POZ Community Forums

HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: midgeure on February 08, 2009, 07:16:28 pm

Title: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: 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
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod on February 08, 2009, 08:13:50 pm
Zero. No risk at all.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Andy Velez 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: anniebc on February 08, 2009, 11:43:00 pm
Midge

Still no risk.

Jan
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: anniebc 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
Title: Does the P24 Antigen test work with HIV 2?
Post by: midgeure 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
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Andy Velez 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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?

Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Andy Velez 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.

 
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Ann 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

Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: HIVworker on February 19, 2009, 08:31:59 pm
You won't talk about this again but ask a question?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Ann 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
Title: From the UK?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Ann 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 (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0) 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
Title: Cunnilingus?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Andy Velez 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. 
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Andy Velez 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod on June 07, 2009, 09:29:23 pm
Impermeable.....
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod on June 07, 2009, 09:41:25 pm
You kidding? Condoms are listed as Medicial Devices and are quality controlled regulated by the FDA.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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?
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod on June 07, 2009, 09:49:30 pm
Are you reading and comphending or are you just typing to see yourself type. MOVE ON
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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.'
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod on June 08, 2009, 12:46:41 pm
That statement wasn't true. Move on.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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???
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Ann 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
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod on June 08, 2009, 01:26:18 pm
Go look it up, we're done here with your condom discussion.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure on June 08, 2009, 07:45:21 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure on June 08, 2009, 07:58:28 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.


Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod on June 08, 2009, 08:17:08 pm
http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/nchstp/od/condoms.pdf)
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/ (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/)
http://www.globalhealthreporting.org/diseaseinfo.asp?id=273 (http://www.globalhealthreporting.org/diseaseinfo.asp?id=273)
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: midgeure 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: RapidRod on June 08, 2009, 09:04:22 pm
By posting a denialists website you will be banned permanently.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Andy Velez 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.
Title: Re: Blood on face?
Post by: Ann on June 09, 2009, 03:46:07 am
Midge,

I promised you yesterday that you'd be given a time out if you insisted on going on and on about these non-existent holes in condoms. I'm making good on that promise and giving you a time out. Do not attempt to create a new account to get around your time out because if you do, you will be permanently banned.

I've also edited your post where you linked to a denialist website. Be glad I didn't permanently ban you, as posting denialist info on these forums IS a bannable offence.

Ann
Title: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on December 01, 2011, 12:42:37 pm
Just out of interest if anyone here was a qualified Doctor?
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: RapidRod on December 01, 2011, 12:44:55 pm
■Please do not start a new thread every time you have another question or thought - regardless if you think your questions are related to each other or not. It helps us to help you when you keep all your thoughts or questions in one thread and it helps other readers to follow the discussion. Additional threads will be merged.


■If you cannot find your thread, click on the "Show own posts" link in the left-hand column of any forum page, under your name.

Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on December 01, 2011, 12:46:48 pm
I have not written any other threads for years.

It is a new thread and a new question.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: RapidRod on December 01, 2011, 12:51:41 pm
Please follow the guidelines.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on December 01, 2011, 12:54:49 pm
OK So should I just carry on from my thread from 2 years ago even though it is a different subject?
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: RapidRod on December 01, 2011, 12:56:07 pm
OK So should I just carry on from my thread from 2 years ago even though it is a different subject?
regardless if you think your questions are related to each other or not.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: Ann on December 01, 2011, 01:10:11 pm
Mid,

I've merged your new thread into your original thread - where you should post all your additional thoughts or questions. It helps us to help you when you keep everything in one thread. It doesn't matter how long it has been since you last posted in your thread or if the subject matter is different.

If you need help finding your thread when you come here, click on the "Show own posts" link under your name in the left-hand column of any forum page.

Please also read through the Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0) so you can familiarize yourself with our Forum Posting Guidelines. Thank you for your cooperation.





If you had also read the Welcome Message box that appears at the top of each and every forum page, you would have read this:

Quote
All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

So no, we're obviously not doctors. If you want to know about the moderators and/or administrators of these forums, read the About Us (http://www.aidsmeds.com/aboutus.shtml#team) page. In this particular forum, only authorised members or moderators/admin are permitted to reply. Authorised members include Rapidrod, jkinatl2, Matty the Damned, and anniebc. We can trust these members to give correct advice.

