Alumbrado
Posts: 5560
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BoiJen quote:
ORIGINAL: lucern I have heard that HIV can be transmitted through saliva, but that's more of a theoretical. HIV can exist in small quantities there, but that it would take like 20 gallons of exposure to trasmit it. That would be like a small bath tub of saliva. (ew lol). On top of that, our own saliva has characteristics that protect us from microbes, making it even less likely to be transmitted via mouth-to-mouth. The eye has some protection as well. The virus can, however, be transferred via a bite. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/transmission.htm I LOVE how up-to-date the CDC is on their theories. Check that copywrite of July 1999. Meidcal information almost ten years old there. More recent studies are finding that the need for active blood to active (or "live) bloob is required to transmit the virus. "Well, Jen, how does that work for sex of any kind then?" Answer: Male-to-Male/Female Anal Sex: when a penis gets "hard" blood vessals "pop" and breaks along the uretha, introducing blood into semen. During anal sex there are soft tears and rips along the colon and sphincter. Blood at that point in time can be transmitted and give exposure. Male-Females Vaginal Sex: Same as the anal...except another hole. Mother-to-Child Breastfeeding: Often infants and newborns do not have the same anti-body and natural protections built in as adults. During breastfeeding there are trace amounts of blood in the milk that help provide those anti-bodies. In the case of a child becoming infected this way, a child is exposed and does not have the natural protections an adult would in their own saliva and are exposed in to the virus the same way they would be exposed to anti-bodies that are designed to help them survive childhood. These reasons are why lesbians are not known for transmitting HIV. It's also the same reason that tears, sweat, urine, and saliva don't transmit the virus (no blood presence in the fluids normally) under normal circumstances. Blow jobs are generally considered "safer" than unprotected anal sex with an HIV+ partner. Does this mean go blow the next homeless guy out there cuz you can? No, it means be safe and protect yourself....and remember that bites MAY have the possibility to transmit in extreme circumstances. Boi...who did HIV outreach and thinks the CDC is full of shit for publishing theory as fact and then not keeping up-to-date information. Not justtheory, and I'm not sure what the date of the research has to do with anything.. did they discover later that the people diagnosed in 1992 suddenly did not have the infection? quote:
As of September 30, 1992, CDC had received reports of 32 health-care workers in the United States with documented occupationally acquired HIV infection and 69 with possible occupationally acquired HIV infection. Among those with documented occupationally acquired HIV infection, 27 (84%) had percutaneous exposure, four (13%) had mucocutaneous exposure, and one (3%) had both percutaneous and mucocutaneous exposures. Thirty were exposed to HIV-infected blood, one to concentrated infectious HIV, and one had a percutaneous exposure to an unspecified fluid from an unknown source patient. Seven (22%) of these workers have developed AIDS. Of the 69 health-care workers classified with possible occupationally acquired HIV infection, four (6%) had occupational exposures to blood of patients known to be HIV-infected or to research laboratory specimens known to contain infectious HIV. Of the remaining 65, none reported exposure to blood or body fluids known to be HIV infected. Of these 69 workers, 54 (78%) have developed AIDS. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00017905.htm On the OP, as long as medical personnel are wearing protective gear against the threat of blood borne hazards, no matter how miniscule the risk, the courts are bound to consider the spitting assault to be more serious... it isn't the court's place to make new science. The 3 strikes laws are another thread altogether.
|