2.What is the maximum time to wait before getting a conclusive test after a high risk exposure like sharing syringe. I have found several contradictory information with internet saying various things including dr hook saying 6 months being official recommendation. Here in India doctors say 3 months is enough. But I am surprised to see one of the answers from dr hook saying that six month is official recommendation.

3.Furthermore is there a difference in risk from directly touching blood and blood being splashed while cleaning on to hand or feet.

Now having read your questions in detail:  Contact of blood with intact skin carries no risk at all for HIV. Online and elsewhere you can find all kinds of statements (and worries) about skin wounds, irritation, inflammation, etc allowing HIV infection if exposed to infected blood, but this is theoretical only -- that is, little or no actual risk in the real world, i.e. few or no known infections from such events. To your specific questions:

1. No risk at all, even if the blood were from an HIV infected person. And of course if you're talking about a particular experience you have had, probably there is little chance the blood was from someone with HIV.

3. I don't understand what you mean here. I don't see any difference in risk based on how someone's skin came into contact with the blood.

2. This seems to be an entirely different situation. If someone has had a genuine exposure to HIV, whether through shared injection needles or unprotected sex, the time to conclusive HIV testing is never more than 6 weeks, using the HIV antigen-antibody (AgAb) test, i.e. the standard blood test in most of the world. Three or six months is old news, going back to the earliest days of HIV testing and not valid for at least 30 years. You don't say who or what agency still recommends 6 months, but I'm confident Dr. Hook didn't say any such thing. (If he did, I'm sure it was a typo and he meant 6 weeks; or perhaps he was quoting some other agency's outdated recommendation.) Even 6 weeks is too long for the HIV RNA PCR test, which detects the virus itself in the blood:  these tests are intended only when the risk of HIV is especially high, but they are conclusive any time 11 days or more after exposure.

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

HHH, MD

1.In reply to question no 1020( Titled : Blood contact . You could search directly by using keyword "I came into contact with dry blood"), Dr hook clearly states that official recommendation for follow up testing is 3 months and 6 months and that he himself would have done it. It is quite hard for us because even internet  mention 3 months only. You and dr hook always stated on Medhelp that even 3 months is older recommendation and with 4th gen it's 4 weeks and never more than 6 weeks. So , I would have loved to have Dr hook answering these questions, since I have no choice could you please get it clarified with him. I am sure this will help a lot of people like me who might have read his response to question 1020.

2.Also the question no 1020 was contact with dry blood. I had seen several responses from dr hook on medhelp that blood and secretions outside body are not infectious. However, in this question he is recommending for a test even though the contact is with dry blood.If what dr hook has said is true, then I should be very cautious while shaking hands, opening doors, taking currency notes etc as these can have dry or even wet bloods.Beacuse on the internet also it is mentioned that contact of blood with intact skin is risk free and dry blood is no risk anyway . Also I have kids, should I let them go outside to play or not because kids as you know runs here and there and have minor injuries playing outside. 

Sorry for the long question. Again it's a request if dr hook could address these questions or else if not possible if you could get clarifications on this bit before answering the above questions will be very reassuring for thousands, if not millions, of people like us who seeks answers from medhelp (earlier) and this website for any and almost all queries related to hiv.

Dr. Hook's and my knowledge and understanding of all issues that have ever arisen on the forum are identical, even if our writing styles differ. You also need to take care in interpreting the details of our replies, which might or might not be applicable to more recent questions, or to the particular concerns of the questioner. The facts and our advice are consistent, but the tone and style often are tailored to that particular user's needs, questions, etc.

Finally, while I appreciate your confidence in this forum, we are not the only accurate source of information about HIV risks, testing, etc. I'm glad you believe many benefit from our advice, but it's a great exaggeration to assume we have the level of influence and impact on prevention implied by your comments about thousands (maybe) or millions (ridiculous!) of beneficiaries.

So based on these , the reply to the answers of question 1020 is somewhat creating doubts in minds. I am feeling like I should not have read that thread.

1.Is there something special in case of questioner of 1020 that makes this case special which necessitates testing and that too up to 6 months.

2.In my case I was walking casually and a worker was cleaning blood of a road side accident and it splashed a bit (very tiny  droplets onto my feet).I did not give much attention to that thinking it must have been water. However after going home I was shocked to see 4-5 very tiny spots of blood on my feet. So after almost 4 hours from that blood getting onto my feet(intact skin) I washed it with normal water. Is it a risk. Can intact skin allow hiv to pass through.

3.Does intact skin absorb the virus and creates risk.Do I need to test.

4.Since I was wearing slippers, would the rubbing of my feet(at the position of blood spot) with slippers created risk for me.

5. Since no such transmission has ever been known to happen, I cannot provide guidance. With a known contamination, washing with soap and water would make sense. Whether that is actually any more effective than water alone isn't known.

In closing, consider the odds and the sequence of unlikely events that would have to put you at risk for HIV. First, that there was blood at all. Second, the likelihood it came from an HIV infected person. Third, that exposure of intact skin is a risk -- when there have been billions of such exposures with nobody known to have been infected. You are worrying irrationally about something no more likely than being struck by a meteorite and probably not that high.

That concludes this thread. Best wishes and stay safe.