Fact or not
Jan 6, 2012
I need to know if the is true or if she made a mistake ? it came from this forum http://www.thebody.com/Forums/AIDS/Treatment/Q22752.html?ic=2003 Dr. Aberg said: "Even when someone has contact with moist blood on an intact skin surface, the risk of transmission is almost zero." ---- Why is it almost Zero, I thought if you touch blood on intact skin it zero because there is no cuts? isn't intact skin a barrier to hiv, so why almost? the almost has me confused? please clear my doubts. & if this fourm is wrong can you please remove it? thank you
Response from Dr. Young
Hello and thanks for posting.
Given that there are more lawyers than doctors, us docs tend to be very conservative in making absolute statements. I think that you could be over interpreting Dr. Aberg's 2003 words- the risk from exposure on truly intact skin essentially zero. Exposure to intact skin is simply not a way that HIV is transmitted.
Get Email Notifications When This Forum Updates or Subscribe With RSS
- Can You Be Hiv Negative And Have Kaposi's Sarcoma?
- Where Does Hpv Enter The Body?
- What's The Likelihood Of Somebody Getting Herpes From Protected Sex?
- What Percentage Of Men Become Infected With Chlamydia And Have No Symptoms?
- What Nerves Does Herpes Affect?
- Things That Look Like Herpes But Are Not
This forum is designed for educational purposes only, and experts are not rendering medical, mental health, legal or other professional advice or services. If you have or suspect you may have a medical, mental health, legal or other problem that requires advice, consult your own caregiver, attorney or other qualified professional.
Experts appearing on this page are independent and are solely responsible for editing and fact-checking their material. Neither TheBody.com nor any advertiser is the publisher or speaker of posted visitors' questions or the experts' material.