Aa
Fingering and testing
Hi Doctor, I'm know being a pain and realize I'm burning up my 6 month quota on this website. However, it seems pretty quiet here at 4:15pm Eastern so I don't feel like I'm blocking anyone else getting in, and my blood pressure is almost popping my eyeballs! Anyway, somehow I've got this seed planted in my head that I might have contracted HIV from this woman that I met in a bar via fingering with maybe a cut hangnail (sort of bloody scab formed the next morning.) I wrote you and you said zero risk. My first concern is that I feel like you are in the minority saying that such an action is zero risk, even if she was infected. I'm not saying you're wrong at all, I'm just trying to reconcile the differences in what other websites say and find some consensus.
I know symptoms are no indicator but the timing was too coincidental: I had a sore throat that came on after 8 days, first diagnosed as strep, courses of augmentin, amoxicillin, and penicillin didn't clear it. Then diagnosed as sinusitis, 2 more weeks of aumentin - still sore. Diagnosed acid reflux, come off anitbiotics, sore throat clears up. This was after having it about 6 weeks. There were funny, zit looking spots on the uvula too, Doctors said they were nothing, but they also cleared after the antibiotics, or time. Was it the antibiotics or was it other symptoms?
I had a rapid oral swab test done at 47 days, while still on the augmentin, and zoloft, that was, surprise! surprise! negative. Is this test as reliable as either the regular or rapid blood tests done?
Many thanks for your unending patience!
I know symptoms are no indicator but the timing was too coincidental: I had a sore throat that came on after 8 days, first diagnosed as strep, courses of augmentin, amoxicillin, and penicillin didn't clear it. Then diagnosed as sinusitis, 2 more weeks of aumentin - still sore. Diagnosed acid reflux, come off anitbiotics, sore throat clears up. This was after having it about 6 weeks. There were funny, zit looking spots on the uvula too, Doctors said they were nothing, but they also cleared after the antibiotics, or time. Was it the antibiotics or was it other symptoms?
I had a rapid oral swab test done at 47 days, while still on the augmentin, and zoloft, that was, surprise! surprise! negative. Is this test as reliable as either the regular or rapid blood tests done?
Many thanks for your unending patience!
A related discussion, HIV transmission through fingering and oral sex was started.
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
Don't take things so literally. There are no data on the actual risk. I did not estimate your risk is 1 in a million, just used the numbers to as an example. The bottom line is that you are not at risk from the exposure you describe.
No, I have never been wrong in predicting a negative HIV test result in someone with the negligible risks you describe.
Your insistent concern suggests an emotional problem that might benefit from professional assessment. I suggest it out of compassion, not criticism. In any case, this is my last comment.
HHH, MD
No, I have never been wrong in predicting a negative HIV test result in someone with the negligible risks you describe.
Your insistent concern suggests an emotional problem that might benefit from professional assessment. I suggest it out of compassion, not criticism. In any case, this is my last comment.
HHH, MD
Hi Doctor, how does a risk of 1 in a million get assessed on an activity that has not been recorded to happen? If that is the risk and there are probably many hundreds of thousands of such contacts daily then is there a chance of such contact resulting in HIV transmission every few days? Have you ever had a result you thought would be negative come back positive, assuming all the details you get from the questioner or patient was correct? Thanks!
I'm not sure about that clock - it was letting me post at 9am this morning, but it was closed last night. Anyway, thanks for the reply.
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
I'm sure you mean well and would not intentionally block another thread. But you surely have done so. The 24 hour clock for new questions starts randomly throughout each 24 hour cycle, to give a fair chance to anyone in any time zone world wide. Based on when the first question was posted, I believe today's clock started a little over an hour before you posted your question.
The timing of your symptoms and your non-exposure event is absolutely coincidental. The question you have to ask yourself is what other events occurred in your life around the same time as the fingering episode. The virus-infected perrson you happened to shake hands with? The person on the street who coughed just before you walked by? And a hundred other potential exposures. It is not at all a surprise your 47 day HIV test was negative; that was the only possible outcome, assuming you had no other HIV exposures. The rapid test is just as reliable as others.
The difference between me and someo ther sources is theoretical possibilities versus demonstrated transmission. Of course someone with a cut on the finger has a higher likelihood of HIV if the finger contacts someone's infected body secretions. Some sites may emphasize the increased risk out of conviction, others out of a CYA mentality, to avoid liability for giving false assurance. My perspective is that if the original exposure risk is too low to measure, even a tenfold increased risk also is too low to measure. Does it really make a difference if the risk is 1 in a million instead of 1 in 10 million? Of course not. Given how common hand to genital contact is, and the frequency with which people have cuts and nicks on their fingers, there must be hundreds of thousands of such exposures every day worldwide - yet HIV transmission by hand-genital contact has never been documented or even suspected.
Best wishes. (Your quota is up.) HHH, MD
The timing of your symptoms and your non-exposure event is absolutely coincidental. The question you have to ask yourself is what other events occurred in your life around the same time as the fingering episode. The virus-infected perrson you happened to shake hands with? The person on the street who coughed just before you walked by? And a hundred other potential exposures. It is not at all a surprise your 47 day HIV test was negative; that was the only possible outcome, assuming you had no other HIV exposures. The rapid test is just as reliable as others.
The difference between me and someo ther sources is theoretical possibilities versus demonstrated transmission. Of course someone with a cut on the finger has a higher likelihood of HIV if the finger contacts someone's infected body secretions. Some sites may emphasize the increased risk out of conviction, others out of a CYA mentality, to avoid liability for giving false assurance. My perspective is that if the original exposure risk is too low to measure, even a tenfold increased risk also is too low to measure. Does it really make a difference if the risk is 1 in a million instead of 1 in 10 million? Of course not. Given how common hand to genital contact is, and the frequency with which people have cuts and nicks on their fingers, there must be hundreds of thousands of such exposures every day worldwide - yet HIV transmission by hand-genital contact has never been documented or even suspected.
Best wishes. (Your quota is up.) HHH, MD
You are reading content posted in the HIV - Prevention Forum
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
Can I get HIV from surfaces, like toilet seats?
Can you get HIV from casual contact, like hugging?
Frequency of HIV testing depends on your risk.
Post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) may help prevent HIV infection.
