Hi - Though blood exchange is by far the most common means of transmission, the virus has been detected in the saliva, tears, sweat, semen and vaginal secretions of a fraction of infected individuals. Whether exchange of these fluids provides a means of transmission is not resolved. In the case of sex, the most recent US study reported a 2-3% rate of transmission among monogamous couples that had been together for at least 3 years and were not at risk for blood exchange. As far as saliva, tears or sweat, transmission remais hypothetical. Last year's NIH consensus statement on HCV treatmentment states :
<em>There is no evidence that kissing, hugging, sneezing, coughing, food, water, sharing eating utensils or drinking glasses, casual contact, or other contact without exposure to blood is associated with HCV transmission.</em>
PS - sorry I'm too out of it to look up refs for any of this today. It's not a good day - and this is *before* the injection - looks like a fun weekend..
I've seen three hep docs in the last year and everyone of them said they do not recommend condom usage for monogomous relationships. They are each from three different large clinics and this is their advise as a group. If infections rates are 33 to 55% I am positive they would be being sued for giving this advise as almost 1/2 their patients would have transmitted to their partners based on their advice if what you suggest was true. LL
I find it very offensive the use of your word "DUH"! and "who has passed this damned disease to their spouses" as if we are too stupid to be able to read and interpret the available data. There are many educated people on this site and to imply only what you say and how you interpret the articles you read to be true and correct is insulting. And furthermore to imply we are knowingly passing this on to our spouses (if we choose not to use condoms based on our docs recommendations)is just an insult and rude. We all have opinions but its eems to me you could be more civil and less rude in stating your points. LL
I have been married for 17 years, 2 children and have never used protection. My wife and kids have have all tested negative for HCV. This seems to be the case with almost everybody who posts here. This forum is for people looking for help and support in fighting their problems. It seems to me that you two are always jumping on people who are trying to help others. Why? If you actually have something constructive to say (maybe try to make a different point just once) please do. The people here are frightened enough already.
Now I have given you somebody else to jump on. Please do and leave the people trying to help others alone.
I've been married to the same woman for 31 years and have had hcv for 36 years and she is negative. My doc said don't worry about it.
Layla, I agree with you on this, someone needs to put their brain in gear before they speak.
On a positive note we woke up to about 8" of snow this morning in Spokane WA, looks beautiful. Shoveling it will be an experience on tx :)
" Everything above applies to C. A and B can readily be transmitted sexually..."
Wrong. A is transmitted through fecal-contaminated food, never through sex. B & C can be transmitted through UNPROTECTED sex. There are studies that indicates 33% - 55% or higher unprotected sexual transmission rate for HCV. Studies that indicated the 2%-4% sexual transmission rate also indicates the study subject used condoms, hence these studies can be consider flawed, since condoms will reduce HCV transmission significantly. DUH!
There are no specific studies that show B is more sexual contagious than C, given the same amount of viral load. How infectious somebody is depends on his/her viral load.
Now you can ***** about that too. Seems like info and questions are reserved for those taking interferon, pondering killing themselves, or just bitching about sides.
No one new can ask any ******* questions, cause if you do, it's off to the firing squad.
And no opinions allowed either, and no starting threads, and no opposing views, NAZI MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My apologies to those opposed to opposing views or free speech.
I heard Rush Limbaugh is back in business so you should have some closed minded right wing fodder to enjoy from him too.
Damn, another precious thread taken.
I must be in that 3-5% catagory. But I have been married for 12 years and I didn't get it or give it to my husband. I got it in '79 having unprotected sex with someone who was very contagious. He was in the acute stage and just got to feeling better. My husband now has a different type than me so we know I didn't give it to him. He got his from tatoos. A monogomous relationship is the key. If you are still sowing wild oats, better wear a raincoat.
i think there was a big misunderstanding. A BIT OF BRAIN FOG HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"GETTING WELL" your name should'nt have been included on the above posts. i'm confused at why they would get on your case when you had'nt even posted until after they commented. i hope all of you that addressed "getting well" in such cruel ways can manage an appology. whohoo was addressing "willing" not "getting well". reread the above posts and it will be clarified. several of you addressed "Getting well" and she did'nt even say anything about it. you ment to post the comments to whohoo. HAVE A GREAT BRAIN FOG DAY YA ALL!!! SHOT NIGHT TONIGHT!!!!LOOK OUT HERE WE COME!!!!
