Thanks for commenting Vance, God Bless you, you guys are doing a commendable job. Keep it up.
1st article is form 1992 and it was a study done and we don't have access to the study. but did you read...
"Dr. June Osborn, a virologist who chairs the National Commission on AIDS, said the public should not become alarmed over this issue.
"I don't think people should be concerned at all," she said.
2nd article did you read...
"The agency said in a news release the positive tests were "not necessarily linked to any endoscopy issues."
Now we are done with this. We can't help you with your anxiety issues, only a therapist can. We are not going to sit here and answer question after question form you searching the net finding these articles that don't have any proof that transmission took place in the manner in which you want it to.
Confirmed cases of HIV from external surfaces [medical tools], found the following
In this news they confirmed HIV on surface--News1: http://articles.latimes.com/1992-11-21/news/mn-732_1_dental-tools
News2: http://www.theledger.com/article/20090501/NEWS/905015019
Can medhelp team kindly review it and provide their valuable comments, this might help others as well who are looking for similar info. Please do not ignore just because I am over worried.
Big thanks to medhelp for providing this service.
You couldn't get HIV in this manner, even if the person before you had HIV, for a few reasons.
One, the virus is fragile and cannot remain active outside of the body, therefore as soon as it comes in contact with the air, the process of it becoming inactivated begins. As soon as the virus starts to become damaged, it loses its ability to infect. Like a key and lock scenario. A key doesn't have to be completely destroyed to not work...even a small amount of damage would prevent it from working in the lock. Same idea with the virus.
Secondly, in order for you to have a risk, even IF the virus was able to survive, you would have to be exposed to a copious amt of infected blood, not just a drop or two. Obviously, the instrument wasn't visibly bloody. Therefore, for that reason alone, you could not get HIV.
Put this behind you and don't worry about it.
No risk, no test. Based on science.
Thanks Vance, I am very anxious so asking again n again- Your answer to my case is that there is no HIV testing required, Are you saying based on your experience or you consult with HIV doctors as well?
Please don't feel bad if I asked it.
Ok I saw that and I will buy the Hep tests but the HIV tests I question based on science and they don't say if they have been confirmed or if they might have had it before hand and never tested. Too many questions still out there to confirm anything like this.
I was referring to following news where in it is confirmed that contaminated tools from dentist can infect others
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/18/dentist-hepatitis-hiv-scott-harrington-patients_n_3111932.html
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/18/health/oklahoma-dentist-investigation
Where has there been dental infection?
No outside the body the virus is inactive, no risk of transmission.
Thanks Teak, sorry for asking again but curious to know----Now we have proven cases of contaminated surface infection through DENTAL case in USA, still we 100% sure that surfaces cannot pass on infection?
Great if you can give us 5-10 minutes of your to provide more explanation.