Free Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal by Mary Roach Page B

perspiration,” one imagines— hopes —that an applicator other than the tongue was employed.
    “It is a known observation among the vulgar that the saliva is efficacious in cleansing foul wounds, and cicatrizing recent ones, thus dogs by licking their wounds . . . have them heal in a very short time,” wrote the eighteenth-century physician Herman Boerhaave. He was correct. Wounds that would take several weeks to heal on one’s skin disappear in a week inside the mouth. In a 2008 rodent study, animals that licked their wounds healed faster than those that could not (because their salivary glands had been disconnected—a wound, alas, that even saliva cannot heal).
    More than just disinfecting is going on. Rodent saliva contains nerve growth factor and skin growth factor. Human saliva contains histatins, which speed wound closure independent of their antibacterial action. Dutch researchers watched it happen in the lab. They cultured skin cells, scratched them with a tiny sterile tip, soaked them in the saliva of six different people, and clocked how quickly the wounds healed, as compared to controls. Other components of saliva render viruses—including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS—noninfective in most cases. (Colds and flus aren’t spread by drinking from a sick person’s glass. They’re spread by touching it. One person’s finger leaves virus particles on the glass; the next person’s picks them up and transfers them to the respiratory tract via an eye-rub or nose-pick.) *
    The average person, of course, is oblivious to all this. With no more formal criteria than the number of Hollywood monsters featuring copious, pendant drool, you can make the case that saliva remains universally upsetting. And thus maligned, even in the medical community. There has long been an assumption among emergency medical personnel that human bites are especially likely to become infected and lead to sepsis—a potentially lethal systemic infection. “Even the simplest of wounds require copious irrigation and wound toilet,” warn the authors of “Managing Human Bites” in the Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock.
    Not so fast, says rival American Journal of Emergency Medicine. The article title says it all: “Low Risk of Infection in Selected Human Bites Treated without Antibiotics.” Only one out of the sixty-two human-bit patients who were not given antibiotics developed an infection. However, the authors excluded high-risk bites, including “fight bites” on the hands. Here it is the aggressor who gets the “bite”—when he splits open his knuckle on another man’s teeth. Fight bites * tend to get infected, but it is the fault of the knuckle as much as the saliva. Relatively little blood flow reaches the tendons and sheaths of the finger joints, so the immune system has fewer resources with which to fight back. (Ear cartilage is similarly underserved by the vascular system, so if you plan on picking a fight with Mike Tyson, do practice good wound toilet.)
    Even the “deathly drool” of the Komodo dragon, the world’s largest lizard, has likely been overstated. Theory holds that Komodo dragon saliva contains lethal doses of infectious bacteria, enabling the reptiles to take on prey far larger than themselves—wild boar, deer, newspaper editors. ( San Francisco Chronicle ’s Phil Bronstein spent several days on an antibiotic drip after a Komodo dragon attacked his foot during a behind-the-scenes visit at the Los Angeles Zoo in 2001 with his then wife, Sharon Stone.) Rather than having to tackle and kill their prey on the spot, the theory goes, the reptiles need only deliver a single bite and then wait around for the animal to die of sepsis. The scenario has not been documented in the wild, however. A team of researchers from the University of Texas at Arlington attempted a laboratory simulation, using mice as mock prey and, as predator, injections of bacteria from wild Komodo dragon saliva. The scientists