Leaked Mike South Emails Reveal The Man Who Built Rob Black

Leaked Mike South Emails Reveal The Man Who Built Rob Black

Well, well, what do we have here?

It’s a May 2013 email thread featuring a Mike South / Rob Black love fest. One month later, performer Katie Summers, under Black’s tutelage, filed a lawsuit against HIV-positive director John Stagliano and his company Evil Angel, alleging “negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and sexual battery” for touching her butt cheeks with his hand in a scene of the 2010 movie “Buttman’s Stretch Class 4.”

Here we find South, the only porn gossip blogger with AHF on speed dial, furthering his personal mission to undermine performer testing by feeding information to con-artist/snitch Black. While members of the adult community were fighting for their rights in court and the California legislature, South was offering encouragement to the reviled Black and arming him with propaganda designed to demonize and help weaken confidence in adult business trade association Free Speech Coalition, and PASS (then APHSS) testing protocols.

Mike_South_4
Failed adult talent agent, amateur pornographer, gossip blogger and AHF lackey Mike South


True to his reputation as the adult world’s least factual blogger, South gets most of his information wrong (see below), but his cordial mentor-like guidance of vengeful pariah Rob Black is revealing.

Rob Black Fan
Rob Black fan

The Mike South – Rob Black emails

From: “mikesouth@mikesouth.com” <mikesouth@mikesouth.com>

To: Rob Black <rzblack@yahoo.com>

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:15 AM

Subject: Re: Rob Black

 

simply put the PCR DNA is a viral load test its good for early detection because it detects the actual virus, however if you have been on the anti virals and protease inhibitor drugs your viral load will drop low enough that the test will not catch it.

 

So someone like John Stagliano or Magic Johnson Or Karen Stagliano who has HIV but comes into the biz after taking the anti viral meds will test clean on PCR DNA tests.

 

Thats the dirty little secret that AIM and the FSC and APHSS have tried to hide for years…don’t take my word for it though look it up, ask a virologist.

 

That is why Kary Mullins the inventor of PCR technology said that it should never be used as an HIV test but simply as a diagnostic tool to determine the viral load. 

 

************************************

 

From: Rob Black <rzblack@yahoo.com>

To: “mikesouth@mikesouth.com” <mikesouth@mikesouth.com>

Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 4:28 AM

Subject: Re: Rob Black

 

 

That’s why your you and I’m not smart. That was very neatly and simply explained and its fucking shocking.  Wow ok so now the question is what do they say is the best test that says med’s or no med’s you got the bug fucking simple cant hide it.

 

RZ

 

************************************

 

From: “mikesouth@mikesouth.com” <mikesouth@mikesouth.com>

To: Rob Black <rzblack@yahoo.com>

 

Dont sell yourself smart Rob  you are plenty smart, you get things…someone explained it to me as well ya know.

 

The Gold standard test is a term that the medical community uses to describe what it considers to be the best test.  Right now, for HIV the gold standard is the ELISA with the Western Blot as the confirmatory test.  If a person tests positive in porn with the PCR DNA test  they still use the Western Blot to confirm.  apparently it takes two different tests to confirm a diagnosis

 

now  30 years ago, the elisa test had a a potentially long window…everyone likes to use the 6 month term….With current elisa  testing that is not really true.  Current Elisa Testing will pick up  an infection in 90% of cases in the first ten days of exposure and  99+ in the first thirty….how does that compare to the PCR DNA?  it is almost identical

 

So why do we use PCR DNA…simple  It costs 100 dollars….AIM was making a much higher profit per test (about 60 dollars)

 

we could go to one test one shoot right now because the ELISA test called Oraquick is now available over the counter at any drugstore for less than 40 bucks

 

Ideally id say do one pcrdna test and an elisa when someone enters the biz and one test per shoot thereafter, maybe with a periodic elisa

 

John would NOT pass the ELISA Test BTW.

 

but the big thing here isnt so much HIV to me  fortunately HIV is actually pretty damn hard to get from heterosexual sex (except anal)  to me the big thing is the stuff we dont test for that is at least as dangerous as HIV  Like Hepatitis and HPV.

 

Hep-C will kill you faster than HIV these days.

 

when you break it down to its simplest form….its all about the money….

 

************************

As noted above, Mike South gets most of his information wrong, as usual – even the name of the inventor of PCR testing (Kary Mullis, not Mullins). AIM Healthcare is long gone thanks to the efforts of AHF, yet South STILL can’t get the facts about their testing system right.

 

For six years, Tim Tritch was employed by the labs that tested the specimens drawn at AIM: Heathline Clinical Laboratories and later Westcliff Clinical Labs. Tritch was the Account Representative for the AIM Healthcare account, and he states:

Healthline Lab ran the HIV/PCR-DNA Qualitative [for AIM]… Healthline won several of the most prestigious awards in the laboratory industry, including the Roche Molecular Biology Laboratory of the Year, and was the West Coast Center of Excellence for Roche. Healthline basically became the school that all other laboratories trained at when applying for PCR validation…The head of Healthline Laboratory’s molecular biology department was part of the Nobel Prize winning team with Kerry Mullis who developed PCR technology.

