From the earliest days of the appearance of HIV/AIDS in North America and Europe -- in the early to mid 1980s -- it was apparent that all infected persons had experienced high risk sexual exposures or shared drug injection equipment with other persons. Within another year, it was known that blood transfusion or organ transplantation explained some cases, and that it could age transmitted from infected mothers to their babies during delivery or by nursing. The once the causative virus was identified in the mid 1980s, it was possible to test people and it was confirmed that nobody ever tests positive without such exposures. Because blood was an obvious vehicle for transmission, public advice about prevention has mentioned "blood contact". However, we public health experts often have not been very good at clarifying the KINDS of blood contact that are necessary for transmission. Large amounts of blood are required, and/or blood must have contact with certain kinds of cells that are deep inside the body.

The fact is that there has never been a known case of HIV transmitted by the minor, superficial kinds of blood contact that are implied by your question. In fact, even if the "bottle of liquid" were blood itself, this would have been a zero risk event. On top of all that, studies in unhoused persons have shown HIV to be no more likely than in the general population -- so the chance that person had HIV is very low, probably under one chance in a thousand. You should not have been HIV tested on account of this event. However, all standard blood tests are conclusive when done sufficiently long after exposure -- within 6 weeks for the usual test (an antigen-antibody or AgAg test, also called "combo", "duo", and "4th generation" tests). Your multiple negative test results prove conclusively you do not have HIV. Please stop testing, and stop worrying.

I hope these comments are helpful. Let me know if anything isn't clear.

HHH, MD

Routine blood tests, like CBC and standard blood chemistries, are entirely irrelevant in regard to evidence for or against HIV.

That completes the two follow-up exchanges included with each question and so ends this thread. I hope the discussion has been helpful. Please do not return with any more questions about this situation. There is no possibility there is anything more you can think of that would change the reasoned, science based advice I've given. If you still doubt that, I would advise re-reading my opening comments above; and also consider whether there are underlying psychological issues that make you so worried about HIV despite public knowledge known and understood for years, and despite this reasoned, science based advice.