Comments on: If malaria can be transmitted through a mosquito’s bite, why not HIV?

By: Paul

Paul — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:46:28 +0000

Robert, your posting is the MOST unethical, inhumane thing that I have heard in a long time.

By: Lars Ivar

Lars Ivar — Sat, 23 May 2009 09:01:06 +0000

Today I killed a mosquito biting my hand. Then I got some blood on my hand from the mosquito. If the blood came from a HIV infected person the mosquito had been biting recently, couldn’t I then get the virus via the “opening” in my hand created by the mosquito? Or would the virus be deactivated/”dead” inside the mosquito? And how long can the virus “survive” inside the mosquito? Seconds, minutes, or hours?

By: WORRIED

WORRIED — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:36:37 +0000

im on this site because im worried. went to the park today with my kids and saw a person whom well known has hiv. there was a mosquito that bit this person and then bit my 3 month old baby immediately after. it happened so fast i couldnt do anything about it. what now?

By: prathiba

prathiba — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:37:53 +0000

i accept.but can you tell me which enzyme digest hiv,tell me the mechanism ,how the hiv gets destroyed.

By: Katie

Katie — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:26:59 +0000

I feel the need to post as Mr. Muhande and others seem to be rather confused. Perhaps the author should not have chosen to say the virus “meet[s its] death,” but rather that it becomes inactivated, destroyed, or uninfectious, once it reaches the mosquito’s gut. However, a virus like HIV, which is extremely fragile, does indeed “die,” or become inactivated/uninfectious rapidly upon exposure to the atmosphere. HIV does not “go to sleep” or become “dormant” in the atmosphere.
Those interested in viruses that go to “sleep” in a molecular manner of speaking, might like to familiarize themselves with the concept of viral latency – of which HIV does take part, but only in certain cells of the body, and not on mosquito mouthparts!

By: Jason Muhande

Jason Muhande — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 03:13:20 +0000

Interesting article, beautiful word play Nathalie, but im not convinced at all.
In the first case, she said that the HIV would get digested after the HIV infected blood was sucked by the mosquito, and the virus would supposedly die. But i would like to remind Ms. Peretsman, the author, that viruses are disputably non-living organisms, ie they could not posssibly be killed if they were never alive.
Same goes for the second case, if the blood containing HIV stays on the mosquitoes mouth, the virus becomes dormant, not dead. Thus no matter how long it would take for the mosquitoes appettite to return, the HIV possessing blood that remained on the suckers would, all things remaining equal, reach the next meal.
Viruses do not die in the atmosphere, they merely go to sleep.

By: nmiosdhfkj

nmiosdhfkj — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 21:35:01 +0000

but if u had sex with a mosquito that had HIV, would you get it then?

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:34:45 +0000

I agree with most of your comments. Scientists claim there have not been any reported incidents but..how many people truly go and get tested after being bitten by a mosquito for it to even be reported in the first place. They then argue that if it(transmission by mosquitoes) was the case then there would be a higher infection rate found in children..Again how many physicians even suggest HIV testing for children? Its a test that usually isnt even run unless the doc thinks the patient is /was at some risk..And finally, countries with high rates of malaria i.e Africa, tropical regions, etc also have higher rates of infection among all age groups..coincidence? you be the judge.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:53:22 +0000

What a well written article! But I do agree with Patrick. I’m not 100% convinced. I did first log on here so I could read about it for some extra credit in my science class, but I ended up learning up some very neat facts! Thanks for posting. :)

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 14:44:55 +0000

I’ve never understood why AIDS victims/patients aren’t quarantined from the rest of the population as was the custom in other infectuous diseases in the past. Had that been done in the very beginning there would not be an epidemic now that is out of control. Is this our way of controlling the population density on this planet by allowing sexually transmitted diseases as this and others to perpetuate for fear of offending sub-populations. It makes more sense to isolate and treat the infection and prevent the spreading than allow it to propagate unchecked because it’s a “social disease”. What is the wisdom (?) behind current treatment plans? I realize it’s too late to do that now, but why wasn’t it done back when it was first isolated by doctors and scientists in the early 1980s? Enkighten me.