Thread: A way to kill infectious bacteria instead of drugs

"For bacteria to actually die, the hot water would have to be at a temperature above what your skin could tolerate. Most people can tolerate a temperature of 110 degrees for little bits of time, but that's the most we can do."



Knowing that we could use a dialysis machine and hook up people to it and heat up their blood then cool it back down before putting it back into the person. The dialysis machine is already being made so that it would be easy to modify it to do this type of procedure.

The rest of the blood will not be affected by doing this at this temperature I wouldn't think. This would be a way of getting rid of any infectious bacteria that people have in their blood streams.

In essence, you are proposing heat sterilization of blood in order to kill microorganisms?
It seems to be a variant of using an autoclave (which uses steam at 394 K with a pressure of 1.1 kg/cm² for 10-15 minutes).

In order to be effective, we would have to know the thermal death time of a particular species (and its population).
And we would have to ensure that the proteins (e.g. Hb) do not denature, that the water does not evaporate, that the pH remains stable and that we do not deprive the patient of O_².

I don't think its good for blood to coock above 42 degrees even that's I probably to high

Are all bacteria solely in the blood?

We would need to find out the exact temperatures at which the infectious bacteria die at and from what my first post stated that woiuld be only above 110 F . We could also use a infrared light source to accomplish this but furthur investigation will be needed to see if it can be done. They already use infrared to destroy tumors inside of people so perhaps the same could be done with infectious bacteria?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Are all bacteria solely in the blood?

No, but using infrared light the areas that are infected could have that light administered to them. Just need to know at what temperatures those infectious bacteria will die at.

Why not just introduce them to my ex-girlfriend?...she can make your blood boil.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Are all bacteria solely in the blood?

No, but using infrared light the areas that are infected could have that light administered to them. Just need to know at what temperatures those infectious bacteria will die at.

If I understand it correctly, you propose the usage of IR on certain areas to treat sepsis due to bacteria in the blood?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Are all bacteria solely in the blood?

No, but using infrared light the areas that are infected could have that light administered to them. Just need to know at what temperatures those infectious bacteria will die at.

If I understand it correctly, you propose the usage of IR on certain areas to treat sepsis due to bacteria in the blood?

Correct, if that temperature will kill bacteria.

Could also use ultraviolet light .

All bacteria (and all cells) can be killed by UV, because it damages the DNA.

One thing to bear in mind. If you've got bacteria circulating in the blood itself, you've got a pretty sick patient in the first place.

Better hospital practice in surgery, as well as good supervision of catheters, injection sites, IV lines, managing wounds and careful skin maintenance for people who are immobilised for long periods would prevent most of these infections in the first place. And of course, aggressive treatment of the locations of infections in organs and other tissues.

The major problem is that there are no antibiotics that can kill the new strains of infectious bacteria, that's why I suggested these two approachs since no one as yet, that I'm aware of, have tried either.

Originally Posted by adelady

One thing to bear in mind. If you've got bacteria circulating in the blood itself, you've got a pretty sick patient in the first place.

Better hospital practice in surgery, as well as good supervision of catheters, injection sites, IV lines, managing wounds and careful skin maintenance for people who are immobilised for long periods would prevent most of these infections in the first place. And of course, aggressive treatment of the locations of infections in organs and other tissues.

Adelady, would one go septic if bacteria was in the blood? I am imagining all organs would be affected.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Could also use ultraviolet light .

All bacteria (and all cells) can be killed by UV, because it damages the DNA.

And were you planning to expose blood to UV in the modified dialysis machine, in contrast with IR?
Because if one would expose the skin to UV in order to kill bacteria in the blood, that could be detrimental due to the increased risk of DNA damage.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Could also use ultraviolet light .

All bacteria (and all cells) can be killed by UV, because it damages the DNA.

And were you planning to expose blood to UV in the modified dialysis machine, in contrast with IR?
Because if one would expose the skin to UV in order to kill bacteria in the blood, that could be detrimental due to the increased risk of DNA damage.

Let us say that a foot was lnfected. You can easily bandage up the part that isn't infected then expose the rest to the light. That way you'd only be killing those germs in that specfic area and no where else.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Could also use ultraviolet light .

All bacteria (and all cells) can be killed by UV, because it damages the DNA.

And were you planning to expose blood to UV in the modified dialysis machine, in contrast with IR?
Because if one would expose the skin to UV in order to kill bacteria in the blood, that could be detrimental due to the increased risk of DNA damage.

Let us say that a foot was lnfected. You can easily bandage up the part that isn't infected then expose the rest to the light. That way you'd only be killing those germs in that specfic area and no where else.

Yes, but would it be effective?
If sepsis is caused by bacteria in the blood, does that not mean that these microorganisms are transported throughout the whole cardiovascular system?