That’s right, the man responsible for the testing done on behalf of the adult industry was a member of the team that developed PCR testing – yet South somehow knows better than him how the test he helped create should and should not be used…

For years, Mike South used to claim that AIM made a $90 profit per test, and had only switched to a PCR test to increase its revenue. Here he claims it was $60, which is still wrong. Again, let’s quote Tritch – who took home a commission on every test and knows exactly what the costs and margins were.

AIM purchased the tests for $75 and sold them for $120. That leaves 45 dollars to cover ALL of her (AIM administrator Sharon Mitchell’s] expenses. In reality, AIM could have made a larger profit with the Elisa test, which she could have gotten done, with the volume of tests her clinic did every day, for about 10 to 15 bucks. She could have charged fifty for that, and marked up the gonorrhea and chlamydia test by five or ten dollars. AIM paid $25 for the G/C and gave it to performers for $25. According to the Mike South School of Porn Economics that must be a $50 profit (lol).

As for South’s opinions on the relative merits of PCR vs ELISA HIV tests – well, they’re laughable too. (recently, TRPWL addressed the supremacy of PCR viral load testing in this report, and veteran performer/RN Nina Hartley broke it all down in great detail here.

In any event, today labs are required by law to run a parallel ELISA along with every PCR (not just as a confirmatory test if the PCR indicates ‘detected’). The parallel ELISA is called a ‘non reportable’ test. And the notion that an HIV+ person on meds would test negative on the PCR is laughable. HIV+ individuals routinely have PCR tests done to measure their viral load as part of their treatment.

Also – South claims HPV is “as least as dangerous as HIV”? Huh? Now, obviously Hepatitis C is serious business, but there is no consensus on how readily it can be transmitted sexually. “Hep C is transmitted blood-to-blood primarily through needle sharing among IV drug users,” Nina Hartley noted. “The CDC does not classify it as an STD and clinics aren’t required to report it to health authorities as such. It’s a nasty, often fatal, disease, but it’s not a risk for single-contact sex performances and the hysteria drummed up around it by the Usual Suspects is medically indefensible.”

Of course, this level of disinformation is par for the course with an axe-wielding blowhard like South, but the real story here is how South used Black to disseminate anti-FSC/PASS/APHSS propaganda. In doing so, Mike South helped build the monster that is Rob Black. Be sure to remember that the next time South tells you (in between AHF press releases) how much he loves the people in world of adult.

Report by Michael Whiteacre

If You Don’t Pay Attention To Me I’ll Write The IRS! — The Jon Rodgers Story

 

48 Responses to "Leaked Mike South Emails Reveal The Man Who Built Rob Black"

  1. Fake Mike South   October 7, 2013 11:19 am at 11:19 AM

    Yall are darn tootin.

     
    Reply
    • Michael Whiteacre   October 7, 2013 12:21 pm at 12:21 PM

      The only explanation for why a ‘porn god’ like Mike South would trust and compliment scumbag Rob Black: South must’ve caught that fever that’s goin’ round…

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHvAe4kl8k8

       
      Reply
  2. crunkleschwitz   October 7, 2013 12:53 pm at 12:53 PM

    Awwww. Next thing you know South will be the star of Porn H8RZ Bukakke. Black, Byron, Ross and the AHF moron will all jizz on his face, then Katie Dummers will wash it clean with “squirt.”

     
    Reply
  3. Imposter Foster   October 7, 2013 2:14 pm at 2:14 PM

    I never trusted Mike South. But he is white so I will let him fuck me.

     
    Reply
  4. Ernest Greene   October 7, 2013 6:01 pm at 6:01 PM

    Nice to see something truthful about AIM in print after all this time. These two lying loudmouths have done a pretty good job of burying that truth under a metric ton of bullshit but truth has a funny way of surfacing no matter how deep the liars try to sink it.

    I was board chairman at AIM for six years and on the board from day one and neither Black nor South has ever uttered one correct or honest word about how AIM operated, nor has either been able to explain how, if all their false accusations were actually factual, AIM’s system, now adopted and updated by PASS, worked so well for so long.

    Tell me, boys, if we were such a bunch of crooks and frauds, where are all the HIV cases we failed to detect during our 13 years of operation? How come everyone in the business isn’t infected? Where’s the math fellas?

    And speaking of math, the window period on the ELISA is STILL six months maximum. It’s built into the way the test works. As for ARVs making it possible to fool the Aptima test, or the PCR-DNA before it – show me a study in one peer-reviewed medical journal that supports that claim. Good luck, because that’s not what the scientific evidence shows.

    But who needs evidence when you can get away with just making up whoppers that support your self-serving political agendas?

    Trouble with that is that even AHF, which generally has no problem putting low-lifes in front of the camera won’t even take your phone calls. Even bottom-feeders have their standards.

     
    Reply
    • Michael Whiteacre   October 7, 2013 6:27 pm at 6:27 PM

      Ernest, I wish I could ‘like’ this comment more than once. Thank you. We care about the facts here, so it’s the highest compliment when the actual participants stop by to say we got it right.

       
      Reply
      • Ernest Greene   October 7, 2013 6:43 pm at 6:43 PM

        You’re most welcome. You’ve done more than anyone else to bring the facts to light. This entire business owes you a debt of gratitude for your work.

        Alas, we know how good this industry is about paying its debts, but the work is always worth doing.