I suggest you re-read your entire thread - whatever your latest concern is has likely already been covered with you.

And by the way, I rejected the new account you attempted to create. We only allow one account per person here and if you try that again, you'll be permanently banned. Make sure you read and abide by the rules in the Welcome Thread I already linked for you.

Ann
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on December 01, 2011, 01:33:21 pm
Yes, I did try to make a new account as I could not remember my old details but managed to find them or remember them as it has been so long so yes please cancel that one.

I see that any advice given here is excellent and correct advice. OK so the answer to my question is that no one here is a Doctor however.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on January 11, 2012, 05:14:54 pm
Does Anyone know when the CDC say to test for HIV from the point of blood going into your eyes from someone who’s HIV status you do not know but is from a country with a high rate of HIV? I was looking at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5409a1.htm
and under Postexposure Testing it says enzyme immunoassay testing should be done up too 6 months after occupational HIV exposure. (Please delete the link if this is not allowed) It also says "Extended HIV follow-up (e.g., for 12 months) is recommended for HCP who become infected with HCV after exposure to a source coinfected with HIV and HCV"
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: jkinatl2 on January 11, 2012, 05:52:34 pm
Well, so far as I can figure, since none of us are doctors and therefore not qualified to give HIV risk assessments, why are you coming to this forum?

What do you hope to accomplish?

Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on January 11, 2012, 06:04:05 pm
I still would like help though please.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: jkinatl2 on January 11, 2012, 06:19:33 pm
I am confused. What sort of help? Risk assessment? We base our risk assessment on state of the art science, first tier peer-reviewed studies, and roughly fifty collective years of personal experience in HIV prevention counseling.

If that isn't sufficient, then I honestly don't understand why you return to this forum only to combat our risk assessment. Look at your thread's history. Literally reams of scientific evidence has been offered, reflecting hundreds of hours' worth of research.

What sort of help CAN we give you?

Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on January 11, 2012, 06:34:56 pm
Thanks, I was just hoping someone could answer me this question

"Does Anyone know when the CDC say to test for HIV from the point of blood going into your eyes from someone who’s HIV status you do not know but is from a country with a high rate of HIV? I was looking at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5409a1.htm
and under Postexposure Testing it says enzyme immunoassay testing should be done up too 6 months after occupational HIV exposure. (Please delete the link if this is not allowed) It also says "Extended HIV follow-up (e.g., for 12 months) is recommended for HCP who become infected with HCV after exposure to a source coinfected with HIV and HCV"

Also, I was wondering, if anyone knows of a link to the percentage riosk of HIV from different exposures and also occupational exposures at all? thanks
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: RapidRod on January 11, 2012, 06:57:03 pm
Let's make it simple, go test, collect your negative test result and move on.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on January 11, 2012, 07:03:49 pm
Thanks, I got tested for HIV 3 months after a man from gambia in Africa got his blood directly into my eye and the test was negative. However, looking at the CDCs website it says

HCP with occupational exposure to HIV should receive follow-up counseling, postexposure testing, and medical evaluation regardless of whether they receive PEP. HIV-antibody testing by enzyme immunoassay should be used to monitor HCP for seroconversion for >6 months after occupational HIV exposure. After baseline testing at the time of exposure, follow-up testing could be performed at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months after exposure. Extended HIV follow-up (e.g., for 12 months) is recommended for HCP who become infected with HCV after exposure to a source coinfected with HIV and HCV.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5409a1.htm

