!

Apparently, someone doesn't know how to read or they would understand that this point is counter productive to getting this crisis under control. If people don't know their status, they don't get prosecuted the same....therefore, PEOPLE WON'T GET TESTED! Do you see how that isn't good for the overall spread of the disease??

Use a gun instead of a knife, and the penalties are enhanced.

Use a weapon instead of fists and you go from misdemeanor to felony.

Now..why IS that ? IS it perhaps because what was USED is more deadly than other things ? The law is FULL of enhancements - this should be no different.

And, what would happen if a straight, HIV NEGATIVE person were to purposely inject HIV into another ? I'm sure these flaming liberals would also cry "foul" if the penalties were enhanced.

There is a LONG line of precedent to this. In the 40's, Typhoid Mary was NOT given a jail sentence because she claimed she didnt know - AFTER that she was caught again serving food and was jailed.....no difference.

They should be sentenced to life in prison with out possibility of parole

Jeff; using your line of thinking - all conservatives would rather just remain ignorant in as many areas of life as possible. Keeping your status quo through ignorance only keeps the ignorant in line, and insult those who seek to understand and grow as a human.

Focusing on the left and right extremes is not how the majority of people live - close the door to your bubble - the odor is foul.

Monogamy, monogamy, monogamy. OR condoms, condoms, condoms. OR HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS, HIV/AIDS. Well???? Those are our ONLY 3 choices. Only we, as individuals, can choose our fate. On the legal end, LOCK THEM UP if they are documented disease carriers using it to do willful harm to another human being. They are literally "shooting bullets" into another with intent to kill. I'm sorry, I have no analogy on the female carrier but ditto for her legalities as well.

Sanity reigns on this forum. The vast majority of people commenting here see the obvious.

If you endanger someone's life with a deadly disease you should be prosecuted.

Anytime you possess anything that could be considered a deadly weapon, it is your responsibility to take measures to prevent any harm that weapon could do to others- whether it's driving a car or carrying a knife. Unless born with HIV, most of the people who have unfortunately contracted it through not taking proper measure in order to protect themselves- whether it's from using a dirty needle or having unprotected sex. Those who do have HIV also now have an extra deadly weapon. If used against someone, they should charged accordingly.

I do not think people who are HIV positive should be persecuted, as not all of them got that way by risky behaviors!! When a person who is HIV-positive or has a disease like AIDS goes out of their way to infect another; that act should carry an enhanced sentence. It is no different than a person with any lethal weapon.

HIV is deadly -- we understand that - But apparently we as a society forget it is a disease and that the people who have the disease did not want it in the first place, I can assure you they don't want it!...And not everyone with HIV got it because of sexual indiscretions as the right wing "jail them all" nutjobs seem to think... The sooner we realize it is a disease, the sooner we can work on helping those afflicted.

Ok -- Since you want to Jail / Persecute / Torture these walking dead afflicted humans - then lets add all diseases to the list to be legally fair here.. Lets make sure we cover our bases and that we are not being biased with our disease laws.

Instead of just targeting HIV victims (which we are currently victimizing them, twice with these laws) -- if you have any form of VD - Herpes even.. and if you fail to tell your partner - then go to jail. Clymidia.. Go to Jail! -- lice/crabs Go to Jail! -- cooties - Jail Baby! --- or even things like a past case of Malaria, Typhoid Fever, Chicken Pox, -- oh heck since the common cold can kill yah' too - if you spread a cold virus - Go to jail...! Oh and put these cold-flu ridden terrorist on a terrorist watch list if they should happen to take an airplane, or public transportation, etc.. Oh and if they spread their cold by kissing someone else, add them to the Sex Criminal watchlist!

Yah see -- that's fair..! --

Rediculous Drew. You think someone isn't going to get tested for the very unlikely reason they might be in a situation where they are charged with attempted murder....etc.? They are going to risk death by ignoring a test that would give them a chance for treatment ? I don't think so.

You know it is a catch 22 though. You see the problem is really not with people finding out it is with how those people act when they know. Too many people seem to want to take the blame for actions off of people. This makes the same sense as saying that some one should not be prosecuted for a DUI because they did not take a Breathalyzer before they left the bar... Therefore they did not truly KNOW they were drunk. Whether or not some one goes to get tested should not matter. Thew punishment should be harsh either way. You see if you go and bite some one... You should be tested for any type of infectious disease if you are found to have something then you should be treated just just as harsh as if you knew. You see we should not be hiding away the people who have HIV. They should be just as responsible for themselves as someone who is intoxicated. In fact even more so if you think about things. A person who has found themslef under the influence is mentally incapasitated. While some one who has HIV is not. Before you open your mouth to defend someone just because they have HIV realize that as a member of the human race they are just as ressponsible for their actions as anybody else.

If we keep putting so many people in prison, we'll have no where to put the politicians.

Has anyone even heard of anyone that has become HIV positive from a HIV positive person spitting on them? Personally, I don't believe that he could have passed the virus if he had jammed his tongue down the cops throat.

extermination upon confirmation

GREENWOOD, Ind. -- A man was arrested Friday night after he knowingly and intentionally tried to spread HIV to more than 100 women in central Indiana over a period of more than five years, police said.

A SWAT unit was called in to arrest Tony Perkins, 47, who authorities said had been using the dating Web site plentyoffish.com to find many of his victims,

I've been reading this kind of story for almost 20 years now. The medical world leads you to falsely believe they have tamed down this disease and it is no longer a threat to our lives but yet, if you cannot get public assistance or insurance to cover the very expensive treatments, you die very painfully and very quickly.

You can catch this deadly disease in many ways with dirty needles and sex being just two of the ways. I am responsible not only for protecting my own life, but also the lives of my family members as well. If I let these quacks brainwash me into believing this isn't the deadly disease it truly is or that you can only catch it one of two ways, then I have not only let myself down, but put my family members lives in danger by letting them be brainwashed.

If you outlaw saliva only outlaws will have saliva.

@Ben

You're idiotically comparing apples and elephants. AIDS is not curable. Thus, the reason for the prosecution(s). Moreover, knowingly passing any STD, is a felony as well. You can be charged with murder if someone dies of something you did to them several years later. It seems logic is hard for you to deal with. Quit knowingly infecting people and this wont be an issue

If there is any psychological compensation for a guy whom is HIV positive, it is the ego boost that would come from having others refer to his junk as "a lethal weapon." ;)

I find it curious that advocates of HIV reform say "scientific evidence" does not support " a lot of laws the way they are written. Yet ,scientific evidence does not support laws that put people in prison for years for possession of pot.

