Quote:
Originally Posted by DWB
Wow, I didn't see that other post from Dan.
If the only negative result is an Elisa test, then that is a pretty stupid and premature point to make press about, as it may be too early to detect the virus with only the Elisa method.
However, that is a GREAT spin to get disinformation out into the mainstream media. Well played. 
I don't think I've ever heard of a situation where it's been so difficult to find out if one person has HIV or not. But I guess such shenanigans are to be expected when certain parties are involved. |
Excerpts from a discussion elsewhere (quoting Michael Whitacre):
Quote:
FSC has not announced the details of the test, and I have not seen the results, or what kind of test it was, but there is NO WAY in hell any lab would rely on an ELISA antibody-based test in the event of a new/acute infection.
Here we have an adult performer, who tests monthly, and suddenly the patient tests positive. That means one of two things:
1) the patient is newly infected; or
2) the test is in error.
NO ONE would test a new case with a ELISA and call it definitive. That’s not in the APHSS protocols, and it wasn’t in the AIM protocols.
|
Quote:
Think this through logically, and perhaps we can deduce what happened. Here’s what we know:
Patient Alpha tests positive outside the APHSS system.
Then, somehow, for some reason, APHSS takes over the testing of Patient Alpha.
Talent Testing is NOT affiliated (and reportedly REFUSED to be affiliated) with FSC. TTS wanted that business all for itself.
In order for FSC to step in, Patient Alpha would have had to sign a waiver or set of waivers.
Why would Patient Alpha do that if the Patient was happy with the service received getting at a non-APHSS lab?
Would TTS be HAPPY to see Patient Alpha turn to ASPHSS?
|
As I wrote in another thread, I hope this whole episode isn't just about a power struggle, and an adult industry testing money-grab, between TTS, APHSS, and AHF.
ADG