# Saliva cannot transmit HIV



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

The NY appeals court is being asked to determine if saliva can be a deadly weapon.
In 2006 a man who was HIV+ bit a police officer.
He was charged with intentionally placeing the officers life at risk.
The charge is ridiculous.
HIV can only be transmitted by 4 bodily fluids, Semenal, vaginal, blood, and breast milk. If this man was not HIV + the charge would not have been lodged against him.
Hopefully the court will examine and rule based on facts not fear.In this instance a better charge of resisting arrest or assualt would be more justified. Shalom


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

dbarabians said:


> The NY appeals court is being asked to determine if saliva can be a deadly weapon.
> In 2006 a man who was HIV+ bit a police officer.
> He was charged with intentionally placeing the officers life at risk.
> The charge is ridiculous.
> ...


i dont know about this... i heard that it can be transmitted thru salvia and if you happen to use your fingers to touch any area that carries the disease that is infected such as (the 4 you mentioned above and salvia) that those particles stay under your fingernails which then can also transmit the disease when touching another vulnerable area on another person... same goes with most other std's 

doc actually just gave me a pamplet on this 2 weeks ago lol


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

If the bite broke the skin .. then blood was involved ..

There is always the potential that the saliva had blood in it, from trauma from the bite, or from brushing his teeth ...

And when is it EVER ok to bite someone ... really. The human mouth is NASTY!

imo


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

No Kait you cannot catch HIV from saliva.
The virus is very fragile and does not survive for long outside the body.
To become infected you muist have fluid to blood contact.
You cannot catch it from simply ingesting it as saliva is a part of the digestive system and will start the break down of anything consumed.
I have been involved as a therapist and 
AIDS educator for over 25 years if it was easy I and the others that serve those infected would be infected also.
As for having it under your fingers you would have to have fresh fluid and and open wound on someone else to transmit it.
Misinformation like this only increses the ignorance and fear surrounding this desease.
You are not at fault just repeating what you hear. Shalom


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

According to the CDC there is .1% chance of Saliva carrying the Aids Virus 

The WHO and USPHS also confirm a human bite has caused HIV, it was said it was very rare occurrence and then skin had to be broken 

I guess the real question is Intent, did the person think the bite would cause harm to the officer?

Do not know the whole story, but assault on a Police Officer is assault no matter what form and should not be tolerated.



.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Texasgal the only way he could have transmitted HIV was to have an open bleeding sore in his mouth and to break the skin on the Policeman.
No one is questioning the biting issue.
What they are sayin is that the man's saliva is a deadly weapon. Which it is not.
The police officer tested negative repeatedly after the incident.
Therefore the only crime commited was biting the officer.
This happened in 2006.
I will disclose that I facilitate a weekly HIV + support group. Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Texasgal the only way he could have transmitted HIV was to have an open bleeding sore in his mouth and to break the skin on the Policeman.


This is true. Also the virus doesn't live for long outside the carrier.

P.S. I'd be more concerned if the guy had Hep B!


----------



## kait18 (Oct 11, 2011)

dbarabians said:


> No Kait you cannot catch HIV from saliva.
> The virus is very fragile and does not survive for long outside the body.
> To become infected you muist have fluid to blood contact.
> You cannot catch it from simply ingesting it as saliva is a part of the digestive system and will start the break down of anything consumed.
> ...


great so the doc handed me a pamplet with wrong info... doesn't surprise me much


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

I understand your cause, dba, I work in healthcare ..

However, when someone has an infectious disease, it is their responsibility to make sure they aren't a threat to others. It's common courtesy... and their moral obligation.

Why else would an HIV man bite someone ... ? He knows there is a possibility of infection .. no matter how small.

If the bite were to cause his gum to bleed and broke the officers skin .. there is blood to blood ... 

Even if it didn't .. you have to go to intent. Why would a person with an infectious disease bite someone? 

(Why would ANYONE bite someone .. *shakes head*)

It's a total disregard for the health and life of the person he assaulted - which happened to be a police officer.

imo


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

HIV transmission from a human bite is possible for two reasons:

1.) If the biter has even a single infected red blood cell in their mouth at the time (very possible) and breaks the skin of the victim, bloodborne transmission is possible.

2.) The HIV virus _can_ be detected in saliva, although saliva-blood transmission is very rare for reasons that are poorly understood.

Detection of HIV-1 in Saliva: Implications for Case-Identification, Clinical Monitoring and Surveillance for Drug Resistance

Basically, if you are HIV positive and aware of it, and you bite someone, I can see how that could result in a charge of assault with a deadly weapon.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> No Kait you cannot catch HIV from saliva.
> The virus is very fragile and does not survive for long outside the body.
> To become infected you muist have fluid to blood contact.
> You cannot catch it from simply ingesting it as saliva is a part of the digestive system and will start the break down of anything consumed.
> ...


You are speaking inabsolutes. As a scientist, I assure you that absolutes do not apply when dealing with viruses. "Cannot" is an inappropriate word in this useage..."highly unlikely" or "highly impropbable" would be far more accurate.

One question...what was the general knowledge base pertaining to saliva transmission and the perp's knowledge of that knowledge base in 2006? If, due to either reason, the perp believed that saliva posed an HIV transmission danger, that is sufficient to me to demonstrate intent. If that is the case, and I of course don't know that it was, then I could possibly understand a reduced sentence/early release/dropping probation, if any of those still apply, but that would mean the original verdict and sentence were appropriate, to say nothing about the fact that transmission via saliva is not an absolute. I would certainly not support a full expungement...


----------



## PonderosaMiniatures (Oct 2, 2009)

Kinda made me laugh, he shouldnt be biting anyone anyways, virus or not..
I worked for MCSO for many years, in Az. Inmates have nothing to loose esp. those that live in the system. 
Lifers, take every chance they can get to hurt a DO/CO. I guess hes where he needs to be, if he feels he needs to bite people. IMO


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

texasgal said:


> However, when someone has an infectious disease, it is their responsibility to make sure they aren't a threat to others.


gal, I'm going to disagree here. I worked on ambulance (and got license as EMT), and the rule the instructor (paramedic with 30+ years of experience) never was tired to repeat during my class was "you are the one responsible for your well-being". Saliva/blood/pee/poo/anything always ALWAYS can be contaminated, and unfortunately patients often "forget" to warn about the deadly disease they carry. So you have to keep gloves on and in case of strange cough your mask on. It's better to look funny than be sorry. 

P.S. It's unrelated to the case discussed here of course, because attacking is something different than "keeping it quiet".


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

kitten_Val said:


> gal, I'm going to disagree here. I worked on ambulance (and got license as EMT), and the rule the instructor (paramedic with 30+ years of experience) never was tired to repeat during my class was "you are the one responsible for your well-being". Saliva/blood/pee/poo/anything always ALWAYS can be contaminated, and unfortunately patients often "forget" to warn about the deadly disease they carry. So you have to keep gloves on and in case of strange cough your mask on. It's better to look funny than be sorry.
> 
> P.S. It's unrelated to the case discussed here of course, because attacking is something different than "keeping it quiet".


Now I have visions of someone running after a cop with a handful of poop...:lol:

You are exactly right - depending upon someone else to tell you is about like assuming that guy to your right is going to slow down at a yield sign and let you pass...don't bet your life on it and be responsible for your own safety - at least to the degree you can...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman you and I agree that everyone is responsible for their own sero status.
In other words it is up to the individual to protect themselves from infection by not placing themselves at risk.

