There have been a lot of posts about the adult performer who has recently tested positive for HIV along with some comments about why her name hasn't been released, and some apparent confusion about HIV testing, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.
First, about AIM (which stands for Adult Industry Medical healthcare foundation - http://www.aim-med.org). AIM was founded as a non-profit organization by former pornstar/heroin addict Sharon Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell goes by "Dr.", but she is neither a medical doctor nor a Ph.D. Her title is honorary. Both Mitchell and AIM are controversial and neither is held in particular high regard by much of the adult industry.
The organization has been excoriated by many as arrogant, holier-than-thou and at times inept; AIM has also been accused by some of having political agendas.
As the first organization to offer STD testing to adult talent, AIM has become the defacto test facility for the porn industry. The basic screening panel required by the adult industy includes HIV, gonorreah and clamydia. However, other testing organizations are challanging AIM's dominance. The best known, Talent Testing Services (https://www.talenttestingservice.com) based in Florida, offers a fuller panel of tests at a lower price. Many adult performers have made the switch to TTS, some because of dissatisfaction with AIM and others due to it's proximity to the Florida internet porn industry.
TTS was the first to offer on-line test results. Before then, AIM faxed test results to their clients (other than those who used their two walk-in facilities in LA). The problem with faxed or hard copy results is how easily they can be forged (as Marc Wallace, patient-zero in the 1998 HIV outbreak, did). You can't forge or fake a website. AIM has subsequently switched to on-line results via a password protected website.
As for why AIM hasn't revealed the identity of the new HIV patient, there are some legal implications to consider.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), enforced by the Office of Civil Rights, a division of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, established a set of federal standards to protect the privacy of patients' medical records and other health information maintained by covered entities: health plans; most doctors, hospitals and many other health care providers; and health care clearinghouses. These standards provide patients with access to their medical records and with significant control over how their personal health information is used and disclosed.
AIM has two divisions; one for adult-talent and one for non-adult talent (meaning everyone else). The adult-talent division compels the testee to consent to allow AIM to release their name to the adult industry in the event of a positive test result. The non-adult division does not require consent and is compelled by HIPAA not to disclose a positive finding.
However, patient-zero in the 2004 HIV outbreak (I believe his name is Derrick James, a male porn performer who contracted the virus while filming in Brazil but who tested negative upon his return to the U.S.) sued AIM claiming HIPAA violations. Subsequently AIM has changed it's consent form, although I haven't seen the new one.
So with the recent case, AIM seems to be taking a cautious approach. To quote Ms. Mitchell in an AVN article; "We recently changed our policies because if there isn't a widespread danger – if someone isn't completely virulent and hasn't worked and there aren't a lot of people at risk, we don't put a quote out there; just blankets: Everyone should come in and test," Mitchell told AVN. "Because we had a lawsuit behind that, and it was just a problem with the health department, and OSHA has never been off the industry's back since then, what we do is just handle everything privately unless there's a widespread problem."
I'm not sure I understand the terms "blankets" and "completely virulent". "Completely virulent"... is that like almost pregnant?
As for HIV testing: As was pointed out by others in the threads below, it takes 12 days to detect the presence of HIV. The standard HIV test used by AIM is the PCR/DNA. PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) detects the virus before the body produces antibodies, using viral culture, where a culture of the virus is produced from a blood sample. There are other HIV tests, most notably the Western Blot and the Elisa; The ELISA (Enzyme Linked Immuno Sorbent Assay), or EIA, is the most commonly used HIV antibody test. It is a highly sensitive test, meaning that all (or nearly all) infected people will test positive. Note that the Elisa doesn't test for the presence of the virus, it dectects the presence of HIV antibodies which are produced by the human body to fight off the infection. The Western Blot test is most commonly used to confirm a positive ELISA test. It is more specific than the ELISA test, so all or nearly all people who are not infected will test negative. The two tests combined result in nearly 100% accuracy.
Interestingly, the PCR/DNA test used by AIM and others is NOT the most accurate NOR the most commonly used. But because it doesn't require the presence of antibodies, it is faster. Essentially the industry has given up accurancy for speed.
The important thing is to realize that just because HIV cannot be detected before 12 days after infection doesn't mean that the virus is dormant during that time.
So in order to be 100% sure that a person you're choosing to have unprotected sex with doesn't have HIV, they would need to be tested and then retested no sooner than 12 days later, and you'd have to be certain that they did not have sex with ANYONE during the days between the tests or even the days before the second test results came back.
-- Modified on 6/13/2009 11:54:50 PM
-- Modified on 6/13/2009 11:56:43 PM
regarding HIV testing. My bad... so if you were one of the first 30 or so to read it, please read it again, the inaccurancies have been corrected.
and you obliterated a reply post of mine in the process (or so it seems). no matter. the gist of it was people shouldn't panic, IF they've played safe
btw, i believe there's a typo still, Marc Wallace wasn't patient-zero in 2004, was he? you mean Derrick James
feel free to delete this msg too btw (i don't have PM anymore)
Youre right, Marc was patient zero in the 1998 outbreak; I mentioned Derrick later in the post as the 2004 p.z. Thanks for the eagle eye. I'll correct it.
I'm guessing that "Dr." Mitchell meant "blanket statements" by "blankets."
"So in order to be 100% sure that a person you're choosing to have unprotected sex with doesn't have HIV, they would need to be tested and then retested no sooner than 12 days later, and you'd have to be certain that they did not have sex with ANYONE during the days between the tests or even the days before the second test results came back."
Well, wouldn't it be good enough if the person being tested simply didn't have sex with anyone for 12 days prior to being tested (one time) and for the subsequent period of time spent waiting for the test result?
That works only if you can absolutely believe that the other person didn't have any sex at all in the prior 12 days.
I think your comment that "the industry has given up accuracy for speed" is a little misleading. PCR is not faster in the sense that the results come back quicker. PCR is faster in the sense that it detects infection sooner after the initial exposure. PCR can pick up results as soon as mere days after infection. Most anti-body tests will not show positive until about a month after infection. Imagine having an adult star running around for a month HIV-positive without knowing it. A week or two is bad enough.
Also, I have never before seen/heard a claim that PCR is less accurate. The reason PCR is less widely used is because it is more expensive and has not actually been approved for diagnostic testing -- i.e. insurance won't pay for diagnostic PCR. This is not because it does not work, as it is approved for testing blood bank supplies and for measuring viral load after diagnosis.