Even Government funded studies show pot is actually less dangerous than alcohol. Non addicting, and does not lead to use of harder drugs. I will bet every heroin addict drank lemonade as a kid. Therefore, according to the government's mentality, we should ban lemonade as an addiction causing substance.

A weapon is a weapon you choose to use it as such you pay the price, life for life.

Diseases don't kill people, people kill people. It should not be a crime to be infected and it should be open to all people as an individual freedom. Post that as your new bumper sticker.

Sorry, Braindamage (post 1.6).

First , you are in the minority by a long shot.

Second, if you're gonna call me "ignorant", try coming up with some FACTS.

Are you telling me (and most others on here) that an HIV infected person who knowingly infects another person should be treated as if he DIDNT have the virus and DIDNT purposely infect others ?

Or are you saying that there IS no bright line of Libs v. conservatives in this debate ?

Yes - braindamage....excellent nick for you.

These laws are needed, appropriate and just. Anyone who knows they have a deadly disease that can be communicated to another should be held responsible for any actions they take that will expose others to the disease.

First of all, this isn't a right v. left issue. Leave those politics at the door.

Second of all, collectively, gay people are not responsible for this; individuals are. This is not a "gay" issue.

There is a huge difference between spitting at a cop and going to jail for 25 years and knowingly, as an HIV positive person, having unprotected intercourse with someone without warning them first of the danger.

Knowingly jeopardizing a persons life, or infecting them with a terminal illness, in order to get sexual gratification is illegal and should remain illegal. Anyone doing it, should go to jail.

HIV is not selective. Sometimes, the kindest and most wonderful people in the world get the disease. Sometimes, the worst kinds of people in the world get the disease.

As expected, we already have people like MossdogDa1 advocating the execution of all HIV-positive people.

Darn you, Sandtrich! You beat me to it!!

:-)

I don't know why... but I am constantly amazed at the sheer idiocy so prevalent on any story that might involve homosexuality. First, to assume that everyone who is infected with HIV is a "fag" is not only stupid; it is dangerous. Equally ludicrous is the idea that, except for the babies born with it, it is a disease that only irresponsible people get. What about those who contracted the disease through blood products?

My nephew is a hemophiliac. He was born long before the nation's supply of blood products was screened for HIV. He has lived with HIV for 25 years. He has been bullied out of school; denied health insurance; been shamed out of church; and now you would have him treated as a criminal simply because his government - your government - allowed him to be exposed to a virus when he was a child?

I have no problem with the prosecution of someone who has the INTENT to harm in exposing others to HIV. But to add additional charges simply because someone is HIV positive is ridiculous. If this truly is the "greatest country on earth," why am I constantly reminded that it is filled with the worst people on the planet?

Sorry HIV people, but your fluids are dangerous, maybe not life threatening, but far more dangerous then not virus people, especially if one isn't wealthy or lacks insurance.

To me, if anyone should know the pain and stigmatization of having HIV, it should be you. And so long as you don't start spitting, biting, or having un-protected sex with people, you have no worries. The thing that bothers me is it's only limited to HIV, what about Hepatitis, and I forget the one that has no known cure, those people should be included as well. That is actually more dangerous then HIV.

Anyone that knowingly exposes another to anything is a criminal in my mind, be it Herpes, Gonorrhea, HIV, the Bird Flu, Hepatitis, or any other virus is a world class a-hole who deserves punishment including the medical costs incurred. I am sure many of the people who are currently infected with some sort of virus/disease would agree because many of them were exposed by someone who knew. And if they didn't know, these laws would be irrelevant.

More likely, this is a made up story in which one side of the debate is basically everyone, and the other side is a few media starved idiots who would side with anything to get in the news.

Who really believes that purposely exposing someone to a virus isn't criminal ?

First of all, the question that should be addressed is does the punishment fit each crime. Those who infect hundreds should be treated like murderers. The homeless who was also possibly mentally deteriorated should not be treated like a murderer, but like one who has committed battery. Etc.

the only people that decide they wont get tested for fear of it being used against them in a court of law are the ones who are keeping their options open for criminal activity. dont do crimes, no issues. problem solved.

... And with these ridiculous laws, you are encouraging them to do just that, Drezz... and giving them a break for it. Regardless of why people don't get tested, the fact is that it will lead to an increased risk in the general population. Why would you make laws that would encourage people not to get tested?

like my last line said "dont do crimes, no issues. problem solved."

ok... I will say this slowly.. If they plan to "do crimes" but refuse to get tested so they can get off easy when they are caught, HOW DOES THIS SOLVE THE PROBLEM? Let's assume you are correct in that all people who don't get tested plan to use their bodily fluids to commit assault. These laws allow them to get a lighter sentence than people who DO get tested and commit assault. So, no one has any incentive to get tested. You can follow logic, right?

Jeff; I was referring to your cheap shot at liberals, since you couldn't figure that out, then you might be ignorant.

The fact you go looking for bright lines is what makes them real in your head, don't speak for the rest of us who don't see only left and right.

if you spit at someone while carrying a gun, should you be charged with assault with a deadly weapon? Same thing- both are "carrying"

Actually, if you got the right DA, you COULD be charged with assault AND battery just for spitting, and the presence of the gun could lift that to aggravated.

After all, the law does NOT say you have to fell THREATENED by any unwanted contact, merely that you are AWARE that such contact is likely or about to happen (which would certainly be the case with somebody's spit flying at you), and the presence of a deadly weapon during a crime automatically elevates the severity of that crime in the eyes of the law. So yeah, leave your gun at home if you're going to spit at somebody, or your petty felony/gross misdemeanor could shoot way WAY up the severity scale.

Both situations are ridiculous. In neither case was there actual USE of a weapon. The virus is not transmitted by saliva and a firearm was carried, not brandished.

Vrie,

Sorry to say you are wrong. All it needs for to get HIV is to have a crack or cut in any part of your skin where the virus can come in and go to your blood stream. It does not need sexual intercourse to obtain HIV. One of the reason why most medical personnel wear masks whenever they treat people with HIV.

Where do you get your misinformation from? Have you ever been in a room with a medical professional that is treating someone with HIV?? Of course you haven't. You have no clue WHAT you are talking about.

I guess we should believe some misinformed, hate filled bigot over the actual scientific professionals at the CDC. Simply amazing the stupidity of some of you people.

