Is it dangerous to ingest a small amount of another person's blood?
November 16, 2010 3:31 PM Subscribe
Is it dangerous to ingest a small amount of another person's blood?
Let us say that in my freezer I found a gelatin capsule filled with human blood. Would it be safe for me to consume it?
Let us say that in my freezer I found a gelatin capsule filled with human blood. Would it be safe for me to consume it?
The blood itself in small amounts won't do anything. It's a potential vector, though, for HIV, hepatitis, and any number of other diseases.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 3:36 PM on November 16, 2010 [6 favorites]
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 3:36 PM on November 16, 2010 [6 favorites]
It's very dangerous if that blood has any diseases in it. Ever just a drop of ingested blood could give you any number of virus or bacteria type infections.
Otherwise, it's pretty safe. Plenty of people drink blood from "donors." Animal blood is consumed fairly regularly throughout the world too.
posted by zephyr_words at 3:38 PM on November 16, 2010
Otherwise, it's pretty safe. Plenty of people drink blood from "donors." Animal blood is consumed fairly regularly throughout the world too.
posted by zephyr_words at 3:38 PM on November 16, 2010
I think you're fine so long as the person from whom the blood was taken did not have any blood-borne diseases.
It certainly seems like it would be safer than, say, a rare steak.
posted by wayland at 3:39 PM on November 16, 2010
It certainly seems like it would be safer than, say, a rare steak.
posted by wayland at 3:39 PM on November 16, 2010
I am not a doctor. I am also not easily grossed out.
Your problems arise from 1. blood, 2. any disease the person had and 3. pathogens that got in from obtaining the blood.
Blood in and of itself in small amounts will cause little side effects. Enough (a pint, give or take some ounces) will make you vomit, but that usually requires more than a "gelatin capsule" size. I suppose there is a far-off chance of an immune response due to blood-type issues, although I've seen nothing about ingesting a different blood type.
If the person who provided the blood had any blood-borne pathogens, you are inserting them directly into your mucus membranes. Expect to get any and all diseases that person carried. Hepatitis, HIV, HPV, CMV for starters. This list is long.
If the blood was not properly handled, expect there to be pathogens from bacteria. Staph, strep and some typically food-borne illnesses can hop in and affect the blood. Blood is a tasty treat for these types of bacteria and would thrive in the out-of-body environment. If the blood isn't clean in this regard, you are also setting yourself up for disaster.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 3:43 PM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]
Your problems arise from 1. blood, 2. any disease the person had and 3. pathogens that got in from obtaining the blood.
Blood in and of itself in small amounts will cause little side effects. Enough (a pint, give or take some ounces) will make you vomit, but that usually requires more than a "gelatin capsule" size. I suppose there is a far-off chance of an immune response due to blood-type issues, although I've seen nothing about ingesting a different blood type.
If the person who provided the blood had any blood-borne pathogens, you are inserting them directly into your mucus membranes. Expect to get any and all diseases that person carried. Hepatitis, HIV, HPV, CMV for starters. This list is long.
If the blood was not properly handled, expect there to be pathogens from bacteria. Staph, strep and some typically food-borne illnesses can hop in and affect the blood. Blood is a tasty treat for these types of bacteria and would thrive in the out-of-body environment. If the blood isn't clean in this regard, you are also setting yourself up for disaster.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 3:43 PM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]
As others have said, there are diseases to watch out for, but the Aztec included a little blood from human sacrifices in their cocoa drinks, and it didn't seem to do them any harm.
posted by ldthomps at 4:06 PM on November 16, 2010
posted by ldthomps at 4:06 PM on November 16, 2010
I, too, am not a doctor but I'm a biologist and occasionally work with blood samples.
I wrote out a post, previewed, then realised that Mister Fabulous has already said it all. The blood itself isn't dangerous or even particularly unpleasant but the diseases it could be carrying really, really are. Whether from the person themselves (most likely viruses that are capable of latent or chronic infections, such as those mentioned above) or from contamination of the samples through poor sample handling. Blood is a very nutritious medium for bacteria, so anything that gets in there will tend to thrive and produce huge numbers of swarming progeny.
So: If you found a gelatin capsule of blood from an unknown source, you'd be a little mad to expose yourself to it. Er... just in case you have someone specific in mind who's willing to give you some blood to ingest, I strongly suggest making very, very sure that this person has been thoroughly screened for as many blood-bourne diseases as possible. And once you've seen a suite of negative test results, inform yourself of the false negative rates of those tests.
posted by metaBugs at 4:15 PM on November 16, 2010
I wrote out a post, previewed, then realised that Mister Fabulous has already said it all. The blood itself isn't dangerous or even particularly unpleasant but the diseases it could be carrying really, really are. Whether from the person themselves (most likely viruses that are capable of latent or chronic infections, such as those mentioned above) or from contamination of the samples through poor sample handling. Blood is a very nutritious medium for bacteria, so anything that gets in there will tend to thrive and produce huge numbers of swarming progeny.
So: If you found a gelatin capsule of blood from an unknown source, you'd be a little mad to expose yourself to it. Er... just in case you have someone specific in mind who's willing to give you some blood to ingest, I strongly suggest making very, very sure that this person has been thoroughly screened for as many blood-bourne diseases as possible. And once you've seen a suite of negative test results, inform yourself of the false negative rates of those tests.
posted by metaBugs at 4:15 PM on November 16, 2010
I think maybe you just won the whole AskMe "can I eat this?" topic with this question.
posted by Jacqueline at 4:56 PM on November 16, 2010 [27 favorites]
posted by Jacqueline at 4:56 PM on November 16, 2010 [27 favorites]
In addition to the false negative rates of these tests, there are window period effects on most blood tests. Someone could have a blood-borne disease like HIV or Hepatitis or any number of pathogens and still test negative because they haven't had the disease long enough to be detected by the test yet.