         
        Reply
  5. Jamie Gardner   October 7, 2013 7:17 pm at 7:17 PM

    I’m glad that Ernest Greene and Michael Whiteacre have been responding to negative things said about AIM by Mike South, etc.. I thought from the beginning that Robert Black’s attacks, over the last few months, on the x-rated industry have been him trying to be a Mike South imitator. These emails back up my belief of who he was being inspired by. Until a few months ago, I thought Black was mellowing, I was sure wrong! I do think it would be a good idea for Ernest Greene and Michael Whiteacre to write about what caused the debt situation at AIM. There are people that are implying that stealing of money was going on because of the amount of debt that AIM had when they closed down. There are people that will believe something shady was going on unless there is an explanation for why AIM owed so much money. I’m very pro-x-rated industry so I’m biased to give AIM the benefit of the doubt when it comes to allegations of financial wrongdoing.

     
    Reply
  6. Ernest Greene   October 7, 2013 9:01 pm at 9:01 PM

    Of all the garbage flung at AIM, the implication that we were stealing money is the most ludicrous and insulting. AIM started with almost no money, operated in constant struggle for money and ended up owing money. Nobody affiliated with AIM made anything more than the minimal staff salaries we paid, and they were minimal indeed.

    Here’s what happened at the end. On average, our lab bills were around $50K a month, based on doing forty tests a day on average. We charged just enough to cover that bill, pay the staff and keep the lights on.

    Then we got sued by Cal-OSHA, demanding access to confidential patient records in their quest to compel condom use in the industry by demonstrating that we were covering up infection incidents. We weren’t, of course, and reported to L.A. County Health all infections according to legal requirements. However, we weren’t legally able or morally willing to surrender those records to a state agency with no legitimate right to them. We won that case solidly, with Judge Winifred Smith practically kicking Cal-OSHA down the courthouse steps for even trying such a stunt.

    But we had to pay our lawyers and good representation does not come cheap.

    Then, of course, we were sued by AHF on behalf of a couple of marginal performers who claimed their medical privacy rights had been violated as a result of AIM data appearing on The Site That Must Not Be Named, even though there was no evidence that the data in question had been obtained from AIM. Indeed, much of the material supposedly “leaked” from AIM’s records could not have been because we never kept records including the kind of information that was attributed to us. Of course, at the time we didn’t know that AHF was paying our lab messenger to spy on us and colluding with other sewer dwellers in the creation of a phony cause of action.

    AHF’s suit never made it to a court ruling, but in the process of defending ourselves against it we racked up more legal fees, which was just what AHF intended as part of its plan to submarine AIM which, according to emails between AHF head Michael Weinstein and AHF counsel Brian Chase, was an obstacle to AHF’s plan to force mandatory condom use down the porn industry’s throat. Indeed, those emails identify AIM as the primary obstacle to AHF’s intentions and therefore the primary target of AHF’s machinations.

    In a disaster that continues to reverberate to this day, AHF succeeded in forcing AIM management to make an impossible choice – keep paying six-digit legal fees fighting off AHF’s nuisance litigation, which would clearly never end, and thus be unable to pay the lab bills and other expenses that kept right on piling up as always while we fought to stay in operation, or accept a bitter defeat and admit we couldn’t pay both the lawyers and the labs. Bankruptcy was what AHF wanted for us and that’s what they got. Yes, at the end we owed a lot of money to a lot of people, but not because anyone stole it. We operated at such a low margin and with so little in reserve we simply couldn’t pay for all the artificial catastrophes AHF dreamed up to throw at us.

    To put this in perspective, AHF takes in about $200 million a year (nearly thirty percent of which goes to staff salaries, including Michael Weinstein’s annual $638,000). AIM’s entirely yearly budget wouldn’t have covered AHF’s senior staff compensation.

    They simply outspent us in court. The money didn’t go anywhere. It didn’t magically disappear. We never had it in the first place because, unlike AHF, we didn’t view fund raising as our primary mission. For as long as we thought there was a chance of keeping the doors open we fought on, getting our vendors to extend us as much credit as possible, but in the end they understandably refused to perform lab services gratis indefinitely. It was clear that the lawsuits would never stop, the porn industry would never put up enough money to defend against them and AIM would never be able to satisfy its creditors. The result was just what AHF intended. AIM went under so Weinstein could claim that there was no health safety net in place in the industry. He made that lie into truth by draining AIM dry with bullshit lawsuits.

    What great way to show how concerned AHF really is for performer health and safety. Shutting down the clinic that tested and treated them at minimum cost by using trumped up litigation as a weapon of economic warfare. Nice.

    At the end of the day, we knew we owed more money than we could ever hope to pay back and we did what any organization in that position must, we declared bankruptcy. Labs didn’t get all their money. Lawyers didn’t get all their money. Insurance companies didn’t get all their money. That’s because there was no money by then.

    But even though AHF is morally responsible for AIM’s destruction, the FSC and the industry it represents are far from innocent in this matter. Months before AIM shut down, Sharon Mitchell, Nina Hartley and myself met with company owners and FSC senior management, told them what was going on and predicted virtually to the day when AIM would finally collapse under the burden of legal expenses. The only thing that could have prevented this would have been a massive infusion of cash and legal assistance from the FSC and the companies they represent.

