Aa
Needle poke
6days ago i was poked by a sewing needle which had immediately poked someone and she bled alot,sure i was poked seconds after on my finger though i did not bleed but i had mild pain in the finger the whole day,after being poked i washed my finger and put alcohol on it,now am having a sore throat which doesn't seem to go am so scared since am breastfeeding and worried if i got infected i can infect my infant,what are my chances? Could the needle have accessed my blood without even bleeding from where i was poked? I can't seem to think of anything else the whole day am loosing my mind and my baby needs me to be concentrated since she is so young,advises needed please...
No, but this is the HIV forum and this site has specific forums for different things.
I posted nobody replied,am not trying to be rude i just need help sorry Vance if i have offended you anyway
Ok thanks now i understand i was not at risk for contracting hiv,so i will not go to test for hiv,just answer me this question please do you think i should go test for hepatitis or i was not at risk too,and if i need to test how soon can it show in the blood?is there an early hepatitis test which can rule out infection? Thanks in advance
With all due respect, I strongly disagree with your advice that "everyone should test."
Testing in situations of unreasonable/irrational anxiety is actually more harmful to the person than helpful. People with out of control anxiety usually cannot accept that they never had a risk to begin with, that leads to them not being able to accept a negative result....which leads to more testing....more anxiety....and so on. It's a big vicious cycle. It fuels anxiety and is detrimental to the anxious person. If a negative result quelled the anxiety of everyone, it would be a different story. How many times have you read here where someone has posted 20, 30, 40 times? I've seen it a lot. I've also seen people come back time and time again, questioning their results (plural), even after they've been told they never needed a test to begin with. Then, you have the REALLY unlucky folks that test and test and test.....and end up with a false +. You want to talk about anxiety? That about throws them over the edge.
People should be tested annually if they're sexually active, with some experts recommending higher risk groups (MSM, IV drug users) be tested regularly every 6 months, and obviously after any risk. This particular situation is not even a close call...there was absolutely no risk at all. I don't agree with advising to test. If the OP is going to test for this, then he/she will want to test if he/she gets poked with a staple, gets a splinter, etc.
Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from, and take this as I intended. I've been posting in this forum a long time, and I have seen directly how testing for "peace of mind" just does not work in anxious people (which is what about 75+% of our posters are). For a person who is not overly anxious, and is rational? Sure.
Testing in situations of unreasonable/irrational anxiety is actually more harmful to the person than helpful. People with out of control anxiety usually cannot accept that they never had a risk to begin with, that leads to them not being able to accept a negative result....which leads to more testing....more anxiety....and so on. It's a big vicious cycle. It fuels anxiety and is detrimental to the anxious person. If a negative result quelled the anxiety of everyone, it would be a different story. How many times have you read here where someone has posted 20, 30, 40 times? I've seen it a lot. I've also seen people come back time and time again, questioning their results (plural), even after they've been told they never needed a test to begin with. Then, you have the REALLY unlucky folks that test and test and test.....and end up with a false +. You want to talk about anxiety? That about throws them over the edge.
People should be tested annually if they're sexually active, with some experts recommending higher risk groups (MSM, IV drug users) be tested regularly every 6 months, and obviously after any risk. This particular situation is not even a close call...there was absolutely no risk at all. I don't agree with advising to test. If the OP is going to test for this, then he/she will want to test if he/she gets poked with a staple, gets a splinter, etc.
Hopefully you understand where I'm coming from, and take this as I intended. I've been posting in this forum a long time, and I have seen directly how testing for "peace of mind" just does not work in anxious people (which is what about 75+% of our posters are). For a person who is not overly anxious, and is rational? Sure.
If there was no blood, then you don't have any problem. Even if you had, your risk would be extremely low.
As I said, it take a needle with a hollow bore to cary blood into you. A sewing needle doesn't have this.
As far as transmission via cuts go, the only transmission via a cut has been with knives where there was a lot of blood. You had no blood.
My only recommendation is that you discuss with your doctor to reassure you.
As far as testing, everybody should test. And if you decide to test, then it's only valid after 4 weeks. But you shouldn't worry about it.
As I said, it take a needle with a hollow bore to cary blood into you. A sewing needle doesn't have this.
As far as transmission via cuts go, the only transmission via a cut has been with knives where there was a lot of blood. You had no blood.
My only recommendation is that you discuss with your doctor to reassure you.
As far as testing, everybody should test. And if you decide to test, then it's only valid after 4 weeks. But you shouldn't worry about it.
Meaning the surface area of a sewing needle is small and doesn't have the capability of "holding" a large amount of blood, which is necessary to cause a risk.
You didn't even have a break in your skin.
TRULY, forget about this 100%. NO risk, no tests....nothing. If you cannot let it go, address your anxiety.
You didn't even have a break in your skin.
TRULY, forget about this 100%. NO risk, no tests....nothing. If you cannot let it go, address your anxiety.
