I hope this is the appropriate group to ask this.
Is it possible to get HIV by inserting a finger into an infected womans
vagina? This question assumes that the finger is "normal" and does not
display any obvious abrasions or lacerations.
Thank You
Without a break in the skin, I would consider it extremely unlikely to
transmit aids in this manner. I would consider this a nearly safe
sexual practice, but all you need is a tiny break in the skin in the
cuticle and the virus could theoretically get in. Vaginal secretions do
have the aids virus, but in relatively low concentrations relative to,
say, blood or semen. If you want to do this and be assured of safety,
wear gloves. If this is an after the fact question, the fact that even
needle sticks from needles from infected patients have only a 1 in 150
chance of transmitting the infection should reassure you.
-
KENNETH HORWITZ KPPC…@prodigy.com
In <3ur4ch$…@panix.com> jscut…@panix.com (James Scutero) writes:
> The New York Times
> July 20, 1995, Thursday, Late Edition – Final
>SECTION: Section A; Page 23; Column 1; Editorial Desk
>HEADLINE: Sneak Attack on AIDS Research
> Regrettably, we are still without a vaccine against the leading
>killer of Americans between 25 and 44. The handful of drugs
>available like AZT can only delay death.
AZT delays death? Huh? I wonder what references Ho and Baltimore
would provide for this comment. I guess they don’t read the British
Medical Journal lately.
> But instead of admitting that AIDS is a national tragedy, many
>conservative leaders prefer to bury their heads in the sand or rail
>against homosexuality and drug abuse. They pretend not to see the
>huge economic and emotional toll of AIDS.
The "economic toll" means a multi-billion dollar industry that has
promulgated myths about HIV. The "emotional toll" is the grief caused
to billions who think they have to worry about contracting HIV,
allegedly the most fatal virus known to man. And more "emotional toll"
to those who have contracted it who are told that they will die. Then
put the dissenters in with those who "rail against homosexuality and
drug abuse" and make them look bad. But don’t most politicians "rail
against drug abuse" anyway?
> The public has invested more than $100 billion in general
>biomedical research over the last decade. Scientists have a
>responsibility to show that we have made the most of this money,
>and we will be judged in large part by our success against AIDS. It
>would be cataclysmic to be turned away and sacrifice the gains we
>have made.
Good thing we’re not going to be evaluated for our efforts against the
"War on Cancer", another example of virologists’ unproductive
domination of a field.
> Some critics of AIDS research claim it receives a
>disproportionately large amount of money compared with budgets for
>other diseases that kill more people. But they neglect the
>consideration that unlike cancer and heart disease, AIDS is a
>developing epidemic and a communicable disease.
"Developing epidemic"? In the US, the numbers of new cases by half
year have decreased steadily since January, 1993. And wasn’t HIV in
third world countries *before* it got to the US? How come it is just
now becoming a problem (if we believe the notoriously unreliable
statistics from these countries)? The CDC has just said it intends to
lower its estimate of the number of HIV(+)’s in the US, reducing the
figure of 1 million, which had been constant for almost a decade, down
to 800,000. What kind of epidemic is this anyway?
"Communicable disease"? Just barely since as it was pointed out in
another thread, the risk per unprotected sexual act is about 1 in 1000.
HIV is communicable, but not in the sense we normally reserve for this
word.
> The House should not let this research effort drift. If the bill
>is passed, we scientists will go back to making exciting individual
>discoveries on AIDS, but there will be no central plan for
>conquering our tiny but wily foe — the virus.
Here is a classic example of what intrigues Amittai–the language game.
HIV is the "tiny but wily foe". This is a common tactic, personifying
the virus to unify the concept of it as a tangible enemy.
Todd Miller
On 24 Jul 1995, Todd Miller wrote:
> AZT delays death? Huh? I wonder what references Ho and Baltimore
> would provide for this comment. I guess they don’t read the British
> Medical Journal lately.
Come on Todd. An early treatment intervention vs. delayed treatment
study in a nation (Britain) whose BEST healthcare pales in comparison to
the US standard of care. And the study size was, what, 436 people? Out
of their sum total of a couple thousand AIDS cases. The study wasn’t
powered to detect the effectiveness of anything.
Regards, | USF Center for HIV Education and Research
Mark Buzza | Center for Quality Care, Memorial Hospital
Information Resources | 813-875-4048, FAX 813-879-7119 HM 813-837-0006
co-moderator sci.med.aids | 508 South Habana, Suite 240, Tampa, FL 33609