Aa
Seems to be s differnce of opinion
I've read several questions here about the risk of getting HIV from cuts caused by a barber's electric clippers. One of you said no way. The other said its possible if the barber used clippers on an hiv person, cut him, he bled on it then he used it on the next person and cut him. I admit I have a bit of OCD but i'm wondering. Does there have to be alot of blood on the clipper or is a small amount enough. Further, what if the nick is small, not deep and barely bled. would there be no risk than? In my case, the barber used the clippers immediately after. While I didn't notice any bllood on me or cuts, I'm worried about what i didn't detect. Further, at "the Body' hiv prevention forum. that expert said the clipper would have to be dripping with HIV fresh blood. Do you agree?
So one last question and I'm done. Is a small nick from a clipper a deep enough wound to allow infection? Or does the wound have to be deep?
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
Huh? Oh, I get it: this is a test. You're trying to convince me you really have OCD. Right?
No risk worth worrying about no matter now deep the cut. Let it go -- or discuss with your OCD provider.
End of thread.
No risk worth worrying about no matter now deep the cut. Let it go -- or discuss with your OCD provider.
End of thread.
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL
Welcome back to the forum. Thanks for this question. Although we often are impatient with yet additional questions on no-risk situations, your question is thoughtful, and it presents an opportunity to cover an important point about how Dr. Hook's and my responses on this forum and the STD forum should be interpreted.
You seem to realize your OCD is leading you to find trivial, hair-splitting differences that either do not exist or are too minor to make a difference. Of course any skin injury in the presence of HIV contaminated blood or body fluids carries some risk of HIV transmission, at least theoretically. Well and good, but in the entire history of the worldwide HIV epidemic, with millions of infected people, there has not been a single case of known or even suspected transmission from a barber's clipper or razor.
Beyond the theoretical risk, one would have to assume the barber's preceding customer had HIV; that s/he had a high viral load; that the clippers were contaminated with fresh, wet blood (i.e., I agree with Dr. Bob at TheBody.com); and even then, that enough of that blood were inoculated into a cut to result in infection. It requires lots of the virus to reach the right kinds of cells for infection to take place; contray to what some people might assume, "just one virus" is not enough to result in transmission. If you think it through, you will realize that the odds are astronomical against such transmission -- which is why it has never been known to occur.
Of course neither Dr. Hook nor I have sufficient time or energy to explain it in this detail every time such zero to low-risk exposures come up for discussion on the forum. One time we might say "no risk", and the next might say "theoretical risk only", "virtually no risk", or similar wording. Such differences in wording are not meant to be different from one another and nobody should interpret them that way. We can't help that some people, like those affected by OCD, might find difficulty with it.
I hope this helps. Best wishes-- HHH, MD
You seem to realize your OCD is leading you to find trivial, hair-splitting differences that either do not exist or are too minor to make a difference. Of course any skin injury in the presence of HIV contaminated blood or body fluids carries some risk of HIV transmission, at least theoretically. Well and good, but in the entire history of the worldwide HIV epidemic, with millions of infected people, there has not been a single case of known or even suspected transmission from a barber's clipper or razor.
Beyond the theoretical risk, one would have to assume the barber's preceding customer had HIV; that s/he had a high viral load; that the clippers were contaminated with fresh, wet blood (i.e., I agree with Dr. Bob at TheBody.com); and even then, that enough of that blood were inoculated into a cut to result in infection. It requires lots of the virus to reach the right kinds of cells for infection to take place; contray to what some people might assume, "just one virus" is not enough to result in transmission. If you think it through, you will realize that the odds are astronomical against such transmission -- which is why it has never been known to occur.
Of course neither Dr. Hook nor I have sufficient time or energy to explain it in this detail every time such zero to low-risk exposures come up for discussion on the forum. One time we might say "no risk", and the next might say "theoretical risk only", "virtually no risk", or similar wording. Such differences in wording are not meant to be different from one another and nobody should interpret them that way. We can't help that some people, like those affected by OCD, might find difficulty with it.
I hope this helps. Best wishes-- 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.