    Instead, they extended their sincere sympathies and stood on the sidelines while AIM was dismantled. Ever since they’ve all been regretting it but it’s a little late now, isn’t it? They were warned of the consequences and did nothing until after the consequences hit.

    Then FSC finally got off its ass and established the PASS system, which works perfectly well from the companies’ POV because it provides the same kind of high-quality testing and monitoring AIM did. But Pass does not provide the clinical and social services AIM did. It does not answer to performers as AIM did. It answers to its corporate sponsors as AIM never did. The big players in the business were accessories before the fact to AIM’s destruction and the kind of centralized services AIM provided are now split up among various other operations, doubtless contributing to the messy and confusing situations that have arisen since AIM’s disappearance and giving AHF more ammunition for its crusade against the whole industry.

    There’s plenty of blame to go around on the ground here, and AIM’s share of it lies entirely in an unfounded belief that the owners of this business would, at the end of the day, be too smart to let us go down. We learned a hard lesson about that and now everyone else is learning the hard lessons arising out of their failure to address the threat to AIM’s existence when they were first warned about it.

    I doubt that any of the remaining AIM bashers will ever admit to the truth of this whole sorry matter, but there it is from the inside. I have no motive to lie. With AIM gone, I have no dog in the fight other than a continuing interest in trying to protect my compatriots in the working part of the industry from further abuse at the hands of AHF and its minions. But I will not be silent in the face of continuing calumnies against the best thing this industry ever had for its talent and I will neither forgive nor forget those who chose to remain neutral in the face of evil.

    For them, as the saying goes, there is a special place in hell.

     
    Reply
  7. Anthony Kennerson   October 8, 2013 10:27 am at 10:27 AM

    And now you know why Ernest Greene holds the esteemed title of Contributor Emeritus over at BPPA. It’s not just because he happens to be Nina Hartley’s husband, you know. His game is as tight as his satorical tastes.

    It’s so amazing that Mike South’s lying ass can’t be bothered to check a freakin’ website to know how HIV tests are distributed. Otherwise, he would have found out that Western Blot tests are NOT used to verify PCR tests, but to measure and document viral loads. Indeed, most health professionals say that PCR tests should always be used to verify results whenever there is a conflict between antigen tests like ELISA and viral load tests like Western Blot. As always, “Mary Sunshine” has it bass ackwards.

     
    Reply
  8. Reader   October 8, 2013 12:25 pm at 12:25 PM

    Wondering about The point of this blog post. To say someone is wrong and someone else is right? WTF?

    With all the controversy about tests in your industry I did some major homework. I’m not in your industry, just a curious homemaker with kickass research abilities.

    The controversy made me curious about what test would be BEST for me. With the info about there for undetectable, qualitative, quantative, RNA, NAT, ELISA, western blot, RPR and more it was confusing.

    Qualitative and quantative are funny words to describe these tests. These terms describe data research methods.

    Basically it comes down to SCREENING and CONVENTIONAL with neither being sufficient in and of itself to make a diagnosis of HIV, HepC and the other conditions tested via these methods.

    Since the APTIMA test was mentioned so often I looked at the fine print and hope you will too. The test is for those who can’t wait for conventional test results. It is a screening test and will do what a conventional test won’t, it will show “acute” or new infection but it won’t PROVE a negative with not detected.

    Wy does this matter? Well the goal of HIV treatment is to lower the virus to undetectable levels. (Each screenning or Viral load test has its own threshold for how to determine this)

    I’d like the PROFESSIONALS on this page to answer A few things. Will the western blot ever show a negative once it has been positive?

    Will the ELISA (which is not a standard part of the PCR, NAT processes) show a negative once it has been positive?

    Why are there TWO syphilis tests offered? Am I wrong in my understanding that one of tests shows yes/no and the second shows the amount to determine if syphilis treatment has been effective and or re infection occurrence?

    Lastly if someone who has had syphilis will always test positive for it under the old guidelines but is now offered the second test to PROVE they do not have active disease WHY aren’t these same standards applied to HIV?

    Simply being NON-detectable doesn’t mean UNABLE TO INFECT. It just means your viral load is too low to count via bloodwork, yet you can still have DECTABLE levels in your semen or vaginal fluids. Is the chance REDUCED with undectable levels..yes is it ELIMINATED…NO!

    Lastly don’t take my word for your health…do the research and read the fine print for yourself.

     
    Reply
  9. Reader   October 8, 2013 12:55 pm at 12:55 PM

    @ Anthony Kennerson

    Please do YOUR OWN homework…I did mine and YOU ARE INCORRECT!

    Western Blot and ELISA are used to find the actual antibodies AFTER our body has developed them by fighting the VIRUS. Doesn’t matter if it is chickenpox or HIV we don’t get “antibodies” to fight the virus until the immune system has kicked in, once the immune system kicks in they are found.

    PCR and NAT testing looks for copies of the actual virus which is why they ae so great at early diagnosis. They find the ACTIVE viral particles vs the antibodies.

    That is why they are called SCREENING tests for early detection. They say nothing about proving yes or no! (Even with window exclusion)

    Go to CET website…READ the stuff about the APTIMA test..especially the FAQ APTIMA vs ELISA

    Read the parts about how the test works before “antibodies” develop then go on to find out how it is used for REACTIVE and NON REACTIVE antibody tests. How it can help with ACUTE but doesn’t mention positive but on HIV meds. THAT IS WHY I DID SO MUCH HOMEWORK, TO DETERMINE WHAT TEST WILL BE BEST FOR ME.

