Question: Hello! I really need help – I have got a deep paranoia about catching HIV from casual contact if someone accidently split to you in eye during the conversation – I past I thought that there is no HIV in saliva but reading the newsiest research they showed that HIV could be in high level during early stage – in some case latent stage, and during progressing HIV. And please doctor remember now I m very sensitive to this thing every fact that show HIV could be past trough saliva eye contact will stress me out and I will get worse – and my mind will get sick, so please don’t write me some things that would worse my paranoia, just only help me to get free from this fear. I had conversation with Dr. XXXXXXX General & Family Physician – he is making mistakes and doubt about some things, because once he say that but in other another, I ask a question to you because you specialist in HIV Here are some mistakes that Dr. Prasada write !! ----------------------------------------------------- I’m reseeding what I ask him after wrong answer to my mind! 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 ---------------------------------------------- I resend you same questions that I have asked to Dr. XXXXXXX – they gone be in wierd form because I have spent so much time now I m out of strength to writ it all one more time, I think you gone understand the basic my question and will give me a answer that would calm me down ! I hope you can help me because I have become paranoia – about risks of getting HIV because I have read to much things and it push on my mind! In a past I had a risks of getting HIV after that – I wanted to know every to avoid it! I started to discover every risk ! And one of the risks made me stress because it is casual contact - 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 speaking with someone! For example a small saliva of infected person hits my eye for example during the conversation Everyone would say – the risk is 0 % because there is no HIV in saliva but the research with RT-PCR HIV RNA test prove that HIV can be in rather high levels with this method they excluded HIV inhibiting factors. 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. 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 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. 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 To get away form anxiety and stress I should understand why – so I can calm down my mind and sleep in night! Because you can not say that viral load in saliva is very low – please don’t say that because research show that the lowest HIV virus concentration level is saliva is higher than in vaginal fluid You can see in this publication FIG. 1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC86455/#!po=50.0000 So can you please give me an argument why HIV wont be transmitted from a 1 mm ³ of saliva eye contact? I would be very thankful I could calm down may mind sleep well in night and stop reading live normal life ! The most important thing I need argument – for that why 100 000 – 500 000 copies/ml wont transmit HIV by 1 mm ³ of saliva hitting my eye For example 1 – 20 HIV virus particles would be low risk And in what HIV virus copies I could say risk is becoming higher? Argument from my side that 1 – 20 HIV virus particles would pose a very low risk of transmission Eye mucus membrane is lower risk transmission than vagina or penis as trough mucous membrane risk is 1 in 1000 ! The inhibition factors and other saliva chemicals will protect from HIV transmission by small amount of saliva. And as I understand in early stage saliva inhibition factors could be even higher than 75 % because immune system has not yet been damaged. Is it so ? Please give me good arguments why HIV is not transmitted trough small amount of saliva and eye contact? So I could get out of this stress! Because there has been no case of HIV transmission – by casual 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 Every one says that there should be visible blood in saliva – to transmit, but these all researches was done without visible blood in saliva and found rather high viral load in saliva ! So till what concentration of HIV virus could be inhibited ? I m logic person and would like to bee sure and put some thing together 1. There is rather high viral load in saliva 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? 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 - .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 2.And 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/ 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 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/ In some cases inhibition inhibition is very high close to 100 % in other case medium – this is likely because progression of HIV disease 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 12. 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. 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 Thank you for your help very much!!

I have alredy been to psychiatrist ! I m using medicine ! So you say there is no trasmison riks of HIV saliva and small saliva eye cotact ! Thak you !

Did you XXXXXXX that small saliva eye contat is 0% risk ? Becaoues in world there is no case of HIV saliva eye contact transmison !! so it means that we can say the risk is 0 %