Is the saliva of person at "window period" riskier than saliva of persons out of that period? (SALIVA)
Dear Dr Bob, First, I would like to express my appreciation to your continuous effort to help all of us finding the truth about HIV. I have found nearly all of your posts on "saliva" but it seems my following question has not been asked and answered before. I hope, you could help me to answer this question. I have learned much about HIV, and I have seen a lot of scientists say that "The concentration of viruses at the window period and the AIDS stage is the highest". As a lot of posts you reply to people on this website, the answer is always "there is no risk when being exposed to saliva". But I'm not sure if that statement is true for "saliva" of all stages: window period, HIV period, AIDS period or the saliva couldn't only transmit during HIV period and it still could transmit HIV during the window and AIDS period because of the highest concentration viruses (as I said above). So I'm wondering that if I'm exposed to the Saliva of a person whose HIV+, how much risk am I facing? Please, tell me because yesterday, I was exposed to saliva of a person, and I'm not sure he's HIV+ at window period or not. I'm looking forward to your response.
Saliva does not transmit HIV, unless it contains visible HIV-tainted blood. This includes "saliva of all stages." The only potential exception involves infants ingesting pre-chewed food from an HIV-positive mom. (See below.)
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH RESEARCHERS? MAKE UP THEIR MIND!!!! May 14, 2008
IT HAS LONG BEEN SAID THAT HIV IS NOT TRANSMITTED BY SALIVA. BUT NEW STUDIES SHOW THAT IT CAN TRANSMIT HIV... http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/2333 WHO SHOULD WE BELIEVE? I HAD A FAIRLY RISKY EXPERIENCE WHICH INCLUDED SALIVA. THE MAN FINGERED MY ANUS WITH A CONDOM ON HIS FINGER, BUT USED HIS SPIT AS LUBE. I CAN'T SLEEP DOC. SHOULD I GET TESTED?
Response from Dr. Frascino
Hey Hillary Supporter,
This is not a problem of researchers' being unable to make up their minds, but rather researchers' discovering new information. If we had had more funds dedicated to HIV/AIDS research, prevention and care, we would have known these facts long ago. But Dubya decided spending $5,000 per second (yes, $5,000 per second) on his disastrous war in Iraq was more important. Researchers, not only for HIV/AIDS, but also cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, autism and all other ailments, need to get by with what can be squeezed out of national budgets.
The information you referenced is new, but should not be alarming, in terms of your "spit as lube" experience. In general, saliva that does not contain visible blood is not considered a risk for HIV transmission. The report by the CDC of three African-American infants born in the U.S. who contracted HIV presumably via pre-chewed food suggest that chewing may increase the HIV concentrations in saliva. There is also the possibility that these moms had bleeding gums and transmitted the virus via blood, rather than saliva. Also, it's important to note that newborn infants have different immune mechanisms than adults. The immaturity of their immune systems may well put them at greater risk.
The bottom line on your bottom's risk activity (so to speak) is that your HIV risk assessment would not change based on this new data, OK?
Finally, Hillary would have made a fine president, but Obama will be even better. Hillary should take a few victory laps with her win in West Virginia, finish out the primaries and then bow out gracefully and step in line behind our next president . . . OBAMA!