly be taught to not eat strange foods. Crap, when I was a kid, six and seven year old diabetic kids were giving themselves scheduled insulin injections.

              Jesus Christ, dude. No one said other peoples' allergies are your problem, just that they can be serious. Some allergies spontaneously appear so unless every person walks around with an epi 'just in case', it's impossible to be prepared for every incidence of anaphylactic shock. Upset that someone threatened to take your peanuts away on a plane?

              And we don't let five-year-olds walk a mile to school alone not because we don't think we can teach them to not talk to strangers, but because they are too small

              • by Sir_Lewk (967686)

                Newsflash: the odds of your child being abducted while walking to school are astronomically low. You are just yet another helicopter parent.

                • Indeed. When I was in kindergarten, I remember this one girl who walked a mile to and from school, and no one thought this was odd. I walked about 1/4 to 1/2 mile one way, like most of my friends.

                  Adults in the neighborhood generally looked out for kids: both those needing help and those getting themselves into mischief. No kid ever got abducted by a stranger, or even by a divorced parent -- parents didn't divorce unless there was real marital fault.

                  The biggest difference was that mothers could afford to sta

    • by Theovon (109752)

      Food allergies are rare, but they're definitely real. As with so many other things (e.g. ADHD), I'm sure it's way over-diagnosed. Or at least wrt anything serious.

      The reality is that everyone has some mild food sensitivities, and most of the time, the effects are subtle enough that you probably don't notice. Lactose intolerance may give you diarrhea, but usually, it just gives people a little bit of gas. Some food intolerances are immune reactions (typically IgA if you don't notice much effect), some ar

    • by tsm_sf (545316)
      Anything else you need sharpened while we're grinding this axe?
    • by syousef (465911)

      According to the CDC (which employs actual scientists, I'm told), the deadly threat from peanut allergies affects about 1 in 30 Million people. Deadly allergic reactions to fish and fish oils are more than TWICE as prevalent as peanut allergies. Yet fish sticks are served in school cafeterias, hippie daycare providers happily much on boxed sushi with bare hands, and gramma still makes tuna sandwiches... without an epidemic of people dropping dead.

      I'm sad that this gets press, not because single real events aren't tragic. I'm sad because my kids have to suffer thru more of the secondary effects: an ongoing flood of hysterical peanut hypochondria.

      The problem with peanuts is that peanut oil is aromatic and does not need to be injested directly to cause the allergy. Fish oil is not like that. At least the reactions aren't triggered as easily.

      My wife has an anaphylactic allergy to onion and garlic. Trace amounts - a pinch of garlic powder in a pot - is enough to put her in hospital for a week, and is potentially fatal. A straw that was mishandled and exposed to onion has also put her into hospital. It means there are very few pre-prepared foods we can

      • by sjames (1099)

        Certainly there are very real severe allergies out there. However, what's on the rise appears to be rather mild reactions that would de-sensitize given a chance. It appears that many of those are the result of poor advice that pregnant women avoid peanuts! Peanut allergy stats are unchanged where that advice is not given.

        The problem is that too many times a very mild potential reaction is blown up into certain death if anyone thinks of a peanut.

        It's unfortunate that some have to suffer from very serious all

        • by syousef (465911)

          Certainly there are very real severe allergies out there. However, what's on the rise appears to be rather mild reactions that would de-sensitize given a chance.

          You've clearly never seen an anaphylactic reaction nor had one.

          I had allergies as a kid - cut grass would make me come out in welts. I have hayfever. For the most part I just ignore it.

          Only one time, as an adult and very recently, I had the start of a severe reaction. I started to look like that scene from Hitch. Being real life and not a romantic comedy the danger was that my throat was starting to close up. My face and tongue was swelling. Luckily over the counter antihistamines brought it under control b

          • by sjames (1099)

            If you'll re-read what I said, you'll see that I am aware that some people have very severe and serious allergic reactions. Nothing you said contradicts my point that most of the allergies that are on the rise are much milder than that.

            The fact that many parents of children with mild allergies blow it out of proportion strongly contributes to people coming to disbelieve ALL claims of severe allergies. They aren't helping anyone.

            Perhaps your reply to me was driven by your interaction with people who have bec

            • by syousef (465911)

              If you'll re-read what I said, peanut allergies don't tend to be mild because peanut oil drifts in the air.

              As for mild allergies being blown out of proprotion perhaps that's true for some but what's driven all this is that people have actually died. All it takes for a mild allergy to become life threatening is an airway swelling up.

