Since Hiro twice found that he couldn't prevent someone's death, the waitress and his father, does this mean the blood wouldn't work on them???

Does destiny trump the miracle blood?

I guess the blood would work on the waitress, cure her brain thing (yeah, I can't remember exactly what was wrong, a tumor or something) but perhaps destiny would find another way to kill her. Kinda like Final Destination.

However, I think with the waitress, Hiro has learned his lesson.

I think the writers had the whole 'kaito - the fates demand it" thing in the same few episodes for a reason.

They are showing that yes there is miracle blood that can bring people back to life, however when it is your time to go there isn't much you can do about it.

I have faith in the writer definately not to use this when it shouldn't be.

i think the blood wont work if there is some objects in the person's body...just like claire's and peter's ability to regenerate

Good call. It wouldn't have saved Charlie (the waitress) then, since she did have an object in her brain (it was an impending embolism). That was definitely a fate thing; no matter what Hiro did, she would die anyway.

It's not really miracle blood per se, though. They rapidly regenerate their cells. There are certain things that, due to biology, they won't be able to repair. The fact that Mohinder said Claire's blood fortified his antibodies "just enough" to cure Nikki probably means that their blood is useless against the much stronger strain Adam is trying to release. Viruses create their own genome, so if that strain replicates faster than Claire/Adam regenerate new cells, it would overtake them as well, eventually.

If anything replicates faster than they can regenerate, we're screwed, whether it's a virus or not...

point well taken though. The miracle blood might be able to reverse death, but perhaps the virus is stronger even than that. Heh.

That's what I'm thinking. They regenerate extremely fast, but some viriuses can replicate in unbelievable time spans.

if this is the case then the whole 'blood is the cure' idea is useless

That's what I think, especially with Mohinder saying Claire's blood foritied his antibodies "just enough", or something along those lines, to cure Nikki. Nikki doesn't even have the extremely deadly strain Adam is after, either. That and there wouldn't be enough blood to go around if the virus got out, anyway. We still don't have the technology to duplicate blood exactly, and I'm assuming the company doesn't either, otherwise Mohinder would have already.

In a slightly unrelated but similar line of thought.. I figured how Sylar kills Claire in Five Years Gone. He consistently applies pressure after slicing open the head, to prevent the cells from regenerating and make it seem as though something was stuck in between her skull. I guess Sylar could do that as well, to Adam if they ever cross paths, and if Sylar doesn't die.

P.S. I think I'm a bit slow.

How do you know she's actually dead.

You see him slice her head... But you don't actually see her deaded.

It's sylar...she's dead

i think hiro can easily save any one he wants by travelling to the past.
eg, claire.

but perhaps his father has taught him the ethics of playing God and trying to change what is meant to be that he decided not to save his father.

claire's blood should be able to save anyone. perhaps when the dead body is still intact in some extent. you cant inject blood into skeleton or ashes.

one thing im unsure of is that if someone lost his brain (sylared), will the blood be able to regenerate the brain??

Its Claire... she can heal.

Claire's blood should (technically) be able to save anyone if it were brought to them, regardless of where or *when* they are.

But it won't.

Why won't it won't?

You mean, why wouldn't it won't.

Circumstances will never come about to make it possible. Technically Hiro could have just grabbed his dad, teleported him forward in time, and refused to bring him back to the moment of his death. There is nothing 'physically' in the Heroes universe to make that impossible. All that prevented him was his own internal realization that it ought not happen that way and therefore he takes no action to necessitate that it happen in such a fashion.

Similarly, anyone who might be in a circumstance to time travel back and use the blood on someone who died would face the same situation. As far as we understand the blood and how it works, there is no 'physical' reason that it wouldn't be able to resurrect someone. However it never will be used because the character who would use it will come to an understanding (or, if you want to talk sheerly temporally from a universal perspective, the character will have come to an understanding) that it ought not be used and therefore, they won't take any action that necessitates it happening.

See if I can clarify this a little bit... tomorrow when I wake up, I will know what time I went to bed tonight. However, the fact that I know what time that will be tomorrow doesn't in any way affect the fact that I still have to go to bed today. If, somehow, my tomorrow-self came back and told me I'd go to bed at 10, it wouldn't change the fact that I would still have to decide to go sleep at that time. I am simultaneously fated to go to bed at 10 (since my future self knows that's when I'll go) AND it is completely in my power to choose when to go to bed (since I haven't gotten to that moment).

What my future self knows, temporally, is entirely determined by what my present self does - not the other way around.

Likewise: It would be wrong to say that "before he travels back to save Kaito, Hiro knows that he is dead. Therefore nothing that he does can change his father's death." That would be looking at it from Hiro's perspective. However, it is Kaito who is concerned here, and Kaito travels linearly forward through time. The correct statement would be "Kaito encounters his son who has time-traveled to save him. However Hiro ends up concluding that it is best to let his father die in his appointed time. Therefore, when later on Hiro realizes his father was in danger in the past and goes to travel to stop him, his father is already dead."

The past, in that it is past, cannot be changed. The past can be changed only in that it is present.

... hope that makes some kind of sense.


edit: another way to look at it. I can't go back in time and stop Lincoln from being assassinated. But I could go back and stop my dad from being killed by a bus 30 years ago (before I was born) - because he's alive today. If a bus would have hit him were I not back in time to save him, then I really could save my dad. I could change the past in that it was present. But not in that it is past: I couldn't go back 30 years ago and kill my dad. =p Not that I'd want to.

Another way of putting it is that if your future self went back and persuaded you to go to bed at 0930 instead, then your future self wouldn't have the knowledge that you went to bed at 1000... because you didn't!

Yeah, a tumor named Sylar
Like I remember, he cut her head open