Medical personnel never know what they are going to encounter and use universal precautions. Medical personnel are much more worried about BLOOD and unknown respiratory diseases than saliva. That's like saying they also wear gloves because they can get HIV from touching the other person.

vrie...bruising happens to the entire body of a HIV infected person inside and out . they lose their teeth and bite themselves that is a source of blood then spit in the eye and

vrie if you possess a gun legally you are fine till you pull the trigger

You are HIV positive you are fine till you attempt to intentionally infect someone else then it is no different than firing a bullet at someone.

Can HIV be transmitted by being spit on by an HIV-infected person?

No. In some persons living with HIV, the virus has been detected in saliva, but in extremely low quantities. Contact with saliva alone has never been shown to result in transmission of HIV, and there is no documented case of transmission from an HIV-infected person spitting on another person.

This is from the most frequently asked questions on the cdc.gov website

marcel

even if I were to jab a needle in an HIV+ individual, then jab it in my own skin, the chance of transmission is <1%

www.ypwc.org/beta/files/pdf/hiv-aids/blood.pdf

Health care workers, who can be directly exposed to the HIV-infected blood through injury with
a needle or sharp object, have been shown to have a sero-conversion rate of under 0.5%

You really think they should be prosecuted for SPITTING on someone? I couldn't even begin to calculate the odds of transmission in that situation because they are infintesimal

*editing my post because of what 808johnny says--he's probably right--has never happened*

Marcel Villa,

For the most part Medical personnel do NOT wear a mask when treating an HIV patient. If they do it is to protect the HIV patients from being infected by any number of germs and organisms harmful to the HIV patient with a compromised immune system!!!

It's not to protect the medical personnel!!!

Believe it or not you are more dangerous to an HIV patient with a compromised immune system, than an HIV patient is to YOU!!!

808 thats not true. We wear them to protect ourselves. In a hospital by the time you get these pts they are considered dangerous mostly because of mental problems that come with the disease.

If they take the medication life expectancyis increased by 10-20 years. But it is not a pleasent disease let me tell you. And any mucus or blood contact (mostly blood) can infect you.

ruset,

808 is correct. Im not sure where you get your information, or if you are even part of "we" (i doubt it)

by mental problems, i assume you mean HIV dementia--not all that common

And the average life expectancy from time of diagnosis is 24 years.

And its not mostly blood--its mostly semen and vaginal secretions

Dementia is part of the disease. And yes it is mostly blood mucus and what ever else. And expectancy is on the average of 20 years if they take the medication at on set of the disease. Less if later into the disease if they so choose to take the medication because it is not mandatory.

Seizures can occur towards the end and they usually die from them although not always.

The point has nothing to do with spitting. The guy with HIV DELIBERATELY tried to give it to others. That in itself should be punished as a felony since he was attempting to harm as many people as he could.

the point is any mucus membrane can contain blood. And you are totally right

ruset,

fine. Lets see if we can settle this with facts

1. mostly because of mental problems that come with the disease

Not true: The risk of severe neurocognitive disorders in patients with HIV is 1 in 1000

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1166894-overview#aw2aab6b4

2. And yes it is mostly blood mucus and what ever else

Again, not true

The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV#Transmission

3. And expectancy is on the average of 20 years:

Wrong again

Average life expectancy after HIV diagnosis increased from 10.5 to 22.5 years from 1996 to 2005. {i was closer if you are counting}

http://journals.lww.com/jaids/Fulltext/2010/01010/Life_Expectancy_After_HIV_Diagnosis_Based_on.19.aspx

4. Seizures can occur towards the end and they usually die from them although not always

Seizures are not fatal. This is just bogus. They usually die from complications of infections (ie, AIDS) NOT seizures

Cool...i feel like those mythbuster guys on tv

Yes, their immune system compromised opens them up to many more diseases, some of which are new or have not been seen in years.

Eric,

I've got to wonder if you are an idiot or intentionally being dense. The majority of infections are from sexual intercourse.. duh. It's the most likely way to have someone else's bodily fluids enter your body. However, it is not the ONLY way. Blood is much more dangerous (but much less available) than semen or vaginal secretions (actually vaginal secretions aren't that dangerous as vaginal sex has a much lower transmission rate than anal sex).

There was a case a few years ago where a dentist wasn't properly cleaning his instruments between patients and HIV was spread to quite a few of his patients as a result.

There have been many cases where people received HIV from blood transfusions.

There has been at least 1 documented case where the most likely method of infection was kissing (blood in HIS saliva, gum disease in HER mouth).

Just because people have sex with an infected person exponentially more often than they come in contact with his blood does not mean that blood is not dangerous.

milidad,

Im wondering about your reading comprehension skills. Please quote me where I stated that intercourse is the ONLY method of transmission

Blood to blood contact (like a needlestick) is MUCH less likely to transmit HIV. Thats a fact. If you can find otherwise, I'd be interested to see it

The many cases of HIV transmission from blood transfusions happened 20 years ago when blood wasn't being screened for HIV. It is VERY rare nowadays

Please document and cite this ONE case where the method of infection was kissing

Please quote where I said blood wasn't dangerous. I didn't. I said it was less dangerous than semen/vaginal secretions.

Which is true. Please educate yourself, then feel free to respond

There was a case a few years ago where a dentist wasn't properly cleaning his instruments between patients and HIV was spread to quite a few of his patients as a result.

Based on this logic the dentist's patients should all have been prosecuted because they were the origin of the infection.

I think it would be more appropriate to call the spitting act battery. It is interesting to me to read that so many get ballistic about being spit on by one with H.I.V. And yet at times, I have actually had people remark to me that I was too sensitive if I complained that anyone coughed or sneezed on me in various settings (many have no concept of courtesy now). My fear has always been getting a cold or a flu that will knock me out a few days - guess I should have been worrying about H.I.V., though these individuals all say I am too senstiive!

Guys, the method of transmission doesn't matter NEARLY as much as the intent. Even if HIV isn't spread by saliva, if the carrier INTENDED to spread the disease, that is still a criminal act. If they know they have HIV, they know they are contagious, and any time they knowingly commit an act that could infect another person, that is a criminal act.

if you could prove intent....which is fairly difficult

That being said, what if you could prove I intended to kill you with a rubber chicken? If its impossible, or so highly unlikely that it has never been documented, is intent still relevant?

Thats why I think method of transmission is important

It is, if the infected chooses to have sex.