It says testing should be done up to 6 months??? Also it says up to one year for HCP who become infected with HCV? Well I have never been tested for HCV? SO have no idea if I got infected with that?
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: RapidRod on January 11, 2012, 08:09:28 pm
http://www.cdc.gov/globalaids/Resources/pmtct-care/docs/TM/Module_6TM.pdf
Page 11
#4
  In an adult, a positive HIV antibody test result means that the person is infected, a person with a negative or inconclusive result may be in the “window for 4 to 6 weeks but occasionally up to 3 months after HIV exposure. Persons at high risk who initially test negative should be retested 3 months after exposure to confirm results.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on January 11, 2012, 08:28:09 pm
Thanks for that. What does it mean when it says "up to one year for HCP who become infected with HCV"? Well I have never been tested for HCV? SO have no idea if I got infected with that?
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: RapidRod on January 11, 2012, 09:05:50 pm
This forum is HIV specific.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: Andy Velez on January 11, 2012, 09:38:09 pm
If you have concerns about Hep C or any other STD, discuss them with your doctor. Our focus here is strictly on HIV.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on January 12, 2012, 03:52:40 pm
Yes this question is specific to HIV as the question is why do the CDCs guidelines for HIV testing for occupational exposures say to test up to one year for HIV if you have become infected with HCV"?

as outlined in

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5409a1.htm

UNDER - Follow-Up of Exposed HCP
Postexposure Testing

Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: RapidRod on January 12, 2012, 04:12:21 pm
Yes this question is specific to HIV as the question is why do the CDCs guidelines for HIV testing for occupational exposures say to test up to one year for HIV if you have become infected with HCV"?

as outlined in

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5409a1.htm

UNDER - Follow-Up of Exposed HCP
Postexposure Testing
If you are going to post a link at least find something that is more up to date.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on January 12, 2012, 04:24:53 pm
OK do you know the answer by any chance to why they said this on that date?
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: Andy Velez on January 12, 2012, 04:31:52 pm
At this point I am going to give  you a general warning. You have consistently sought in various ways to get into arguments here. We are not here to debate with you.

We are specifically here to answer member questions about risks or possible risks they experience.

You are on the verge of being banned from the site. Consider yourself warned.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on January 12, 2012, 04:40:02 pm
Dont be so absurd, I am not looking for n argument just an answer to this question which directly relates to HIV, you say you are here to answer questions in relation to HIV and thats all I want, dont try to keep arguing with me and having a go at me when I am simply asking a question. now lets not get off topic and please focus on my question if possible please?

"why do the CDCs guidelines for HIV testing for occupational exposures say to test up to one year for HIV if you have become infected with HCV"?
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: RapidRod on January 12, 2012, 04:51:14 pm
Dont be so absurd, I am not looking for n argument just an answer to this question which directly relates to HIV, you say you are here to answer questions in relation to HIV and thats all I want, dont try to keep arguing with me and having a go at me when I am simply asking a question. now lets not get off topic and please focus on my question if possible please?

"why do the CDCs guidelines for HIV testing for occupational exposures say to test up to one year for HIV if you have become infected with HCV"?
You didn't have an occupational exposure. Occupational exposures guidelines are based on the Companies insurance and the OSHA guidelines.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: jkinatl2 on January 12, 2012, 04:58:46 pm
Perhaps you should consult the CDC for the answers to your question. No one here (that I am aware of) works for, or has intimate connection to the CDC.

With that, I respectfully disengage from the discussion.

Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on January 12, 2012, 05:02:02 pm
Yes I did call the CDC but they didnt know anything about it.

Rod, my exposure was at work, does that not mean its an occupational exposure? I am a little confused?
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: RapidRod on January 12, 2012, 05:05:27 pm
Yes I did call the CDC but they didnt know anything about it.

Rod, my exposure was at work, does that not mean its an occupational exposure? I am a little confused?
Do you work in the medical field in a hospital or clinic? Unless you work in the medical field no the occupational exposure guidelines do not apply to you, now have a good day greenbike. 
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: midgeure on January 12, 2012, 05:38:54 pm
No I don't work in the medical field or in a hospital or a clinic.
Title: Re: Sorry if this is in the wrong part, just curious if anyone here was a Doctor?
Post by: Ann on January 13, 2012, 06:37:27 am
Midge,

The CDC has a lot of outdated hiv information on their website. I suggest you take that up with them.

"Occupational exposure" means when a healthcare worker is exposed while going about their duties on the job. As you do not work in the medical field, no, you did not have an occupational exposure in the strictest sense of the term.

If you feel you cannot trust the three month window period, then go test and collect another negative result. Simple.

Ann