     
    Reply
  10. Ernest Greene   October 8, 2013 1:38 pm at 1:38 PM

    So, Reader, how much did AHF pay you for that standard-issue boiler-plate bullshit you posted? You’re not in the industry but somehow you found this rather obscure place to post a bunch of double-talk that disproves nothing said earlier and does not prove anything claimed by your AHF pals.

    A curious homemaker indeed. I’m curious about who you really are, how you got here and what motivated you to do all this claimed research and end up spouting the AHF party line nearly word for word.

    You’re peddling ignorance and confusion. You question my motivations for posting what I did regarding who is right and who is wrong. The answer is that for as along as AHF has its crack troll squad out there circulating disinformation there will be a need to call them out on their lies.

    Homemakers who read porn sites and do extensive research on HIV testing and comes up with results that distort the truth beyond recognition in order to post them in a space normally read primarily by people directly involved in the porn industry or who follow it on a regular basis.

    Nothing suspicious at all about the way you popped up out of nowhere to do this. I’m sure you’re just who you say you are, acting on the motives you claim to be and have no prior involvement with this issue on behalf of any organization or in support of any political point of view.

    I also believe in Santa Clause and The Tooth Fairy.

     
    Reply
  11. Michael Whiteacre   October 8, 2013 1:47 pm at 1:47 PM

    “Wondering about The point of this blog post. To say someone is wrong and someone else is right?”

    No, the primary points of this post are: 1) a man who has positioned himself as THE guy who cares about performers (see: http://therealpornwikileaks.com/christian-mann-emails-mike-south/ ) has sided with a hateful liar, con man, rip-off artist and abuser of performers; and 2) he has the science of testing all wrong.

    “Qualitative and quantative are funny words to describe these tests. These terms describe data research methods.”

    No, you miss the point. Qualitative tells you WHETHER ONE IS INFECTED, while Quantitative tells you HOW INFECTED ONE IS. When testing the adult performer pool, as a matter of screening we need to know WHETHER a performer is infected.

    In the event of detection of infection, the process becomes focused on 1) confirmation of infection, and 2) the determination of how infected/infected for how long.

    “Basically it comes down to SCREENING and CONVENTIONAL with neither being sufficient in and of itself to make a diagnosis of HIV…”

    An “HIV diagnosis” is a legal (and political) event as well as a medical one. An official HIV diagnosis, under the law, requires a certain procedure (a combination of tests) within any given jurisdiction. Adult performer testing is not aimed toward making definitive determinations of patients’ status with each 14-day test; it is geared toward flagging individuals who test positive so that they can be removed from the pool and the they and their partners can be tested further. This is a screening and harm reduction model. It has been extremely effective. Occasionally you get false positives (as in 2011) but better a test that is too sensitive than one that is not sensitive enough.

    “[Aptima PCR-RNA] will show ‘acute’ or new infection but it won’t PROVE a negative with not detected. Wy does this matter? Well the goal of HIV treatment is to lower the virus to undetectable levels. (Each screenning or Viral load test has its own threshold for how to determine this).”

    As noted above, labs are required by law to run a parallel ELISA test along with PCR testing. It’s called a ‘non-reportable’ test. If the individual has ben infected, they will test positive on the ELISA portion.

    Yes, every test has its own threshold — and the threshold of the sensitive Aptima PCR-RNA is best suited to the needs of the adult performer pool.

    The matter of not being able to “prove a negative” is irrelevant: absence of infection = not infected. If you’re looking for absolutes, and 100% accuracy at all times, it doesn’t exist, as no method wrought by man will ever be perfect.

    “Will the western blot ever show a negative once it has been positive? Will the ELISA (which is not a standard part of the PCR, NAT processes) show a negative once it has been positive?”

    Your premise is false. ELISA IS performed as a non-reportbale test along with PCR.

    Western Blot, like ELISA, is an antibody test. At the end of the day, with regard to adult performer testing, your question ought to be: “Is there peer reviewed scientific evidence that the testing currently used with adult performers (viral load Aptima PCR-RNA) will show a negative if they were ever confirmed positive in the past.” The answer is no. If it were otherwise, and people with previously-but-no-longer detectable HIV (who were still infectious) were working in the performer pool, we’d see acute infections on set. This has not happened.

    “if someone who has had syphilis will always test positive for it under the old guidelines but is now offered the second test to PROVE they do not have active disease WHY aren’t these same standards applied to HIV?”

    They are. A parallel ‘non-reportbale’ ELISA test is run with every PCR. And even if they weren’t, there is no credible science to back up your premise that previously diagnosed HIV+ individuals would test negative otherwise.

     
    Reply
  12. Goldstein Army   October 8, 2013 5:04 pm at 5:04 PM

    I’d love to blow my nuts all over Nina Hartley’s tits. She’s always been super hot!

     
    Reply
    • crunkleschwitz   October 10, 2013 7:54 am at 7:54 AM

      Granny porn fetish….bleh.

       
      Reply
  13. Reader   October 8, 2013 5:49 pm at 5:49 PM

    @ Whiteacre

    Thank you for clarifying that the ELISA is part of the APTIMA process. I stand corrected for my premise that this is not conducted as part of the test.

    my question about whether or not an ELISA that shows positive/reactive ever being able to show a negative or non-reactive has yet to be answered.

