Question: Hello!!



I would like to ask you a serious question!

With the newest sensitive HIV PCR viral load test HIV could be detected in saliva and in early HIV stage in high concentration as free floating infectious viruses and virus-infected white blood cells (lymphocytes)

And is a small amount of saliva potential enough to transmit HIV if for example saliva contains 10 000 or 20 000 copies/ ml an during conversation with HIV infected person a very small amount of saliva hits your eye, as 1ml – equal to 1 cm³ and if during the conversation with infected person in your eye gets small splash amount 1 mm³ ( 0,001ml) and it is 1000 times less virus than in 1 ml so you get 10 to 20 copies of HIV virus – and if inhibition works well there should no transmission risk? Is it true? And if inhibition doesn’t occur is 10 HIV copies potentially enough to transmit HIV trough eye contact?

It is also very important to understand there has no case of HIV transmitted by saliva and eye contact

However, there is absolutely no epidemiological evidence to suggest that spitting on someone could expose them to enough HIV for infection to result
http://www.aidsmap.com/Non-sexual-HIV-exposure-or-transmission/page/0000/#item0000

Theoretically, it could be transmitted in saliva or with a cough or sneeze, since the bodily fluids involved also carry the virus. But no such case of transmission has ever been reported.
http://consumer.healthday.com/encyclopedia/drug-center-16/misc-drugs-news-218/hiv-and-aids-647692.html




Publications below explain facts about – inhibition and HIV viral load in saliva




HIV viral load in saliva during the early HIV infection stage !

In 7 out of 8 cases, free floating infectious virus could be detected at an average level of 2,000 copies per ml, and in 5 out of 8 cases cell associated virus could be detected at an average level of 20,000 copies per ml.
However, some individuals in this study had virus levels as high as 500,000 copies in saliva, suggesting that during the early weeks of infection some individuals may be ‘super-excretors’ of HIV, and may play a significant role in the ongoing amplification of the HIV epidemic.

http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-present-in-saliva-during-early-weeks-of-infection/page/0000/



But it is proved that saliva contain inhibiting factors more than 15 components involve in it


The average % inhibition is 75 % it was discovered studies

We observed the mean highest levels of inhibitory activity against HIV-1 in whole saliva (75%)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/


Also bacteria can inhibit HIV

These findings suggest that HGP44 of P. gingivalis can inhibit HIV-1 infection by blocking HIV-1 entry
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/#!po=86.3636






But there is proved evidence that HIV in saliva is effectively inhibited by low molecule weight and high molecule weight is inhibited in less extent.


Mucous saliva, as well as serous saliva, contained high molecular weight components that reduced HIV-1-infectivity, at least partially by entrapment of the virus particles. Lower molecular weight components in all types of saliva possessed strong HIV-1 neutralizing capacity. Using pro-viral DNA synthesis by reverse transcription as a discrimination point in the replication cycle, the results indicated that part of the saliva samples acted before, but others after, this point. In conclusion, saliva inhibits HIV-1-infection by the action of high molecular weight components in combination with low molecular weight components from serous as well as mucous saliva, affecting different stages of the infection cycle.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/0000


And in study it is proved that most effective inhibition is in HIV molecule weight 80 to 40 kDa


Fractionation of parotid saliva (data not shown) revealed HIV inhibitory activity at protein peaks corresponding to 80 and 40 kDa only, also suggesting that the majority of SLPI activity in whole saliva may not be derived from parotid saliva.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/#!po=50.0000


The question – if a small amount gets in saliva it would be a low HIV molecule weight or high molecule weighs – because it is very important for effective HIV inhibition.



And in early infection stage in saliva is high viral load with 20 000 to 500 000 copies/ml – these would low molecule weight and would be effective inhibited ?

Is there have been determined in what concentration of HIV in saliva is inhibited and what concentration it to high to occur inhibition ?

SLPI levels were observed in HIV subjects 193.342 ng/mL
http://www.jpalliativecare.com/article.asp?issn=0973-1075;year=2014;volume=20;issue=1;spage=26;epage=30;aulast=Pushpanshu#ref2

Secretory leucocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI) has
been isolated in human parotid secretions (Thompson
and Ohlsson, 1986). It is a non-glycosylated protein
secreted by acinar epithelial cells of the submucosal
glands and can inhibit HIV replication in vitro at
physiological concentrations. This inhibition is physiological and dose dependent, with a maximum inhibition at 1–10 lg ml)1
(>90% inhibition of retrotranscription activity).
http://www.ip.usp.br/portal/images/stories/Nepaids/oral_transmi.pdf



Is saliva light molecule weight inhibited in 75 % level or more?

Saliva rapidly disrupted 90% or more of blood mononuclear leukocytes and other cultured cells. Concomitantly, there was a 10000-fold or higher inhibition of the multiplication of HIV and surrogate viruses. Further experiments indicated that the cell disruption is due to the hypotonicity of saliva:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/0000



And can we say if we don’t see blood in saliva it is not material that would transmit HIV because virus would be inhibited by saliva components.


But although HIV is present in saliva, the components described above inhibit the ability of HIV to infect new cells. Unless there is visible blood in saliva, it is not considered a body fluid through which HIV can be transmitted
http://www.aidsmap.com/Saliva/page/0000/





I hoop you can help me find the true

Thank you for your help

Than you very much about answer!

It makes me little bit more calm

There are some things that I would like to understand to be sure of transmission risks!
So I wont get infection form very small 1 mm³ saliva hitting my eye even HIV viral load is 500 000 copies/ml in early HIV stage of infective person – because inhibition factors and others protective mechanism in saliva will reduce transmission risk. Is it so ? An amount of viral material is low, is it important ?

Because there has been no case of HIV transmission – by casual contact.

As I understand those who say they don’t know how they get infected by HIV are hiding the real risk of infection.




But there could be rather high levels in saliva!
1. But still please look on these numbers in publication where viral load in saliva is rather high and in some cases higher is saliva than in blood – please look in FIG.1 in publication it is rather often higher than 1000 copies/ml and higher than 10 000 copies/ml – but using RT-PCR test method compared to NASBA test method they found out that some samples was partial inhibited by 67 %
And the only mechanism to protect HIV infection is inhibition is its so?
And is it important to how much volume on infection material you get – the lower amount the lover risk of infection? That is why even HIV could be found in saliva in high levels it won’t transmit from 1 mm³ of saliva?
And even not only 75 % of inhibition protect form saliva HIV transmission but other chemical composts work against successful HIV transmission agents by saliva. Is it so?
So can we say even HIV viral load in saliva is high the transmission risks are low?
Because inhibition factors and other factors make saliva a low transmission rate material! Is it so?

Increased viral load in seminal plasma, cervical fluid, breast milk, and, potentially, saliva, likely contributes to increased transmission risks.
Although in most cases viral load was higher in blood than in the corresponding body fluid (Fig. (Fig.1B1B and C), there were clear cases of hyperproduction of HIV RNA in nonblood compartments relative to blood in a few individuals, especially in seminal plasma (Fig. (Fig.1A)1A) and saliva (Fig. (Fig.1D).1D).

Partial inhibition was frequently observed when saliva (67% inhibited) and breast milk (38% inhibited) were assayed by RT-PCR, as evidenced by low recovery of the internal quantitation standard (QS) used for calculating viral load (Table (Table1).1).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC86455/#!po=50.0000



2. And in some cases virus is higher in saliva than blood

Compared with non-hyper-excretors (n = 62), hyper-excretors (n = 5) had elevated levels of viral RNA in unfiltered saliva and saliva-derived cells, HIV-associated periodontal disease, gingival inflammation, and no combination ART. Morphological characterization of cell pellets identified lymphocytes as a likely HIV-1 source. These collective findings are consistent with an oral HIV-1 reservoir in selected individuals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/0000/


3.And some say that risk is higher even viral load is low – because saliva has higher HIV level than blood.
. Some patients are hyper-excretors [5] they have high levels of infectious HIV in their saliva than in blood. These hyper-excretors may be at risk of transmitting the virus to their partners even though the blood viral load is low.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/#B7


4.And as I mentioned in early stage viral load in saliva could be very high – and they say it could potential risk material, is it so ?
However, some individuals in this study had virus levels as high as 500,000 copies in saliva, suggesting that during the early weeks of infection some individuals may be ‘super-excretors’ of HIV, and may play a significant role in the ongoing amplification of the HIV epidemic.
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-present-in-saliva-during-early-weeks-of-infection/page/0000/




5.And if we look on inhibition level as 75 % than from 10 000 copies/ml it would leave 2500 copies and if you get 1 mm³ that is 1000 times less amount, you get 2 viral HIV particles, can they transmit virus? Or transmission level is very low ?



