Author Topic: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor? (Read 25846 times)

midgeure · « **on:** February 08, 2009, 07:16:28 pm »

Sorry to have to ask and bother people on here? But would be really grateful if anyone could help me with this?

I was at work and a guy cut his finger, he immediatly swung back and I ended up with blood on my face...I dont know if any went into my mouth or my eyes? I dont think so? I went and washed my face right away. What do you think the risk is of catching HIV if he had it?

Thanks

Neil

RapidRod · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2009, 08:13:50 pm »

Zero. No risk at all.

Andy Velez · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2009, 08:27:59 pm »

You are worrying needlessly. HIV is a fragile virus. If it were that easily transmitable we would have known long before your experience and the epidemic would be even worse than it is.

There's no cause for concern nor for testing over this incident.

midgeure · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2009, 09:15:41 pm »

Thanks very much for that!

So even if there had been a speck of bloood that had gotten into my mouth or eye that I didnt notice?

anniebc · « **Reply #4 on:** February 08, 2009, 11:43:00 pm »

Midge

Still no risk.

Jan

midgeure · « **Reply #5 on:** February 10, 2009, 06:35:09 pm »

OK thanks! But if I did get a bit of blood into my mouth isnt there something called the Music membrane in the mouth and it a drop of blood gets onto that it can cause HIV?

RapidRod · « **Reply #6 on:** February 10, 2009, 06:55:57 pm »

Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). If you continue to post excessively after one Time Out, you may be given a second Time Out which will last eight weeks. There is no third Time Out - it is a permanent ban. The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.

anniebc · « **Reply #7 on:** February 10, 2009, 07:13:22 pm »

Midge

Again you did not have a risk for HIV, saliva is very good at destroying HIV, specific enzymes present in saliva mean HIV is not transmitted in saliva...and the word you are looking for is "Mucous Membrane"

As Rod said posting continuously over a No-Risk situation will get you a 28 dayTime Out...and we don't want to see that happening.

Jan

midgeure · « **Reply #8 on:** February 19, 2009, 10:58:31 am »

I have heard that the P24 Antigen test does not work for the HIV 2 infection as this strain of the virus doesn't produce P24 antigen? Is this true? Would most appreciate any info?

Cheers

Andy Velez · « **Reply #9 on:** February 19, 2009, 11:35:11 am »

I've merged your threads. Please follow our rule and keep all of your entries in this same thread.

Have you had an incident other than the non-risky one which brought you here that is causing you to consider testing?

midgeure · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2009, 11:39:48 am »

OK thanks.

No still the same incident. I guess that I was thinking of getting an Antigen test as the guy who cut himself is from West Africa but I read that Antigen cant be detected in HIV 2? Is that correct?

Andy Velez · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2009, 11:45:59 am »

You don't need any kind of test because as you have been told repeatedly you were never at risk.

You're allowing your fears to busily take over and come up with all kinds of ideas about tests that have no validity whatsoever.

What you need to do is to get on with your life. And if you can't let go of this unfounded fear then get yourself some professional help to deal with it. This is ignorance and fear at work on you and nothing to do with a real HIV risk.

We can't help you with that in this setting.

midgeure · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2009, 12:41:00 pm »

Thanks! And yes your totally right! I dont know why this incident has gripped me around the throat and wont let me go! No matter how much yourself and others have said I wasnt at risk? Its totally taken over my life, cant eat, sleep or anthing and Im embarrased to say this. I have booked an appointment for some CBT therapy to deal with this fear I have right now?!

Im seeking more information to give me peace of mind somehow?! I keep thinking if I understand how I wasnt at risk form a professional point of view then that will take the fear away?

Do you know what the awnser to that question is that I asked about HIV 2 not being able to be detected by the P24 though? So sorry to have to ask you?

Ann · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2009, 02:46:53 pm »

midge,

The p24 antigen test is only useful in the first week or so of infection. That means this is a moot point for you as you are already past that point.

You didn't have a risk as you've been repeatedly told. Keep posting about this no risk incident and you will be given a time out.

Please consider yourself warned.

Ann

midgeure · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2009, 03:52:10 pm »

OK thanks for that Ann. OK I wont talk about the incident what happened again!

OK thanks for explaining about the Antigen test. Does the Antigen test also detect HIV 2 as well as HIV 1? Or is HIV 2 Antigen not possible to detect?

HIVworker · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2009, 08:31:59 pm »

You won't talk about this again but ask a question?

Ann · « **Reply #16 on:** February 19, 2009, 09:34:15 pm »

Midge,

You don't have hiv. Get over it.

Keep posting questions relating to your NO RISK incident and you'll be timed out.

This is your last warning.

Ann

midgeure · « **Reply #17 on:** March 06, 2009, 10:09:30 pm »

I was just interesed in knowing what testing is mainly used over there? ie 2nd, 3rd or 4th generation?

The Duo isnt approved for use over there is it either?

