Anyone?

:shock:

:(

If you had an open wound in your finger and it came in contact with the vaginal fluid of a person, there exists a route of hiv transmission without doubt.

But consider the following points. In the west, hiv occurrence among strippers/prostitutes is no different than the normal heterosexual population. So she is a very low risk person.

Also, hiv infection of this kind (fingering the vagina) is usually considered to be among the rarest of cases.

I would say your chance in this encounter is as much as your winning the powerball lottery. You shouldn't worry about it.

Thanks so much fern. :d

There are no officially documented cases of hiv occuring during fingering.

Do not believe that.If there is a prostitute or a stripper,chances are that he-she has had sex with more people than imaginable.The more people you have sex with the greater your chances are of retracting a disease. Get a test done and find out from the stripper if she has been tested lately. :?

Perhaps I should clarify - there are no documented cases of hiv being transmitted through fingering, but it is at least theoretically possible, if unlikely.

Ok,that sounds better,but like you said it is still possible and he should ask the girl if she has been tested,just to be on the safe side,agree?

Ok, sure get tested. I'm confident it will be negative.

The fingering issue is not so simple as 'virus getting into the bloodstream'. In fingering, we must consider scientific, dermatalogical issues. And it is far more complex than simply assuming that once the virus enters the bloodstream, infection will occur. I extracted this from the words of an expert at the aidsmeds forum:
'when fingering, only menstrual blood carries any significantly infectious fluids. This is because the vaginal secretions found in the vaginal walls and the opening of the vagina are relatively uninfectious. It is the cervical fluids, deeper in the vaginal area, which pose a greater infectivity risk due to a higher concentration of active hiv, [which is what the penis can be exposed to in unprotected sex].'

plus -

'so the odds of an active, viable viral particle finding it's way into your bloodstream, finding a receptive white blood cell (dendritic and t cells) and then successfully injecting it with it's genetic material - through a cut in the finger which almost instantly seals itself from external danger, and which bombards the area with elements specifically dsigned to protect and heal the skin - is purely in the realm of the theoretical.
It has never been documented to happen. In the real world, the one we live in, it does not happen. It is hell on wheels to even make something like that occur in a carefully monitored laboratory. Even a petri dish is no friend to hiv.'

it has never happened in the known 25 years of hiv. It is scientifically documented that in actual fact, this really isn't a viable route, based on far more complex biological issues than most people could grasp.

In the words of hugh grant - 'fuhgeddabowdid'

It absolutely could happen. It's not anyone's call, however, to tell you what the chances are that it could happen. Just get tested after 3 months and be done with it.

I don't wish to sound as though I am being blaze about hiv risks, but on what grounds are you confirming that it 'absolutely could happen'?

Being such a fragile virus means that it cannot tolerate less than perfect conditions for infection to occur. The ph level difference on skin is sufficient to weaken it, to the extent that it will be unable to attach itself to a cd4 cell. As soon as hiv is exposed to air, it begins to dry, meaning that the proteins within it burst, making it unviable. In vaginal secretions, where hiv is in relatively low quantities, this occurs more swiftly, taking into account the low amount of fluid. But let's not get into the scientific discussion again, suffice to say that the odds are massively, massively stacked against hiv infection in this scenario.

'theoretical risk' is a term used by researchers to indicate that in 25 years, it has never been documented to happen, but based upon epidomological studies it could happen given certain circumstances - which are circumstances not really seen in real life.

Please be aware that I am not being naive about the virus. I take it very seriously, but I feel it important to put situations into a scientific perspective, based on extensive scientific research. Better that than speculation brought about by the fear of it.

Hi, first of all I would like to stress that you should get tested, no use worrying about it now, the sooner you discover it the sooner you can control it. Chances are 50% - 50% that you could have contracted hiv , if you fingered and rubbed your eyes without washing it, the chances are even higher the tiny vessels in your eyes make it easier for viruses such as hiv to enter the blood stream.

It is this kind of ignorance that leads to irrational fear of hiv. Given that per episode of anal sex (the riskiest way to contract hiv) carries a risk of approx. 1%, your figures are massively inaccurate.

On what grounds do you base this information? Please do some research online, from authorotative websites such as aidsmeds.Com, or thebody.Com, before you reply with another ill-founded diatribe againgst the facts.

So misguided was your information, 'wanna be Dr.', that I feel I must make a second posting.

It is not the blood vessels in the eye which absorb hiv, but the mucous membranes. Only an open, fresh cut in the eye would allow hiv to enter the bloodstream that way. Eye transmission is very rare, and it has only happened when hiv infected blood has splashed into the eye directly from an hiv person. Directly.

Consider also:

in the time between touching vaginal fluids (with quite a low viral count in them generally), to rubbing the eye, the virus would no longer be viable to infect. No arguement.
If hiv was that easy to transmit, there would be many, many more cases. Even oral sex is considered relatively safe. Through research of couples where one is positive and the other negative, and they engaged in unprotected oral sex, not one person who was negative became positive. That is not to say it's ok to have unprotected oral sex, but I am demonstrating to you that hiv is not a virus you can catch easily. That, again, is no excuse for unprotected sex, but it is a reason not to worry about situations such as having a tiny amount of vaginal fluid on the finger.
Just use a condom for vaginal, oral and anal sex and don't share needles and you don't need to worry about hiv from a medical standpoint.
I find it annoying that one person's comment can so naively fly in the face of 25 years of intense medical research into the virus, by making a sweeping, ungrounded comment like 'there is a fifty fifty chance' of infection.

Well "finess" the eyes are one of the easiest way viruses, enter the body other then fresh open wound. If ebola can enter through they eye, why can't hiv, I mean they are all about the same size. And all I did was make it perfectly clear that he needed to get it checked.

If in doubt, have it checked out, even the most cleanest person can have std's.
Good luck!

You did not simply inform him of a need to test, you demonstrated a lack of understanding, and an assumption about risk based on nothing. 'fifty-fifty' chance, I still can't get over that bold, entirely wrong statement.

What you need to understand, wannabedoctor, is that hiv is far more fragile than the ebola virus. It needs a certain set of circumstances. In healthcare settings, it has infected people through the eye but only when large, and I mean large amounts of blood goes directly from an infected body into the eye. The eye is a mucous membrane and does absorb hiv virus through this way, but it is not a clear cut process of 'vagina to finger, finger to eye = hiv'. Having a tiny amount of vaginal fluid on the finger and rubbing the eye is not a risk. For a start, it is recognised that the significant infectious fluid is not the surface secretions of the vagina, but the inner, cervical fluid. Second, any virus particles would likely be either dead or broken down by this point. But you'd know all this because you've surely been reading the science before you make claims?


Please, please realise that there is a science behind this - you cannot simply state 'facts' based on your speculation. Just because hiv 'is the same size' as the ebola virus (have you researched this?), does not mean it acts in the same way.

How did you research the viability of the eye tissue as a vector of transmission? I'd like to know, so that I can be as sure as you of how easy it is to become infected this way. I assume to looked through first-tiered, peer-reviewed scientific research, using a comprehensive study of the demographic, with quantifiable data? Furthermore, i'm aching to see the paper which concludes that there is a fifty-fifty chance of transmission in this scenario, which studied a range of people's behaviours and deduced that half of them became infected. Enlighten me.

I would like to settle this personally, if you have an email address please post it. And if you feel uncomfortable, i'd like to just ask you how you know so much? Are you a doctor of some sort?