Mosquitoes are popularly known vectors. Anopheles being that of plasmodium spp ranging from malariae, to falciparum, other species too (e.g culex) are vectors of other pathogens too. The mode of feeding of mosquitoes (i.e piercing and sucking) which is the means through which the patogenic parasites are injected into the body is my concern here. Does Mospuitoe's coming in contact with the victims/host blood define a means for transmission of contagious disease like HIV/AIDS and the likes

Does Mospuitoe's coming in contact with the victims/host blood define a means for transmission of contagious disease like HIV/AIDS and the likes

Well, simply put: no, it doesn't. Blood from the last meal is not injected into the next meal--saliva is. Mosquito-borne pathogens live and reproduce inside the mosquito and get into the saliva; HIV isn't adapted for that.

 

I don't mean to be rude, but don't you think that, if mosquitoes could actually function as vectors for HIV, we might've, well... heard about it? Like, on the news, for instance?

The general pathway is that the mosquito is infected with a virus, which they then can transmit. So it is not the same as direct blood contact. It depends on how well the virus survives (and propagates) within the respective hosts and vectors. HIV does not remain functional after passage through mosquitos, for example.

@PhDwannabe thanks for the reply. I was triggered to make this post by an arguement between my colleagues over which is which. It was after some pre-post researches that I got convincing points on this issue, such as each specie of mosquito has specific parasites that can strive in it, there would have been an hyperendemic, and so on