Great idea. So if you know that you could potentially become a second class citizen an put under the microscope for every little thing you do, I wonder, would YOU go and get tested? Or would you feel safer not knowing your status because then you can't be prosecuted for anything??

If you have put your self in danger of potentially becoming infected with HIV than you should be man or woman enough to go get tested. Why would it be right for anyone who knows the could have behaved in a way that they could contract a disease but are too afraid to find out still go around sharing needles and having unprotected sex? THat is at the least MORALLY and ETHICALLY wrong. When you are definetly aware tht you have HIV and still behave in a way tht puts others AT RISK that is and should always be CRIMINAL, wether or not you actions infect the other person(S) or Not. The one way to stop this is to in some way make testing mandatory. For one it could be tied to the renewal of your drivers license. If you want the privelege to drive you will comply with the testing laws. Perhaps some of the mentioned punishments were a little harsh but then if you were the one infected by some body who willingly and knowingly but you at risk how would you feel?? It does not matter if HIV is now not always necessarily a death sentence. There is absoulutely no known way to accurately predict how each individual will react to the virus. Also having to worry about it all is wrong and if you put a person in that position you should be punished, and definetly not with a mild slap on the wrist but in such a manner that you don't ever forget what will happen next if you ever do it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Resposible people go get tested. Irresponsible people wait to ge found out and end up in jail. Whining about it wont change anything

from the article: "a seemingly invincible ignorance"

Yep. People will believe anything when they are scared and facts will be irrelevant. That's what a lot of these posts reflect; fear and ignorance.

The present criminalization of HIV infected people serves no one, is counter-productive and just indicates the level of hysteria and need for education that still exists among many in the population.

culheath --- You're the one who needs an education. No one with HIV , a deadly , life changing disease , should be allowed to expose others to it with impunity. To say otherwise is simply utter nonsense. Fear of such a disease is appropriate and normal.

No one with HIV , a deadly , life changing disease , should be allowed to expose others to it with impunity.

gary,

Trust me, I've been educated about HIV/AIDS. I've worked and lived around and with infected people for years and I do not fear becoming infected myself at all.

There's a big difference between being hysterically fearful and consciously concerned. These laws we are are talking about are for the most part based on ignorance and don't correspond to the reality of the danger that exposure to HIV+ people present (especially the spitting as deadly assault type).

How do you feel about people who use a cell phone while driving? Are you afraid of them? They certainly are turning their cars into lethal weapons and can certainly kill unsuspecting people. Should they be given the same harsh penalties?

The hysteria and ignorance influencing many of these posts I've read so far is readily apparent to anyone who has experience with and a good working knowledge of the real circumstances regarding HIV/AIDS infection. People are always inordinately fearful and reactionary toward what they are not familiar with and do not understand. That's how we wind up with these bad laws that do not serve the public inter4est and are in fact counter-productive.

culheath -- We live in a Democracy , let's let the people decide. You make your case, I'll make mine and others will make the laws we all have to abide by. Anyone who does not fear the consequences of contracting HIV and seek to avoid it is a fool.

I agree with the democratically making our case part. But fear is not necessary and it is debilitating when it comes to making rational judgments about the steps necessary to avoid infection. These pointless and harmful laws we are speaking of are a perfect example of how fear leads people astray.

If someone announces they have H.I.V. along with spitting, they intend to make you believe they can infect you, even if it isn't true. That is more serious than just spitting. I'm sure the man serving 35 years (still, a bit harsh) for spitting at cops was also loudly and belligerently proclaiming his HIV status.

Please see post#9.4

Please see post #9.4.

If someone announces they have H.I.V. along with spitting, they intend to make you believe they can infect you, even if it isn't true.

Since HIV isn't transmitted through saliva, it doesn't what what they announce or intend. It'd be like arresting someone because they sincerely believed that the curse that they uttered could truly kill.

Its interesting that with all this talk of cutting the size of government and keeping taxes under control, that someone would be sentenced to 35 years in prison. Each prisoner costs somewhere in the vicinity of $40K a year. $1,400,000 is a mighty expensive bill for an action that doesn't hurt anyone.

Please see post #9.4

Marcel Villa:

1-Quit spamming.

2-Get your link numbers right.

3-While Wikipedia isn't the be-all, end-all of knowledge...

HIV is transmitted in many ways, such as anal, vaginal or oral sex, blood transfusion, contaminated hypodermic needles, exchange between mother and baby during pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding. It can be transmitted by any contact of a mucous membrane or the bloodstream with a bodily fluid that has the virus in it, such as the blood, semen, vaginal fluid, preseminal fluid, or breast milk from an infected person.

Don't see saliva anywhere do you? Nope. And doctors wear masks while treating sick people? Maybe because there are other ailments that can be passed on through the air?

How do you prove it? Signed affidavit before sex?? How absurd.

It all becomes a he said she said situation and I don't see how this could even be proven. The only way to convict is through biases from juries.

Kissing is Body fluid.I dont care who said other wise..

Ignorance is apparently bliss when it comes to the misinformed like you. Curious, but where did you get your PhD in science from?

Paragus, Calm down,... kissing involves the body fluid called saliva,...it is not on the list below:

These body fluids have been shown to contain high concentrations of HIV:

• blood
• semen
• vaginal fluid
• breast milk
• other body fluids containing blood

The following are additional body fluids that may transmit the virus that health care workers may come into contact with:

• fluid surrounding the brain and the spinal cord
• fluid surrounding bone joints
• fluid surrounding an unborn baby

Hey 808Johnny, seems that you want us to believe that the virus is somehow miracleously NOT found in the saliva and yet can be found in most other bodily fluids. Come on now, really! The virus is found in all the fluids of the human body. The concentration may not be as high in saliva because it is continueous flushed but it is still there. The body has no natural defense against the virus. I am not sure the incubation period for the virus to manifest symptoms or how long it would take one virus to replicate to cause the symptoms and a disease state. Maybe you could tell us this. We don't have to fear the disease but working with HIV patient requires caution. The government has a responsibility to protect the general public. If they don't want to maintain the safety of the general public them why do we need them?

common,

The virus is found in EXTREMELY low concentrations in the saliva. There may be a theoretical risk of transmission, and surely someone who knows they are HIV positive should be wary, but to sentence a guy to 3 decades in prison because of a theoretical risk is a bit much. If you could show me a case of someone spitting on someone else, and then transmitting the virus, you may have a point

body has no natural defense against the virus

Not true. Skin is one defense. antibodies are another defense. NK cells are another. In fact, there are some people in sub-saharan africa who have natural immunity to HIV (actually dependent on continuous exposure).