This is exactly what i thought after the poke untill i started having a strong sore throat and a white tongue,the person who got poked before me bled alot from her poke and some seconds after when i got poked i didn't bleed but felt pain,the sewing needle was sharp since it was new,what do you mean when you say a sewing needle doesn't carry enough blood to infect someone? Help me with your advice,thanks
So i have to wait for 4wks? Am so stressed since am having a sore throat which doesn't seem to go away,should i stop breastfeeding my infant?the problem is i didn't bleed after i was poked so everybody i told said i could not have got infected like this so i didn't go to see the doc,if i bled i could have immediately gone to the hospital and maybe i could have been put on PEP now if i go to the hospital they just tell me they can do nthn,am so down,the other person poked herself on the finger too since she was sewing but she bled and i didn't,help me with your advice
You didn't even bleed! You cannot get HIV like this, period.
A sewing needle would never cause enough of a break in the skin to allow for a portal of entry, nor would it contain enough blood on the surface of it to allow for transmission. That's not even taking into consideration that only a VERY small percentage of the population are HIV+, it's highly unlikely that this person was even infected. Even if you had been poked and bled (AND the person was +), you wouldn't have a risk, and certainly do not need testing for this experience.
Don't give it another thought.
A sewing needle would never cause enough of a break in the skin to allow for a portal of entry, nor would it contain enough blood on the surface of it to allow for transmission. That's not even taking into consideration that only a VERY small percentage of the population are HIV+, it's highly unlikely that this person was even infected. Even if you had been poked and bled (AND the person was +), you wouldn't have a risk, and certainly do not need testing for this experience.
Don't give it another thought.
You are most likely going to have to specifically ask for a 4th gen test. A lot of doctors have not kept up with this technology and will still use the older 3rd gen test. It's a shame. It's readily available. But doctors in the US don't seem to be keeping up.
UK, Canada, countries in South America, Australia have standardized on 4th gen tests for many years.
Discuss the window for Hep B and Hep C with your doctor. A molecular test is the earliest diagnostic tool and can detect these in 4 weeks. HEP C can take as long a 6 months for the conventional test to detect.
UK, Canada, countries in South America, Australia have standardized on 4th gen tests for many years.
Discuss the window for Hep B and Hep C with your doctor. A molecular test is the earliest diagnostic tool and can detect these in 4 weeks. HEP C can take as long a 6 months for the conventional test to detect.
First the person who was stuck would have to have HIV. That's most likely not true.
Second, even in the case where there is HIV blood -- and this has only been true with hollow bore needles -- the chance of getting HIV is .3% and the needle has to have been in the HIV+ person pretty deep.
You need to discuss this with your doctor. Describe the situation. But you are at a very low risk for getting HIV this way.
As far as an infected person -- and we don't know if you are --- can transmit HIV to a baby. And it would be more likely during an early infection when the virus multiples so quickly before the body has time to act to slow it down. This is usually the first few months.
The only way you will know for sure is to test with either a PCR test at 2 weeks or a 4th gen test at 4 weeks. The only caution about the PCR test is that sometimes it says people have HIV, when they don't.
For this reason and cost, a 4th gen test is the go-to test according to the CDC, these days. Many people believe that a 4th gen test is conclusive at 4 weeks. Aidsmeds.com quotes the CDC as saying it's 3 weeks. But I've always heard the number as 4 weeks.
Have you discussed your concern with this person? It's not easy but you might be able to get this person to test now with a 4th gen test.
You also pointed out Hep B and Hep C as tags. Your risk for these two is higher then infection with HIV. So the best thing to do is talk to your doctor about your concerns.
Be well
Second, even in the case where there is HIV blood -- and this has only been true with hollow bore needles -- the chance of getting HIV is .3% and the needle has to have been in the HIV+ person pretty deep.
You need to discuss this with your doctor. Describe the situation. But you are at a very low risk for getting HIV this way.
As far as an infected person -- and we don't know if you are --- can transmit HIV to a baby. And it would be more likely during an early infection when the virus multiples so quickly before the body has time to act to slow it down. This is usually the first few months.
The only way you will know for sure is to test with either a PCR test at 2 weeks or a 4th gen test at 4 weeks. The only caution about the PCR test is that sometimes it says people have HIV, when they don't.
For this reason and cost, a 4th gen test is the go-to test according to the CDC, these days. Many people believe that a 4th gen test is conclusive at 4 weeks. Aidsmeds.com quotes the CDC as saying it's 3 weeks. But I've always heard the number as 4 weeks.
Have you discussed your concern with this person? It's not easy but you might be able to get this person to test now with a 4th gen test.
You also pointed out Hep B and Hep C as tags. Your risk for these two is higher then infection with HIV. So the best thing to do is talk to your doctor about your concerns.
Be well
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the HIV Prevention Community
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.
