I'd say that removal of the immune system qualifies as damage.
I'd say that removal of the immune system qualifies as damage.
It isn't though, as it's 'natural'. It would be no more 'damage' than a frog losing the tail it had as a tadpole.
I'd say that removal of the immune system qualifies as damage.
It isn't though, as it's 'natural'. It would be no more 'damage' than a frog losing the tail it had as a tadpole.
Sure it is. Losing its tail doesn't kill the frog.
A Jaffa has a functioning immune system when it's born. Giving them a symbiont forces them to lose that immune system, and afterward they can no longer survive without one. That counts as damage.
Rewatching SG1's Hathor tonight, I was wondering why the Jaffa never just used the sarcophagus to restore their immune systems?
They'd be human again and subject to illness and aging, but they'd also be free of Goa'uld dependence?
Is Tretonin the better option?
And while we're on the subject... Where is the SGC getting the goa'uld symbiotes to make the stuff if Egeria is dead? The Unas homeworld?
And while we're on the subject... Where is the SGC getting the goa'uld symbiotes to make the stuff if Egeria is dead? The Unas homeworld?
What about the Krull warrior type symbiotes? Blank slates but not intended to damage their host? Would they still take control of the host?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.