An Infectious Cure Essay

Part 1 Questions1. The Europeans poured imbibe poured something into the remains of pee which sterilized the pissing and killed the toxins that become disruptive in the digestive system when they are consumed. They Europeans whitethorn have poured what are c bothed oral rehydration salts into the well, which quickly works are rubbishting the cholera, and pull up stakes pr stillt further verbotenbreaks from pass byring.2. Ethical issues that are raised by burbling the treatment into the wells without the consent of otherwises is that nation should be entitled to opt whether or not they want to play their lives by consuming a mystery remediation. The villagers have no idea what is universe poured into the wells, which further tidy sum the line could throw different health issues, and in turn lot wont know where to begin to find a cure if they are unsure of what caused it. Bottom line, it takes away the persons proper(ip) to hold whether or not they want to accept the cure. For pillow slip flu vaccines are readily avail qualified, but people still choose not to receive nonpareil out of fear that it get out enkindle the standardizedlihood of having the flu that season. The only pointor that makes it more ethical is the fact that it worked and no proboscis else became sick, but that should make people more skeptical cunning that their drinking water is 100 percent accessible and easy to fiddle with.3. The Europeans were not justified in imposing their cure on the villagers. Yes the cure may have worked in Europe, but since it had only come oned angiotensin-converting enzyme clock, they may not know if their cure was really what helped in their stance. It could have been something altogether different that went unaccounted for. They definitely could have taken other steps onwards that would have made it more acceptable, such as in makeing the people of what they were doing and asking for permission. The elder had every right to d rain the well out of fear that the Europeans could have been tampering with it and making the situation worse.4. It is not portion to force a cure on a population. It takes away peoples choice. As long as people are educated to the highest degree the situation and their options, they should be able to choose. Like with the Fluoride situation, the water in the area is not their only source of drinking water, families could very easily buy bottled water in nightclub toprevent ingesting what they fear to be tampered with water.5. It is clear that some(prenominal) the Europeans poured into the well did help the villagers. Since they isolated the drinking water to only one well, and people stayed away from the dyed water it helped to prove their validity practically(prenominal) more, since the people did in fact get better after a few days and no new cases had occurred. The results were not scientifically accredited since thither is still an amount of doubt since there was only o ne other trial. I would say the results are more indicative than anything since there was really nothing formal about the process.Part 2 Questions1. I would say the villagers would needs to drink from the water repeatedly in order to speed up the production of the bacterio bacterio bacteriophages killing the harmful bacterium. The basis of my solvent is that if a villager already displayed the symptoms of cholera and only drank the water once that it would be in utile. The symptoms of cholera include vomiting and diarrhea which means the newly ingested water with the cure would quickly be expelled from the body.2. People could see improvement as quickly as a day. They may not be bear out to 100 percent, but the symptoms forget slowly start to go away. It all depends on how many phages are consumed and their rate of production. Very quickly they fuck multiply. I would expect the effectiveness to increase over condemnation in an individual and indeed by the time they are better, the bacteriophages testament have no more cholera bacteria to feed off of and then the phages will slowly die off because they rely solely on bacteria in order to survive.3. Yes the process of viral and bacterial co-evolution will continue indefinitely because both will continue to grow, modify, and adapt to changes that the other has made.4. No the villagers should not be pushed that this virus will cause damage to their catguts because that is solely what cholera targets, and the purpose of the phages are to combat the cholera bacteria, which would in turn help their intestines.5. The release of a toxin from the cholera bacteria is what causes people to experience the dreadful symptoms. A negative health concern of killing the cholera at a quick rate is that since the phages will prevent symptoms from increasingly becoming worse, the dead cholera in the intestine may sitthere for a longer amount of time instead of running straight through the person which may do more damage to the intestine.6. Humans should not be concerned about the bacteriophages infecting other cells because each bacteriophage is particular to a certain bacteria. If the bacterial cell exhibits traits that are desirable to the certain bacteriophage, then the phage will chose to bind and infect it, otherwise people have nothing to fretting about.7. If the bacteria became lysogenic, people would see improvements much faster, because more phages are being produced to combat the cholera bacteria.8. Eventually the bacteriophages will die in the intestine since there will be no more bacteria to combat and live off of.9. A risk to phage therapy is that the virus and bacteria both evolve over time. Using this method more much may cause the viruss to evolve more quickly. If that is to happen there will be new problems to solve.10. The next bacterium that is infect will actually produce more cholera and make the symptoms occur even more quickly. The affected human will become even sicker and could possibly die.11. Given this information I would still try the phage therapy. The symptoms would be awful, and I would be willing to try anything for a chance for the symptoms to get better. I would say this is a safe and effective form of treatment under monitoring.Part 3 Questions1. The phage treatment had much quicker and effective results than the antibiotics.2. Factors of the human body that could alter the effectiveness of the phage treatment would be temperature, acidity, and the strength of the immune system. These factors could have different effectuate on the phages. The results would be different for each person, since the internal environment is different from person to person given the situation.3. Advantages to antibiotics are that they still work, just not at the fastest rate. You know exactly what is being put into your body and how it is supposed to work.4. Advantages to phages is that they work at a faster rate than antibiotics, they attack the cell and get right to work whereas the bacteria often has time to adapt and keep reproducing with an antibiotic.Part 4 Questions1. Advantages to phage treatment able to reach parts of the body quicker than antibiotics, the rate at which it kills the bacteria is much faster, phage treatment is very individualized which is better for people. Dis proceedss to phage treatment takes longer to create, which may not be quick ample to combat certain diseases, more expensive, requires more testing. Advantages to antibiotics they are more universal, empennage be created quicker, cheaper for the consumer, still effective (just not to the same extent as phage treatment) Disadvantages to antibiotics they take longer to become effective, cannot access all areas of the body like phages can.2. Yes there are some diseases that lend themselves more to phage therapy such as salmonella and other types of food poisoning that target limited areas of the body. And yes there are some infections that lend themselves more to antibiotic therapy like a simple cold, or an ear infection. Antibiotics are more than able-bodied of handling something simple like that. It is when infections become more serious and poisonous to a persons health that other methods of treatment should be discovered.3. Yes I figure restrictions on phage therapy should be loosened. It may cost more, but there are people willing to pay the price for more effective treatments. As long as the phage therapy is being used for the greater good, then I say why not take advantage of it.