There’s been tons of shocking news regarding Darren James testing HIV positive and the amount of performers involved, resulting numbers of people still show up is rather traumatic.

As everyone is aware what HIV/AIDs is… it has been a huge awareness for roughly two decades ‘n more. But there has been little talk about the specifics of HIV and how the testing for the retrovirus works.

As adult performers everyone should be aware of this as it’s only helpful knowledge that will make you stronger in your opinions and choices you make in life when it comes to taking chances with your health and of course to know how your human body works.

First importantly I’ve noticed an on-going debate in the industry in the last few years off and on distinguishing which of the two, ELISA or PCR/DNA is more accurate and reliable in testing for HIV. The arguments are going back and forth even more since the horrible news reached public. I’d like to clarify the two tests for you guys since no one else seems to do it…

Scientists scrutinized the two most widely used HIV antibody tests which are the ELISA and the Western Blot. The ELISA is used to screen blood. The Western Blot is used to confirm a positive result on the ELISA.

The ELISA test, which was developed around 1985 is an extremely sensitive and extremely nonspecific procedure which means there is a great possibility that it may not detect any HIV present. That’s due to its high sensitivity.

As many as 4 out of 5 ELISA tests can not be confirmed by Western Blot, and yet it remains the most widely used test in third world countries, most notably Africa where HIV is rampant.

But also! VERY IMPORTANT - Knowing that a few factors can cause a false-positive result from an ELISA test such as:

- contamination in the laboratory. Sometimes the samplings could be placed in the wrong testing walls or even malfunctioned plate washers.
- About 10-15% of those who are Hemophiliacs may test positive
- alcoholics with hepatitis or someone with a huge history of injecting drugs
- even cross activity with other retroviruses


Sometimes, the PCR/DNA test is more accurate than the ELISA and Western Blot test because PCR/DNA test measures differently than the ELISA test by looking for HIV-1 in the white blood cells of a person (White blood cells help fight diseases) as opposed to the ELISA test measures the immune response to the virus by examining the antibodies that are present.

The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) requires a sample of the virus in order to work. It works by causing the virus to replicate and the newly replicated virus is then detectable by chemical means.

If the viral load is low, the PCR doesn’t cause the replication because there isn’t any virus in the sample to replicate or because there was so little virus it didn’t replicate to detectable levels. Thus called “undetectable viral load.”

This is part of the main reason why AIM is making it clear that performers should wait at least 30-60days before they test so they ensure a more accurate reading when it’s time for testing. Sadly enough, Viruses aren’t as easy to understand like bacteria is. Hopefully one day there will be an even better test to detect viruses earlier more accurately but for now, we have to play it extra safe and be patient without going out of our minds.


Technically no one has a say in what test is better than the other. They each have its own advantage and disadvantage. Thankfully we do have these tests that we can rely on. The fact that we can use all three of these procedures to ensure the accurate results is a great thing.

Compare the main idea to herpes, herpes takes its course very slowly as well, latching onto the central nervous system just like HIV, and the same, it may take a matter of weeks to months to show results in a highly sensitive test. When someone is currently suffering an outbreak and gets tested around the same time, the chances of the results are better because of the presence of new antibodies.

One other thing that’s extremely important especially for women that the industry nor does AIM discuss much of is the Human Papilloma Virus. This is the most common STD out there besides Chlamydia. There are millions of people who have it and don’t know it because it requires women to endure a pap smear, colposcopy and perhaps a biopsy in case it’s cancerous or not.

There are over 100 types of the HPV that may cause genital warts, may not cause anything at all or are cancerous, depending on the type. This is why it’s very important especially women in the industry to go to a gynecologist more than just once a year. Better 2-3 times a year to prevent any health conditions.

I know this is an extremely long message but I figured since I have all this time on my hands I’d make it available to anyone who is willing to read and maybe have a better understanding of STDs.

Good luck all and be safe n clean

very solid gen.

but let me also add that HIV is not the sexually transmitted disease it is made out to be. despite its hype it is rather difficult to transmit during regular sex. of course it is a receptor virus in a way so women and gay male bottoms are more at risk.