AIDS is one of the most studied deseases we have ever encountered.
Yet it is still very misunderstood and myths about it still prevail.
I am not advocating that the man who bit the police officer is innocent.
He should be charged.
However his saliva is not a deadly weapon and that is what the appeals court is being asked to decide. This case and others that have been used to prosecute people infected with the virus only adds to the confusion.
Prosecute the man not the virus.
The USA was the last western industrialized country to implement government programs to educate its population. Sadly as this case proves we are still behind in understanding this deadly virus.
European countries educated their populations and avoided the progression of this desease that we saw here in the USA and in developing countries.
Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Unless the individual can prove the he knew none of his gum surfaces were compromised or could possbley be compomised during the "biting effort", I would say it doesn't matter if it is unlikely that saliva is will transmit the disease - the potential for _blood_ to transmitt the disease was there. Would it matter if he pulled the trigger on a gun that he _thought_ was loaded?


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Faceman said:


> Now I have visions of someone running after a cop with a handful of poop...:lol:


****! Or pee! That would be totally hilarious to see. 

P.S. Not something I'd love to experience myself though.... :rofl:


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, if law enforcement can drop a dog that is running toward them barking (natural behavior, usually not followed by biting), surely they should be able to drop a person that actually bites them.


----------



## Horse Poor (Aug 20, 2008)

IMHO, HIV is a communicable disease and the man knew he had HIV at the time he attacked/bit the officer. I see how it could be considered an attack with a deadly weapon. It doesn't matter to me if saliva does/doesn't transfer HIV, the man knew he had a communicable disease and intentionally risked the officer's life with his attack/bite.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Studies of HIV have advanced enough for us to understand how and when it can be transmitted.
That alone should be the basis of this ruling.
People with HIV should not be subjest to enhanced penalties.
When some of my HIV positive clients cough without covering their mouth or sneeze are they commiting a crime? I think not.
Or someone who knowingly has the flu which is far more contagious than HIV and is possibly life threatening.

The charge for which the man plead guilty is threatening the officers life "with a deadly instrument". His saliva unless it contained blood is not.
The implications are frightening to those living with HIV or any other cantagious desease.
The defendant should be punished that is without arguement. He received 10 years becuase of this enhanced charge.
The Centers for Desease Control, and the National Institutes of Health have both sided with the defendant. Shalom


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

Respectfully, that is not much of a comparison. A sneeze or a cough is hardly assault. Secondly, the person is not _intentionally_ breaking the skin of another human being, thus exposing them to transmission of the virus by sneezing or coughing.

HIV is well studied, that is true. However well studied does not translate directly into well understood. In fact, often the reverse is true. Science is one of the _least_ exact fields because the more something is investigated, the more apparent it becomes exactly how complex biological processes are.

Cancer for example is well studied yet poorly understood at a molecular level. The same is true for HIV. This is compounded by the fact that the virus is a retrovirus which are tricky little ******s, probably the least understood of the viridae family.

This is a contentious issue, meaning there will be a variety of opinions. If you can be charged with holding up a service station with a syringe full of infected blood, then you should also be charged with the same crime for purposefully biting another human, knowing that you are infected. The odds of transmission are purely a numbers game after that. If you are willing to gamble with a human life, you are deadly. JMO.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> The defendant should be punished that is without arguement. He received 10 years becuase of this enhanced charge.
> The Centers for Desease Control, and the National Institutes of Health have both sided with the defendant. Shalom


Perhaps it was an enhanced charge - perhaps not. We don't have all the details. Did the man have a previous record? What were the circumstances that prompted the confrontation with police in the first place? I've never even been in a position to assault a police officer - there had to be something or some incident that put him in that position. What are the laws in the pertinent state regarding assault on a police officer? In some states, 10 years is an appropriate sentence whether HIV is involved or not...in other states, the crime is a misdemeanor and the sentence is much lighter...


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

If the defendant had been in a fight or confrontation with a police officer, did he know for sure that he had not bitten a cheek or scratched a gum or perhaps burst a small ulcer in his mouth in the confrontation.

The defendant bit the police officer on purpose knowing he had HIV and there was the potential that the disease could be transmitted (heck just brushing your teeth too vigorously can cause bleeding and in people with bad teeth all it can take is a small bump or knock for there to be blood in the mouth, heck sometimes gum disease causes gums to bleed sppontaniously).

I personaly think they should throw the book at him!


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> When some of my HIV positive clients cough without covering their mouth or sneeze are they commiting a crime? I think not.
> Or someone who knowingly has the flu which is far more contagious than HIV and is possibly life threatening.


Please, are we not getting a little silly?

Coughing or sneezing cannot be helped..... purposely biting someone can be helped.

Your debate was beneficial till now, but statements like this tend to erode credibility .... just saying

Bottom line imo, the man could have had soars, bleeding gums and he bit an police officer which could have broken skin and therefore very easily have had blood to blood transfer...... Intent on his actions are the real issue.... 



.


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

Some wise person on another thread made a comment indicating that when people speak in absolutes and spend so much energy defending their position, you have to ask yourself are they trying to convince YOU or THEMSELVES ....

*wink*


----------



## Horse Poor (Aug 20, 2008)

By your own statement, 



dbarabians said:


> The charge for which the man plead guilty is threatening the officers life "with a deadly instrument". His saliva *unless* it contained blood is not.


aren't you agreeing that it WAS possible that HIV could have been transmitted by the bite?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Texasgal perhaps I am too closely involved with people living with AIDS to be impartial here.
I am not trying to convince anyone. I only hope to educate them.
This subject was discussed in a group session that I am the counselor for.
They are very concerned about the outcome of this case.
The CDC conducted test on saliva during the early AIDS epidemic. It was found that it would take a very large amount of saliva to infect anyone with HIV. Saliva is part of the digestive system and begins top break down that which we consume. There for the virus is damaged. This reduces the abiliuty to infect someone.
I hope that my post have been civil yet informative. 
I have lost many clients and freinds to this deadly desease and have witnessed the struggles with ignorance that they deal with on a daily basis. I feel it is my duty to help prevent more of the same by informing all who will listen. Shalom


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

No worries, dba, I feel your passion. It's always a concern when people are judged unfairly based on an unfair bias.

I still think "dude" shoulda kept his teeth to himself and this would be a non issue.

NO BITING -- the topic of your (or ANYONE's) next counselling session!

Peace, brother.


----------



## Nitefeatherz (Jan 23, 2012)

I have to agree that I think, sh, that you are too close here to be objective. There has been at least one recorded case that I have read about where a man who was HIV positive gave his partner HIV through blood-tinged saliva. In that case both involved had gingivitis and bleeding gums.

The case here seems less to be arguing that the saliva itself is infectious but rather that the saliva can be infectious especially if it is carrying blood. 

There has been at least one case local to me where HIV was transmitted through a kiss. Seems remarkable but I would have to say a bite is a lot more likely to pass any kind of infection since it involves a wound and multiple bodily fluids. I also think that anyone who is biting people and getting arrested by police is less than likely to have good dental hygiene. 

On a side note...it would probably help your argument more if you link an article that discusses the case in question. 