6.In one diploma work there was mentioned that it should be only 100 viral particles to transmit HIV compared to C hepatitis where only 10 particles could transmit disease ! Can it be true?
Is it so than you need more HIV virus particles to get infection compared to C hepatitis? Because C hepatitis is ten times more infective – this is because there is usually more C hepatitis virus in blood, or because C hepatitis is more infective as virus itself ?


Similar to HCV, whole saliva from patients with HIV infection may be infectious. It has been postulated that only 100 viral particles might be required for infection (http://www.rki.de). Nevertheless, the exact infective dose has not been determined yet. Kissing and biting as possible ways of transmission of HIV thus cannot be excluded. Indeed, transmission of HIV-1 by biting has been reported
https://www.google.lv/#q=Diploma+Thesis+DETERMINATION+OF+HCV+AND+HIV-1+RNA+IN+WHOLE+SALIVA+SPECIMENS+submitted+by+Jasmin+Wagner+Mat.+Nr.+0000



7.Decreasing SLIP levels decrease inhibition rate


Depletion from SLPI filtered saliva produced a corresponding loss of inhibitory activity. In general, filtered whole salivas obtained from 10 donors had antiviral activities that correlated positively with SLPI concentrations. However, some samples having SLPI well below the concentration required for inhibitory activity in vitro exhibited modest inhibition, suggesting the presence of other anti-HIV-1 components in oral fluids. Thus, SLPI is a major but not sole inhibitor of this virus in saliva
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/0000?dopt=Abstract




8. Such disease as (oropharyngeal candidiasis ) and low CD4 cell account decrease SLIP levels

A significant interaction between low CD4 count and oropharyngeal candidiasis experience was detected in the linear regression model predicting the salivary SLPI value as a continuous variable (P = 0.004, Table Table2).2). The graph for the interaction is shown in Fig. Fig.2.2. According to this linear regression model, salivary SLPI levels among participants with a positive history of oropharyngeal candidiasis are predicted to increase with increasing CD4 counts. The opposite trend of lower salivary SLPI level with increasing CD4 count, however, is predicted among those without a history of oropharyngeal candidiasis. These results support the odds ratio heterogeneity between salivary SLPI strata identified in the bivariate analyses described above and suggest that salivary SLPI levels are modified by immune status and candidal experience.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC375171/#!po=43.3333






9.But still there is other inhibition chemicals than SLIP like lactoferrin – and it could be even stronger inhibitor

FPLC gel filtration (size exclusion chromatography) and antibody blocking experiments demonstrated that SLPI, hLf, and MG2 (mucin) were the main identifiable inhibitory factors mediating anti-HIV-1 activity in whole saliva and that lactoferrin is a more powerful inhibitor than SLPI (Fig. (Fig.2,2, ,3,3, and and5).5).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/



10. And there has been case when HIV could be transmitted with saliva without blood by human bite – but of course no one has been close to say that there was no blood
And after 6 week of potential infection HIV status saliva was examined as viral load 2405 copies/ml




The case presented here is of a primary HIV infections following a human bite where in the saliva was not blood stained but it got smeared on a raw nail bed of a recipient. The blood and saliva of the source and blood of the recipient showed a detectable viral load with 91% sequence homology of C2-V3 region of HIV gp120 between the two individuals.


Clinical examination of (Mr.X) revealed that his oral hygiene was good, absence of oral ulcers, caries no bleeding in gums. There were no physical injury, cuts or scratches occurred during the argument. The patient consulted his family physician who did not advice PEP, as salivary transmission of HIV is rare and negligible.

Our observations revealed transmission of HIV infection from the smear of non-contaminated saliva of [Mr.X] on the raw and bleeding nail bed of (Mr.A) To conclude, the family physician should have taken PEP decision after proper
evaluation of the severe and bleeding bite. Hence it is necessary to treat the HIV infected human bites with post exposure prophylaxis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/#B7



11. And is there other protective mechanism in saliva not only inhibition? – because scientist say that other oral particles works against HIV virus surviving and transmitting by saliva.
And will it protect agents HIV transmission ? – not only inhibition mechanism.



Anti-HIV antibodies Neutralize and inactivate the virus
IgA inhibits interaction between gp120 and CD4


C1q component of complement In presence of fibronectin, binds to the virus
and produces its sedimentation.


Cystatins Have general antimicrobial activity;
inhibit cysteine proteases


Defensins (a-b, h defensins and
minidefensins)
Have general antimicrobial activity;
Block penetration by the virus

Lactoferrin Binds to iron to inhibit bacterial proliferation
and viral replication


Lactoperoxidase Inactivates virus by production of hypothiocyanite


Lysozyme Interrupts HIV replication by destroying
viral membranes

Ribonuclease Blocks the reproduction of the virus by destroying
its genetic material (metabolize select RNAs)


Mucins Sequester and aggregate viral particles


Secretory leucocyte protease
inhibitor (SLPI)
Interact with a cellular surface molecule to limit
viral entry into target cells


Thrombospondin 1 (TSP-1) Produces aggregation of the virus; during penetration
by virus, blocks its interactions with lymphocytes


Proline-rich proteins (PRPs) Bind to gp120 of the virus, preventing its
penetration of lymphocytes


Salivary agglutinin (SAG)/
Mucin MG2
Bind to and displace gp120 from virions
Agglutinate HIV and dissociate viral envelope protein

Hypotonic effect Lyses HIV-1 infected mononuclear leucocytes
http://www.ip.usp.br/portal/images/stories/Nepaids/oral_transmi.pdf




Thank you for your help very much!!

Thank you for your answer very much !!

The last thing – about point 6 – did you read it first time and had not heard about this case ?

And in statement in point 6 I think you missed write one word – low – is it so ??
Then it would be transmission is highly low ( or very very low )


‘However I still stick with my opinion that transmission is highly from 1 cumm saliva droplet that feel into eyes.



Thank you very much doctor!!

Thank you very much!

To end up my fearer I would like to have arguments to my mind !

1.The HIV wont transmit from 1 mm ³ of saliva because there would be to less viral particles 1- 20 HIV viral particles wont be enough to transmit HIV. 1 – 20 HIV particles is low transmission risk ?
Sexual it more risk transmission because there is larger amount of infection fluids for trasminion and there will be more HIV virus particles about 100 and more that expose to mucous membrane! Is it so ?

2. As in one publication it was said that risks form body fluids like saliva, vaginal fluid …….transmission risk is more increased when inhibition factors decreased – not when viral load is high. Is it so ?


A study by Pillay et al. (36) showed that rates of perinatal HIV-1 transmission were lower for women with levels of SLPI concentrations of >100 ng/ml and that concentrations did not correlate with local HIV-1 RNA levels. This supports the notion that levels of anti-HIV-1 inhibitory factors in vivo do vary between subjects. However, although we found intersubject variation in HIV-1 inhibitory activity in all fluids, particular fluid types tended to show a particular trend for high, medium, or low activity. Intrasubject variation from the donors that provided three types of saliva (whole, sm/sl, and parotid) was also observed, which confirms previous findings by Malamud et al. (24) and Nagashunmugam et al. (30).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/



2. As mucous membrane risk exposure is 1 in 1000 cases! Would eye mucous membrane would be lover risks than from vagina or penis mucous membrane?