Sorry to disillusion you but if you go back and read the posts from GettingWell, his language is abominable. They removed his first post but failed to remove all the ones with the horrific language.
It may not offend you, but it sure as heck offends me. This site is to help us all get through treatment and assist each other as best we can. If we cannot be supportive, what's the point of being here.
Hope everyone is doing well with their treatments.
boy what a feisty thread. It's nice to see squabbling about something other than thread creation for a change. Whoohoo's post, even if it pissed people off, is a useful reminder of how easy it is to pass off misinformation on the web. There really is no substitute for taking the trouble to tracking down claims to their sources.
hepatitis-A <em>is</em> readily transmitted sexually. Fecal contact is necessary but food is certainly not the only form of transmission (see the CDC <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/a/fact.htm">fact sheet</a>).
hepatitis B - <em>is</em> readily transmitted sexually (body fluids containing HBV are infectious (see the CDC <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/b/fact.htm">fact sheet</a>
hepatitis C - <em>is not</em> readily transmitted sexually. See the CDC <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/c/fact.htm">fact sheet</a>. For details on what "low-risk" means see a summary of the recent <a href="http://www.natap.org/2003/AASLD/day1_5.htm">HCV partners</a> study which reported 2.4% co-infection with the same genotype among monogamous couples who had been together at least 3 years. Within this 2.4% it is not clear whether the virus was actually passed from one memeber of the couple to the other or whether both happened to coincidentally share a common type. Viral sequencing is in progress. When complete it will show how often actual partner-partner transmission occurred (ie how much lower than 2.4% the true transmission rate is). Transmission excludes shared drug use but encompasses all types of couple contact including sexual contact and kissing. 17% of the 500 participants frequently/regularly used condoms so the rate of 2.4% or less may under-represent unprotected sexual contact. On the other hand that rate may overestimate strictly sexual transmission since it also includes other types of long-term couple contact (eg cohabitation).
If credible studies showing a 33-55% (or higher!) rate of transmission from unprotected sex with an hcv infected individual given the US viral mix actually existed: (1) they would be cited by recent reviews such as <a href="http://hepatology2.aasldjournals.org/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searchDB&searchDBfor=art&artType=fullfree&id=ajhep0360s99#head4">this</a>(2) the CDC's guidelines would be different and (3) whoohoo would be able to find them.
i only just jumped in. i had no idea that there was a post that was removed. everything i said was based on the way the post reads now. so..........how can we have intellegent conversation if they take certain posts off and not others??????? please disreguard my former post. hope you understand.
i thought you were responding that way because you were talked about incorrectly in a bad way. but, i guess you are reported to have started it. i do wish people would stick to the rules of the board when it comes to posting comments. well, what do you say we all make up? and blame it on the tx? :o)
In my opinion all studies of hepatitis c transmission are flawed. We all know hepatitis 1 is the most common in the U.S.A but the majority of us are not 100% sure of how we got it, we can only guess. If you think about it, the fashion of the day involves plastic/cosmetic surgery, dentistry & cosmetic dentistry, electrolysis, men get shaved regularly at hair salons, women are getting acrylic nails, manicures & pedicures, cesarean sections have been on the rise, and there is also body piercing, and tattoo
6 months in a box huh? and with lab technicians watching closely to ensure all contact was strictly sexual? sounds pretty kinky. All these transmission studies are bound to have big margins of error but the ones that don't verify that the two viral strains are closely related are pretty sketchy IMHO. Still, flawed as they may be, they are important. If you allow the public perception to get paranoid enough the HCV-infected might end up getting arrested for crying in a theater! well, maybe not quite...
Your CDC link DID NOT say that. YOU said that. The CDC link just shows all the possible ways that Hep A may be transmitted, but then anything is possible. I'm guessing they did so to cover all the bases, just to be on the safe side. The question here is not whether it is possible or not, but how LIKELY is it to get Hep A sexually? The CDC site did NOT address this, nor did it use the word "readily". Furthurmore, the CDC site clearly stated that:
"TRANSMISSION HAV is found in the stool (feces) of persons with hepatitis A.
HAV is usually spread from person to person by putting something in the mouth (even though it may look clean) that has been contaminated with the stool of a person with hepatitis A."
Willing, do you yourself (or your doctor, for that matter) know of even 1 person that got Hep A from sexual intercourse? Also, the recent Hep A outbreak from eating at a Mexican restaurant in western PA goes to enforce how Hep A is usually transmitted. Furthermore, how likely is it to ingest someone's feces when you're having regular sexual intercourse? I rest my case.