The man knew he had HIV...imo...he knew he was carrying a potentially fatal disease and bit the officer anyway. That, in my book, is assault with a deadly weapon.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Nitefeathez if you could send me the information about those cases I would appreciate it.
The CDC has recorded no transmissions from a simple kiss.
People have shared razors and even toothbrushes ( that is nasty) and become infected. Shalom


----------



## Nitefeatherz (Jan 23, 2012)

It wasn't the kiss that caused the infection...both people as I said had gingivitis and gums that were bleeding. It's been quite awhile and the article was for a class. I don't have the name of it anymore. I remember the article quite clearly just not where I ran into it?

Anyway...it was a blood to blood/wounds thing and not saliva. The one thing I do remember quite clearly is that both involved admitted that the had very bad bleeding gums but since the doctor told them saliva couldn't transmit HIV they thought nothing more about it. I cam try to find the article again I guess. If I find it I will post it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Nitefeatherz (Jan 23, 2012)

I couldn't find the original article but I did find this on the CDC website: HIV Transmission | Questions and Answers | CDC HIV/AIDS

<LI class=noBullet>*Can HIV be transmitted by kissing?*_It depends on the type of kissing. There is no risk from closed-mouth kissing. _
_There are extremely rare cases of HIV being transmitted via deep “French” kissing but in each case, infected blood was exchanged due to bleeding gums or sores in the mouth. Because of this remote risk, it is recommended that individuals who are HIV-infected avoid deep, open-mouth “French” kissing with a non-infected partner, as there is a potential risk of transferring infected blood. _



*Can HIV be transmitted by human bite?*
_There is a remote risk of transmission by human bite. All documented cases where transmission did occur included severe trauma with extensive tissue damage and the presence of blood. _
<LI class=noBullet>

The CDC's website also lists transmission through bite as rare but possible. In the case of ANY risk of transmission, IMO, when the defendant already knew he was HIV+, would make it assault with a deadly weapon. It's like pointing a gun at someone- just because it isn't likely to go off doesn't mean you aren't responsible for killing someone if it does.

I do sympathize with those who have HIV quite a bit. It's just that a lot of that sympathy goes away when they are trying to hurt others and put others at risk- in this situation, possibly deliberately- that the sympathy fades quite a bit. The guy in the case you are discussing needs to go to jail- at the very least- for attacking a cop. 
The fact that he is HIV positive, knew it, and bit the cop anyway instead of hitting, punching or kicking makes him look all the more guilty. 

The fact that he bit the cop tells me that they likely had him in custody already and he knew it was a lost cause to try and get away. That just makes what he did all that much worse since, in that situation, it was a deliberate attempt to harm rather than something like escaping.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Faceman said:


> Perhaps it was an enhanced charge - perhaps not. We don't have all the details. Did the man have a previous record? What were the circumstances that prompted the confrontation with police in the first place? I've never even been in a position to assault a police officer - there had to be something or some incident that put him in that position. What are the laws in the pertinent state regarding assault on a police officer? In some states, 10 years is an appropriate sentence whether HIV is involved or not...in other states, the crime is a misdemeanor and the sentence is much lighter...


db, I'm still awaiting a response to this post. When dealing with sentences, prior record and circumstances are important, as well as the character of the person. Considering the percentage of people with HIV that are druggies, it is a reasonable question to ask...is this guy just a normal "good guy", or has he been in and out of trouble with the law due to drugs and/or crimes to support a drug habit? And what were the circumstances of the incident that caused the assault/arrest?

You started this thread to elicit sympathy and opinions concerning the injustice of the sentence, but as sentences vary greatly from first to frequent offenders, it isn't really possible to render an opinion without knowing the pertinent facts...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman, I did not start this thread to elicit sympathy. 
My group was discussing this issue and the need to further educate others about this desease. I f that is how it reads I apologize. 
The defendant was indeed under the influence when he was arrested. He was an IV drug user and homeless. When I get to the Center for another session monday I will get more information. I can get access to sites with other organizations that serve People Living With Aids PLWAs.
I have no synpathy for the defendant.The enhanced charge is an overreaction to the fear of HIV.
By the way I would like to use this thread to further discuss the views people have of HIV 31 tears after it started. Not to ridicule anyone but to stress to the PLWAs that they must remain alert and never place themselves or anyone is in a questionable in a questionable situation.
I have found the post to be devoid of any hostile and judgemental statements that were commonplace only a few years ago.
I hope that no one objects. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Faceman, I did not start this thread to elicit sympathy.
> My group was discussing this issue and the need to further educate others about this desease. I f that is how it reads I apologize.
> The defendant was indeed under the influence when he was arrested. He was an IV drug user and homeless. When I get to the Center for another session monday I will get more information. I can get access to sites with other organizations that serve People Living With Aids PLWAs.
> I have no synpathy for the defendant.The enhanced charge is an overreaction to the fear of HIV.
> ...


Thanks for the honesty - I don't think any other details are necessary - I was just looking to categorize the person...pretty much as I figured. I don't disasgree that the punishment (for the charge involved) was likely pretty stiff. However, I have zero tolerance for drug abusers. I suspect his history likely influenced his sentence...in what little research I have done the last couple of days the sentence was pretty stiff even for the charge. 

However, I would suggest that despite how he may feel about what has transpired, he was probably better off in prison than on the street. I have a brother in law that has been a lifetime junkie off and on - mostly on, of course. He initially got hooked due to meds for epilepsy when he was very young, and it went downhill from there...wrong crowd, etc - you know the story. The only times he has been clean for any extended period of time were during his prison time. He's 61 now - hard to believe he has lived this long, but if not for his prison time I honestly believe he would be dead by now. We got to the point where we actually hoped he would screw up and get caught...makes you feel pretty guilty to feel that way, but nobody has ever been able to help him, not family, not friends, and he has had counseling up the ying yang...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman I fully agree that in prison he is much better off than on the streets. He will also be treated for his HIV. His dependency on drugs and his HIV infection would probably have killed him by now.
I would like to commend you for posting about your Brother in law.
There are people who will read this post that have family members dealing with drugs and alcohol addiction. Letting them know that they are not the only ones is very powerful and encouraging. addiction is not just about the addict . Addiction also harms those who love the addict.
The pain that you feel for the individual is very apparent. It tells me that you care.
May G-D deliver him from his addiction. May HE bless you and your family.
Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

I do not see what difference it would make if the "biter" were the CEO of IBM or a junkie on the street. He bit a police officer, period. He knew he had AIDS. He was not the victim, the police officer was. 

In a recent post concerning an officer that shot a dog that was running toward him barking, the dog was clearly the victim, yet it was demonized. The dog had never attacked any before, so one could say with reasonable surety, he would not have attacked the officer - somewhat like one can say there is little chance one can get aids from _just_ saliva. The frequent plea in that case was - "put yourself in the officer's shoes". Well, I do know what it is like to be attacked by a dog...and I can tell you right now, I would FAR prefer to be attacked by a dog w a loaded weapon in my hand than bit by a human w AIDS.

WHERE is the sympathy for _this_ officer, and _his_ fellow officers???? Put _youself _in their shoes!!!! If, on appeal, this charge is overturned.....it means officers will have to deal with people w AIDS that know they can bite an officer and face little reperocussion. That is _insane_. The fact one is UNLIKELY to get aids from saliva has _nothing_ to do with biting, since blood can easily be mixed from the gum tissue. He didn't spit on the officer he BIT him. 