3. In early HIV stage inhibitor factors would be higher – and regress during the time of progressing AIDS! Is it so?
And if HIV viral load is higher – do inhibitor factors increase?
As in publication – inhibition factors are higher in HIV patients !

Numerically higher SLPI levels were observed in HIV subjects 193.342 ng/mL vs. 190.587 ng/mL; P = 0.517. A nonsignificant negative correlation was noted between CD4 counts and SLPI levels r = −0.037, P = 0.781.
http://www.jpalliativecare.com/article.asp?issn=0973-1075;year=2014;volume=20;issue=1;spage=26;epage=30;aulast=Pushpanshu#ref2


4. . In this discovery they found out that 67 % of saliva had some inhibition and 96 % of semen had some inhibition but 20 % demonstrated complete inhibition. Is this correct statement or this method is not reliable to say about body fluid inhibition. Because other publication have said that semen is moderate inhibition – and these numbers 20 % complete inhibition is incorrect. Is it so ? Look in table 1.
Or it is inhibition for diagnostic – not a diagnostic for transmission risk, because it has been proved that semen has the less inhibition for transmission as other fluids!


Partial inhibition was frequently observed when saliva (67% inhibited) and breast milk (38% inhibited) were assayed by RT-PCR, as evidenced by low recovery of the internal quantitation standard (QS) used for calculating viral load (Table (Table1).1). In comparison, 96% of the seminal plasma samples we tested earlier showed at least some inhibition and 20% demonstrated complete inhibition in the RT-PCR assay, as determined by low OD in the QS wells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC86455/#!po=38.8889


Becaouse in other publication there was data that showed that saliva has much more inhibition factors than semen has only media to low inhibition factors. Please look in FIG. 1 in publication


Colostrum, whole milk, and whole saliva possessed the highest levels of anti-HIV-1 activity, seminal fluid, cervicovaginal secretions, and sm/sl exhibited moderate levels, and parotid saliva consistently demonstrated the lowest levels of HIV-1 inhibition
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/#!po=3.33333



And other publication showed that semen has 36.7 % inhibition. Look in table 3

Seminal plasma 36.7 Moderate
http://www.ip.usp.br/portal/images/stories/Nepaids/oral_transmi.pdf



I really would like to understand this thing to calm down my mind!!
Thank you for your help!

Thank you very much!

I really appreciate what you do – to help calm me down! I have already test for HIV and it is negative!

So time ago – rather long time I had a high risks of potential to get HIV infection ! That’s why now I m to much interested of any potential risks of HIV transmission.



1.     Theoretically only few handful of HIV particle should be capable of causing infection. However our body has abilities to fight against any invading organism.Therefore my statement is chance of HIV through 1 cumm saliva droplet is astronomical. As I am aware of medical fraternity is yet to see a case of HIV from contact with microdroplet saliva where the area of contact was eyes. Transmission rate increases marginally to significantly if the exposed individual is already immunocompromised.




Theoretically only few handful of HIV particle should be capable of causing infection.
It means – any amount of HIV particles can transmit disease, but as I understand by epidemiology data the lower HIV viral load the lower HIV transmission risk


An average viral load reduction of 0.74 log is needed in order to reduce the risk of HIV transmission by 50%, according to an analysis of the Partners in Prevention study of aciclovir as an HIV prevention measure. The finding was presented at the AIDS Vaccine 2009 conference, but also has important implications for future studies of HIV treatment as prevention
iral load stratum     2 - 3log
(<1000 copies)     3 - 4log
(<10,000 copies)     4 – 5log
(<100,000 copies)     5 – 6log
(<1 million copies)     6 – 7log
(<10 million copies)
Transmission events     3     10     58     38     3
Person-years of follow-up     954     1382     1772     805     53
Incidence per 100 PYs     0.3%     0.7%     2.9%     4.7%     5.7%
http://www.aidsmap.com/How-much-does-viral-load-need-to-fall-to-halve-HIV-transmission-risk/page/0000/

So it means if there is less HIV viral particles – the chance of HIV transmission is lower? It should be like that !?





The question in this text part should be word – not? (As I am aware of medical fraternity is yet to see a case) so it would be - As I am aware of medical fraternity is not yet to see a case of HIV from contact with microdroplet saliva.



And the text part - Transmission rate increases marginally to significantly if the exposed individual is already immunocompromised.

‘if the exposed individual is already immunocompromised’ - by exposed individual you thought the person who in not HIV infected but who has a risk to get HIV infection is it so ?

Microdroplet – 1 mm³ is amount hat you can see is does it classified as micro material?


2.     Sexual exposure has higher rate of transmission not only because of low inhibition, but to the fact that area and duration of exposure is large + sexual activity increases chances of trauma. Here, I would also like to add that chances of infection is significantly high when multiple partners are involved.
Question – the risk is higher compeer to small saliva hit the eye because the amount of infectious material is more during sex activity so more viral particles can get in blood stream, is it so?








3. For all practical purposes, I relate transmission rates to significance of exposure and pre-existing immunity of patient. Inhibitory activity of fluids is directly proportional to general immune system. A person who is immunocompromised has low inhibitory activity than a healthy individual. In simple terms, if the type of exposure is not significant, transmission rate depend on the exposed person than the infected individual's viral load.


“Inhibitory activity of fluids is directly proportional to general immune system”
In early stage when patient is hyperexcretor the inhibition factors would be higher compare to late HIV stage? And could it be higher than average inhibition 75 % than in late HIV stage because immune system is not yet destroyed – is it so?

“In simple terms, if the type of exposure is not significant, transmission rate depend on the exposed person than the infected individual's viral load.”

“exposed person” – is a person who is not infected but who has a risk of getting HIV virus. Is it so ?
From this statement I understand if I have a small saliva spit in eye the more important is my immune system response to HIV virus than HIV viral load! Is it so?

So if I get for example 1 – 20 HIV viral particles in my eye to not get infected the most important protecting thing is my immune system ! Is it so?


4. Eye mucous membrane exposure is less significant to cause infection than vaginal / penile mucous membrane in general terms. It again depends on the type of exposure and pre-existing conditions.


From mucous membrane HIV transmission risk is 1 in 1000 case and there is no evidence that from eye this risk would be less – I can’t find any info









Because there are documented cases when got HIV infection through eye contact


HIV contamination has also been reported by healthcare workers from bodily fluid splash to the eye.4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/#b4



5.In one diploma work there was mentioned that it should be only 100 viral particles to transmit HIV compared to C hepatitis where only 10 particles could transmit disease ! Can it be true?
Is it so than you need more HIV virus particles to get infection compared to C hepatitis? Because C hepatitis is ten times more infective – this is because there is usually more C hepatitis virus in blood, or because C hepatitis is more infective as virus itself ?
Can we say that successful HIV transmission starts from 100 HIV particles, it would explain why there is more C hepatitis infected persons world wide ?


Similar to HCV, whole saliva from patients with HIV infection may be infectious. It has been postulated that only 100 viral particles might be required for infection (http://www.rki.de). Nevertheless, the exact infective dose has not been determined yet. Kissing and biting as possible ways of transmission of HIV thus cannot be excluded. Indeed, transmission of HIV-1 by biting has been reported
https://www.google.lv/#q=Diploma+Thesis+DETERMINATION+OF+HCV+AND+HIV-1+RNA+IN+WHOLE+SALIVA+SPECIMENS+submitted+by+Jasmin+Wagner+Mat.+Nr.+0000














6. And from bite HIV transmission as from HIV person saliva results

HIV saliva viral load 2405 copies/ml
HIV salivary cells viral load 165 copies/ml

So as I understand 165 HIV particles is produced by salivary glands and others are from a very small invisible blood amount is it so ?


