Aa
Contraction of any Hepatitis
To whom it may concern,
I was curious if there is any chance that any type of Hepatitis can be contracted in any way possible through saliva? and/or sexual contact?
Greatly Appreciated,
John
I was curious if there is any chance that any type of Hepatitis can be contracted in any way possible through saliva? and/or sexual contact?
Greatly Appreciated,
John
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!!!
regards,
BobK
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!!!
regards,
BobK
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%.
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%.
"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.
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.
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
Acute hepatitis is normally about 6 month. I believe everyone here has cronic HCV not acute. LL
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...
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>).
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>).
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Hepatitis A Community
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