Ann · « **Reply #18 on:** March 07, 2009, 11:05:02 am »

Mid,

I removed the above post, which you posted in the Research forum, and placed it in your existing thread in this forum, which is the ONLY place you should be posting. If you'd bothered to read the Welcome Thread before posting like you're supposed to, you'd know this. If you post outside this thread again, you'll be given a time out.

I don't know why you're still fretting about tests - you don't need to test. It doesn't matter what generation is used as all are valid at the three month point, which is when you can get a conclusive result when there has been an actual risk. YOU DIDN'T HAVE A RISK.

Keep posting about this no risk incident and you WILL be timed out. This is your LAST warning!

Ann

midgeure · « **Reply #19 on:** March 22, 2009, 07:01:06 pm »

I have just had a Cunnilingus incident. I have looked through what you have said previously and realise theres no risk...But I wanted to ask where do they get the figure of 0.5 per 10,000 exposures or is that not for Cunnilingus or for Cunnilingus with blood or something else? Or maybe there isn't even a percentage given for the risk of HIV for Cunnilingus as it would be too difficult even for the the ultra conservative to come up with?

Thanks guys?

Andy Velez · « **Reply #20 on:** March 22, 2009, 08:15:40 pm »

Please follow our rule and keep all of your entries in the same thread. I have merged your latest with your previous one.

We're not interested in stats and playing with numbers here in the way that you seem to enjoy wasting time on.

You "had a cunnilingus incident." Does that means someone went down on you. That was absolutely no risk for transmission of HIV to you? Period.

midgeure · « **Reply #21 on:** March 22, 2009, 10:12:54 pm »

OK thanks.

I know your not interested in stas and figures but I was just wondering where the CDC came up with 0.5 per 10,000 exposures figure from as you Andy and Rod and the others here are very intelligent and knowlegable people and I know you know the awnser? but thats fair enough if you dont want to tell me.

Well what happened is I didnt recieve cunnilingus but I gave it, sorry I didnt make that clear. I actually met a girl at my work, and we ended up kissing and I gave her a couple of minutes of unprotected Cunnilingus on her yesterday. Shes not from a high risk group and has a 3 young children and has only had a 3 partners before me. She wasnt on her period or was there any blood or cut that I saw, and I have very good orgal hygine and hadnt brushed my teeth for a about 4 hours before hand. I didnt go deep and used alot of saliva. Do I need to test over this or can I just forget it?

RapidRod · « **Reply #22 on:** March 23, 2009, 05:19:46 am »

Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). If you continue to post excessively after one Time Out, you may be given a second Time Out which will last eight weeks. There is no third Time Out - it is a permanent ban. The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.

midgeure · « **Reply #23 on:** March 23, 2009, 07:42:58 am »

Rod mate! I havent posted continuesly over this new incident. I also had the qustion of I was wondering where the CDC came up with 0.5 per 10,000 exposures figure.

Andy Velez · « **Reply #24 on:** March 23, 2009, 09:07:10 am »

Listen, you're just trying to get some more handholding in by tossing in this business about CDC stats. We don't get into that kind of quantifying here. It's not helpful because it doesn't answer the specifics of someone's risk or lack of. When there has been a real risk only a test at the proper time is going to give the needed answer and that means having to wait to do that.

As for your latest concern, your saliva has over a dozen elements which are very effective in preventing the transmission of viable HIV. There's no need for testing nor for further concern about that incident.

Use condoms consistently for vaginal and anal intercourse and you will be well protected in terms of potential sexual risk for HIV. It really is that simple.

You're walking right at the edge of a Time Out here so don't be popping back with more about this is my warning.

midgeure · « **Reply #25 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:21:47 pm »

OK I have reposted on my orginal thread Rod..heres my question.

I have been having protected sex like you have all advised me too do...never have had a break or a split or anything...but I was told this

'Latex condoms can have naturally occurring holes which are at least 50 times larger and up to 500 times larger than the AIDS virus.'

Please could someone explain if this is untrue, then how. ie how much smaller are the holes in a latex condom than the HIV virus is?

RapidRod · « **Reply #26 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:24:05 pm »

WRONG!!!!!

Latex condoms, when used consistently and correctly, are highly effective in
preventing transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. In addition, correct
and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of other sexually
transmitted diseases (STDs), including discharge and genital ulcer diseases.
While the effect of condoms in preventing human papilloma virus (HPV) infection
is unknown, condom use has been associated with a lower rate of cervical
cancer, an HPV-associated disease. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens.

midgeure · « **Reply #27 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:27:50 pm »

Thanks for the reply. How much smaller are the holes in a latex condom compared to the HIV virus?

RapidRod · « **Reply #28 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:29:23 pm »

Impermeable.....

midgeure · « **Reply #29 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:34:07 pm »

Thanks, is there some sort of test done on latex condoms that make sure than any holes that are there are much smaller than the HIV virus?