As in this bite was involved large amount saliva – and no one saw was there blood if we look in logic way if that saliva viral load was 2405 and uninfected person got 1 ml saliva in blood stream and from 2405 inhibited where average 75 % than you divide 2405 by 4 and get 605 HIV infective particles, that is why successful HIV transmission, but this is only theory, and it could be mistake! But it could be true!
Is it so?





I need and argument why even very high viral load saliva (if the HIV person is hyperexcretor) hit my eye wont transmit HIV virus – so I would stop thinking how much virus could be in this small amount of saliva, how much % of them would be inhibited – how much HIV infected particles is in the saliva, from these thoughts I can get in panic.


Can I say that in 1 mm³ is 1000 times less virus than in 1ml material is it correct statement? If I 20 000 copies/ml divide to 1000 I get only 20 HIV copies is it correct?
And if I get more than 1 mm³ HIV of material in eye – the risk is increasing for example 5 mm³ saliva in eye risk is increasing by 5 times ?


So for example some of my friend had unprotected sex and get infected with HIV in early HIV infection he has very high viral load in saliva (it is proved by discovery)
20 000 copies/ml, during conversation with HIV infected person a very small amount of saliva hits my eye, as 1ml – equal to 1 cm³ and if during the conversation with infected person in my eye gets small splash amount 1 mm³ ( 0,001ml) and it is 1000 times less virus than in 1 ml so you get to 20 copies of HIV virus – and there should work also if inhibition factors in saliva by average 75 %
So I divide 20 to 4 (as 75 %) I will get 5 HIV infective particles will they potentially infect me?

And if the HIV viral load is higher for example 100 000 – 500 000 copies/ ml I get
100 – 500 particles by 1 mm³ amount of saliva and if they are inhibited by 75 % I divide this amount by 4 and it would 25 – 125 HIV virus particles
So could you please explain in logical way ?
Every one say that a small saliva splash in eye will be 0 % risk transmission.
But looking in publication it is hard to say that risk is 0, because if viral load is very high and not all particles are inhibited.
To get away form anxiety and stress I should understand why – so I can calm down my mind and sleep in night!
     



What is the most powerful argument why I won’t get infected from a very small saliva spit in eye even this saliva is very high viral load !

1.     Mucous membrane has lower transmission risk 0,1%

2.     Viral load in very small amount saliva is lower than in 1 ml material – so amount of infection material is low

3.     The inhibition factors and all other saliva chemicals work against successful HIV transmission



I really would like to understand it so I get free from this thing once for all!


Thank you for your help very much !

You helping me a lot !

Thank you for your help!

The risk in a past was bloody fight – and some unprotected sex!
But it was long time ago – and I have test negative!

1. One of thing is that I just wanted to write project about blood pathogen virus in our world – so I was reading to much things, as I read that some HIV status doesn’t know how they got HIV, I started to read, and thinking to much about possibility, but as I understand those who say they don’t know how they got HIV are hiding the real risk !
So I can’t say that those who say that they don’t know how they got HIV would have it from high HIV viral load saliva eye contact ?
Because there are people who are living with HIV person for long time period and have not get HIV from casual contact! And also people in hospital who work with HIV patient don’t get HIV infection by casuals contact or just by seeking with someone!

And in some cases the law court has put people in prison because they have spilt in someone eye
XXXXXXX jury concludes saliva of HIV-positive man a ‘deadly weapon’, sentenced to 35 yrs jail

But they didn’t get HIV from this case – and the fact why they put in prison is because the HIV infected person was doing that in many cases and have threaten that he is going to infect by this way! They decided that he is dangerous to society.

http://www.aidsmap.com/Texas-jury-concludes-saliva-of-HIV-positive-man-a-deadly-weapon-sentenced-to-35-yrs-jail/page/0000/#item0000






2. The – I must stop thinking about if a small amount of saliva hit my eye even viral load in saliva is 500 000 copies/ml risk is very low, because inhibition factors, my own immunity, and mucous membrane these factors will reduce my risk !?

Can we say that from 1 – 100 HIV copies the risks would be lower than more that 100 HIV copies ?

Or starting to 1 HIV particle every more particle increase the risk of contracting HIV!

Were is the line were we can say that risk increases significant because of increasing amount of HIV particles !

Or no one can say this line ! ? Because they have not discovered it yet

3. Can I say that in 1 mm³ is 1000 times less virus than in 1ml material is it correct statement? If I 20 000 copies/ml divide to 1000 I get only 20 HIV copies is it correct?

And from 20 copies if 75 % is inhibited there would be only 5 HIV particles and if I have good immunity I wont get HIV from 5 HIV viral particles !

And if amount of HIV particles increase the risk also increase ?

You say that

4. Yes, with the current epidemiological data it is clear that lower is the viral load, lower is the transmission rate. Even if viral load is slightly high when exposure is not significant (compared to sexual intercourse or blood transfusion or with sharing needles), chances of HIV is not significantly high. Therefore along with viral load, I also consider the type of exposure and number of exposure to deduce the risks involved.


So it its logical that chance is lower from saliva eye contact – but still if saliva viral load is higher and inhibition level is lower the chance of getting HIV is higher.


5. And inhibition level in early stage of infection wild be higher that in late stage of infection?



And what is the reason




6. Is saliva in early stage more infective ? And these components - Free floating infectious viruses and virus-infected white blood cells (lymphocytes)- is from saliva glands or from blood stream small blood particles ? And do inhibition works in this stage when antibodies have not yet appear? Do HIV saliva inhibition and infectivity influence that antibodies have not yet develop in early HIV stage? And do inhibition is influenced when CD4 slightly decrease in early HIV stage and increase again latent period!? Discovery has fond that saliva inhibition is influenced by oral disease and viral load lower 200 CD4 cells so in the early stage saliva inhibition levels should be high. Is it so ??

A more recent study found that infectious HIV can be detected at high levels in saliva during the early weeks of HIV infection (the ‘window’ period before antibodies appear), but that levels fall rapidly after this point. Free floating infectious viruses and virus-infected white blood cells (lymphocytes) could be detected in saliva taken from individuals with primary HIV infection attending clinics in North XXXXXXX
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-in-saliva/page/0000/





7. And they say that saliva viral load 500 000 copies/ ml could be new risk of HIV epidemic – could it be transmitted by small saliva eye contact?
Or by this type of contact the risk is very small ! And why some of individuals have very high viral load in saliva in early HIV period and some have lower viral load?

However, some individuals in this study had virus levels as high as 500,000 copies in saliva, suggesting that during the early weeks of infection some individuals may be ‘super-excretors’ of HIV, and may play a significant role in the ongoing amplification of the HIV epidemic.
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-present-in-saliva-during-early-weeks-of-infection/page/0000/




8. And why high viral load saliva is less infective coppered to blood, because its inhibition levels and other chemicals in saliva that protects it form HIV transmission?





9.And could saliva inhibit all HIV particles in saliva if immune system works good because in some study they found that saliva can inhibit 90 % HIV

Saliva rapidly disrupted 90% or more of blood mononuclear leukocytes and other cultured cells. Concomitantly, there was a 10000-fold or higher inhibition of the multiplication of HIV and surrogate viruses. Further experiments indicated that the cell disruption is due to the hypotonicity of saliva:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/0000



10. If immune system works well could all HIV 500 000 copies/ml be inhibited by 100 % or very close to that ?


Because the in the publication Fig.1 it is showed that some of individuals are very high inhibit and some are lower – and it makes this average inhibition number 75 %


The prove is that no one has got from casual contact – close distance contact, so it means there is very, very low risk because in world millions o cases when small amount of saliva hit the eye and no one get infected !

I should stop thinking to much and enjoy harmony – and spot fear from HIV by casual contact.

I really would like to stop thinking bad things!

Good health to you!

You wrote down one stamen that made me agene lot of questions – “Inhibitory secretors keep them in low numbers except in those hyperexcretors”

So it means in early HIV stage all saliva is infections – others say that inhibition factors would protect it from transmission !

