Full Version: When Vampires take blood
When a Vampire takes blood from a victom, do they get the person's blood disease,like AIDS or Ebola? If not, is it because the blood is digested instead of introduced to the blood system itself? If not, what soed happen to the disease itself since vampires don't seem to excrete?
You know, I'm not really sure.
If you are refering to classical Vampires I personally think they wouldn't get the illness or if they did it would introduce itself into their body in a different form then it would in humans... perhaps it would reflect as more of a serious flu or perhaps the illness would be mutated creating some other problems for them as their gentic makeup (I think) would be quite different to ours.
As for our human vampires like Energy Vampires or lifestyle Vampires... I think exposure to illness would produce the same results in them as it would any other person.
If you are refering to classical Vampires I personally think they wouldn't get the illness or if they did it would introduce itself into their body in a different form then it would in humans... perhaps it would reflect as more of a serious flu or perhaps the illness would be mutated creating some other problems for them as their gentic makeup (I think) would be quite different to ours.
As for our human vampires like Energy Vampires or lifestyle Vampires... I think exposure to illness would produce the same results in them as it would any other person.
I reckon that this question could be answered (in one possible way) by modeling an answer on examples based on natural history.
As vampires supposedly have a physiology that is dependent on the infusion of living blood from a host then we could possibly look to the examples of the mosquito, flea and (vampire) bat.
The two former organisms encounter viruses and pathogens that may be deadly to any species specific host, in fact they (mosquito and flea) are noted and widely responsible for spreading contagions and diseases such as malaria and plague. However, these organisms suffer no ill effects from encountering and carrying these diseases.
So, if we base a logical presumption on the basis that vampires are indeed significantly different in physiology to that of humans, then they would probably not suffer any ill effect when encountering a human disease that is transmissble by ingesting blood.
However, if we look to the example of the vampire bat, then we have a different proposition. As vampires are seen as a form of human, or at least based on a human physiology, then their genetic make-up must be similar (to a lesser or greater degree) If this is the case, then as with vampire bats, they would be at risk of contracting some diseases. For instance, rabies is a transgenic disease that is communicable between most (if not all) mammalian species. Although with this said, a species that is so specialised in regards to its feeding requirements may well form some kind of immunity to communicable disease through a process of natural genetic evolution.
Anyway, this is just one possible idea, but if we assume that vampires are indeed the undead then we would be fairly safe to assume that diseases that affect the living would be of no consequence to a (re-animated) corpse.
As vampires supposedly have a physiology that is dependent on the infusion of living blood from a host then we could possibly look to the examples of the mosquito, flea and (vampire) bat.
The two former organisms encounter viruses and pathogens that may be deadly to any species specific host, in fact they (mosquito and flea) are noted and widely responsible for spreading contagions and diseases such as malaria and plague. However, these organisms suffer no ill effects from encountering and carrying these diseases.
So, if we base a logical presumption on the basis that vampires are indeed significantly different in physiology to that of humans, then they would probably not suffer any ill effect when encountering a human disease that is transmissble by ingesting blood.
However, if we look to the example of the vampire bat, then we have a different proposition. As vampires are seen as a form of human, or at least based on a human physiology, then their genetic make-up must be similar (to a lesser or greater degree) If this is the case, then as with vampire bats, they would be at risk of contracting some diseases. For instance, rabies is a transgenic disease that is communicable between most (if not all) mammalian species. Although with this said, a species that is so specialised in regards to its feeding requirements may well form some kind of immunity to communicable disease through a process of natural genetic evolution.
Anyway, this is just one possible idea, but if we assume that vampires are indeed the undead then we would be fairly safe to assume that diseases that affect the living would be of no consequence to a (re-animated) corpse.
QUOTE (3 scars @ Apr 8 2005, 04:48 AM)
I reckon that this question could be answered (in one possible way) by modeling an answer on examples based on natural history.