And, I dislike the term "AIDs victim". Someone that gets AIDS via a bite is a victim, someone that gets it via illegal drug use is NOT. When people that smoked tobacco (a legal substance) "x" years get lung cancer - few say are a "cancer _victim_" ...in fact, they are often demonized for smoking and treated as if they "deserved it".. But when it comes to AIDS, people often skip right passed the "illegal drug user" part to "poor AID's VICTIM". ANY fatal disease is bad, period!!


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Missy May said:


> *I do not see what difference it would make if the "biter" were the CEO of IBM or a junkie on the street*. He bit a police officer, period. He knew he had AIDS. He was not the victim, the police officer was.
> 
> In a recent post concerning an officer that shot a dog that was running toward him barking, the dog was clearly the victim, yet it was demonized. The dog had never attacked any before, so one could say with reasonable surety, he would not have attacked the officer - somewhat like one can say there is little chance one can get aids from _just_ saliva. The frequent plea in that case was - "put yourself in the officer's shoes". Well, I do know what it is like to be attacked by a dog...and I can tell you right now, I would FAR prefer to be attacked by a dog w a loaded weapon in my hand than bit by a human w AIDS.
> 
> ...


As to the statement I bolded, the whole purpose of that tangent was to establish the character of the person. I'm sure you are aware that first time offendors generally receive lighter sentences than habitual offendors. There is likely little doubt the prosecution was stricter because of his history. I suspect that if the CEO you speak of were a first time offendor, he would have been charged with a misdemeanor instead of a felony...so it does indeed matter.

I agree with you on the latter part, and therein lies the hypocrisy of liberalism. They will demean smokers and the obese and speak of withholding medical care, yet give the shirt off their back to AIDS patients. They demean and villainize a tobacco smoker yet want to legalize pot. Smoking, obesity, and AIDS arise from lifestyle choices with a very few exceptions of course with obesity and AIDS. There is no logical or rational reason to treat any of them any differently than the other...take care of all of them or throw them all under the bus. We conservatives tend to think in terms of principles and are far more consistent than liberals, who seem to wander around the issue of principles in favor of the soup du jour...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May, I too dislike the term victim in reference to ANY person with AIDS. When used I beleive it adds to the stigma of those living with the desease.
The officer was given antiviral therapy to prevent infection. He was repeatedly tested and his sero-status is negative.
Being high his state of mind is altered. His judgement impaired.
Police officers are bitten every day when people resist arrest.
Since the officer is negative are we to charge everyone that bites an officer?
There are many things far more easy to transmit via saliva than HIV.
Missy May I see your point about the officer. Yet if one strikes an officer during arrest you probably will get probation or very little time. Not 10 years.
The defendant IS quilty and deserves to be incarcerated. On that I think we all agree. Shalom


----------



## Joe4d (Sep 1, 2011)

the disease shoulda been handled like any other deadly communicable disease. Those infected shoulda been quarantined from the get go. NO idea why those initially infected were allowed to wander around infecting others.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Joe in the 80's there was no test for HIV. The people dying had many different opprotunistic deseases. Until you were sick no one knew you were infected.
In 1988 Dr David Ho conducted test on tissue samples found throughout the world. His research found that the earliest known infection in the USA was a 13 year old boy in Kansas city in 1967. The earliest infection proven was in England in 1950's.
It takes up to 10 years to from infection until death in those days.
Quarintine was not feasable and would have been immoral to people that were dying.
The USA was the last industrialized country to implement education to prevent infection.
By the time the USA woke up to the epeidemic it was too lkate to contain it. Millions were infected.
Becuase of our governments refusal to seperate the virus from the issue from morality, more people were infected.
There is a book that was made into a movie that highligts this very well .
Both the movie and the book are intitled "And The Band Played ON". Shalom


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Joe4d said:


> the disease shoulda been handled like any other deadly communicable disease. Those infected shoulda been quarantined from the get go. NO idea why those initially infected were allowed to wander around infecting others.


There is a huge difference between, say, TB or flu or some other ones (when you cough and the other person get it) and HIV. With HIV the simple prevention (like using protection in sex or not using illegal drugs) will be quite enough. 

I'm not talking about situation in discussion (I think that guy should be punished for offending the officer and potential danger he caused).


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Faceman - aha I see your point, w respect to "establish character", that makes sense. 

dbarabians - I am glad we agree on something, in part. . However, put yourself in the officer's position - or anyone's. Tested and treated for weeks? Think of what he went through mentally! He would be afraid to have contact w his spouse, etc.,. Perhaps you have never felt fear. It is universally recognized as one of the most "undesirable" states of mind one can experience. This _should_ be treated as attempted murder, or for _any_ comminicable fatal disease (where the "biter" knew they had the disease). If it is not - you are not just putting law enforcement at greater risk, you are putting the public at risk, health care workers etc.,.


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Joe4d said:


> the disease shoulda been handled like any other deadly communicable disease. Those infected shoulda been quarantined from the get go. NO idea why those initially infected were allowed to wander around infecting others.


 
I agree. It makes no difference what is "now known" about the disease. No quarantine efforts were made, period. Almost no disease is not communicable by blood - yet they did not immediately take steps to protect the blood supply, or anything, for that matter. It seems to matter to those in a position of power whether a disease takes years to kill someone vs weeks or days. I think the former is more dangerous in as much as in that case they worry about "human rights" first, and the spread - last.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May, if given the chance I think you and I will agree on many things.
The federal government in the 80's took far too long to address the desease, thereby, hindering prevention. They were well aware of the threat to the nations blood supply .
A whole generation of hemophilliacs was lost after being infected with blood.
The defendant is guilty I think every intelligent person can agree with that. 
I also agree that the officer probably was emotionally distraught as well as his family. The medications for HIV are very toxic and the side effects can be harsh. I see your point very well on this.
However the implications of this case are far reaching for those living with HIV. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Joe in the 80's there was no test for HIV. The people dying had many different opprotunistic deseases. Until you were sick no one knew you were infected.
> In 1988 Dr David Ho conducted test on tissue samples found throughout the world. His research found that the earliest known infection in the USA was a 13 year old boy in Kansas city in 1967. The earliest infection proven was in England in 1950's.
> It takes up to 10 years to from infection until death in those days.
> Quarintine was not feasable and would have been immoral to people that were dying.
> ...


I can't disagree with anything you have said there, however I believe you have oversimplified things and have put a spin on the situation, blaming a parameter, specifically the government, outside of the actual perpetrators.

While I agree that both the government and the public may not have handled the situation perfectly, let's call a spade a spade here...if it were not for promiscuity, would HIV/AIDS have been a problem to begin with, and if so, would it have reached the epidemic level it has?

I don't believe that you can separate the disease from the moral implications. Immorality is the reason the disease has progressed as it has, and is where the blame should lie - not with the government. 

While AIDS activists are quick to criticize the government, please be reminded how many billions and billions of tax dollars from hard working Americans have been pumped into research, prevention, and treatment programs...the sum has become quite staggering. I would suggest there is a lot of "biting the hand that feeds you" going on. While there are, and always have been, moral implications with HIV/AIDS (duh...it's an STD), it's not like the government and the American people have ignored it. We have also provided substantial funding for the global effort. Here is a report to Congress that summarizes the government provided funding over the years - I didn't snuffle around to find a more recent one - this one goes from 1981 to 2009...
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/104280.pdf

My primary point with this particular post is to place the blame where it lies. Yes, blame the government for what it could have done better, but recognize where we would be without the assistance of the US government and the US taxpayers. And the government has nothing to do with a junkie ramming dirty needles into his/her veins, somebody too stupid to use condoms, which have been around for at least my lifetime to prevent STD's, or somebody with the morals of a dog in heat.