Infectious HIV can be detected at high levels in saliva during the early weeks of HIV infection (the ‘window’ period before antibodies appear), but levels fall rapidly after this point.
Free floating infectious viruses and virus-infected lymphocytes could be detected in saliva taken from individuals with primary HIV infection attending clinics in North XXXXXXX In 7 out of 8 cases, free floating infectious virus could be detected at an average level of 2,000 copies per ml, and in 5 out of 8 cases cell associated virus could be detected at an average level of 20,000 copies per ml.
However, some individuals in this study had virus levels as high as 500,000 copies in saliva, suggesting that during the early weeks of infection some individuals may be ‘super-excretors’ of HIV, and may play a significant role in the ongoing amplification of the HIV epidemic.
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-present-in-saliva-during-early-weeks-of-infection/page/0000/
Putting together your newest statement – 500 000 HIV copies saliva hitting my eye can potently infect me because inhibition factors wont be enough and as there was some case of blood eye HIV transmission, high viral load saliva doesn’t make any difference – as you said - Hence I am not very surprised to hear people tell me they don't know how or when they got it !
So it means it could be transmitted by high viral load saliva eye contact.







You say -
Free floating virus + infected white blood cells are also present in salivary fluids in low concentration. Inhibitory secretors keep them in low numbers except in those hyperexcretors.


You say – that HIV viral load is low but in hyperexcretors they could be high – because inhibition factors would be too week to inhibit them all ?



In research – that say in hyper-excretors case inhibitory factors other will reduce its infectiveness successfully “The latter finding corroborates the inhibitory factor hypothesis and indicates that these factors might act by reducing HIV-1 infectivity rather than viral load in saliva “

However, oral “hyper-excretors” with salivary HIV-1 viral loads that were at least fivefold higher than in matched blood plasma have also been identified (49). The latter finding corroborates the inhibitory factor hypothesis and indicates that these factors might act by reducing HIV-1 infectivity rather than viral load in saliva. Recently, Bolscher et al. (6) showed inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity by high-molecular-weight salivary components (possibly by entrapment of the virus particles) and strong HIV-1 neutralizing capacity in lower-molecular-weight components in both whole saliva and sm/sl saliva. Similarly, we observed that saliva possessed at least three components of different molecular sizes that appear to inhibit HIV-1 activity (Fig. (Fig.2).2). Thus, it is possible that saliva may affect different stages of the HIV-1 infection cycle through different factors, a hypothesis strongly supported by Bolscher et al. (6), who showed that salivary components acted both prior to and after HIV-1 replication after analyzing proviral DNA synthesis by reverse transcription
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/


And as in early stage immunity is not damaged the inhibition could be close to 100 %
You can see in FIG. 1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/#!po=43.3333

So can we say that even very high HIV viral load in saliva can be successfully inhibited ! ? You say - ‘Inhibitory secretors keep them in low numbers except in those hyperexcretors.” But if inhibition factors works good they could be inhibited close to 100 % ?

As other say – that

But although HIV is present in saliva, the components described above inhibit the ability of HIV to infect new cells. Unless there is visible blood in saliva, it is not considered a body fluid through which HIV can be transmitted
http://www.aidsmap.com/Saliva/page/0000/

And if HIV could be transmitted through eye blood contact – what’s makes difference between eye contact with blood and high viral load saliva ?

Not only inhibition factors but others saliva chemical components that reduce its transmission ?

You can see in Table 4
http://www.ip.usp.br/portal/images/stories/Nepaids/oral_transmi.pdf



This would explain why saliva is very much more less infective that blood, because no only inhibition factors but also others protect it’s from successfully transmission.

Because you had sad ‘The chance of HIV through 1 cumm droplet (even if the patient was hyperexcretor) that feel on your eyes is astronomical according to most doctors including me”

So if saliva has 500 000 copies/ml and it gets in eye saliva protective chemicals will reduce its transmission to astronomical levels as you said! ?



As you said -
‘I agree with hyper-excretors. But hyper excretors as I am aware of are usually seen in the acute stage of infections. Very rarely would they persist to hyper excrete viral particles after acute infections. More importantly the chances of infection through those hyperexcretory particles are exceedingly low.’

And

‘Inhibitory secretors keep them in low numbers except in those hyperexcretors.”

That means they could – be infectious material as saliva eye contact?


And the last question at what HIV level copies could say that they are few ?

As you said – “Theoretically only few handful of HIV particle should be capable of causing infection. However our body has abilities to fight against any invading organism.Therefore my statement is chance of HIV through 1 cumm saliva droplet is astronomical.”

How much will be few 1 – 20 viral particles will be few ?
Or more will be few ?


Hello

I’m very tired from think to much!

I would like to put end on that because it influences to my health – I can’t sleep in night.
Pleas very much, answer to these question – and in the way that they would calm me down even there is not 100 % true or doubt about some things, so I would be back in normal life. In some of things I m repeating, because I would like to be sure so they get deep in my mind – and calm me down.


Uncertainty is in that – people thing that the should be blood in saliva to have a high viral load but the newest research say that saliva could have high viral load without blood in saliva – and this statement gives me a fear.





You say that if mucous membrane is healthy it will protect agents HIV,
But in these case when people get infected by blood splash in eye – their eye mucous membrane was health, they didn’t mentioned that their eye mucosa membrane was damaged.


And in every scientific medicine web page they say risk trough mucous membrane blood contact is 1 in 1000 case

The risk after exposure of the eye, nose, or mouth to HIV-infected blood is estimated to be, on average, 0.1% (1 in 1,000)
http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncontrol/faq/bloodborne_exposures.htm

As I understand the risk from eye saliva contact should be less than 0.1% (1 in 1,000)
because it is with no blood contact as for example during sex risk is dependent on what stage is partner early or late HIV stage

0.08% to 0.19% for receptive vaginal intercourse (i.e., male-to-female); and approximately 0.05% to 0.1% for insertive vaginal intercourse (i.e., female-to-male)
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/hivtr-rtvih-eng.php

Again risk depends if HIV patient is in early stage or in late stage ! And it would be the same as from HIV saliva eye contact in early or late stage. So the risk still is higher in early stage and late. In late stage risk could be higher because saliva inhibit factors is decreasing. Is it ?
But it is very hard to estimate – as in this publication they say it could be but it is hard to estimate!

The researchers said that virus levels in blood and semen were much higher, and it is not clear how much of a transmission risk the virus levels in saliva might pose. However, some individuals in this study had virus levels as high as 500,000 copies in saliva, suggesting that during the early weeks of infection some individuals may be ‘super-excretors’ of HIV, and may play a significant role in the ongoing amplification of the HIV epidemic.
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-present-in-saliva-during-early-weeks-of-infection/page/0000/

So again I have uncertainty here whether 500,000 copies saliva would transmit HIV with small saliva eye contact! The most confusing fact is that there is no blood – because every specialist say there should be blood to transmit HIV. But in early stage and in same case in latent stage there is high viral load in saliva. But in logical thinking there should be still some other protective mechanism in saliva not only inhibit factor, because there has be no case of HIV saliva eye contact transmission. That mean even HIV could be in high concentration in saliva not only inhibit mechanism but others protect them because there is no saliva eye contact transmission, of course there are saliva transmission rate when a huge amount of infected saliva is involved like oral sex, bite and other with large amount saliva !

Even saliva has a very high viral load ! it wont transmit by small saliva eye contact because basically small saliva HIV amount hit the eye 1 mm³ would be to less to infect, if it would be like that we would see a lot of new HIV infected people who was in casual contact with others.! Is it so ?


So basically here the most important protective thing is that a very small amount of infective material, saliva, get in mucous membrane contact, mucous membrane has defense mechanism, saliva has inhibiting protection, saliva has also other protective mechanism.

1. So one of the thing why I wont he infected by 1mm³ of saliva is because amount of infective material would be to low!?
2. And saliva infectivity is low because its inhibition and other protective mechanism put it as low infection material
3. Eye mucous membrane has protective mechanism for very low amount HIV particles.
Is it so ?


