You're over thinking it. Trying to analyze the biological reasons such transmissions don't occur is pointless. It is no risk because it has never happened. You're not likely to be the first case in the world.
That's all for this thread.
I know I'm really pushing it with another question but so that I can understand why, and so I (and others) don't worry in future, is mine a no risk situation because the amount of blood needed to infect would be too large to get through minor cuts (in my case three of them)? This is absolutey my last question - promise.You have been so helpful but I just need to understand the reason WHY so I can move forward.
Thanks a lot, doctor. Hopefully I can tell myself to move on from this. You offer such a great service. Thanks again.
I knew exactly what your concern was. Indeed you are "still badly overreacting". There is no plausible HIV risk, even if the other fellow had HIV -- which he probably doesn't.
Of course my name spelling isn't a problem -- I probably wouldn't have noticed if you didn't mention it -- your right hand shifted one notch left on the keyboard.
Sorry Doctor, I just realised in my rush I spelt your name incorrectly. I look forward to hearing from you re my above question, then I will leave you alone! Thanks again and sorry for the follow up.
Thank you very much for your frank answers Doctor.
I know your time is valuable, but just one last thing - I'm not sure if I put across in my initial post that the reason I was worried about the cuts I had, was the possibility that the person who shook my hand may've been bleeding also (although I didn't notice but also didn't look that carefully at the time) and the possibility that some of his blood had gotten into my cut especially with applied pressure from the handshake. I know you can't catch HIV through intact skin. Would your response be any different in light of this? Or am I still badly overreacting? Thanks so much and this will be my last question to you. :o)
I meant to say this as well: For every person with unexplained skin rask, I'll be less than 1 in 10,000 has HIV as the cause.
Welcome to the HIV forum.
You are badly freaked out over a zero risk event. It is not possible you caught HIV from the non-exposure even tyou described. Something other than HIV is the cause of your rash-- and it doesn't sound like an HIV rash anyway. And no, it is not possible for HIV to cause a rash as the only symptom.
"I know my risk was very low but can I be certain it was a NO RISK?" Yes, of course. If HIV could be transmitted by shaking hands, it would be 100 times more common than it is and it wouldn't be considered an STD.
"I'm just so so scared." I don't mean to sound harsh or insenstive, but that is just plain stupid. There is no chance your rash is due to HIV, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the hand shake event. Mellow out. See a health care provider when you can, but stop worrying about this. There is no possibility you caught HIV or that HIV is the cause of your rash.
HHH, MD