Thanks Gen, that's very complete.

You might add a "Further Reading" footnote to your paper pointing to the CDC HIV/AIDS area at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/dhap.htm since there's a lot of garbage on the web about this.

So, there's a chance he didn't get the virus through vaginal sex with a performer down in Brazil?

its very possible though vaginal sex but anal sex has been more common for transmitting the virus because well... anal sex is bigger and better than ever these days and more people are doing it, instead of just the gay community.

You can get AIDS orally too if there is an open cut/wound involved. Even from breast milk so don't suck on lactating tits unless you know they're clean

It's still not confirmed exactly where he received the virus from, right? Everyone is pointing at Brazil, but that's not confirmed, right?

Right... I wish they'd figure it out already. It shouldn't have taken this long unless they're holding back. If it were a huge emergency to know, since it really is, they should have results of an approximate date of contracting HIV

that is one valid possibility/reason. also women who have another STD especially HPV they're at higher risks of receiving HPV both anallly and vaginally because it creates microscopic lesions.

nonetheless, HIV can be transmitted vaginally by fluid exchange of mucus membranes. When it comes to a virus, it's so powerful that the amount of opportunities is numerous.

one of the main reasons why contractin HIV via anal sex is its a direct entry to the entire body, that's easy access to blood, mucus membranes, possible lesion in tissues, weak immune system an wide combination.

It's scary

FYI - from the CDC there is a 10-minute antibody test Uni-Gold Recombigen HIV

I finally found the modern CDC estimates for HIV transmission based on various circus acts on this page in Table 5.

The risks are substantially different than I had remembered. This paper elsewhere stresses these risks seem to vary highly from person to person and based on the presence of other STDs.

It's especially worth noting that condoms only decrease risk by 20:1. That's substantial but no magic bullet. No wonder gay porn is a disaster.

Another comment from the same page from the Effect of Antiretroviral Therapy on HIV Transmission section.

Quote:

---

However, because HIV can be detected in the semen, rectal secretions, female genital secretions, and pharynx of HIV-infected patients with undetectable plasma viral loads (16,134--137) and because consistent reduction of viral load depends on high adherence to antiretroviral regimens, the clinician should assume that all patients who are receiving therapy, even those with undetectable plasma HIV levels, can still transmit HIV.

---

This has been obvious but I haven't seen it stated explicitly before: the viral load can be zero - a PCR DNA/RNA can be negative - and the person can in fact be contagious.

Put another way: a negative PCR DNA/RNA result does not imply HIV- or that the person is not contagious.

Let me know if I'm reading this wrong.

I found a statement at CDC that may be of interest in a 1998 paper with the really hot title Management of Possible Sexual, Injecting-Drug-Use, or Other Nonoccupational Exposure to HIV.

Quote:

---

Probability of Transmission From One HIV Exposure

HIV can be transmitted efficiently through blood transfusions: an estimated 95% of recipients become infected from transfusion of a single unit of infected whole blood. The per-contact probability of transmission from an HIV-infected source is much lower for injecting-drug-use and sexual exposures. The risk for HIV transmission per episode of intravenous needle or syringe exposure is estimated at 0.67% (5). The risk per episode of percutaneous exposure (e.g., a needlestick) to HIV-infected blood is estimated at 0.4% (upper limit of 95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.8%) (6). The risk for HIV transmission per episode of receptive penile-anal sexual exposure is estimated at 0.1%-3%; the risk per episode of receptive vaginal exposure is estimated at 0.1%-0.2% (7). No published estimates of the risk for transmission from receptive oral exposure exist, but instances of transmission have been reported (8,9).

---

The author probably isn't thinking of DAP here. Also, these estimates probably assume that the HIV+ partner has stabilized HIV levels and not the highly elevated levels a week or two after infection that Darren probably had. Finally, some meat puppets really are big and may skew things. The odds in the current outbreak are probably higher than what’s show here, but it’s not unreasonable for first-generation contacts to be hopeful.