    The same with western blot, just a simple yes or no.

    NON-REPORTABLE???? Would making this part of test be reportable be helpful when using these tests for continuing risk/behavior modification assessment?

    So you are saying that given just the PCR RNA or NAT results part of a test WITHOUT the NON-REPORTABLE ELISA results will tell me if someone is HIV positive but has non-detectable Viral Load?

    Perhaps the great confusion comes in over the non-reportable part of the testing process. If the ELISA showes positive can the REPORTABLE RNA or NAT test show non-reactive due to effective antiviral treatment?

    Thank you for pointing out that ELISA is part of the syphilis tests. Again the same questions about the reportable and non reportable parts of the test.

    Am I incorrect that the ELISA test by itself is used to find antibodies AFTER out body has reacted which gives it a longer window time than the RNA or NAT processes?

    Am I incorrect in understanding that RNA or NAT testing are the best way to see how many active copies of the virus are present which will show even before the body can react to make the antibodies?

    Is ELISA part of both the trep and non trep test processes?

    Can you explain how these tests are used to differentiate someone who has had syphilis in the past and either in treatment or at risk of re-infection? Is one of these tests used for someone is known to have had disease and the other for no prior history?

    I’m not trying to question WHAT test is best for your standards. I AM trying to decide what tests would be best for me.

     
    Reply
    • Michael Whiteacre   October 8, 2013 6:58 pm at 6:58 PM

      “[M]y question about whether or not an ELISA that shows positive/reactive ever being able to show a negative or non-reactive has yet to be answered. The same with western blot, just a simple yes or no.”

      The result of a test seeking a reaction is either “reactive” or it is not. Yes, there are non-reactive (as well as reactive) test results (either the test found what it was looking for or it did not) however the question is what does that mean.

      Any (single) test not being reactive does not mean — as a matter of law — that the patient is HIV positive. HIV status, as a legal matter, is a determination made after a combination of tests confirm it. It simply means there was a reaction meriting further analysis (re-testing and confirmation testing).

      While one cannot legally issue a HIV-positive diagnosis based solely on a single antibody test, as Nina Hartley noted in a recent Op/Ed, “the oldest and most common test, the ELISA, searches for HIV antibodies in the blood. It’s the gold standard in one respect. It never throws a false positive. If you have HIV anti-bodies in your system, you’re infected and your body has begun fighting back. However, you can be infected and contagious for up to six months before anti-body production begins.” It’s truly the gold standard at six months after infection.

      “NON-REPORTABLE???? Would making this part of test be reportable be helpful when using these tests for continuing risk/behavior modification assessment?”

      No, it wouldn’t. This test is a flag indicating a reactive result on the PCR test. As soon as that happens, the blood gets re-tested. Then a new sample is requested from the patient for testing. Non-reportable simply means it’s used internally at the lab, but the result of a reactive non-reportbale test is more testing.

      “So you are saying that given just the PCR RNA or NAT results part of a test WITHOUT the NON-REPORTABLE ELISA results will tell me if someone is HIV positive but has non-detectable Viral Load?”

      I’m saying I’ve seen no peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support the theory that a properly read PCR test would ever fail to identify a patient who is on ARV meds.

      Regarding the syphilis test questions, I have not done as much research on these tests, so you’ll have to continue your search elsewhere, I’m afraid.

      “I’m not trying to question WHAT test is best for your standards. I AM trying to decide what tests would be best for me.”

      With respect, this is a strange, backwards way to go about getting specific answers. If you want information regarding what is best for your circumstances, your best bet is to describe your circumstances. Absent that information, all I can advise is common sense: if you use the most sensitive test (PCR) in combination with an antibody test (ELISA, Western Blot), you will cover all your bases.

       
      Reply
  14. Reader   October 8, 2013 6:28 pm at 6:28 PM

    @ Ernest

    I have no affiliation with AHF. I am what I said just a homemaker who got curious and started reading about the testing protocols back in August when I noticed an article in Huffington Post about syphilis then saw more controversy the same week with the HIV issue.

    I am married for nearly 30 years and have only been tested twice. Why? Despite routine care it has never been suggested or asked of me to retest at any time due to a low risk lifestyle. The controversy made me curious when the fact that too many people think “my test was negative” but an article asked how recent is the test you are relying on?

    I found this “obscure” site via a link in one the articles I read.

    I hope this will alleviate your concerns that I have a motive other than understanding these tests and what one would be best for me.

    I have no interest in flame wars which is why I wondered what the point of the article was? Was it to show these two people were emailing back and forth? Was it to show the FACTS behind the tests?

    I don’t know nor do I truly care beyond finding out WHICH test/s would be best for me. Wondering why two tests are offered for syphilis vs one for HIV isn’t to second guess your standards it is to understand WHY did they decide that?

    Why look at this site and others? Well there is dialogue about what I want to know…
    Why post? Dialogue on a complex issue? Who has done tons of research on this issue? Why not find out about testing from an industry that has created standards to reduce their risk?

    Trying to find DEFINITIVE information about the best test for me has been a learning process with exposure to many processes. Next I will decide with my doc how often I should be tested because clearly I’m no longer comfortable with the 17 year old test I’ve relied on.