It makes me sick when I think of the innocent people that have been afflicted - like the hemophyliacs you allude to, but whereas you seem to place the blame on the US government, I do not have blinders on and place the blame where it truly lies. I don't condemn you at all...there are after all two camps of thought, but this is just another issue where you as a liberal look to the government to take care of people and I as a conservative look to the people to take care of themselves...


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> <snipped> the implications of this case are far reaching for those living with HIV. Shalom


Only if you know you are HIV+ and plan to go around biting people ... imo.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I know of many men women and children who were infected with HIV. During the 25 years that I personally have counseled people none of them have been quilty or innocent. Most have died.
AIDS is a medical issue, not a political issue or a moral one.
Once you put a face to an epidemic and those infected become people not numbers you see their humanity.
Faceman I do not think you are intolerant. Or any of the others that have posted. 
I do find your last post troubling though Faceman and that saddens me.
It is not you alone there are many who share the same thoughts.
I am sad that after 31 years of this epidemic people still do not understand. Shalom


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> I know of many men women and children who were infected with HIV. During the 25 years that I personally have counseled people none of them have been quilty or innocent. Most have died.
> AIDS is a medical issue, not a political issue or a moral one.
> Once you put a face to an epidemic and those infected become people not numbers you see their humanity.
> Faceman I do not think you are intolerant. Or any of the others that have posted.
> ...


There is no communicable disease that does not have some single point of introduction into a population - for all animals. 
AIDS was not introduced into the US by junkies. It was introduced primarily by homosexuals that did not limit their sexual activity to "one partner". A _similar_ virus has been documented in horses decades ago. It was not introduced by horses, a 13 year old boy or his mother. 
Before the advent of penicillin, other std's were spread - and not by people that did not ever have extra marital affairs, either. No one tries to deny that!! Is it just b/c they are ignorant that they don't understand that pre-penicillin std's were actually spread by upright citizens, 13 year old boys and horses? There were TONS of innocent victims...including spouses.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May that 13 year old boy was a child prostitue and IV drug user.
AIDS is primarily a desease of women and children. Therefore of heterosexual origin.
Its origins in this country are unkown.
AIDS is a virus and does not have a moral cause.
I chose to be nonjudgemental of others who are differnt than I. Shalom


----------



## Nitefeatherz (Jan 23, 2012)

dbarabians said:


> AIDS is a medical issue, not a political issue or a moral one.


It becomes a moral issue when someone who is carrying a potentially fatal disease is going about recklessly doing things- regardless of situation- that could spread that potentially fatal disease to others. 

There was a man in my area that I read about who got into big trouble because he was giving out drugs in exchange for unprotected sex- and didn't divulge that he was HIV+. That isn't just a "medical" issue IMO- its a moral issue as well as a criminal one.

HIV users don't have to worry about a case like this if they regularly practice the same self-control others who aren't HIV do: not attacking someone through either lack of control or temper. 

If they have the kind of self-control issues where they end up losing their temper and hurting someone deliberately being HIV+ isn't going to change that. What it SHOULD do is make them more cognizant of their ability to hurt others (intentionally or accidentally) through the risk of infection. 

There will always be exceptions to that- someone trying to protect themselves from an attacker for instance has the right to protect themselves to a reasonable extent. In the case someone is attacked, or defending themselves or a loved one- the police, a court of law and the public will always take that into account. In that case- someone who is HIV+ shouldn't have anything to worry about if it were truly self-defense.


----------



## Horse Poor (Aug 20, 2008)

dbarabians - Perhaps your time would be better spent educating your group about how wrong it is to threaten the public with their disease than educating us about how benign an HIV bite is! I was curious to see if I could find the case you were talking about…and I found it and about 10 other recent cases where HIV+ people threatened to bite, or bit and then told their victim that they were HIV+. These people were USING their disease to threaten and intimidate others! One guy had HIV AND Hep. C! You say we need to separate the disease from the act, but how can you do that when the threat IS the disease? Perhaps you should address that at your next meeting! I'm shocked to say the least. I fully expected the case you brought here to be a one in a million off the wall kind of thing, but it wasn't.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

No Horse Poor it is not the only case. Some cases have been about people that simply spit on someone.
There are people that have been neglectful and infected or did not use prcautions.
One case inolved aman in NY that infected sevedral young girls. Intentionally.
Those cases are the extreme not the rule and do reflect on those that are careful about their status.
However, You areresponsible for remaning negative , or not getting pregnant, or catching any other STD.
Any adult that is having unprotected sex or sharing needles is placing Themselves at risk..
To lump all HIV + people with a few that intentionally infect others is absurd and prejudiced.
There are many strains of the Virus. An infected person can reinfect themselves and lose the benefits of the medication they are using.
It is imperative that they not only help protect you they must protect themselves . with compromised immune systems they are at risk for other viruses that are more serious to them than to the general public.
My clients are wonderful people who would not want anyone else to ever suffer like they have. They represent a cross section of soceity. If any of you were to attend a group session I am certain that you would think the same. Shalom


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

*dbarabians wrote: "To lump all HIV + people with a few that intentionally infect others is absurd and prejudiced."*

But, dba, that is what YOU are doing. YOU are citing a case of the proscution of a drug-using biting criminal to elicit support for HIV+ people and to point out the unfair treatment of those with HIV. YOU are associating yourself, and your group, with this guy ... not us.

We see a drug-using, aggressive criminal who happens to be HIV+ .... you see an HIV+ man who seems to represent the unfair treatment of HIV+ people -- and well, he's also a drug-user who purposely bit an officer.

I suspect, other than the fact that he is HIV+, he doesn't represent you OR the majority of your group ... 

HIV shouldn't define people to the point that they defend ANYONE with HIV .. 

Again, I understand and appreciate your passion, but I do believe you are too close to this situation to be objective.

Peace.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

texas gal except for his HIV status he has nothing else in common with my group. My group is also shocked by his actions and they more than anyone else understand the officers fear while waiting for test results.
They have expresssed their concern for him and his family. Rightly so.
They also fear this ruling that may place them at risk for further prejudice and fear aimed at them. Shalom


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

I just noticed that I have been mispelling words by typing too fast. I only seem to do this on my computer keybard at home. not the ones at work or my laptop. I gotta sllloooowwwww ddddddooooowwwwwnnnn. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> I just noticed that I have been mispelling words by typing too fast. I only seem to do this on my computer keybard at home. not the ones at work or my laptop. I gotta sllloooowwwww ddddddooooowwwwwnnnn. Shalom


We have just been assuming you are illiterate...:rofl:

I'm not sure why my post bothered you. I am assuming it is because I make a tie between HIV/AIDS and immorality. Depending upon one's morals, the fact that I cannot shake that tie shouldn't really bother you. I consider homosexuality, promiscuity (whether homosexual or heterosexual), and illegal drug use all to be immoral - by my moral standards, of course...everyone's are different. I will say again, although there are certainly those who have contracted HIV outside of those three causes, such as children and those who have contracted the disease from medical procedures, the vast number of HIV/AIDS patients fall into one or more of those three categories I classify as immoral...therefore I cannot help but make the tie. I would also suggest that even the ones that contracted the disease from other sources are almost inevitably linked to an ultimate origin arising from one of the immoral reasons. The bottom line question here is if no-one were homosexual, promiscuous, or a drug user, would the disease be anywhere close to as widespread a problem as it is today. I feel the answer is an unquestionable no. Perhaps you feel differently, and perhaps justifiably so as you know more about the disease and its victims than I, but until something new and enlightening is brought to my attention, that is my interpretation.