I find it amusing that you accusing someone with spreading misinformation, while you yourself is doing exactly that (repeatedly and consistently, I may add)!
Concerning Hep C transmission, go back and reread your own Hepatology link above CAREFULLY and THOROUGHLY, and you will see that that HCV tranmsission via sex listed in this link is very significant:
"How prevalent is the risk factor of sexual activity in acute hepatitis C?
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collects detailed risk factor data on cases of acute hepatitis C identified through the Acute Hepatitis Sentinel County Surveillance program. Between 1995 and 2000, 18% of individuals with acute community-acquired HCV infection reported sexual contact with an anti-HCV
whoohoo: am I more likely to ingest virus-laden feces by eating in a restaurant or having unprotected sex with someone infected? I think I'll pass on that one, but for the CDC to list sex partners among those at risk of infection justifies "readily transmitted" in my mind. See also the second question in this CDC <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/a/faqa.htm">FAQ</a>. To claim that hepatitis A is never transmitted through sex is misinformation.
Also, as the CDC guidelines make clear, to claim there is no difference between the risk of sexual transmission of HBV and HCV is misinformation.
The quote you selected from Terrault's review emphasizes the importance of carefully quantifying the risk of sexual transmission. This is hard because humans are not laboratory rats and it's hard to isolate sexual transmission from other risk factors. Studies like the "HCV-partners" study which have verified that hypothetical co-infections actually share the same genotype and have added controls to exclude other forms of transmission should be more credible than studies that haven't included these precautions. This is still an unresolved question however and, on this point, I suppose you're right: bias is not misinformation.
AK : I think the usual definition of chronic infection with HCV is detection of the virus 6-12 months after infection ((<a href="http://hepatology2.aasldjournals.org/scripts/om.dll/serve?action=searchDB&searchDBfor=art&artType=fullfree&id=ajhep0360s21#head4">see</a>).
Isn't 1% always 1%? If you have 300 heppers and take 1% that is 3 heppers. Right? Now miltiply that buy 30 years. Now you have 300 x 30 = 9000 heppers. Now your 1% which is 3 x 30 years = 90 or also 1% of 9000. Please correct me if I am wrong. It's still 1%
Acute hepatitis is normally about 6 month. I believe everyone here has cronic HCV not acute. LL
"hepatitis A is never transmitted through sex is misinformation."
Again, do you yourself, or your doctor, know of even 1 documented case of someone who got Hep A from straight sex?
Similarly, the CDC website did not provided any documented case at all of anyone who got Hep A through sex. I know of no one who knows a documented case of someone got hep A thru straight ******* around.
I'm always, and you should too, be wary of any website that do not provide legit references or legit studies to back up their claims. I notice the website did not provide any references nor back-up data or studies. Also, just because it's in the CDC website, doesn't automatically guarantee that something is absolutely correct, or should be taking as cast in stone. Also, how often do they check and update these info. Heck, for all I know, the website info could have been been put up a web gov bureaucrat, and not doctors. Medicine is constantly changing field as new discoveries and new findings are made, and old info get obselete.
I encourage you to print out this CDC page on Hep A and show it to your doctor, or better, several doctors, and see what their responses will be. You'll be surprise.
As far as I'm concern, to make a claim without veriable legit backup info or legit studies is spreading misinformation, like what you're doing.
"Also, as the CDC guidelines make clear, to claim there is no difference between the risk of sexual transmission of HBV and HCV is misinformation."
Where in the CDC site that show there is differences in risk for B & C?
The site clear shows that they're both blood-borne diseases, as oppose to A, which is a food-borne disease, and can be transmitted sexually. How's that different?
Again, you're up to your spreading of misinfo **** again by accusing other of misinfo.
as far as I can tell whoohoo's extrapolation of the CDC Sentinel County data is nonsense. If I'm wrong someone please correct me. As part of its surveillance of viral hepatitis throughout the US the CDC monitors all occurrences of acute hepatitis in 6 counties selected to be representative of the US. In these counties all reported cases of acute viral hepatitis are monitored and CDC contractors interview the patients. Part of the interview asks about risk factors. Overall this data shows that in 15-20% of cases, the patient reported that sex with one or more infected individuals in the previous 6 months was the primary risk factor. (see "Sexual Activity" under "Epidemiology" of the following (long) <a href="http://www.thebody.com/cdc/hepc/hepc1.html">CDC report</a>). Two details: the sentinel counties surveillance makes no attempt at tracking concordant-coinfection (ie do the two partners share a related viral strain?); and only reported acute cases are monitored (with HCV, acute infection is often asymptomatic, so we're looking at a subset of new infections).