Vaccines in development now look to enhance the body's defense

I am not sure the incubation period for the virus to manifest symptoms or how long it would take one virus to replicate to cause the symptoms and a disease state

Years, even a decade or more

HIV in saliva in small amounts where enzymes break it down. The virus is ever evolving; therefore, might it be possible for a minuscule amount to be spat into an open wound causing infection? Don't want to find out, nor does any law enforcement personnel.

The concentration of HIV determines whether infection will occur. In blood, for example, the virus is very concentrated. A small amount of blood is enough to infect someone. The concentration of virus in blood or other fluids can change, in the same person, over time.

HIV can enter through an open cut or sore, or through contact with the mucous membranes. Transmission risk is very high when HIV comes in contact with the more porous mucous membranes in the genitals, the anus, and the rectum which are inefficient barriers to HIV. Transmission is also possible through oral sex because body fluids can enter the bloodstream through cuts in the mouth.

www.mnaidsproject.org/education/educate-yourself/hiv-transmission.php

The perpetrator will not live long enough to see his freedom, unless a cure is on the horizon - there have been cures with high dosages of intravenous vitamins. www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/gndeath.htm

There has been at least one documented case of transmission via kissing. (blood in his saliva... really who checks the mouth of the person they are kissing... and gum disease in her gums...).

Sorry, but stating that it's absolutely NOT a risk is absolutely stupid. Seriously, how many times have you bitten your tongue and it bled, and then forgot about it?

HIV is deadly. HIV is dangerous. Any attempt to spread the disease should be taken as an attempt to shoot someone with a gun. It doesn't matter that you are an idiot who can't take the safety off, it's a crime.

"Come on now, really! The virus is found in all the fluids of the human body"

Commonsense, use some common sense!!! Spitting, though not suggested, is no more harmful than throwing water! Not deserving of 35 years in prison!

It would take one gallon of saliva/spit to acquire enough of the HIV virus to hypothetically infect someone. That's a heck of a lot of spit, try filling one shot-glass of spit, let alone a whole gallon, it's not an easy trick!

paragus: Kissing is Body fluid.I dont care who said other wise..

Yeah, you'll understand if I listen to trained medical experts over someone who can't put together two sentences. Have fun wallowing in your self-inflicted ignorance.

Those who don't believe HIV can be transmitted via saliva should be willing to volunteer for a study to confirm their beliefs. They could agree to be exposed to HIV tainted saliva to prove its harmlessness. Volunteers?

I would.

And I'm absolutely sure that I'll get a bunch of a$$hole comments about it from posters here.

808Johnny is an apologist for people with HIV and is rabidly trying to prove a point. While he's made some mistakes, many of his facts are right. But the trouble is, he and others like Eric, are not addressing the issue here. The issue is not whether or not AIDS can be transmitted by spitting or biting. The issue is, what is the biter/spitter's INTENT when he bites or spits? What does HE think the biting or spitting is going to do? If you aim a gun at someone and pull the trigger, even if you miss, what did you THINK was going to happen when you fired? You EXPECTED to cause great injury to that person, right? That's INTENT. INTENT to commit murder is what you're charged with when you fail to kill someone, but you were trying to. Like Gabby Gifford's shooter...he shot her point blank in the forehead. She miraculously lived. Do you believe the shooter thought she would live, or do you believe he thought she would die? A person with AIDS spits at a police officer's eyes while he's being arrested for a crime...what does a rational person believe he was thinking when he did that? Doesn't matter whether it can work or not, Johhny, the criminal was INTENDING to infect him. THAT'S what we're supposed to be talking about here. Nobody is saying that people with HIV are criminals, but if they attempt to use their disease to intentionally infect others, then they are criminal as sure as if they picked up a gun and shot an innocent person.

Small note...my wife works in a hospital. If you're talking about 'masks', then Johnny is right, they are used so that the hospital personnel don't infect the patient. Ruset is talking about a 'face sheild', they are used so that the patients do not infect the staff. And yes, when they are working with people known to have AIDS (actually, even when they're not sure) they wear both. They don't take any chances, no matter WHAT the CDC says.

i did address it...check above

Paragus, Calm down,... kissing involves the body fluid called saliva,...it is not on the list below:

These body fluids have been shown to contain high concentrations of HIV:

• blood
• semen
• vaginal fluid
• breast milk
• other body fluids containing blood

The following are additional body fluids that may transmit the virus that health care workers may come into contact with:

• fluid surrounding the brain and the spinal cord
• fluid surrounding bone joints
• fluid surrounding an unborn baby

Commonsense,

"Hey 808Johnny, seems that you want us to believe that the virus is somehow miracleously NOT found in the saliva and yet can be found in most other bodily fluids. Come on now, really! The virus is found in all the fluids of the human body."

Seeing how I copy and pasted the "facts" that I have previously posted, from the most frequently asked questions on the cdc.gov website, that makes me on the side of the experts,...and you "not-so-much-commonsense," on the side of the ignorant! Which is so wonderful about this thread, I get to educate the ill/un-informed,...

eric-2573068,

"i did address it...check above"

Uhhhh... ego, much?

Hi! I got wind (Midwestern expression) about how you think I'm "stalking" you. OK, tonight I sought you out.

Dude, "MD"... confront me to my face, OK?

(I have interests in medical issues, as you apparently do (for either real or pretend-pompous issues.)

As I said before, let's grab rulers and measure 'em, OK?

eric-2573068,

Please, oh please, put me on your "Ignore" list.

normally i try not to encourage you but this was too funny:

Dude, "MD"... confront me to my face, OK?

You mean, over an anonymous internet forum...you want me to confront you "to your face". really?

Reality, meet boris....you guys are obviously strangers

Hahah...youre too funny man. I enjoy laughing at you too much to ignore you

The law stopped making people get tested,

HIV testing has never been mandatory.

Back in the old days - 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's, one had to pass a blood test before getting a marriage license in a lot of states. I am not sure what they were testing for, maybe just to make sure they weren't cousins, but it was mandatory. Since iI am not now married, i do not know if some states still require this. Hope I never find out. If I think I want to get married again, I'll just buy a house, find a woman I don't like, and give it to her.

They were testing for syphillis, not HIV. Most states have dropped the requirement because of the extremely low return on investment. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were being spent to find one unknown case. It didn't make for good public policy.

there was a documentary made a few years back about how some in the gay community were intentionally trying to get infected because it made them respected as a sort of hero/ martyr amongst their peers. Sick, sick world.