RapidRod · « **Reply #30 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:41:25 pm »

You kidding? Condoms are listed as Medicial Devices and are quality controlled regulated by the FDA.

midgeure · « **Reply #31 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:44:49 pm »

Nope, just wondering if

a) Latex condoms have holes in them?

b) if they do, then do they do some kind of test on them to make sure the holes arnt big enough for the HIV virus to pass though?

RapidRod · « **Reply #32 on:** June 07, 2009, 09:49:30 pm »

Are you reading and comphending or are you just typing to see yourself type. MOVE ON

midgeure · « **Reply #33 on:** June 08, 2009, 12:35:25 pm »

OK, so to clear this up finally, latex condoms are tested to make sure they have NO microscopic holes in them at all???

and that this statement is untrue

'Latex condoms can have naturally occurring holes which are at least 50 times larger and up to 500 times larger than the AIDS virus.'

RapidRod · « **Reply #34 on:** June 08, 2009, 12:46:41 pm »

That statement wasn't true. Move on.

midgeure · « **Reply #35 on:** June 08, 2009, 01:03:43 pm »

OK that statement isnt true thanks, great.

My other question is do latex condoms have ANY microscopic holes in them at all???

RapidRod · « **Reply #36 on:** June 08, 2009, 01:06:10 pm »

Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). If you continue to post excessively after one Time Out, you may be given a second Time Out which will last eight weeks. There is no third Time Out - it is a permanent ban. The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.

Ann · « **Reply #37 on:** June 08, 2009, 01:12:07 pm »

Midge,

The "hole in condom" thing is a myth spread primarily by the Catholic Church. They don't want ANYONE to use condoms and this is just their highlly unscientific scare tactic.

There are no holes in condoms - except the big one at one end where you insert your penis. End of story. Don't keep posting about this or you WILL be given that time out Rodney warned you about.

Ann

midgeure · « **Reply #38 on:** June 08, 2009, 01:16:23 pm »

Thanks Ann, I didnt realise that condoms dont have ANY microscopic holes in them at all...but I do now. Thanks for telling me. I wonder how they test that..Ive heard they do it electronically, as an electron is smaller than the HIV virus.

RapidRod · « **Reply #39 on:** June 08, 2009, 01:26:18 pm »

Go look it up, we're done here with your condom discussion.

midgeure · « **Reply #40 on:** June 08, 2009, 07:30:25 pm »

Rod, well the fact is that the rubber in latex condoms has voids about 5 microns in size, while the AIDS virus is only 0.1 micron Dr. C. Michael Roland says.

RapidRod · « **Reply #41 on:** June 08, 2009, 07:35:26 pm »

The size of the particle is around 0.0001mm big difference if you know anything about math.

midgeure · « **Reply #42 on:** June 08, 2009, 07:45:21 pm »

Quote from: RapidRod on June 08, 2009, 07:35:26 pm

The size of the particle is around 0.0001mm big difference if you know anything about math.

Yep and the rubber comprising latex condoms has intrinsic voids [pores] about 5 microns (0.00002 inches) in size. Contrarily, the AIDS virus is only 0.1 micron (4 millionths of an inch) in size. Since this is a factor of 50 smaller than the voids inherent in a latex condom, the virus can readily pass through.

RapidRod · « **Reply #43 on:** June 08, 2009, 07:48:07 pm »

Your so called Dr. doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and neither do you.

midgeure · « **Reply #44 on:** June 08, 2009, 07:58:28 pm »

Quote from: RapidRod on June 08, 2009, 07:48:07 pm

Your so called Dr. doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and neither do you.

This is based on the Editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, Dr. C. Michael Roland of the
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington D.C., spoke about his
research on "intrinsic flaws" in latex rubber condoms and surgical gloves
(published in Rubber World, June, 1993).

Fact is the AIDS virus is 50 times smaller that the voids inherent in a latex condom, so the virus can readily pass through the condom should it find a passage.

RapidRod · « **Reply #45 on:** June 08, 2009, 08:17:08 pm »

http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/
http://www.globalhealthreporting.org/diseaseinfo.asp?id=273

midgeure · « **Reply #46 on:** June 08, 2009, 08:49:08 pm »

I am looking at them but NONE of them mention anything about the pores and the sizes of them in latex.

RapidRod · « **Reply #47 on:** June 08, 2009, 08:59:07 pm »

Anyone who continues to post excessively, questioning a conclusive negative result or no-risk situation, will be subject to a four week Time Out (a temporary ban from the Forums). If you continue to post excessively after one Time Out, you may be given a second Time Out which will last eight weeks. There is no third Time Out - it is a permanent ban. The purpose of a Time Out is to encourage you to seek the face-to-face help we cannot provide on this forum.

RapidRod · « **Reply #48 on:** June 08, 2009, 09:04:22 pm »

By posting a denialists website you will be banned permanently.

Andy Velez · « **Reply #49 on:** June 08, 2009, 09:36:42 pm »

Midgeure, listen up!

Cease and desist right now with this stuff. It is not going to be tolerated. Any more of it and you will be banned.

Forums Index

Welcome

Welcome to Do I Have HIV?

Author Topic: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor? (Read 25846 times)