HIV from Towel?

Question

I went to a massage parlor yesterday and before starting with the massage, the girl gave me a towel and asked me to take a shower. After finishing the shower, I dried myself with the towel she gave me. I didnt check the towel if it is clean or not. What is my risk if there was semen or blood on the towel and it came in contact with my urethra ??

Answer 1

Extremely low. It would partially depend on how long the blood or semen had been there; HIV can only live outside the body for 8 hours or so. It would also depend on whether or not you towel came into DIRECT contact with the fluid, of course,and I am assuming that you would not have dried youself with said towel if you had seenblood or semeen on it. Being a male also helps you; your risk of contracting the disease at all is much lower than that of a female's----she has a semi-external wet mucus mebrane, and you don't.

Answer 2

Very unlikely.

Still, if you do have any concerns, go get checked. You can't do anything except check it out, and try not to worry.

I would suggest that it might be worth getting checked out anyway. When was the last time, if ever, that you have had blood tests?

If it is the type of 'massage parlour' that I think you are talking about, then it would be wise to check yourself out. There are other diseases like herpes that are more easily transferrable, and that you can even catch if you are using a condom.

Answer 3

You're not going to get HIV from a towel. It dies pretty quick once it's outside the body, and massage places do wash their towels.

Answer 4

I am not a doctor, but I can say there is no chance you can get HIV from a towel, even if it was covered in blood, the vius would die fairly quickly outside the body. No worries, if your really scared get a home self test kit. Take care.

Dave

Answer 5

In the early days of HIV we used to think all secretions were dangerous. Now only the blood is dangerous because the virus dies quickly when exposed.

Answer 6

next to nothing as HIV does not survive outside of the body for very long at all. You're safe.

Answer 7

Wow, what kind of "massage parlor" do you go to?

I would say the chances are slim to none.

Answer 8

You cannot get HIV from a towel.

Answer 9

very confusing problem. look on yahoo and bing. it can assist!

Answer 10

Hidden Facts and Dangers of HIV Tests
What's in the Fine Print


Remarkable information about HIV tests including the fact that no HIV test has ever been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the actual diagnosing of HIV infection.

Few doctors, clinics, journalists, or AIDS organizations know that all current HIV tests are approved only as screening tests, prognostic tests (for predicting a possible future outcome) or as "an aid in diagnosis" and are not intended to be used for determining if a person actually has HIV.

The FDA's lack of such approval speaks to the fact that no HIV test can directly detect or quantify HIV or determine the presence of specific HIV antibodies in human blood.

Recent changes in the fine print of the test kits acknowledge this little known data and seem to indicate a change of thought with regard to the role of HIV in AIDS.

From 1984 until last year, test literature contained the very certain statement that "AIDS is CAUSED by HIV." Then in November of 2002, a new test kit started what now seems to be a trend toward rethinking the causal link between HIV and AIDS. It states, "AIDS, AIDS related complex and pre-AIDS
are THOUGHT TO BE CAUSED by HIV." (OraQuick Rapid HIV-1 Antibody Test, OraSure Technologies, Inc)

Now it appears we've gone from "HIV is thought to cause AIDS," to something even more uncertain: "Published data indicate A STRONG CORRELATION between the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) and a retrovirus REFERRED TO as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)."

This last quote is found in the package insert for a new ELISA test (Vironostika HIV-1 Plus O Microelisa System) the FDA approved in June 2003.
The entire package insert can be downloaded from

http://www.fda.gov/cber/pma/P020066.htm

According to Alive & Well advisor Dr Rodney Richards, a chemist and co-creator of the very first HIV test, as of June 2003, the number of FDA approved tests that contain the term HIV or LAV (the old school term for the so-called virus) have risen to 36. Of these, 13 have been approved in just the last three years.

Richards points out that "despite the increased number of HIV tests, there is still no manufacturer that claims their test can be used to diagnose infection with HIV. All of the RNA based tests for viral load and genotyping clearly state they are 'NOT intended for use in diagnosing HIV infection.'
Instead of an indication for use in detecting or quantifying the actual virus, these tests are approved only for prognosis or monitoring therapy for people who doctors assume are infected.�

Richards is working on a document to clarify what HIV test
manufacturers mean by the terms "prognosis," "monitoring of therapy," and "aid in the diagnosis of HIV." His report will focus on what the tests cannot do (diagnose HIV infection) and what exactly they can.

At first glance, the rapid tests may appear relatively benign since the manufacturers clearly emphasize that "preliminary positives" must be confirmed with follow up testing. This emphasis is due to the fact that the accuracy of the rapid tests� is widely known to be more questionable than the already dubious HIV ELISA or Western Blot. But the notion that
medical personnel will await confirmation of results before insisting patients take action is entirely misguided since the true market for rapid tests is pregnant women in labor

Incredibly, the recommendation to misuse rapid tests for women in labor comes directly from the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA himself, Dr. Lester M Crawford. The good doctor says "OraQuick will be a great help in identifying pregnant HIV-infected women going into labor who were not tested during pregnancy so that precautionary steps can be taken to block their newborns from being infected with HIV." (FDA News, November 7, 2002)

These precautionary steps include IV infusion of the toxic chemotherapy AZT during labor, C-section delivery, six weeks of mandatory AZT treatment for the baby regardless of their own HIV status, and orders to the mother not to breastfeed. Even though chemotherapy, surgery and denial of normal
feeding are based on preliminary results from a test never approved for detecting HIV infection, a mother who declines such intervention risks losing custody of her child.

Perhaps more remarkable than official calls for misuse of rapid tests is a disclosure by the manufacturer of the OraQuick that 7% of women with a history of prior pregnancy will score falsely positive on their test. Further, the manufacturer of the newly approved Reveal test didn't even evaluate their product in multiparous women.

Worse still, as Dr Richards points out, the rapid tests may soon be routinely administered to women tested negative before labor. "Based on the erroneous belief these tests can actually diagnose HIV infection, doctors may want to retest women in labor who�ve previously come up negative just to
be sure they haven't seroconverted in the mean time."

Another lucrative market for the rapid tests is among healthcare workers who experience accidental needle sticks or other unintentional contact with patient fluids. As Richard points out, this opens a Pandora�s box of potential life-altering situations.

"Imagine a nurse sticks herself with a used needle. Ora-Sure gives her the impression she can find out quickly if that needle is contaminated with HIV. Should the needle score positive, she would then be urged to start prophylactic chemotherapy right away. Of course, if the needle scores positive, hospitals would most likely feel an ethical responsibility to
inform the patient and to urge them to also start 'saving their lives' with AIDS meds. Since there are 600,000 to 1,000,000 accidental needles sticks in the US annually, this is a huge market for both the test and treatment manufacturers."

The great influence of drug and test manufacturers on public health policy, media presentations and among AIDS activist groups may mean that the hidden dangers of rapid tests will remain unknown.