Royal blood. Would not witcher blood be better?

[Randomdrowner2015]

Royal blood. Would not witcher blood be better?

So, the cure for Saskia requires royal blood because supposedly it contains resilient genes (although this does not seem that likely relative to common blood from people that come from lines of healthy and strong people). But would not Geralts mutated blood be a lot more potent? Or is it simply poisonous to Saskia?

 

[CTPhipps]

Probably poisonous. We don't know what the hell is going on in Witcher's metabolisms since they regenerate like Wolverine.

It's also possible mages have been altering the DNA of the Royals for a long time to make them healthy and strong.

It's the kind of thing they'd do.

 

[Randomdrowner2015]

Probably poisonous. We don't know what the hell is going on in Witcher's metabolisms since they regenerate like Wolverine.

It's also possible mages have been altering the DNA of the Royals for a long time to make them healthy and strong.

It's the kind of thing they'd do.

Perhaps, but Saskia is, like everyone of her kind, supposedly highly resistant to poisons. But an explanation could be that witcher blood would be untested as a part of the cure and potentially have unwanted effects.

 

[CTPhipps]

Well Phillipa mentioned that the big problem is cancer.

Witcher blood being super-regenerative is like the ultimate cancer maker.

 

[GuyNwah]

Perhaps, but Saskia is, like everyone of her kind, supposedly highly resistant to poisons. But an explanation could be that witcher blood would be untested as a part of the cure and potentially have unwanted effects.

Exactly. Witcher blood cells carry somatic mutations that we know kill many of the humans they're attempted on, and Philippa would not want to be putting her protege at risk. Especially when she can put the always-expendable Geralt at risk.