As vampires supposedly have a physiology that is dependent on the infusion of living blood from a host then we could possibly look to the examples of the mosquito, flea and (vampire) bat.
The two former organisms encounter viruses and pathogens that may be deadly to any species specific host, in fact they (mosquito and flea) are noted and widely responsible for spreading contagions and diseases such as malaria and plague. However, these organisms suffer no ill effects from encountering and carrying these diseases.
So, if we base a logical presumption on the basis that vampires are indeed significantly different in physiology to that of humans, then they would probably not suffer any ill effect when encountering a human disease that is transmissble by ingesting blood.
However, if we look to the example of the vampire bat, then we have a different proposition. As vampires are seen as a form of human, or at least based on a human physiology, then their genetic make-up must be similar (to a lesser or greater degree) If this is the case, then as with vampire bats, they would be at risk of contracting some diseases. For instance, rabies is a transgenic disease that is communicable between most (if not all) mammalian species. Although with this said, a species that is so specialised in regards to its feeding requirements may well form some kind of immunity to communicable disease through a process of natural genetic evolution.
Anyway, this is just one possible idea, but if we assume that vampires are indeed the undead then we would be fairly safe to assume that diseases that affect the living would be of no consequence to a (re-animated) corpse.
As vampires supposedly have a physiology that is dependent on the infusion of living blood from a host then we could possibly look to the examples of the mosquito, flea and (vampire) bat.
The two former organisms encounter viruses and pathogens that may be deadly to any species specific host, in fact they (mosquito and flea) are noted and widely responsible for spreading contagions and diseases such as malaria and plague. However, these organisms suffer no ill effects from encountering and carrying these diseases.
So, if we base a logical presumption on the basis that vampires are indeed significantly different in physiology to that of humans, then they would probably not suffer any ill effect when encountering a human disease that is transmissble by ingesting blood.
However, if we look to the example of the vampire bat, then we have a different proposition. As vampires are seen as a form of human, or at least based on a human physiology, then their genetic make-up must be similar (to a lesser or greater degree) If this is the case, then as with vampire bats, they would be at risk of contracting some diseases. For instance, rabies is a transgenic disease that is communicable between most (if not all) mammalian species. Although with this said, a species that is so specialised in regards to its feeding requirements may well form some kind of immunity to communicable disease through a process of natural genetic evolution.
Anyway, this is just one possible idea, but if we assume that vampires are indeed the undead then we would be fairly safe to assume that diseases that affect the living would be of no consequence to a (re-animated) corpse.
That is a very thoughtfull answer thanks. Anyone have anything to add or dieagree?
well you can go by what your told if you want but if youve seen interview with a vampire, louis goes into claudias house and turns her into one of them Claudias mother was killed by a disease yet it wasnt passed on to lestat, louis, or claudia who had come into phyiscal contact with. but thats just a movie personally i think they cant be harmed by disease. :icon11:
I don't really know myself...well,I think you can if the person does have this particular disease.This is just an estimate on this of course.
Darkvamp6791-Shelby
Darkvamp6791-Shelby
One of those considered "vampire creators" (just writers though...) said vampires, as inmortal beings do not get affected by any sickness at all.
But I think they do, considering most "vampires" are common human vampire - lifestylers.
But I think they do, considering most "vampires" are common human vampire - lifestylers.
well i agree with ravager on the lifestylers version... a human who drinks blood technically.....
but supernatural ones? it all depends on which kind you subscribe too doesnt it?
but supernatural ones? it all depends on which kind you subscribe too doesnt it?
gievn that vampires are clinically dead, I wouldn't think they mind having diseases. actually it conjuers up a rather cool image of a vampire who's a walking petri dish, host to a million different diseases.
Charlene Harris in her Southern Vampire series has the vamps subject to a disease transmitable by ingesting blood via infected donors. As a side I believe that Kim Harrison is my new fav vamp writer. Her first is "Dead Witch Walking." Try it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.