Increasing this 15-20% by a considering a longer time period makes little sense: if you got the virus from sex with an HCV infected individual 5 years ago you would not be treated for symptoms of acute HCV now. As you point out, the acute period of infection is limited to about 6 months.
As discussed in the above CDC report, there is a wide discrepancy between the acute risk-factor data and the monogamous transmission data. The obvious implication is that as the studies add more controls : one partner, few additional risk factors, and concordant co-infection, the estimate for the rate of transmission goes way down. We'll never get to Terriri's hypothetical box so we'll probably never know the "true" transmission rate but there's no basis in the Sentinel County data to assume it's <em>higher</e< than 15-20%.
It is quite telling after your [proclamations that you "know" how to read and interpret studies followed by your bogus statistical interpretation of the risk associated with sexual transmission.
1% would be the risk for each and every sexual encounter. The risk is not additive...that is 10 sex acts doesn't amount to a 10% accumulated risk the risk on the 11th or 1000th encounter is still 1%. You cannot multiply the relative risk by number of years and get a "new" realtive risk rate....well I guess you can but it si not correct...back to basic stats for you!!!
In the United States, the estimated seroprevalence of HCV is 2 to 3 percent among partners of HCV-infected persons who are in long-term monogamous relationships and is 4 to 6 percent among persons with multiple sex partners, sex workers, and men who have sex with men (those at risk for sexually transmitted diseases). One study found the risk of HCV infection to be threefold higher for female than male sexual partners. Thus, sexual partners of male and female patients with hepatitis C should be tested for this infection. For heterosexual, discordant monogamous couples, the risk of transmission is estimated to be only 0 to 0.6 percent annually. Because of the low risk of HCV transmission, monogamous couples do not need to use barrier protection (condoms) although they should be advised that condoms may reduce the risk of transmission. However, HCV-infected individuals with multiple sexual partners or in short-term relationships should be advised to use condoms to prevent transmission of HCV and other sexually transmitted diseases. Sharing common household items that may be contaminated with blood, such as razors and toothbrushes, is another potential source of transmission of HCV that should be avoided. There is no evidence that kissing, hugging, sneezing, coughing, food, water, sharing eating utensils or drinking glasses, casual contact, or other contact without exposure to blood is associated with HCV transmission.
"for hetero mono couples the estimated risk is ZERO to .6% annually"..which means there is some consideration whether it can be sexually transmitted at all,up to about 1 in 200..I've seen the estimates also at 2% over 20 years..thats 1 in 1000 per year..also:Can I give hepatitis C to my sex partner?
Yes, but it is not likely. Compared to hepatitis B virus and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), it is less likely that you will spread the hepatitis C virus to your sex partner.
If you have one long-term sex partner, you do not necessarily need to change your sex habits. But, if either you or your partner is worried about the small chance of spreading the hepatitis C virus, you can use latex condoms. This will make it almost impossible to spread the virus. Long-term partners of people with hepatitis C should get tested for the virus. If the test is negative, you will probably not need to repeat it.
and on this site:I appreciate your rather succinct question. Several studies have looked for the hepatitis C viral RNA in human semen. All of the studies I consider to be reputable have not been able to find it. I hope this is a succinct answer to your question.
Hi. I was still wondering if you answered the question Johnny98765 asked about contracting any strain of Hepatitis through saliva? Like could you get if from drinking after someone? I just wanted to know because a friend of mine who is is biology teacher told me it is very possible.
Well please let me know.
i know all of you have been talkin alot about this but i really need an answer. i just kissed a girl the other night. it was a french kiss for about 10 seconds or so. It was the first time i ever kissed her. Well she just told me the other day That she kissed a person about a month before who is claiming they have hepatitis. i dont know what kind or anything. she kissed this other person twice. and then kissed me once. I am just really wanting to know if i have a chance of getting it. please help
What are you doing all the way down here, did you get lost? hehe, nobody was supposed to see me practicing :-) Yes it is very nice up here, a tad on the chilly side these days, but the winter has it's own special beauty too, summers are awesome! when it's not raining that is
Copyright 1994-2017MedHelp International.All rights reserved. MedHelp is a division of Aptus Health.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.