So the risk to become astronomic the infective material should be with a very low infectivity.


So as even very high saliva viral load could be less infective not only because inhibition factors but other saliva proactive mechanism they don’t inhibit but they protect HIV infectivity. Is it so ?

You can see it in Table. 4
http://www.ip.usp.br/portal/images/stories/Nepaids/oral_transmi.pdf

These other mechanism would explain why high viral load saliva is very much less infective that blood. Please ask for advice for HIV specialist that they could approve fact that not only inhibit factors protect saliva from transmission but there are other protective factors, that would prove if not all HIV virus is inhibited there is still protective mechanisms. That’s why saliva would be less infective material as blood on other fluids. Is it so ?


That even 500 000 copies oh HIV in saliva eye contact if you get 1 mm ³ that is 500 and if inhibited 75 % there is 125 HIV particles – other chemicals in saliva will protect it from infectivity.







Will blood and saliva after inhibiting at the same viral load have the same infectivity degree?

For example 100 HIV copies from blood and 100 HIV copies from saliva will have the same infectivity rate ? is it so ?



And if saliva viral load is 10 000 – 100 000 copies /ml and if inhibition rate is 75 %
that from 1 mm ³ after inhibition I will get 2 – 25 HIV copies and if I have god immune system will it protect me from such amount HIV particles and I wont get infected ! ?
These would classify as few HIV viral particles? Please – is it so? I would like that it could be so!!! That would explain why very small saliva trough eye wont transmit !




And if viral load is 500 000 copies/ml from 75 % inhibition I get from 1 mm³ after inhibition I get 125 HIV copies so will they me infect risk is much more as from 2 HIV copies logical. But still is HIV transmission rate low? Low because infective material is saliva. And it will calm me down I wont be thinking has he e very high viral load in saliva. Jus in this case transmission is close to none! Is it so ?


I understand that eye mucous membrane is less degree risk than would from saliva and deep wound contact but still there has been transmission trough eye blood contact, so I think the risk from very high viral load saliva is still and would be it astronomic?


Pleas very much explain why high HIV saliva viral load eye contact would be less risk than HIV blood eye contact as booth are mucous membrane contact ?

And what will happen in a very small HIV saliva get in my eye and a don’t wash my eye, my immune system will protect me from HIV and will kill the virus, so I should run and look for eye washing ? And even after 2 h I should wash my eye because HIV would be killed by my immune system?



Pleas help me understand so I m free from thinking to much and get to much fear
I m asking help from you to stop may fear from saliva contact – as I have read to much and it makes me hard to live, if I m speaking with some one I m thinking has he HIV is he high viral load is he high or low inhibit and what will happen if he hit my eye by saliva how much virus will my immune system will protect me – and from these thing I get sick, they disturb my mind I cant not live normal life.


I hope I will bet back to normal life!!

Thank you for your help very much !!

Doctor again you are making me more and more - uncertainty!!
And making me more fear!

I thin you make a lot of mistakes here – by wrong stalemates and it is worsen my status and giving me more fear and phobia !!

I m very sensitive dot give me more fear !


You say - 1. Not every one with HIV have high viral load during early stages. Thanks to the inhibitory functions. Only those who are hyperexcretors (as you listed) have high viral load. That being said, though they have potentials to cause transmission, I have not heard of a case where saliva - eye contact has transmitted HIV.




It is proved that saliva HIV viral load tests exclude inhibition factors – that means the inhibition works, but they avoid it by more sensitive HIV PCR viral load test that avoid these inhibition factors so it means inhibition work in every HIV infected person even he is hyperexcretors. It is said that every one has high viral load in saliva in early stage.




Free floating infectious viruses and virus-infected lymphocytes could be detected in saliva taken from individuals with primary HIV infection attending clinics in North XXXXXXX In 7 out of 8 cases, free floating infectious virus could be detected at an average level of 2,000 copies per ml, and in 5 out of 8 cases cell associated virus could be detected at an average level of 20,000 copies per ml.
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-present-in-saliva-during-early-weeks-of-infection/page/0000/

it is said 7 of 8 has viral load 2000 but 5 of 8 has 20 000 viral load and some had some individuals in this study had virus levels as high as 500,000 copies in saliva

And these tests are done by sensitive method that avoids inhibition factors for diagnostic!

And no one has said that even hyperexcretors inhibition factors doesn’t protect


However, oral “hyper-excretors” with salivary HIV-1 viral loads that were at least fivefold higher than in matched blood plasma have also been identified (49). The latter finding corroborates the inhibitory factor hypothesis and indicates that these factors might act by reducing HIV-1 infectivity rather than viral load in saliva. Recently, Bolscher et al. (6) showed inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity by high-molecular-weight salivary components (possibly by entrapment of the virus particles) and strong HIV-1 neutralizing capacity in lower-molecular-weight components in both whole saliva and sm/sl saliva. Similarly, we observed that saliva possessed at least three components of different molecular sizes that appear to inhibit HIV-1 activity (Fig. (Fig.2).2).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/


Again it is said that even high viral load – inhibition factors successfully inhibit its infectivity.





For example, one study found that saliva was detectable in 91% of people during primary infection

But although HIV is present in saliva, the components described above inhibit the ability of HIV to infect new cells. Unless there is visible blood in saliva, it is not considered a body fluid through which HIV can be transmitted.6
http://www.aidsmap.com/Saliva/page/0000/




And you say –


2,. I do not agree with your conclusion that 500 000 HIV copies saliva hitting my eye can potently infect me. As I explained to you more than once, HIV saliva inhibition is not the sole protector against infection. Your eyes are quite capable of handling the virus independently. Previous statistic reports also suggest the same. You have heard about infections from bite wounds, internal body fluid + bloody discharge splash from surgery may cause infection; but not saliva droplets. The chances of unstained saliva droplets transmiting HIV into your eyes are astronomical.


Then as you said if 500 000 saliva inhibition wont protect it ?
And won’t protect infectivity by inhibition – as chance form eye mucous membrane is 1 in 1000 than the risk wont be none but as it is very high viral load it could transmit the only mechanism to get it not 1 in 1000 and here you cant say that risk is none, but much less would be saliva inhibition and saliva protective mechanism. It would explain why saliva doesn’t transmit HIV even in early stage!



3. Hyperexcretors as you are aware of are not very common. Further not all hyperexcretors are due to low inhibitory factors. You read in one of those papers that few hyperexcretors had viral loads above blood (not all).

And again the prove that work against HIV

However, oral “hyper-excretors” with salivary HIV-1 viral loads that were at least fivefold higher than in matched blood plasma have also been identified (49). The latter finding corroborates the inhibitory factor hypothesis and indicates that these factors might act by reducing HIV-1 infectivity rather than viral load in saliva. Recently, Bolscher et al. (6) showed inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity by high-molecular-weight salivary components (possibly by entrapment of the virus particles) and strong HIV-1 neutralizing capacity in lower-molecular-weight components in both whole saliva and sm/sl saliva. Similarly, we observed that saliva possessed at least three components of different molecular sizes that appear to inhibit HIV-1 activity (Fig. (Fig.2).2).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/

So you cant say - Hyperexcretors - saliva will transmit – inhibition will protect, and as they said that you can find HIV in saliva doesn’t mean it is easy transmitted !


. However, transmission rates are higher in
other non blood analytes than in saliva regardless of lower
VLs in those compartments. There is proposed evidence to
suggest existence of anti viral activity in the oral
environment preventing HIV-1 transmission
http://www.sfcityclinic.org/providers/DetectionHIV1.pdf

Every publication said even HIV in saliva is high the possibility by its transmission is very very low than in other body fluids


4. Theoretically blood - eye contact and saliva - eye contact are the same. However what is different is the practical chances of transmission. Hyperexcretors are not common. And not all stages of HIV cause salivary hypersecretion. You can imagine running a race against Usain bolt and against a school kid. Practical chances of you losing against bold is higher than school kid. Unless the kid is faster and you are tired of repeated running, you will win all the time. I am sorry if that was a gross comparison, but this is what I meant when I said practical chances of transmission is astronomical with saliva - eye contact.