Yes, but would it be effective?
If sepsis is caused by bacteria in the blood, does that not mean that these microorganisms are transported throughout the whole cardiovascular system?

I do not know but I'd think that someone somewhere could do the research into this for I do not have the where with all to do so.

Just a thought here but could blood be filtered through certain types of metal filters, like silver for example, that we already know have anti-bacterial properties.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Just a thought here but could blood be filtered through certain types of metal filters, like silver for example, that we already know have anti-bacterial properties.

Yes, but what if the erythrocytes and leukocytes are greater in size then the strain (e.g. E. coli) one is trying to filter out? Would that not be problematic?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Ascended

Just a thought here but could blood be filtered through certain types of metal filters, like silver for example, that we already know have anti-bacterial properties.

Yes, but what if the erythrocytes and leukocytes are greater in size then the strain (e.g. E. coli) one is trying to filter out? Would that not be problematic?

Err, I'm afraid your knowledge vastly exceeds mine with regard to that aspect.

Ok how about introducing some kind of friendly bacteria, that can be controlled, to out compete any of the more problematic or dangerous strains, I'm just running ideas here as again you're far more likely to beware whether such ideas could have any merit or are just impractical.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Ascended

Just a thought here but could blood be filtered through certain types of metal filters, like silver for example, that we already know have anti-bacterial properties.

Yes, but what if the erythrocytes and leukocytes are greater in size then the strain (e.g. E. coli) one is trying to filter out? Would that not be problematic?

Err, I'm afraid your knowledge vastly exceeds mine with regard to that aspect.

Ok how about introducing some kind of friendly bacteria, that can be controlled, to out compete any of the more problematic or dangerous strains, I'm just running ideas here as again you're far more likely to beware whether such ideas could have any merit or are just impractical.

I do not think that introducing a friendly bacterial strain is effective,
given the fact that sepsis can be caused when bacteria (not necessarily (opportunistic) pathogens) are introduced into the cardiovascular system.

The sterilization of blood (via heat and/or via filters) might be an effective method,
but I am more in favor of using a modified dialysis machine that incorporates your idea about silver filters and member cosmictraveler's idea about applying IR or UV. Yet, many question remain (such as the ones I posed in post #2) and a stroll through the scientific literature is advisable if one wishes to elaborate the details of this idea.

Last, physiology and pathology are not my specialties either.
I think that member mat5592 is able to provide a more detailed answer.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Ascended

Just a thought here but could blood be filtered through certain types of metal filters, like silver for example, that we already know have anti-bacterial properties.

Yes, but what if the erythrocytes and leukocytes are greater in size then the strain (e.g. E. coli) one is trying to filter out? Would that not be problematic?

Err, I'm afraid your knowledge vastly exceeds mine with regard to that aspect.

Ok how about introducing some kind of friendly bacteria, that can be controlled, to out compete any of the more problematic or dangerous strains, I'm just running ideas here as again you're far more likely to beware whether such ideas could have any merit or are just impractical.

I do not think that introducing a friendly bacterial strain is effective,
given the fact that sepsis can be caused when bacteria (not necessarily (opportunistic) pathogens) are introduced into the cardiovascular system.

The sterilization of blood (via heat and/or via filters) might be an effective method,
but I am more in favor of using a modified dialysis machine that incorporates your idea about silver filters and member cosmictraveler's idea about applying IR or UV. Yet, many question remain (such as the ones I posed in post #2) and a stroll through the scientific literature is advisable if one wishes to elaborate the details of this idea.

Last, physiology and pathology are not my specialties either.
I think that member mat5592 is able to provide a more detailed answer.

I'm not one for detailed answers of things online, but I can add some input.

I don't think heating blood as a method to treat septicemia would be very effective and/or safe. Let's imagine that a patient gets food poisoning as a result of Salmonella typhi, which then progresses to a septicemia. According to this study (keep in mind it was performed on consumable meats, not humans, so it could vary), we would want to achieve a blood temperature of about 60 degrees Celsius for an extended period of time to effectively kill the organism. However, it seems that hemolysis, or lysis of the red blood cells, begins to occur at around 51 degrees Celsius. The entire practice of blood banking exists solely to prevent hemolytic transfusion reactions, so you can probably gather that this is not a good thing.

I am aware other organisms have both higher and lower temperatures which must be acquired to kill the organisms, meaning this method might work if the causative agent had a significantly lower level of thermal inactivation. I just randomly chose Salmonella typhi for my example.

As for the blood filter, if it's only filtering based on size, I can't imagine it would work as leukocytes, erythrocytes and even thrombocytes are much larger than any bacteria I've ever seen. If there was some property of the filter that targeted things specific to bacteria (I really have no idea), then maybe it could work.