I'd put the risk (IANAD) higher than eating rare beef. People eat Steak tartare (raw beef) without harm. Rare or raw beef might give you an e. coli infection or salmonella. Both are unpleasant to be sure, but are treatable conditions in most cases. Another person's blood might give you a serious untreatable disease. The severity of the risk is certainly greater.
posted by zachlipton at 5:02 PM on November 16, 2010
I'd put the risk (IANAD) higher than eating rare beef. People eat Steak tartare (raw beef) without harm. Rare or raw beef might give you an e. coli infection or salmonella. Both are unpleasant to be sure, but are treatable conditions in most cases. Another person's blood might give you a serious untreatable disease. The severity of the risk is certainly greater.
posted by zachlipton at 5:02 PM on November 16, 2010
Ingesting blood does put you at risk for blood-borne pathogens, but not for some of the more acutely dangerous problems of blood transfusions. Anything that goes in your gut isn't going to make it directly into your bloodstream, and the gut is actually a pretty damn inhospitable place. Blood is going to get broken down and digested before it makes it into your blood vessels. Even a lot of bacteria that make it into the gut never make it out again, it's just so acidic.
posted by valkyryn at 6:15 PM on November 16, 2010
posted by valkyryn at 6:15 PM on November 16, 2010
Ignoring the issue of pathogens, consuming a small amount of blood once doesn't represent any kind of health threat.
Consuming a significant quantity of blood on a frequent basis raises the possibility of iron poisoning.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:36 PM on November 16, 2010
Consuming a significant quantity of blood on a frequent basis raises the possibility of iron poisoning.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:36 PM on November 16, 2010
You probably won't turn into a vampire.
Expect to get any and all diseases that person carried. Hepatitis, HIV, HPV, CMV for starters.
Really? I know it's possible, but to expect to get them? Can HIV be contracted through the digestive tract? I'm not going to go drinking blood, but if there isn't a cut in your mouth or anywhere along the way, would you still 'expect' to get it?
posted by bluedaisy at 9:43 PM on November 16, 2010
Expect to get any and all diseases that person carried. Hepatitis, HIV, HPV, CMV for starters.
Really? I know it's possible, but to expect to get them? Can HIV be contracted through the digestive tract? I'm not going to go drinking blood, but if there isn't a cut in your mouth or anywhere along the way, would you still 'expect' to get it?
posted by bluedaisy at 9:43 PM on November 16, 2010
The CDC says,
"Scientists and medical authorities agree that HIV does not survive well outside the body, making the possibility of environmental transmission remote. ... dditionally, HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host (unlike many bacteria or fungi, which may do so under suitable conditions), except under laboratory conditions; therefore, it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host."
This reminded me that only 25% of women who have HIV will pass HIV to their children during birth when they are *not* taking retrovirals. (I thought it was 30% but found an article with some information here. It's from 1999, so perhaps there's new research, though I recall seeing this information more recently.)
So is the blood the host, or is the human body the host? Is HIV going to survive being frozen?
posted by bluedaisy at 9:56 PM on November 16, 2010
"Scientists and medical authorities agree that HIV does not survive well outside the body, making the possibility of environmental transmission remote. ... dditionally, HIV is unable to reproduce outside its living host (unlike many bacteria or fungi, which may do so under suitable conditions), except under laboratory conditions; therefore, it does not spread or maintain infectiousness outside its host."
This reminded me that only 25% of women who have HIV will pass HIV to their children during birth when they are *not* taking retrovirals. (I thought it was 30% but found an article with some information here. It's from 1999, so perhaps there's new research, though I recall seeing this information more recently.)
So is the blood the host, or is the human body the host? Is HIV going to survive being frozen?
posted by bluedaisy at 9:56 PM on November 16, 2010
There are living cells in blood which host HIV and reproduce it, such as T4 cells. Those cells continue to live in blood for quite a while after the blood is removed from the body.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 12:27 AM on November 17, 2010
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 12:27 AM on November 17, 2010
I'd be surprised if HIV survived freezing - the virus itself is quite wussy (its fatty outer coat, while great for efficiently entering cells, is quite susceptible to damage), and I wouldn't really expect lymphocytes to survive just being chucked into a -20 freezer without special treatment (that's cold enough for damaging ice crystals to form but still warm enough for various damaging chemical reactions to proceed) so production of new virus in the thawed blood shouldn't be a problem.
However, some of the other viruses (particularly those without a lipid envelope) tend to be somewhat tougher and are more likely to be left with viable particles after a freeze/thaw cycle. Various bacteria would have a similarly high chance of making it through.
Frankly, the stakes are sufficiently high that even given a very low probability of infectious particles/cells surviving, it's not a game I'd want to play.
posted by metaBugs at 8:48 AM on November 17, 2010
However, some of the other viruses (particularly those without a lipid envelope) tend to be somewhat tougher and are more likely to be left with viable particles after a freeze/thaw cycle. Various bacteria would have a similarly high chance of making it through.
Frankly, the stakes are sufficiently high that even given a very low probability of infectious particles/cells surviving, it's not a game I'd want to play.
posted by metaBugs at 8:48 AM on November 17, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by nadawi at 3:34 PM on November 16, 2010