    Are you paranoid or are they really out to get you?

     
    Reply
  15. Ernest Greene   October 8, 2013 7:57 pm at 7:57 PM

    That’s a pretty good alibi, but it seems to have some logic problems in it. If you want medical advice, you would logically seek it from professional medical sources. Yes, I do think we have one of the world’s most advanced systems, but it’s designed for sex work professionals which you’re clearly not, by your own description.

    I am hardly paranoid and nobody is out to get me. They were out to get the clinic I helped found and build and they got it, so if I’m less than welcoming to strangers who seem eager to find gaps in the way we do things, I would think the reasons would be pretty obvious. If indeed you have no affiliation with Michael Weinstein and haven’t had the pleasure of dealing with him and his crew, you’re fortunate. If you knew them as I do you’d be suspicious of anyone who elbowed into this conversation with all kinds of leading questions and a rather nebulous motive for asking them.

    My advice, find a physician you trust and see what kind of testing would be best for you. If you’re not sexually active with multiple partners, you have more to worry about from the upcoming debt default than you do from choosing the wrong STD test. If you’ve been married for 30 years and are monogamous, I don’t see how this issue impacts you at all.

    And if you have no interest in flame wars, which is hardly what’s going on here. What’s going on is a real war between people who want a safe industry that functions independently and those who seek to profit from making it unsafe and then selling their own program to fix the problem they created. This may mean nothing to you (still skeptical about that) but it’s quite literally a matter of life and death to us and knowing who is scheming to what end in this rumble is rather critical if you’re a performer trying to make decisions about who to trust with your future health. If you’re not, it’s really none of your business and I can’t imagine why you’d bother to read any of what’s been said here.

    If you describe yourself accurately, you probably don’t need any test at all, which does leave some questions unanswered. If you’ve got reason to worry about having been exposed, I’d agree this is best worked out with your own physician and not on the internet.

     
    Reply
  16. Reader   October 8, 2013 8:53 pm at 8:53 PM

    I do describe myself accurately and WILL be asking my doctor WHICH test and process she thinks is best for me at my next appointment.

    As you said my concern about why I no longer feeling confident about relying on my old test is my own and doesn’t need any explanation. It was part of my response to accusations of my motives.

    I will finish my research and share what I find out with my kids who also need relevant info about what they can and cannot believe about tests and their results.

    Good luck and be well

     
    Reply
  17. TRPWL-Sean   October 9, 2013 10:48 am at 10:48 AM

    “I do describe myself accurately and WILL be asking my doctor WHICH test and process she thinks is best for me at my next appointment.”

    Why would a homemaker in a happy marriage feel the need to go get a HIV test??? I would think someone in your world could get by with the Walgreens version..

     
    Reply
  18. Anthony Kennerson   October 9, 2013 6:26 pm at 6:26 PM

    Oh, cut the BS, Nick East…I see you working behind that mask.

    For someone who says (s)he’s just a “homemaker” trying to make decisions for his(her)self, you sure have a way of attacking people for merely stating fact.

    Also, you might want to check your reading comprehension apparatus, because what I said was that Western Blot and ERISA were in fact used to detect antibodies, but that they had to be reinforced by PCR testing in case of any conflict. That’s not just me talking; that’s the official position of NY State health officials, whom issued the rule of using PCR testing to verify infection in case of any conflicts due to a widely publicized case of a false negative test. (ELISA positive, WB negative; PCR had to be called in to actually verify the infection.)

    Of course, ELISA is the gold standard for detecting HIV infection after 6 months; the problem is that it is a poor means of detection for acute infections, as well as for immediate detection of HIV…which is what PCR/Aptima testing was created for.

    And all that is still besides the original point, which is that AHF is peddling lies. Too bad that you, Nick…errrrrrr, “Reader”, would rather peddle those same lies.

     
    Reply
  19. Reader   October 9, 2013 8:17 pm at 8:17 PM

    ROFLMAO

    Accusing me of being all kinds of people with all kinds of agendas?? I don’t get it and I’m glad this isn’t the kind of life I lead worried that people are constantly lying and trying to get over on you.

    Now I understand why my questions about what test would show if someone already diagnosed and on ART were met with legal crap about diagnosis.

    I can’t prove I’m NOT all those people you think might be out to get you. I will tell you that I’m married 29 years and have two children….now do I need to put my life out there for your vicarious thrills before you might believe it’s really not one of the many people, agencies and numerous agendas that have been placed on me and my posts?

    I don’t think it would matter if I did put my life out there…nor do I think putting my life out there is relevant to anything I’ve asked. Nor do I think it would result in getting relevant feedback.

    Good luck with all your persecutors! Ps I hope all the people/agencies I’ve been accused of being read this and have a really good chuckle!

     
    Reply
  20. Reader   October 9, 2013 8:38 pm at 8:38 PM

    Ps trying to get info about a test I would be comfortable with to PROVE someone isn’t hiv positive and taking ART has been quite an education in other ways.

    Until recently I thought ATM was where I use my teller card and get cash.

     
    Reply
  21. Anthony Kennerson   October 9, 2013 10:45 pm at 10:45 PM

    Well, Reader, if you are not Nick East, then I sincerely apologize. The style of your comments seem very like his style of attack.