You say that risk the same as from blood but in point 2. you said that

2,. I do not agree with your conclusion that 500 000 HIV copies saliva hitting my eye can potently infect me. As I explained to you more than once, HIV saliva inhibition is not the sole protector against infection. Your eyes are quite capable of handling the virus independently. Previous statistic reports also suggest the same. You have heard about infections from bite wounds, internal body fluid + bloody discharge splash from surgery may cause infection; but not saliva droplets. The chances of unstained saliva droplets transmiting HIV into your eyes are astronomical.


So you make a big mistake here in 2. point you say the risk is none but in 4. point you say that saliva has the same risk as saliva !

But every one has proved even HIV salivary hypersecretion the risk is reduced by inhibition and saliva protection factors. So how can you say that risk is the same as from blood eye contact and saliva eye contact even saliva is HIV hypersecretion !
5. Again if I have to put in papers, HIV particles as low as 100 have potentials to induce HIV, but as I said earlier practically chance of HIV when viral load is at 400 copies is 1 in 6000 odd cases.


And in this case viral load is in blood not in genital fluid so viral load in genital fluids could be lower – or the same in these fluid there are inhibition factors.


Pleas calm down my fear and don’t give me more doubt about HIV casual contact

If you say that 500 000 HIV saliva copies eye contact is astaranomic ?

Why ?

as in poit 4. you say the riks is te same as from saliva and blood !

and as risk from eye blood cantac is 1 in 1000 !

how can this risk become astranomic !

Please explain - I dont undestad that !

I can see that you absolutely ignore what I write to you !


I repeat one more time

Copy that text par what I write to you – in these links


It is proved that saliva HIV viral load tests exclude inhibition factors – that means the inhibition works, but they avoid it by more sensitive HIV PCR viral load test that avoid these inhibition factors so it means inhibition work in every HIV infected person even he is hyperexcretors.

So – if he has high viral load it still protects its from HIV transmission !!




XXXXXXX this !!

However, oral “hyper-excretors” with salivary HIV-1 viral loads that were at least fivefold higher than in matched blood plasma have also been identified (49). The latter finding corroborates the inhibitory factor hypothesis and indicates that these factors might act by reducing HIV-1 infectivity rather than viral load in saliva. Recently, Bolscher et al. (6) showed inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity by high-molecular-weight salivary components (possibly by entrapment of the virus particles) and strong HIV-1 neutralizing capacity in lower-molecular-weight components in both whole saliva and sm/sl saliva. Similarly, we observed that saliva possessed at least three components of different molecular sizes that appear to inhibit HIV-1 activity (Fig. (Fig.2).2).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/




Read this before you answer !!

(But although HIV is present in saliva, the components described above inhibit the ability of HIV to infect new cells. Unless there is visible blood in saliva, it is not considered a body fluid through which HIV can be transmitted.6()

For example, one study found that saliva was detectable in 91% of people during primary infection
But although HIV is present in saliva, the components described above inhibit the ability of HIV to infect new cells. Unless there is visible blood in saliva, it is not considered a body fluid through which HIV can be transmitted.6



A number of studies have shown that whole saliva protects susceptible cells against HIV infection. Several inhibitory components in oral secretions have been described:1
     HIV-specific antibodies: neutralise and inactivate virus.
     Complement: in conjunction with fibronectin, binds to and sediments virus.
     Cystatins: perform general antimicrobial activity; inhibit cysteine proteases.
     Defensins: perform general antimicrobial activity; block virus entry.
     Lactoferrin: binds iron to inhibit bacterial growth.
     Lactoperoxidase: inactivates virus through hypothiocyanite production.
     Lysozyme: lyses bacteria.
     Mucins: entrap and aggregate viral particles.
     Secretory leucocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI): prevents virus entry into host cells.
     Thrombospondin: aggregates virus; blocks virus-CD4 interactions during virus entry.
Nonetheless, although in the early years of the epidemic, HIV was rarely isolated in saliva, or was only isolated in small quantities,2 the development of more sensitive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods has led to a greater frequency of detecting HIV RNA in saliva.1
For example, one study found that saliva was detectable in 91% of people during primary infection and 82% of people in untreated, chronic infection. Viral loads were comparable to those in semen, and were correlated with those in blood plasma,3 although a French study found only a weak correlation with plasma.4
In another study, 42% of subjects had detectable HIV in saliva, and this was more common in people with periodontal disease, severe gingival inflammation or no combination therapy. Studies have reported individuals who have had higher viral loads in saliva than in blood.5 6
Dramatic reductions in the presence of HIV RNA in saliva have been reported after commencing combination therapy, either with an NNRTI3 or with a protease inhibitor.7
But although HIV is present in saliva, the components described above inhibit the ability of HIV to infect new cells. Unless there is visible blood in saliva, it is not considered a body fluid through which HIV can be transmitted.6

http://www.aidsmap.com/Saliva/page/0000/





Read this again – even HIV is hyper-excretors saliva protect that !!

However, oral “hyper-excretors” with salivary HIV-1 viral loads that were at least fivefold higher than in matched blood plasma have also been identified (49). The latter finding corroborates the inhibitory factor hypothesis and indicates that these factors might act by reducing HIV-1 infectivity rather than viral load in saliva. Recently, Bolscher et al. (6) showed inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity by high-molecular-weight salivary components (possibly by entrapment of the virus particles) and strong HIV-1 neutralizing capacity in lower-molecular-weight components in both whole saliva and sm/sl saliva. Similarly, we observed that saliva possessed at least three components of different molecular sizes that appear to inhibit HIV-1 activity (Fig. (Fig.2).2).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/



. However, transmission rates are higher in
other non blood analytes than in saliva regardless of lower
VLs in those compartments. There is proposed evidence to
suggest existence of anti viral activity in the oral
environment preventing HIV-1 transmission
http://www.sfcityclinic.org/providers/DetectionHIV1.pdf

Every publication said even HIV in saliva is high the possibility by its transmission is very very low than in other body fluids




The researchers said that virus levels in blood and semen were much higher, and it is not clear how much of a transmission risk the virus levels in saliva might pose
http://www.aidsmap.com/HIV-present-in-saliva-during-early-weeks-of-infection/page/0000/



You write !
With regards to the case presentation; Mr. A had salivary contact on broken (raw) skin. Hence significantly low viral load of saliva was able to induce infection. Moreover it wasn't clear if Mr. X his step son's viral load or was he a case of hyperexcretor. This was definitely an unfortunate or rather unlucky situation.



I have written down – look in table 2

6. And from bite HIV transmission as from HIV person saliva results

HIV saliva viral load 2405 copies/ml
HIV salivary cells viral load 165 copies/ml
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/#B7

Thank you for anwer !

so it menans even viral load could be found in 10 000 copies/ml or 100 000 copies/ml

inhibition factors could protect it from 75 % to 100 % reducing saliva infectivety !?

and as you say one single exposeru - it wont relate to saliva becouse average saliva viral laod is low !?

Sorry but all experts and publication say - even HIV in saliva is in high viral laod it is diagnosed before inhibition factors, they say even viral laod in saliva is high, inhibition factors will protect or reduce from infection !!