              And regarding my wife, yes a lot of people think these allergies are "all in her head", which is ridiculous.

              • by sjames (1099)

                You're conflating mild and easily avoided.

                Many people will suffer only a localized reaction to significant contact with peanuts. That is characterized as a mild allergy. There has been significant success in de-sensitizing these people with increasing doses of peanut flour in apple sauce in a hospital setting (just in case) at least to the point of having no reaction to casual contact with peanut products.

                A very few have severe allergies. They are the ones that can have a life threatening reaction to the bi

    • The pea-nutty holocaust has no basis in science.

      I have source amnesia on it, but I did read a report that compared allergen responses by way of different methods of roasting peanuts. Supposedly before the 80's most peanuts were dry roasted in-shell, shelled and ground. Most today are shelled, fried, and ground. This seems to elicit a higher level of peanut allergy response.

      Likely most of those are discomfort-level. I have that with fish, swollen tongue, tightened airway, but nothing that's going to kil

      • by Macgrrl (762836)

        I don't know if I have an actual allergy (medically defined term) or merely an intolerance. The smell of fish makes me nauseous, shell fish brings on a migraine and vomiting within 30 minutes, as does strawberries. The last time I had any strawberry (it was a minor ingredient in a glaze on a store bought cheesecake not listed in the ingredients but later confirmed with the manufacturer) I spat it out after finding the seeds and was vomiting for nearly 48 hours.

    • by sconeu (64226)

      Sigh. Great, now the pea-nutty people have more ammo for declaring nut-free zones (from which they do not remove themselves, ironically) in schools, camps, clubs, etc etc.

      How is a kid, who is legally required to be at school (and often required to be at a certain group of tables during lunch) supposed to remove himself from that place?

      Also, you make it sound like "oh, he'll sneeze and itch". This is *DROP DEAD* stuff that we're talking about it.

      Go fuck yourself.

  • Not just allergies (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scorp1us (235526) on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @02:09PM (#33963680) Journal

    I've done research into this because I suffer from several allergies to common foods, and more than one is life threatening. I want to donate blood, but I fear that I will pass them on. No use in saving someone only to kill them with what is coming from the hospital cafeteria... Though it would take repeated exposures for the allergy to be significant enough to become life threatening.

    Well, its not just allergies, but all kinds of things including neurological issues like nervous ticks are transmittable well.

    • Well, its not just allergies, but all kinds of things including neurological issues like nervous ticks are transmittable well.

      [citation neede-- sorry about that, it's just this nervous tick I developed after reading your post. :-P

    • You cannot pass on food allergies with a blood donation. Have fun saving lives.
  • by necro81 (917438)
    That noise you just heard was my mind a'sploding.
  • "This would have made an excellent episode of house."

  • Um, the concept that she should not have experienced a reaction since her immune system was not sensitive to peanuts beforehand is flawed.

    I enjoy chronic mild asthma, and the cause is my bronchial tubes' reaction to exercise and various allergens. If my lungs were transplanted to someone, I would expect that they would also have asthma, since it is my bronchi that are reacting.

    This case is an example of a not very well thought out transplant process. Implanting the lungs of a anaphylactic shock victim int

    • by RKThoadan (89437)

      Asthma may work slightly differently than allergies, but I believe the root cause of both is the immune system triggering an excessive response. Your immune system is separate from your lungs so your asthma would not necessarily be transmitted to a donor. Some of your immune system's B-Cells and T-cells would transfer over though, and as this case demonstrates it is possible for them to cause some changes to a host immune system. It's rather uncommon and should only happen in unusual circumstances.

      The ar

      • by rickb928 (945187)

        Both my asthma and rhinitis are histamine responses, in particular by mast cells . Histamines trigger the inflammatory response, which is the immune system kicking in. IgE antibodies inspire the mast cell release, apparently, and I have IgE antibodies that are extremely sensitive to Eastern White Pine, English Plantain, and several other grasses and trees. Not so much ragweed, go figure.

        I have particularly aggressive H1 receptors, which are primarily found (from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]) in "smooth muscle, endothelium,

  • by Quantus347 (1220456) on Wednesday October 20, 2010 @02:42PM (#33964212)
    For example, you get a bone marrow transplant and your blood type will change to that of the donor. Maybe they should start transplanting those rare blood-types to blood bank volunteers. I know a few homeless guys that would love to get a higher premium for their donation.
  • they could have trained the woman's native immune cells to respond.

    When they're trained, they become terrorist cells.

You will be successful in your work.

Working...