Edit: Forgot to address the "introducing friendly bacteria question." Again, I wouldn't recommend this. There is no normal flora of the blood and any foreign object is probably seen as a threat to your immune system, so a response would occur. Heck, even other red blood cells (with unfamiliar antigens, of course) are seen as a threat to your immune system and destroyed, even though they pose no real danger.

Originally Posted by mat5592

As for the blood filter, if it's only filtering based on size, I can't imagine it would work as leukocytes, erythrocytes and even thrombocytes are much larger than any bacteria I've ever seen. If there was some property of the filter that targeted things specific to bacteria (I really have no idea), then maybe it could work.

Perhaps a filter that targets surface proteins via antibodies that are attached to a surface?

Blood and fluids such as urine are normally sterile - no bacteria present. If there are significant numbers of bacteria in the blood stream, you have a very sick person. Probably dying.

Most methods of killing bacteria, though, will also kill blood cells, and therefore kill the patient. This applies to both high temperature and ultra violet. This is why we use antibiotics, which are relatively harmless to humans. Finding alternatives to antibiotics is an ongoing program, and is not easy. Certainly, nothing as simple as heat or UV will do it.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by mat5592

As for the blood filter, if it's only filtering based on size, I can't imagine it would work as leukocytes, erythrocytes and even thrombocytes are much larger than any bacteria I've ever seen. If there was some property of the filter that targeted things specific to bacteria (I really have no idea), then maybe it could work.

Perhaps a filter that targets surface proteins via antibodies that are attached to a surface?

That might work somewhat, but again the filter must be large enough to allow things like monocytes to pass through, which are much much larger than bacteria. Even antibodies with the greatest affinities for specific antigens would have a hard time overcoming the potential distance between the two.

Originally Posted by mat5592

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by mat5592

As for the blood filter, if it's only filtering based on size, I can't imagine it would work as leukocytes, erythrocytes and even thrombocytes are much larger than any bacteria I've ever seen. If there was some property of the filter that targeted things specific to bacteria (I really have no idea), then maybe it could work.

Perhaps a filter that targets surface proteins via antibodies that are attached to a surface?

That might work somewhat, but again the filter must be large enough to allow things like monocytes to pass through, which are much much larger than bacteria. Even antibodies with the greatest affinities for specific antigens would have a hard time overcoming the potential distance between the two.

Well then, back to the drawing board!

Heating blood enough to kill bacteria will also kill the blood. In anycase the bacteria are rarely in the blood.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Are all bacteria solely in the blood?

I do not think so. I think you can get bacterial infections from your skin.

People here have gotten pretty severe ones by just walking in a water source they shouldn't have.

here is a little more information

bacterial skin infections

There was a Nobel Prize won for this idea in 1927!

1. Infect syphilis sufferers with malaria.

2. Malaria fever kills off the infection in about 4 days.

3. Quinine treats the malaria.

Admittedly, this wasn't the result of thinking about killing bacteria. It was a spin-off from trying to treat various forms of mental illness with heat treatments. But it worked. In the days before penicillin, this was a wonderful thing.

Julius Wagner-Jauregg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by adelady

There was a Nobel Prize won for this idea in 1927!

1. Infect syphilis sufferers with malaria.

2. Malaria fever kills off the infection in about 4 days.

3. Quinine treats the malaria.

Admittedly, this wasn't the result of thinking about killing bacteria. It was a spin-off from trying to treat various forms of mental illness with heat treatments. But it worked. In the days before penicillin, this was a wonderful thing.

Julius Wagner-Jauregg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting idea using one disease to kill off another, could this approach also work for artificially engineered protein molecules? In this way avoiding the negative side effects of another dangerous disease such as malaria but also maintaining the necessary antibacterial properties to successfully kill off bacterial infections that have become resistant to current antibiotics. So basically specifically designed to work around the bacterial resistance whilst still remaining harmless to the actual patient. I think I read a while ago that some molecules have already been synthesized that can mimic the defensive peptides acting against invading pathogens whilst they circulate in the blood.

Of course, quinine no longer works. Even the latest wonder drug for malaria, artemisinin, no longer works for a lot of malaria. And some malaria is lethal!

And some malaria is lethal!

Even at the time, the form of malaria they used had a 5% mortality rate. Seeing as tertiary syphilis was 100% fatal - and that only after a long period of misery and madness - people saw it as a worthwhile risk.

Originally Posted by adelady

There was a Nobel Prize won for this idea in 1927!

1. Infect syphilis sufferers with malaria.

2. Malaria fever kills off the infection in about 4 days.

3. Quinine treats the malaria.

Admittedly, this wasn't the result of thinking about killing bacteria. It was a spin-off from trying to treat various forms of mental illness with heat treatments. But it worked. In the days before penicillin, this was a wonderful thing.

Julius Wagner-Jauregg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

#3.....it helps with leg cramps..