Wet blood stains in contact with a bleeding fingure

[gallant]

 
   In a privately organised blood donation camp in a Indian city they pricked my fingure with a needle and it was BLEEDING. Thereafter when i was donating the blood they gave me a soft ball to squeeze in the same contour with the punctured fingure. The other people who donated the blood before me had used the same ball with their punctured and bleeding fingures. So the ball might have had WET BLOOD STAINS over its surface.

    Now after about 5 weeks i'm experiencing flu like symptoms with swollen lymph nodes and back pain. I got a HIV DNA PCR test ( Not RNA PCR ) done at SRL Labs ( Developed by and at SRL Labs India) 29 days after the incident which came back Negative.


   Am i at a risk of having contracted HIV ?

[jkinatl2]

You have bad no risj for HIV. Needles used to draw blood are not designed to be re-used. And, of course, you do not get HIV from blood on a soft ball, even if the person who squeezed it had HIV.

[gallant]

To  jkinatl2

   Sir,

      I highly appreciate your early response and express my gratitude here for the same.

      A little query though that still haunts my mind. if the splashing of infected blood in the eye ( which is not even a bleeding wound ) has known to have infected a person why can't a wet blood stain in contact with a bleeding wound could do that ?

     I  am sure about the needles and other equipment not being reused and that has never been my concern.

     I'm truly very sorry if I'm bothering you with this but as I am not at all knowledgeble yet want to know a scientific reason behind the 'No Risk Assessment' that will calm my anxiety. I would be greatful to you if you could elaborate.  I have a one year old baby to look after and I have never induldged in a situation that can put me at risk through my life.

   Thank you

   
   

[Andy Velez]

HIV is a fragile virus. It is absolutely NOT transmitted through contact with blood on environmental surfaces such as doorknobs, nicks at the barbers, food, beverages, utensils or rubber balls at a blood bank.

You are worrying needlessly. If you have symptoms that are bothering you that is something for you to discuss with your doctor. This is NOT an HIV situation. Period.

[gallant]

    Thank you once again for your reply. That has put to rest my worries about the infection. An answer though regarding the splashing of blood into eye thereby causing infection would be highly desired. I would be much happier and relaxed if you could throw some light on that issue. I absolutely don't wanna dispute your judgement and accept it with alacrity but since you are the erudite it would be a pleasure and of course added reassurance to hear from you.

   

[Andy Velez]

Theoretically HIV transmission could occur in a healthcare setting. In the real world of HIV there have been a very few confirmed cases of transmission to healthcare worker during surgery procedures and such.

It is something that is beyond extremely rare and scarecely something you need to be concerned about in the real, everyday world of HIV.

You can go ahead and worry about it if you so choose, but you're really, really stretching here to find something to bother yourself about.

[jkinatl2]

I re-read your initial query. Were you splashed in the eye by a hemorrhaging patient? Because this is the only scenario that places a person into even the lowest risk.

Up until December 2006, health care workers in the USA reported 57 occupational HIV infections. Of these, 48 had percutaneous exposure; 5, mucocutaneous exposure; 2, both percutaneous and mucocutaneous exposure; and 2, an unknown route of exposure. In addition, 140 possible occupational transmissions have occurred among healthcare personnel. These are cases in which a worker is infected with HIV and has a history of occupational exposure, but did not have a test immediately before and after the possible exposure. As no other risk factors are reported, it is most likely that the infection has occurred as a result of that occupational exposure.

Source:CDC (2006, December) Surveillance of occupationally acquired HIV/AIDS in healthcare personnel, as of December 2006’ (modified 10th September 2007)

This is the most recent accounting. And to date, only FIVE cases of HIV infection through mucocutaneous exposure had been recorded in the US in the history of tracking the disease. ALL of them were healthcare workers dealing with profusely bleeding patients.

Perhaps globally the number might be extrapolated to twenty. Or fifty. Among over 10,000,000 infections. in the 30 years since this disease has been tracked.

You are free, of course, to test over this if, as a healthcare worker, a profusely bleeding patient's blood spurted from their body cavity directly into your eye.

To the best of my ability to ascertain, you would be among the first non-health care workers infected through this extraordinarily rare manner.