That is not to demonize those who live by a different moral standard than I do. You know what they say about glass houses...I don't know if I mentioned it earlier or not because I have edited so many of my posts, but I have early stage emphysema from a lifestyle choice of my own, just as many people have diabetes, high blood pressure, heart and artery disease, and so on from lifestyle choices they have made. Very few of us live a perfect lifestyle, and it is inconsistent and illogical to demonize anyone for the way they have chosen to live their life. Many people do, of course - I have been berrated for smoking by a person with a drink in their hand on countless occasions, and then have watched that person go out, get in their car, and drive home, endangering themselves and everyone else on the road. Yes, it is self serving for people to condemn one vice while condoning another, but it happens all the time...


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, I see things only a tiny bit different than Faceman. I do not consider homosexuality immoral - I think it is a genetice defect of some sort. That is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.   Those that are not born that way, I agree...they fall into the immoral catagory. And multiple partner stuff...regardless of sexual preference, is immoral in my book, too.
However, I call a spade a spade, not a shovel or a rake. Whether one judges multiple partner homosexual behavior as immoral or to be the norm is immaterial to the fact that said behavior initiated the spread of aids.
And they do have reason to believe they know the diseases origins, and they have for years. To begin w...just for _starters_....troops of highly territorial monkeys in Africa have been observed to take and hold a territory, and die off - and a new troop take the territory over. They don't tend to interbreed due to their nature. The territory boundary changes due to die offs was observed long before aids. When they study them - it turns out they die from a disease that is extremely similar to aids. It is not common, if not completely unheard of, to have the same species independently evolve on two separate continents...that includes viruses. So, it is the general consensue that it originated in Africa. What that matters...I don't know...but to say they have no clue is incorrect.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Missy May I stated that we do not know the origins of the disease on this continent. You are correct in stating it did originate in Africa. We do not know how it spread around the world. Or why it exploded as it did in Africa. Where it is a heterosexual disease.
I am going to use this thread tonight during our group session. I will not use your names nor will I use your post to ridicule anyone.
I will post later tonight about how it went.
Once again thanks for reading and posting your opinions. Shalom


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

Where Aids came from is a little irrelevant, how it spread in the late 70's and early 80's is from unprotected s*x which is imo the most relevant. 
In the beginning of the spread in the US it was concentrated almost 100% to gay men, then spread to needle users, then the blood supply and eventually to women and children.

A majority seem to think the HIV or Aids Virus migrated from the SIV virus found in monkey meat and may have been first been transmitted by scratches and bites from monkey's or by eating raw meat in Africa.

I remember something called AZT, being the 1st drug in the 80's to combat Aids, I believe it cost about 2,000 for a months supply and needless to say people were dying at a near 90% rate within 6 months of being diagnosed.

There are a half dozen reports online from the WHO, CDC, FDA and other reliable sources, just google origin of Aids... or Aids Timeline.



.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

SouthernTrailsGA said:


> A majority seem to think the HIV or Aids Virus migrated from the SIV virus found in monkey meat and may have been first been transmitted by scratches and bites from monkey's or by eating raw meat in Africa.


I hope I won't shock you if I say I've heard about other source for it. :wink: Not going into details since it's not Saloon. 

I feel incredibly sorry about those with HIV. However I do think people who know they have it and choose to spread it intentionally (in particularly by having sexual relations) should be punished and punished hard.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> ...Or why it exploded as it did in Africa. Where it is a heterosexual disease.


I can only assume you may be trying to be politically correct. I'll post one article about the country with the highest AIDS incidence, but there is all kinds of information about Africa's historical promiscuity. It should not come as a surprise that the disease exploded in Africa...
IRIN Africa | SWAZILAND: Facing the culture shock of monogamy | Swaziland | Gender Issues | Human Rights

The same can be said for the 

When fighting something like AIDS, we should be looking at the facts - not trying to cover them up to be politically correct. Surely I am not the only one that sees the obvious - that the natural (non druggie) spread of HIV/AIDS is linked to promiscuity...:think:


----------



## Missy May (Feb 18, 2012)

Well, as far as Africa goes, the development of highways and mass transit had something to do with it (interface with otherwise isolated areas), as well as eating raw monkey parts. And, it isn't just promiscuity, its extremely poor hygiene. That is just a fact.
And, I agree...to pretend that AIDS entered the mass human population by ordinary means (e.g., birds) is silly. It did not. Eating raw monkey parts is not "ordinary", nor is horrible hygeine, nor is unbridled promiscuity - to use Facemans term. And, neither is homosexual multiple partner sexaul activity "ordinary" when it comes to the introduction of viruses into the world population. It got into the population by sick and twisted means of poaching and eating raw monkey parts, inherent "cultural" values of low or no hygeine and sex whenever wherever, and homosexaul "bath houses" - yet...boom! The entire history trail is erased and it becomes a virus that attacks women and children. 

What does it matter that the bubonic plague was/is spread by fleas and most surely was spread to Europe via textile imports from China? Its not true, the little fleas have gotten a bum wrap! THe plague doesn't attack fleas - it attacks people, so why even mention the little blood suckers?


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

*The Living Positive Group*

The Living Positive group session is over and the members would like to express their thanks for your participation.
We had a very lively discussion about disclosing their HIV status, Protecting Others from infection,, How the general population perceives them, and how best to educate others.
I need to post notes to their files and can post details later.
Thanks everyone. Shalom Donald


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

Congrats and kudos for the innovative approach...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Thanks Faceman.
The session was long tonight yet a lot of important things were discussed.
Thanks to the forum members. No user names were disclosed and post were quoted without them.
The members were impressed by the civil tone and because people did indeed research the case and HIV.
Pertaining to this thread about saliva the members agree that the defendant be charged even with attempted murder FOR the bite.
Living Positive members felt that most of the posters were not "hateful" or intolerant of them. They did however feel gays were being blamed for the disease unfairly. They stressed that they are NOT victims, yet they do fear how others react when they disclose their status.

