Quote:

Why do you think we had the problem last year? It was on AIM.


Nonsense. Completely idiotic.

The outbreak last year happened because T.T. Boy decided to take some talent (Darren James) to Brazil to shoot bareback scenes with local talent known to do bareback scenes with other locals (and trannies). AIM had nothing to do with this decision.

To look at it another way: what organization would have caught the outbreak quicker? Certainly not the professional medical community – no other organization tests with such frequency or uses such definitive tests initially as AIM (outside of porn the standard is antibody tests, maybe every three to six months or so where an infection is suspected).

Quote:

Sharon is NOT a true doctor.


This is true. Her degree is in “sex” (seriously) from a diploma mill of some sort: this has been discussed before at length.

On the other hand, as long as she acts as an administrator and not a doctor this is not a problem. She may or may not always remember this fine point.

Quote:

going through AIM is just like testing with a blindfold.


OK, I'm calling you on this one. Present some facts for your case otherwise I claim you're a troll making things up.

AIM has been operating for 7+ years as I recall. There were no outbreaks in porn in this time prior to the T.T. Boy / Evasive Angels outbreak. That's plenty of time to get complacent and sloppy. Instead it appears that the AIM tests did indeed catch the outbreak at the first chance, the first time people came in for testing. It's true there was some muddle in tracking things down and that an epidemiologist would have done better, but that's not a question of quality of testing (and AIM probably can't keep an epidemiologist on the staff anyway).

The standard test for HIV in the professional medical community, as recommended by the CDC and everyone else, is an antibody test with a PCR/DNA to confirm positive results (often only after repeated antibody tests continue to yield a positive result). AIM cuts right to the medical “gold standard” test by using PCR from the start.

There may be newer tests in development that are more definitive that PCR but I'm not aware of them. Most of the effort appears to be going into improving the antibody tests, not into something that may be more accurate than PCR. Some new antibody tests hold out the hope of being able to do day-of-shoot testing and/or getting better early sensitivity, which would be a good thing, but these are as yet unproven and should not replace PCR (you still have to have PCR to weed out false positives anyway).

It is possible to choose the amount of amplification used in a PCR test and hence trade off cost vs. sensitivity. I've never heard anyone even mention the amount of amplification done by AIM – it's likely AIM just sends the samples to a lab, which follows the CDC and test machine manufacturer's recommendations.

Quote:

She is doing this to make money. Its a business and if she wasnt making money, she wouldnt be doing it for free.


Well, OF COURSE!

Don't you have rent due every month, maybe a car payment? If you weren't making money would you keep doing your job for free? Even with those bills due?
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock