Three months is plenty; indeed, with modern tests in day-to-day use, the results are virtually 100% reliable at 6-8 weeks:
http://www.medhelp.org/posts/show/1347755
The article you site a) is 6 years old, b) pertains to testing after post-exposure prophylaxis, which might delay development of HIV antibody if PEP doesn't work, and c) may reflect CDC's legal conservatism.
Thanks so much for your help Dr,
If you don’t mind I also wanted to ask you that I took an HIV blood test at 3 months since the date of an incident that happened to me. I had an occupational exposure when I was standing about an inch from a man who cut his finger at work and the second he cut his finger he flung his finger up to my face and blood from his finger that he just cut went into my eyes which I know for a fact it went into my eyes. His blood also went all over my face. I didn’t know the HIV status of the man but know he was a Black man from Gambia in Africa.
My questions are,
1) I took an HIV blood test 3 months since his blood went into my eyes and it was negative, is that test conclusive and proof I did not catch HIV from his blood going into my eyes? and I don’t need to be tested again?
2) When does 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)
Thanks again Dr for your help.
Welcome to the forum. Sometimes the question title has enough information to allow an accurate response. In my most creative thinking, I cannot imagine a scenario in which a paper cut could result in HIV transmission. The paper would first have to cut an HIV infected person and then a second person. However, the blood from the first injury would necessarily soften the paper so it would be incapable of cutting the next person. But now I'll go ahead and read your question and see where it leads.
Now I have done that. Guess what?
First, the above considerations still apply. Since blood is no longer infectious once it has dried, and paper moist with blood couldn't cut anyone, there is obviously no risk. Second, it seems very unlikely any of the previous paper users had HIV.
Accordingly, you clearly are not at risk and do not need HIV testing.
Best regards-- HHH, MD