manama
Star
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 3,827
heb B doesn't require blood to blood contact only. other body fluids as well. HIV gets transmitted from mother etc or in contact with infected person etc which is rare, Hep B however is everywhere and does infact danger new borns the most.No, but this would require blood coming in contact with blood, which would mean that blood was either not cleaned properly. Hepatitis B and C can live on surfaces for a long time, but those surfaces would have to be soiled and not cleaned for that time in order for it to survive. It can be removed from surfaces by cleaning with bleach. This is the only difference between the Hepatitis' and HIV is that it can live outside the body longer. Otherwise, it is only transmitted in the exact same way. You either engage in sexual activity with someone who is infected or their blood has the opportunity to mix with your blood. You don't get it by holding someone's hand, or sharing their spoon.
Therefore, children should not be at risk of Hepatitis B unless the environment they are in is dirty or contaminated and they have cuts or an open wound, or they are being sexually molested. This was the case that I posted about the history of gonorrhea affecting children in history. They tried to say young girls could get it without sexual contact to cover up the abuse and this was forgotten when antibiotics were released.
I would say that there is a strong possibility that it is the same scenario here. It is a blood borne pathogen. There are just too many ways to prevent children from contracting it. Some percentage of this population is more than likely being molested and that is why children demonstrate the statistics that they do. That can't be fixed with a vaccine.
it doesn't have to be sex. people have used diseases to cover up stuff always, there are various useless pills and strong vaccines (old mmr, gardasil, cervrix) but that doesn't mean EVERYTHING is a hoax