Many of the members have faced intolerance and isolation from their own families due to a lack of understanding about the epedimic of AIDS. They face discrimination on a regular basis.
Thanks again from the group. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

I suspect the link to homosexuals will be around for a while but gradually lesson as time goes by - not that that is a lot of consolation to those currently with AIDS. After all, AIDS initially in this country was primarily in the homosexual community until it became widespread enough to enter the general community. At this point 20 somethings and 30 somethings don't see the tie as strongly (if at all) because by the time they were old enough to be aware of AIDS it was already an issue in the general population. I would suggest that is a part of the substantially more tolerant attitude toward homosexuals by younger people as compared to older people. But as time passes, 40 somethings, then 50 somethings, and so on will not be making that association...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Facenman allow me to clear something up.
I was not trying to be politically correct about how exploded across Africa.
What Missy May has said about transmission in Africa is somewhat true.
Chimpanzees have a similar disease called Simian Immuno-defiecncy Virus SIV.
It is similar to AIDS yet not as virulent.
When the World health Organization tried to eradicate Polio Measles, and Small Pox worldwide, millions were vaccinated.
In Africa needles were used on different individuals because of their scarcity. This probably spread AIDS and allowed it to become more widespread and virulent and infecting millions.
I attended the International Aids Conference in Durbin South Africa years ago.
People walked miles to see the DR and waited in lines for hours only to be given aspirin . There were no medications available.
GW Bush's World AIDS Initative provided medication to thousands and helped slow the transmission of AIDS. Saving millions of lives. Shalom


----------



## zurmdahl (Feb 25, 2009)

Faceman said:


> I suspect the link to homosexuals will be around for a while but gradually lesson as time goes by - not that that is a lot of consolation to those currently with AIDS. After all, AIDS initially in this country was primarily in the homosexual community until it became widespread enough to enter the general community. At this point 20 somethings and 30 somethings don't see the tie as strongly (if at all) because by the time they were old enough to be aware of AIDS it was already an issue in the general population. I would suggest that is a part of the substantially more tolerant attitude toward homosexuals by younger people as compared to older people. But as time passes, 40 somethings, then 50 somethings, and so on will not be making that association...


Are you implying that people should not be tolerant of gays because they "spread" HIV/AIDS? Just because part of the community might have done that does NOT make every single gay person responsible. People are more tolerant nowadays because they realize how utterly ridiculous it is to hate/condemn someone because of the way they were born.


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

zurmdahl said:


> Are you implying that people should not be tolerant of gays because they "spread" HIV/AIDS? Just because part of the community might have done that does NOT make every single gay person responsible. People are more tolerant nowadays because they realize how utterly ridiculous it is to hate/condemn someone because of the way they were born.


I am not implying anything - I usually say exactly what I mean...


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

OP, I understand where you are coming from and feel for the victims who have contracted HIV.

I see it from a very different position, however. I am a patrol Sgt. I have been in many tussles with many people in the over 15 years I have done this job. Yes, I have even been bitten. I WILL tell you that the officer rarely just walks up to a person calmly and then gets bitten. It usually happens when there is a struggle going on. During any struggle I am in, I target the face in my defensive actions. It is entirely likely that I will have punched someone in the mouth causing some bleeding. If someone bit me under those circumstances, it is VERY likely there would be some possibility of blood to blood transmission.

I really doubt anyone could prove that there was NO possibility of this happening during the struggle in question. Especially after all of this time.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Allison, my research found that in studies conducted during the early epedemic it was discovered that though saliva contained traces of the virus it would take several quarts to infect someone,
the bite can have the ability to infect someone. that is not the issue.
The defendants saliva was sited as a means of transmission.
The defendant pled guilty to a lesser charge to avoid attempted murder and to receive a lighter sentence. the defendant had no sores in his mouth. He did not transmit HIV to the officer.
If everyone who bites an officer is charged with the same crime then that is reasonable and fair.
IMO the enhanced charge solely because of his HIV status is discrimantory.
People in the group session now see both sides of this issue and the discussion have been very positive. Once again thanks. Shalom


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

dbarabians, you cannot say for sure that the defendant had no blood in his mouth at all.
I disagree with you that the charge is unfair. I think it is fair because he KNOWINGLY bit that officer in an attempt to scare/intimidate and potentialy transmit the disease.

Now had the defendant at the time not known of his HIV+ status then I would call it unfair and be in agreement with you however this man DID know he was infected, he did know that he could transmit the disease through a bite and that the disease he had was fatal. 
IMO that was premeditated and I would actualy agree that attempted murder was not disproportionate.

It is no different IMO than deliberately running someone over with a car. If you deliberatly do it then it is attempted murder, if you accidently knock someone over then it is one of the many charges associated with careless/dangerous driving (in the UK there are loads).


----------



## Druydess (Jan 25, 2008)

dbarabians said:


> No Kait you cannot catch HIV from saliva.
> The virus is very fragile and does not survive for long outside the body.
> To become infected you muist have fluid to blood contact.
> You cannot catch it from simply ingesting it as saliva is a part of the digestive system and will start the break down of anything consumed.
> ...


This is true. I have been involved/certified in AIDS and HIV education/treatment since the first outbreaks here in the US. I worked with Dr. Valente, who was one of the premiere researchers and doctors instrumental in treatment who participated in the Berlin conferences re: the disease and various therapies. Our clinic treated thousands of HIV sufferers while the cutting edge therapies were being developed. 
Saliva has never transmitted HIV in and of itself.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

dbarabians said:


> If everyone who bites an officer is charged with the same crime then that is reasonable and fair.
> IMO the enhanced charge solely because of his HIV status is discrimantory.


Well _of course_ the charge was enhanced because of his HIV status. That is sort of the point is it not? If he _wasn't _HIV+ then how on earth would there be risk of transmission of HIV???

It's not discriminatory in this case, the two are directly related.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Sarahver, the problem is most people that are infected in this country do not know it.
A bite is an assualt. That everyone agrees with.
The point is his saliva is not a deadly weapon or known to transmit any HIV.
The charge he plead quilty to was not based on fact. This man has been in prison for 6 years for a bite during an arrest.
Since a lot of people do not know their status or may have more contagious viruses then anyone who bites someone is guilty.
Instead if you bite and officer you will most likely get time served or probation. Not 10 years. Shalom


----------



## Faceman (Nov 29, 2007)

dbarabians said:


> Sarahver, the problem is most people that are infected in this country do not know it.
> A bite is an assualt. That everyone agrees with.
> The point is his saliva is not a deadly weapon or known to transmit any HIV.
> The charge he plead quilty to was not based on fact. This man has been in prison for 6 years for a bite during an arrest.
> ...


I do not believe in inflated sentences just because a police officer is a victim. Police are no better than anyone else, and their lives are worth no more (or less) than anyone else's.

That preface is to lead to this question, which not being directly involved with AIDS folks I don't know the answer to without googling it...is it a crime for a person that knows they have HIV/AIDS to not disclose it to a sex partner, not take precautions, and transmit it to them? If it is not, I don't see the distinction between having unprotected sex with someone and biting them in an assault. The two seem to me to be virtually the same offense...knowingly transmitting, or trying to transmit, the disease...


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faceman it is indeed a crime to knowingly have sex with someone without telling them your HIV status. Or refuse to use precautions. In some states, just having sex, an HIV + person is committing a crime.
HIV+ people do have an obligation to inform partners, and medical personnel about thier status.
However IMO everyone should be responsible for protecting themselves.
Letting others take responsiblity for your safety is unhealthy physically as well as emotionally.
If you can get pregnant or impregnate someone then you can catch not only AIDS, but syphillis, Heps B & C, and any other STDs. Shalom


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

difference between all those other diseases and HIV is that the others can be treated (inc pregnancy!).

dbarabians are you honestly saying that i could deliberatly run you over tommorow, potentialy cause your death and still only be charged with danerous driving? its not going to happen.

Intent is EVERYTHING, I can turn a car into a deadly weapon, I could in theory turn a horse into a deadly weapon, just because it is not a weapon normaly does not mean it cannot become one!

Also you are blatently ignoreing the fact that you cannot say for sure that there was no blood in his mouth! I find it highly likley that there was blood there perticularly if he was a drug user and just been in a fight with a cop.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faye HIV can be treated also.
The defendant was thoroughly checked by a DR upoun entering detention. No open sores were eveident. Shalom


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

HIV cannot be cured and is ultimately deadly one way or anouther, we have drugs that significantly slow its progression but no cure exists.