What purpose? To stigmatize this illness worse so that people don't want to know their status essentially spreading the disease even more?

Why don't we just criminalize everything in the world that could "potentially" kill you even though it might not? I mean cigarettes clearly fall in that category. Maybe we should prosecute everyone that sells them. How about people with the flu that don't call in sick to work? They could potentially expose someone with HIV or a weakened immune system and essentially kill them. These laws can go both ways.

To protect the public from those knowingly, and in a number of unfortunate cases intentionally, infecting others.

To stigmatize this illness worse so that people don't want to know their status

Not knowing their status only 'helps' people that are intending to do things that harm others.

Let's just arrest all the sick people and put them in prison. Life without parole.

I think you're a little out in left field on that one, Satanick

No freaking kidding!! People get REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Let's just arrest all the sick people and put them in prison. Life without parole.

Not so far-fetched. We've already had a poster here advocating executing all HIV-positives.

I must have missed where people said they had a right to spread such a disease? Can you please show me such a quote because I must have missed it?

Surely you do agree that people have a personal responsibility, right? Your comment clearly indicates that. So if that is true, why do those who have sex with people that don't know their status or those that decide to have unprotected sex with someone, why are they not as liable for their actions?? It isn't a one way street and it takes two to tango. Both parties are equally responsible to protect themselves.

I bet you have young children in the home and drano hanging out under the kitchen sink. Should you be prosecuted for your "right" to keep you drano under the sink if it causes the death of a child? I bet you talk/text while you drive too. Go ahead, throw stones.

Drew - so you advocate required testing then? Heaven forbid, no one ever lies.

Michael J. Bernardo. I feel bad for you, so I will provide you the basis for your post, post-post, so to speak. Get it? post-post. Post can mean "after" so post-post means after you posted. ha ha. So when you need to, please feel free to copy and paste this:

Hey, like man and such. I totally feel its my RIGHT to spread my AIDS around 'n stuff. Like, spread the love, man. I got it feelin' love, and I want others to feel my lovin' AIDS, right in their kiester. I totally feel fatal diseases have the right to be shared. So, ok, don't tread on my rights, man.

No I don't advocate that. You are right that people lie but that is easy to prove. If somebody never gets tested, then you can't prove they knew their status....hence, nobody will get tested and the disease spreads even more.

Here's a thought. How about we stop stigmatizing the disease so that people can feel they can be responsible and do the right thing? I mean have you ever been tested? If not or if so, why do you think people don't get tested?? Because they know how society acts towards those with HIV and they don't want to be put in that group. That doesn't help anyone.

There are plenty of diseases that can be life threatening and are just as easily spread (some even easier) that we don't treat the same way. We start this slipper slope and laws coming after all of those are next...because Americans love to find fault and push blame anyway they can.

lol... seriously drew? Your theory is that people would rather die from a horrible disease than get tested because they might one day intentionally infect someone and be charged for it?

That's about as reasonable an argument as the aliens might single them out for specific testing because of their illness.

milidad, the fact is, a large group of them or going to die anyway. How is getting tested going to change that? So, yes, it would be an incentive to NOT get tested if you could receive a lighter sentence by not knowing. I don't know what the hell aliens have to do with anything... but if that was an attempt at an analogy, it failed miserably.

Your theory is that people would rather die from a horrible disease than get tested because they might one day intentionally infect someone and be charged for it?

So do you have yourself tested after every act of sex? After all...

I was with you until the shooting a gun in the air.

Vrie-

I probably was a bit unclear there. What I was trying to convey is that just as there isn't intent to kill when one stupidly shoots a gun in the air, so there isn't intent just because one has HIV and did a stupid behavior like unprotected sex. The point is that it shouldn't carry a 35 year sentence like the guy got for spitting. The penalty should be commiserate with the harm involved. If no harm occurred, then a lighter or possibly even no crime should be pursued by law enforcement. If harm does occur, then the punishment should fit the crime.

My neighbor's daughter knew who she was sleeping with... the man she loved. She even bore him a child. Both mother and child are dead of AIDS. The sick b@#$@%d NEVER told her he was HIV-positive until SHE was diagnosed with AIDS. He was criminally prosecuted but found not guilty even though he KNOWINGLY killed her and their child. Another woman came forward who this guy had been partners with during the trial... she too was HIV positive after having sex with this man. If you KNOW you are HIV-positive, you OWE it to the person you are sleeping with to tell them so. After doing so, if the person still cares enough about you to take the risk of getting this dreadful disease, then so be it. I'm betting many would decide that person didn't mean quite that much to him/her... that's why so may HIV positives don't share their illness with their sex partners. They may not ever get to have sex again and sex is more important than the damage it can cause. The word SELFISH comes to mind! I watched this young lady wither away and die and then her young child. This guy told her he was "sorry" but was afraid she wouldn't "love" him if he had told her the truth!!! I realize they now have a drug regiment that can help you live with AIDS but then you are scarred for life yourself... shouldn't I have the right to decide if that is the way I want to live my life and if this person is worth it to me????

Many of us have the decency to stay at home when we have the flu just so we don't infect others. I would think that HIV-positive folks should offer that same courtesy to their sexual partners and if they don't and the partner becomes HIV positive, then the transmitter should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This isn't the flu folks, it is a life sentence!

Knowing who you sleep with doesn't necessarily protect you from disease. People cheat all the time. So your spouse cheats and gives you HIV you should be prosecuted too because you trusted your spouse/girlfriend/boyfriend?? I have a child who was in a monogamous (or so they thought) relationship. THank-god the disease my child contracted was clahmydia not HIV.

ALL people do NOT cheat ALL the time. Mine doesn't cheat and neither do I... guess that's why we've been married for 27 years. And sexual promiscuity is not a new phenomena... was the same when I was in high school. If you choose to sleep around like it's nothing, then you run a higher risk of contracting HIV. But as a carrier of the HIV virus or AIDS, you OWE it to the person you are sleeping with to share this little tid bit of information.... plain and simple. I consider myself a good person and if I was HIV positive, I don't think I could live with myself if I slept with someone without telling them first. And if I contracted it from someone who did not tell me HE was HIV positive, you bet your arse I would want him prosecuted to the full extent of the law! Like I said, this is NOT the FLU!

Many of us have the decency to stay at home when we have the flu just so we don't infect others.