So it mens in 10 000 copies inhibition could reduce infectivety from 75 % to 100 %

In all publication said even viral laod is high - ihibition factors reduce infectivety




From publication -

But although HIV is present in saliva, the components described above inhibit the ability of HIV to infect new cells.
http://www.aidsmap.com/Saliva/page/0000/

However, transmission rates are higher in
other non blood analytes than in saliva regardless of lower
VLs in those compartments. There is proposed evidence to
suggest existence of anti viral activity in the oral
environment preventing HIV-1 transmission
http://www.sfcityclinic.org/providers/DetectionHIV1.pdf

To end this discosion - even high viral laod in saliva could be protected even in 100 % as they mentioned in this pubication even HIV virus hyper-excretors, inhibition factors protec it rather to becom it as infection material
so it mens 10 000 HIV copies in saliva still could be inhibited to 100 %

I would be satisfy it you say YES -becouse it will fit with all publication and all statemants ( and we will end this discusion )

However, oral “hyper-excretors” with salivary HIV-1 viral loads that were at least fivefold higher than in matched blood plasma have also been identified (49). The latter finding corroborates the inhibitory factor hypothesis and indicates that these factors might act by reducing HIV-1 infectivity rather than viral load in saliva. Recently, Bolscher et al. (6) showed inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity by high-molecular-weight salivary components (possibly by entrapment of the virus particles) and strong HIV-1 neutralizing capacity in lower-molecular-weight components in both whole saliva and sm/sl saliva. Similarly, we observed that saliva possessed at least three components of different molecular sizes that appear to inhibit HIV-1 activity (Fig. (Fig.2).2).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/

But then that is true that 10 000 HIV saliva could be inhibited from 75 - 100 %
and by saliva chemicals it would be less infective !

Becouse they say so in publication below !! - so it would expain even HIV in saliva could be in high viral laod, it ifectivety will be reduced by saliva chemicals so + eye mucous membrane protective mechanism will put in astranomic risk !

I realy houpe you will say agen - YES, then it will be end !!

However, oral “hyper-excretors” with salivary HIV-1 viral loads that were at least fivefold higher than in matched blood plasma have also been identified (49). The latter finding corroborates the inhibitory factor hypothesis and indicates that these factors might act by reducing HIV-1 infectivity rather than viral load in saliva. Recently, Bolscher et al. (6) showed inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity by high-molecular-weight salivary components (possibly by entrapment of the virus particles) and strong HIV-1 neutralizing capacity in lower-molecular-weight components in both whole saliva and sm/sl saliva. Similarly, we observed that saliva possessed at least three components of different molecular sizes that appear to inhibit HIV-1 activity (Fig. (Fig.2).2).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/

Only thing why i still asking is becaouse i have doubt - becaouse every pubication say that high viral load in saliva is protected by inhibition factors as you aslo said
from 75 - 100 %
and they say even hyper-excretors saliva protecting mechanism make them not infection material as you also said -

It means every time virus particle reach salivary secretions inhibitory properties prevent more than 75% virus will not affect new cells

But in other statement you say -
Theoretically blood - eye contact and saliva - eye contact are the same.

As I understand from 10 000 copies if 75% are inhibited that there are 2500 infective particles, of course these 2500 ar infective particles

But 75 % is averege more people have closer to 100 % inhibition

But it could be inhibited to 100 % and there would be no infective particles

Just please say - YES - that even 10 0000 HIV copies in saliva could be inhibited close to 100 % and will be 0 % infective

So it will match to previously publication - what I send to you they say that saliva is very good protected from HIV by its chemicals !

And if you will say - YES - i will be saticfied and there wount be any doubt

Then i will understand every thing - and here wont be like every publication say one thing, but you say other !!

Publication that say - high viral laod is efective inhibited !

However, oral “hyper-excretors” with salivary HIV-1 viral loads that were at least fivefold higher than in matched blood plasma have also been identified (49). The latter finding corroborates the inhibitory factor hypothesis and indicates that these factors might act by reducing HIV-1 infectivity rather than viral load in saliva. Recently, Bolscher et al. (6) showed inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity by high-molecular-weight salivary components (possibly by entrapment of the virus particles) and strong HIV-1 neutralizing capacity in lower-molecular-weight components in both whole saliva and sm/sl saliva. Similarly, we observed that saliva possessed at least three components of different molecular sizes that appear to inhibit HIV-1 activity (Fig. (Fig.2).2).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/

But although HIV is present in saliva, the components described above inhibit the ability of HIV to infect new cells.
http://www.aidsmap.com/Saliva/page/0000/

However, transmission rates are higher in
other non blood analytes than in saliva regardless of lower
VLs in those compartments. There is proposed evidence to
suggest existence of anti viral activity in the oral
environment preventing HIV-1 transmission
http://www.sfcityclinic.org/providers/DetectionHIV1.pdf

So it menas HIV 10 000 copies/ ml if i get 1cumm amount of material in my eye it is 10 copies becouse 1000 times less amount
and if 75 % inhibited i get ony 2 HIV particles in my eye and + mucous menbrane protection mechanism makes it an astranomic risk !
So it is less than 1 in 1000 (risk), epidemolgy data proves it ! as there is no saliva eye trasmison
please say - YES !

And you said

Theoretically blood - eye contact and saliva - eye contact are the same. However what is different is the practical chances of transmission. Hyperexcretors are not common. And not all stages of HIV cause salivary hypersecretion. You can imagine running a race against Usain bolt and against a school kid. Practical chances of you losing against bold is higher than school kid. Unless the kid is faster and you are tired of repeated running, you will win all the time. I am sorry if that was a gross comparison, but this is what I meant when I said practical chances of transmission is astronomical with saliva - eye contact.


But as all say even viral load is the same saliva trasmsion risk is much less even
hyper-excretors. So it means blood and saliva in not the same risk even hyper-excretors. Epidemology data proves it !!
Again please say YES

However, oral “hyper-excretors” with salivary HIV-1 viral loads that were at least fivefold higher than in matched blood plasma have also been identified (49). The latter finding corroborates the inhibitory factor hypothesis and indicates that these factors might act by reducing HIV-1 infectivity rather than viral load in saliva. Recently, Bolscher et al. (6) showed inhibition of HIV-1 infectivity by high-molecular-weight salivary components (possibly by entrapment of the virus particles) and strong HIV-1 neutralizing capacity in lower-molecular-weight components in both whole saliva and sm/sl saliva. Similarly, we observed that saliva possessed at least three components of different molecular sizes that appear to inhibit HIV-1 activity (Fig. (Fig.2).2).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC0000/

But although HIV is present in saliva, the components described above inhibit the ability of HIV to infect new cells.
http://www.aidsmap.com/Saliva/page/0000/

However, transmission rates are higher in
other non blood analytes than in saliva regardless of lower
VLs in those compartments. There is proposed evidence to
suggest existence of anti viral activity in the oral
environment preventing HIV-1 transmission
http://www.sfcityclinic.org/providers/DetectionHIV1.pdf


I houpe our logic will match !

And it will be the last qestion !

Good luck !

The qestion becouse i what to understad !

So it means if inhibition doesnt work saliva and mucous membrane and blood has the same risk but if inbibition work bouth in saliva and in moucos membrane the risk from saliva eye contact is much less or astranimic than from blood !

Theoretically when one doesn't consider all the inhibitions blood - eye and saliva - eye contact have similar risks, however clinically it is proved that inhibition exists in most mucous membranes and body secretions. Therefore it is time that you put these thought behind and have a good night sleep. It is close to impossible that you would receive an infection through salivary contact.
I just have doubt !!

And please answer in direct way - that saliva is no the same risk as blood even saliva has high viral laod as we priveos spoked !

and as all study say even saliva viral laod is high inhibition protect it from trasmison!

I must understad it in direct tex

Becaouse - anwer

Theoretically when one doesn't consider all the inhibitions blood - eye and saliva - eye contact have similar risks

makes me doubt -

Just please say in simply way that saliva is not the same risk as blood even
viral load in saliva is higher, becaouse inhibit will protec it

so i will be free from any doubt - and all feare will be gone

The last answer from you likes - YES for all the time

So practically and reality the saliva infectivety is much less than blood, because saliva inhibition factors !!! If saliva and blood viral load is the same the saliva infectivety will be much less !!
IS it so !!!
Please say YES - and i will understand every thing
I hope you will say YES - and it is the end for my fear for all !!

The answer - YES is all I want and will be happy !!

Thank you very much !!!