HIV is fragile. This cannot be mentioned enough. By the time an HIV positive person bled, say on a soft ball that you used to help facilitate blood draw, and passed it to you - EVEN if s/he passed it DIRECTLY to you, and you squeezed the ball, and some errant droplet got into your eyeball (ALL three highly unlikely events) the virus would STILL have degraded beyond the ability to replicate.

I should also mention that the same study that quantified occupational exposure also noted that over 90 percent of the infected medical personnel had other, nonoccupational (sexual, IV drug use) risks which make documentation of exposure far from absolute.


*edited for spelling

[gallant]

      Thank you very much for satisfactorarily answering all my questions. I have decided to assume no risk from the incident and overlook the symptoms which may be anxiety driven and move on with the life.   

[gallant]

Sir,

   My friend who had induldged in a unprotected sexual enocunter with a girl of unknown hiv status took a  Microparticle Enzyme Immuno-Assay / Electrochemiluminescence based HIV Early screening day @ day 53 of exposure.
 

   Though he understands that the P24 part may or may not not yield any meaningful  result at this stage, the Antibodies can, as this test is a Combo ( a 3rd or 4th Gen ..) as stated by the provider.

   His query is does such Early Screening Ab/Ag test detect both igM and igB antibodies? or just the igM which i believe would dissipate in the aforesaid duration?

    Kindly help ....

[RapidRod]

Have your friend register an account and ask his own questions.

[gallant]

No he can't as he doesn't have a computer at home and he doesn't want to go to a public place and ask this question. But he trusts me as we have been friends since quite a long time and since I have a account and have told him about how quickly I got a response to my question in here, he insists that I ask the question. I would appreciate if someone helps answer his question.

[gallant]

 The on who wants to ask this is my closest friend and his concerns are my concerns. I would love to get an answer from  jkinatl2, Andy Velez or Ann .... 

[Ann]

Gallant,

Your friend needs to confirm his negative result at the three month point. I fully expect another negative result.

As for the antibody question, it's irrelevant.

Ann

[Andy Velez]

...and your friend has to stop putting his life at risk by having unsafe sex. Specifically, he needs to be using a condom everytime he has vaginal or anal intercourse. No exceptions. It really is just that simple.

[gallant]

    Oh thank you Ann and Andy for the quick and candid response. I would surely ask him to get a final 3 month test as suggested by you( and required by the rituals ). But then i wonder if the test that he got was capale enogh of detecting all type of  Antibodies? and not just the ones that show up early and then fade away. 

   I am asking this because he had another exposure more than 4 months ago but  he was too drunk to know that he was too drunk to use the condom properly (if at all he used that).  He contrites over what he had done in his past and has resolved to become a good person (like me  ). He is fiending for a reply from you and i would tell him that as soon as you post it here.

   Sorry for the long blather ..but i somehow felt that was needed.  If he didn't use the condom for that incident is the test that he took ( the one that i mentioned - early screening) conclusive?
 
Thank you again....

[Ann]

gallant,

Hiv antibodies don't fade in time. Once they're there, they're there.

Your getting confused by the p24 antigen. This is not what the standard part of the antibody test looks for, it's separate and yes, it does fade after the first few weeks. It's only useful in diagnosing a very early infection and a positive p24 result must be confirmed with further antibody and Western Blot testing anyway.

Again, I do not expect your friend's result to change when he confirms at three months.

Ann

[gallant]

To,
    Ann
   umm alright. earlier on when i was googling for this (before posting here that is)  i found out that the first Antibodies to be produced after encountering the virus are igM .. then afer about a couple of weeks they fade away and igG antibodies are generated that stay in system forever. That fostered the concren.

  Anyhow that could always be wrong. I know net is a werid place to be. I trust your word and I ll tell my friend without gettin into much details that the test that he took (Early Screen) was conclusive for his earlier sexual blunder. He was kinda too worried cause he got pharyngitis and ..well you know what all stuff.

hmm.. Thank you again for your precious time. I would continue to seek help from you and recommend your site to others.

[Andy Velez]

AND I strong recommend you stop googling for HIV-related matters. For the most part all that does is to fuel your worst fears and all to no good purpose.

Ann's given you the real deal.

Cheers.