Maybe they do where you work, but not here. Everybody's too worried about surviving the next round of downsizing. The truly dedicated get to keep their jobs.

if I was HIV positive, I don't think I could live with myself if I slept with someone without telling them first.

But then you should never sleep with anyone again, because there's the possibility...

Another one that doesn't know how to read. So if laws such as this suggestion were passed, how many people do YOU think would get tested?? The lack of common sense by you hate mongers is amazing.

Drew is right.

On a side note, it's clear that there are some uniquely UN-qualified individuals here who speak about topics they are uninformed about.

Well, no need to bash the United Nations. The U.N. has some of the most UNinformed people of all time. They are UNprepared and UNqualified for sure! On the other hand, its well known the World Health Organization (WHO) is not up to the task. Everyone says, WHO is worse than the UN? Indeed!

Hey stoopid! Great nickname it fits!!!

On a side note, it's clear that there are some uniquely UN-qualified individuals here who speak about topics they are uninformed about.

Ya think?

What is your point? Surely you don't believe only gay people get HIV? Please say you aren't that stupid.

Of course he does Drew and he probably IS that stupid if he made this comment. Laurie Anderson was right. Language IS a virus when it's used like the right-wing hard-liners use it.

Good One Pookman. Gays and Liberals never want to hear the TRUTH.

With ALL THE BEAUTIFUL GIRLS running around handing it out FREE, Two men want to BONK each other in the REAR. Give me a Break.

Actually, the point that you missed appears to be this:

She doesn't want the crime to be charged as something more serious because the person is HIV infected. It should be considered the same crime.

However, she wants the crime to be charged as something more serious simply because the victim is gay. It should NOT be considered the same crime.

One involves possibly killing another person, the other involves the same outcome... just the victim is gay.

Drew, Please show me where I said that only gays have HIV! The point is be consistent for all of your stances congresswoman! Do you understand now drew? lol

It would be bio-terrorism if spitting on a cop caused HIV/AIDS but the experts say the HIV virus is only found to infect other individuals via FOUR bodily fluids:

1) Blood

2) Sperm

3) Breast Milk

4) Vaginal Fluids

Pay attention people!!!

808, Check with the "GLMA" and then re post! Oh and have some crow while your re posting! lol

poolman I checked with the "Gay & Lesbian Medical Association" and I'm not eating crow! I'm eating susi on Waikiki Beach. lol

See Post 15.1

Wow, hate much? You are so misinformed and clueless it's almost laughable.

You seriously need to do a little bit of basic reading about hiv before you post this stuff. Horrid bruising is not, and has never been, a symptom of hiv infection. Excessive vomitting has not, and has never been, a symptom of hiv infection. HIV merely breaks down the immune system so that the infected person is more succeptable to infectious diseases. A person might find that they are getting ill easier and that it takes longer to recover. Many diseases cause these symptoms, which is why it takes a while to find out that you are hiv positive.

I remember when a person had TB, they locked him up until it was cleared up.

Of course, as long as someone is compliant with their therapy, they don't do that these days. But, there's a HUGE difference between TB and HIV. TB can be transmitted via casual proximity, HIV can not. So, there's no public health reason to lock up someone infected with HIV.

they say "i didn't know i had HIV" right you lose weight from excessive vomiting and have horrid bruising for no reason you go to the dr and he says "YOU GOT AIDS"

Or leukemia, or other fast-growing cancers, or about 10 other infectios or non-infectious diseases. Or maybe you think we just need to kill all the ill people in the country. Just to be safe.

A very slippery slope, if both were discussing the same thing. One is intentional harm, the other is unintentional. Now, if a person was TRYING to infect an HIV person with the flu in order to kill them... that would be different.

Great point Drew!

People need to go to jail for 35 years for intentionally infecting an AIDS patient with a 'cold' for attempted murder!!! Why not???,... it does sound as ridiculous as sending a guy to prison for 35 years for spitting on a cop!!!

That's the slippery point Milidad!!!

I love it Drew!!!

Sounds like Johnny loves Drews' slippery slope...

it's a real knee slapper. :(

This guy can kill more people than my Guns. But Liberals want to take my Guns BUT they Protect People who Spread AID'S.Hummmmmmmmmmmm

Are you advocating your right to use your guns on people with HIV?

Prove it. And what if someone discloses? How do you prove they didn't?

Generally, they don't disclose anything before spitting in a cops face.

We deal with he said, she said all the time. That's what the justice system is all about.

And the justice system gets it wrong a lot.

AGAIN...read the literature and get educated Letusreason. Saliva contains NO virus by itself. Now if there is blood in the saliva, such as what happens when somebody is beaten before they spit, then yes, the potential is there but they'd hardly be expected to know they had blood in their saliva at that point. I suspect people in conflict don't stop to self-examine and see if they feel/taste blood in their mouth.

Frankly, I think people should know by now that unprotected sex leaves you....unprotected. Wear gloves when dealing with ANYBODY'S blood and fluids. It's called Universal Precautions. The cop that got spit at knows what they are. So should you.

letusreason-right on! DRew- grow up people who have found out they got HIV and knew that the only partner they had been with had to be the culprit have contacted police, found other victims and have hired lawyers and investigators that proved who gave them the disease and those people ended up convicted and in prison. Have you not heard that there is testing that can show that a group of people testing positve can be shown to have been sleeping with the same people?? NOt exactly sure how to explain it but strains can be tested to show this.

skrewdworld-

Correct and incorrect. It's true that there are tests that can identify genotypes and phenotypes. It's also true that such a test can identify the alleged assailant/accused as having that geno/phenotype. What's not true is that it can be narrowed down to ONLY one person as the possible culprit. As you note, a group of people can be shown to have shared their strains but it's not true that you can identify specific individuals who slept with each other within that group.

I'd be curious to see the citation/link you have for stating that it was " proved who gave them the disease and those people ended up convicted and in prison." It's possible I'm just not up on medical techniques but I've not heard this claimed before. I've heard of "probabilities" that the alleged person is the culprit but not actual proof.

It was a television documentary type show where numerous middle aged women all thought they were in a monogamous relationship with one man who had the virus. THey had the testimony of quite a few women and I believe they found evidence the man had documented what he was doing. In the beginning the police could'nt charge this guy but the police worked with these women and investigators and it took years but the case was proved and the guy was sent to jail. Wish I coud remember the name of the show. Thanks for the info about genotypes etc..and you are right about the testing not being able to exactly who the strain started with etc.. but this was part of the evidence with the people I'm talking about. Even after being sentenced and put in jail the man did'nt get what he did wrong and tried to blame it all on the women tht he had called to each ws the only one, he loved them, wanted to marry etc..