No sores evident at the time of checking into custody. I can tell you now that I've had a blow to the face from a horse that has caused my gums to bleed (and I have extremely healthy teeth and gums) less than 10 mins later there was no evidence of it!


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Faye most of my clients that take thier Meds properly have viral loads that are nondetectable. Which means that the virus is fully suppressed.
Some people do not respond and others have different strains that do not respond well to treatment.
We do not however know the long term effects this medication has on the body. We can however prolong your life 20-? years successfully. Shalom


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

HOw would you know which strain the defendant had? how suppressed was his viral load? how would the police officer respond if he had recieved the virus? would he have been one of the few who don't respond to the drugs?

The defendant was using his bite as a weapon deliberatly to atack the police man.
Therefore throw the book at him and yes assault with a deadly weapon is right.

Very very different situation to a responsible member of society who happens to have HIV, is unfortunatly badly injured and unknowingly (perhaps because they are unconcious etc) infect someone else. They are no assaulting anyone, the transmission is an accident and very little could be done to prevent it.


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

dbarabians said:


> *Sarahver, the problem is most people that are infected in this country do not know it.*
> A bite is an assualt. That everyone agrees with.
> The point is his saliva is not a deadly weapon or known to transmit any HIV.
> The charge he plead quilty to was not based on fact. This man has been in prison for 6 years for a bite during an arrest.
> ...


No. Please stick to the relevant case at hand. I assume it is this one: 

Can HIV-infected saliva be a deadly weapon? Court to decide - Utica, NY - The Observer-Dispatch, Utica, New York

The defendant KNEW of their status. The problem is that this person KNEW they were HIV+ yet they bit, spat, urinated and defecated during a struggle with police. If the person is _unaware _of their status and behaves in the same manner, they will NOT receive the same enhanced charge, and nor should they. The salient point is _knowledge _of status and subsequent behaviour choices.

If you are aware that you are the carrier of a potentially fatal disease, yes, you are subject to different responsibilities with respect to those around you. If you are carrying ebola virus, are aware of it, and you behave in the same manner, again, you deserve to be prosecuted for assault with a deadly weapon.

Whilst I admire your work with respect to advocating the rights of HIV+ patients, you brought up a very particular instance and are making arguments that do NOT reflect the facts of this particular case.


----------



## texasgal (Jul 25, 2008)

* Looking for the REALLY REALLY REALLY LIKE button *

Great post, Sarahvr!


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Sarahver I am highly impressed that you know about ebola virus.
My hat, If I wore one, is off to you.
I'm not saying that he is not guilty.

My point is that his saliva is not a means of transmitting HIV, nor is his urine.
This charge is prejudical to anyone with HIV.
I could not get the link to come up but I am getting my information from the CDC amd national AIDS organizations.
No healthcare professional or anyone that works with HIV + people are concerned about anyone's saliva.
I will look at that link when I get home. Thanks for reading. Shalom


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

dbarabians, the charge is not prejudical against any sensible members of society who have HIV, only against those that plan on using it as a weapon (which this person was).


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

faye said:


> dbarabians, the charge is not prejudicial against any sensible members of society who have HIV, only against those that plan on using it as a weapon (which this person was).


Exactly,

From studies I have read the original text of the debate was "Saliva cannot transmit HIV" is 99.999% true

But the main issue should be to be the Enhanced Charges.

The fact is, the defendant in this case could have had open sores in his mouth or bleeding gums, he could have drawn blood in biting the officer, therefore the Aids Virus could have been transferred by blood to blood. 
Just because he did not, did not change intent of his actions, he meant to do as much harm as he could to anyone involved in his arrest.

This is the reason for the Enhanced charges, IMO there is no defense for his actions, 10 years was a light sentence.....

It is great the intent of this thread was to educate the general public, but maybe the enhanced charges in this case and others will have a better effect which would be to educate people with HIV to not go around biting people.



.


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Kevin let me assure you that 99.99 % of the people with HIV do not go around biting people.
I can remember when people were refused treatment because of the fear of AIDS. IMO this case only fuels the ignorance associated with the disease.
I have had 2 clients that emergency personnel refused to transport to the hospital . One client that was refused entrance to the emergency room.
Thanks for reading and researching the subject. 
Hope that everyone has a great day. Shalom


----------



## sarahver (Apr 9, 2010)

dbarabians said:


> Sarahver I am highly impressed that you know about ebola virus.
> My hat, If I wore one, is off to you.


Can't help it:






No need to be impressed: You are not the only one who is involved in the medical industry. I come from the other side of the game, that is, I am a biochemist and am involved with medical research.

The fact that I know about ebola virus is not that impressive.

I would say that your line of work has a rather more human element and you are predisposed to see the 'human' side of things (nothing wrong with that). My line of work is more on the technical side so I am predisposed to see things from that perspective.

Therefore, my view is that given the chance that the saliva may have contained the virus, and the virus may have been transmitted, the defendant was aware of this possibility (no matter how remote) and acted irresponsibly and put the life of a law enforcement officer at risk. For that error in judgement I believe that they are liable for a greater charge when compared to someone who behaved in the same manner without the risk to life.

I don't think anyone here thinks that all HIV+ people run around biting people. I have no doubt that 99.99% of patients don't behave in this manner. I also believe that most people don't run around intending to commit other crimes, however that is not a justification for those that do.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions and the ramifications of those actions. The concept of personal responsibility is a dying one. It saddens me.

Good, respectful discussion though. It's funny, I hardly comment on the equine related threads these days, they seem to get repetitive after a while. I enjoy these more cerebral discussion much more.

You have a good day too db :wink:


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Sarahver I LOVE THAT SONG!!!! really
People approach issues differently because of their life experiences.
Our past controls our future in many different ways.
I will admit I do feel rather strongly about this issue. I have known too many people that have died.
Sarahver, if you asked a 100 people about ebola most would not know what it was. Much less how big a threat it can be. Ebola scares me far more than AIDS.
I'm still smiling about that video link I think you really made my day. Shalom


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

I'm not a medical bod and I know about Ebola, It is amazing what you can learn when you actualy take time to educate yourself

If you asked my circle of friends I can garentee that at least 90% will have heard of Ebola!


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Ebola is a serious disease.
If they ever have another outbreak and cannot contain it untold millions could die. It had a pretty high mortality rate. Almost 100%.
Faye it is good that you are informed. Shalom


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

actualy dbarabians the mortality rate for Ebola depends on the strain you get (there are 5 one of which doesnt affect humans yet) and is anywhere between 25% and 90% and highly depends on where in the world you are when you first show symptoms (i.e if you show symptoms in a western country they are more likely to be able keep you alive due to the easy access to good equipment and drugs to control the symptoms)

ETA there are small out breaks of this quite frequently in Africa!


----------



## dbarabians (May 21, 2011)

Thanks for the info Faye. I do know they have outbreaks periodiaclly in Africa.
Western medicine is an advantage in this world.
Strange how AIDS and Ebola both come from the same area and really flared up at around the same time.
There have been very few cases here in the US and they have been very contained.
Living in both Europe and Israel I have learned that Americans are not as informed on World affairs as Europeans.
Thanks again. Shalom


----------