What is ignorant and dangerous are comments and hatred that is spread from misinformation like the one you posted.

Drew please just stop because you will not win that argument. Jinnys posted was neither ignorant, dangerous or coming from a place of hatred. In fact you are the one who is being judgmental and downright rude. Unless your prepared to be civil and have an intelligent discourse why don't you just go away!!

Jenny and skrewd- I'd suggest you check with the CDC on whether HIV is now considered a death sentence. My understanding is that it is now classified as a manageable disease. Of course, everybody who is alive is under a death sentence. We all die. What's important to realize is that any impairment, whether cancer, diabetes, diseased liver, etc... has as a prognosis a "death sentence". Less drama please.

There is no cure for Aids. Most people die from the complications Aids brings like cancer. It can be manged for years but you will eventually die from it. Sorry but I don't feel it's "drama". Purposely infecting a person with such a horrific disease is morally, ethically, and should be legally wrong and a punishable crime. No matter what "names" or things any body wants to call me thats my opinion and I'm stickin" to it!!

Purposely infecting a person with such a horrific disease is morally, ethically, and should be legally wrong and a punishable crime

Skrewed, nobody on this thread thinks it's okay to purposely infect someone with HIV/AIDS!!! DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The point you don't get is this hysteria that AIDS is spread via spitting on a cop!!!

Are you Skrewed in the head!!!???~

Actually my heads just fine thank-you. And yours? Threatening to spit potentially dangerous body fluids on another person when you know you are HIV positive or have full blown aids is wrong!! It's also not a proven fact that you can't get infected by spit if it gets in your eyes or in an open cut etc.. The person arrested and jailed in the article had the intent to cause the officer to be in fear of contracting a deadly disease and would have been glad if the officer became ill. Maybe the sentence was high but it is and should be a punishable crime. That is my opinion insults aren't going to change that. If there are laws etc.. put on the ballot in my area regarding this type of thing and I agree with them I will vote for laws that punish the intentional transmission of a deadly disease. People with the virus don't have a right to inflict the infection on others and if they don't get it and can't stop harming others they need to be locked up like any other criminal assaulting or attempting to endanger or kill others. Thats not hysteria, it what is morally, ethically and legally right in my opinion. I have a first amendment right to say so and you have the right to disagree so get over it.

Exactly!! These illogical thinking people will never understand the slippery slope this creates. Nor do they understand the danger from encouraging people to not get tested and know their status.

Drew

Here logic..Keep the peter in the pants..Dont share needles and you wont get screwed in the end..Capisci?

Wow, you live in some kind of utopia....Capisci?

You must living with slippery slopes. There are plenty of examples where normal everyday people could be prosecuted under the same logic. Where does it stop?? I guess, according to you, we should just live in a bubble and never leave our homes, right? Well that sounds realistic.

While being morally reprehensible to KNOW you have HPV and have unprotected sex and pass it on to an unsuspecting victim, I don't know if that person can go after the HPV spreader criminally. But say she lives, she can certainly try filing a civil suit. And I would hope she could get him right in the wallet, which is all this type of person would care about anyway, as he sure wouldn't care if she lived or died, or how much pain he put her through. It's called being responsible for your actions. For which you Drew seem incapable of understanding....troll.

If you are tested and treated the chances that you will develop cervical cancer from HPV are slim to none. I know this from personal experience so no need to argue the point with me. Those of you who want to compare the chances of somebody being exposed to the flu and dying are a far cry from the possiblity of contracting HIV and dying of AIds. GET REAL. The flu is not catagorized as a known death risk, just potentially in rare cases. Voice of wisdom you don't sound wise at all.

skrewed- as I noted above, I don't believe HIV+ is considered a death sentence. AIDS, on the other hand, might still be. You DO know the difference, right...(since you and Jinny profess to be knowledgeable in this area)?

As for the flu not being considered a death risk, I'd refer you to Avian flu, H1N1,etc... and also remind you that what is considered a death risk is directly related to your living conditions. For the homeless, the flu is most assuredly a death risk. I can understand how people who don't see or notice homeless people might not associate them with death risk from flu. It's hard to understand what you don't know about.

@DoninPhnx: HIV IS the virus that kills of white blood cells and when the white blood cell count falls low enough the person is considered to have full blown AIDS. Then any and all diseases invade their bodies because they can't fight them off and they literally rot away. It's a horrible way to die. Try googling it. You are misinformed.

Some people on here care more about HIV spreading not being a crime than they do about the article and topic of discussion.

You want to counter the belief that INTENTIONALLY spreading HIV should be a crime because it is a deadly disease...

with, if you spread the FLU (largely unintentionally... I've never heard of an INTENTIONAL flu contamination, but I'm sure it's happened... and possibly even killed someone), that should be charged because the flu can kill.

If someone INTENTIONALLY infects someone with the flu, then they should be charged with assault. If that person dies, then they should be charged with murder.

Period. Intentionally inflicting bodily harm on someone else is a crime. Intentionally killing them, is MURDER.

A 20 year old who becomes infected with HIV is expected to live until they are 44 yo. Yes, your death is delayed 20 years, but you still die from this disease. My kids won't even be out of high school then. I'm sorry, but if I die 40-50 years earlier as a result.... that to me is a deadly disease. Hopefully in the intervening 20 years they will find a cure. I know there is a lot of promise in getting the antibodies to fight the disease. It's similar to the research being done in triggering an anti-body response in certain types of cancer.

OMG. You were my waiter at Denny's, weren't you?

Thats not wisdom! When a person in the United States gets HIV the probability of them getting this disease is far more of a choice of theirs that led to it. Also, in order to get this disease you must exchange more then a cough!

The person in your make up example did not choose to give these people the flu, rather it happened by circumstance. Where as the people with HIV who choose to Bite or Assault somebody and have this disease are breaking the laws anyways. Whereas, their decision to break this law could Kill or infect another! They are guilty as charged!

Stoopid is as stoopid does!!!

As far as I understand it, if you KNOWINGLY attempt to transmit any form of incurable STD, such as herpes or HIV/AIDS, you can be charged with a criminal offense. I am not sure what the charge is (probably assault or similar) but I have heard about it happening before.

I'm still not clear as to whether the virus stays in your system for life or some articles seemed to say that the body can clear the virus in a few years.

It depends on the person (their immune system) and the virus they are actually infected with. Typically, it is considered a life-long infection.