    I still think, though, that not relying on AHF talking points and following up on what Ernest and Michael said about testing protocols would do everyone a bit of good.

    Good luck on your research.

     
    Reply
  22. Ernest Greene   October 9, 2013 11:31 pm at 11:31 PM

    Either someone has way too much time or we’re being trolled. To be accused of paranoia when someone is deliberately pushing your buttons is a not unfamiliar tactic on the internet (where anyone who knows what a flame war is stands some chance of being a veteran of such a conflict).

    Nothing to see here either way. Moving along now.

     
    Reply
  23. crunkleschwitz   October 10, 2013 8:07 am at 8:07 AM

    I think all these wordy comments are really missing the point, an important one that we need to stay focused on. Mike South is a porn industry hating shit bag.

    That fucking guy don’t give a shit about what test is used, he just wants something to rail against so he can try to act smarter than everyone else, to stroke his lil ego.

    Really, what the fuck has Mike South done in the porn industry, or in life, to make anyone think he is smart and has all the answers? Film methbillies jerking off on trailer trash? If he is so far and away more intelligent than everyone else, wouldn’t he have viable employment and decent place to live? I’ve fucked crack whores with nicer apartments than South lives in.

    I guess when your target demo is functional tards/slow adults, then it is easy to look like a Mensa member.

     
    Reply
    • Jamie Gillis's Turds Army   October 12, 2013 3:32 pm at 3:32 PM

      This guy gets it. Well put.

       
      Reply
  24. Ernest Greene   October 10, 2013 1:15 pm at 1:15 PM

    While I couldn’t agree more when it comes to Mike South, the point of the article is the exchange between South and the odious Mr. Black and the content thereof, which reveals them to be true equals who are neatly sabotaging their own and each other’s credibility on a subject about which they seem to think they have a lot to say.

    The point is that they’re both dipping out of the same bucket of bullshit.

     
    Reply
    • Fake Mike South   October 10, 2013 2:18 pm at 2:18 PM

      I reckon what yall are saying is that I’m 20 gallons of bullshit in a 10 gallon hat?

       
      Reply
      • Fake Gene Ross   October 10, 2013 2:34 pm at 2:34 PM

        I knew it was you, you cretin! You are the one responsible for knocking Rob Black’s phallus from my lips and keeping it all to yourself. Et tu, Brute?

        Here I thought we were allies in the effort to destroy the porn industry and the anuses of pubescent brown skinned males. I feel as betrayed as Chamberlain when he realized Czechoslovakia was not enough to appease Adolph.

        To be out flanked by a Hillbilly Hitler is truly damaging to my ego. Excuse me while I seek comfort in the warm embrace of Remy Martin, Darvocet and a young Honduran chap.

        Good Day.

         
        Reply
        • mharris127   October 11, 2013 6:19 pm at 6:19 PM

          Aren’t you supposed to be retired from porn and selling porn memorabilia at the local pawn shop? Also, don’t you have a Social Security check to go cash? Gene Ross, I suggest you go cash your first Social Security check, sell that poster of Sharon Mitchell from 1975 and go suck Rob Black’s dick.

          Oh BTW Darvocet is no longer sold in the US. Of course Honduran sex slaves aren’t either. I guess you will have to switch to Vicodin like everyone else. I myself will be curling up with a couple of morphine and a few Haldol shortly.

           
          Reply
          • Fake Gene Ross   October 15, 2013 8:15 pm at 8:15 PM

            If you think I am bound by the substances and orifices the United States has to offer then you woefully underestimate the 87 years of experience I have as an alcoholic deviant I have under my belt. EVERY sexual servant shipped to our great land has cavities that can be filled with an array of delicacies from far off lands. Uncrate a Honduran, kick him in the belly then look between his buttocks and it resembles a cornicopia of pharmacological delights.

            As for my current employment, I have a Falwell Campari ad Hustler that Larry Flynt graced with his signature and seed. It is offered for purchase at the sum of $35. For an additional pint of Grey Goose I’ll throw in a tarot reading and hand job.

             
  25. Voltaire   October 13, 2013 9:40 pm at 9:40 PM

    Wow… Leave for two years and the whole (porn) world flips on it’s head. I see LIB was recently purchased (I assume) by AHF. At least Whiteacre is still going strong… Haven’t seen any recent Shelley Lubben rumblings, I hope she moved on to some other batshit crazy endeavor, “Prophet, me, no… Well maybe…”

    Haha, and how does a middle-aged housewife stumble onto this web site searching for info about HIV testing to inform her children? Wonder how her husband felt when he checked the web history… Upset? Doubt it… Excited? Hopefully…

     
    Reply
    • Michael Whiteacre   October 14, 2013 8:33 am at 8:33 AM

      Good to hear from you, Voltaire! I’ve missed your observations. Don’t be a stranger.

       
      Reply
      • Voltaire   October 14, 2013 7:59 pm at 7:59 PM

        Haha! Good to see you remember Michael…
        I will try, but alas, every day I get older it seems I lose more and more free time.

        Quick question. Seeing how I’ve been out of the loop, what the hell happened at LIB?!? Seems “Kelli” is quck to point to others guilt (Evil Angel, Vivid) without much in the way of “evidence”,,,

         
        Reply
        • Michael Whiteacre   October 14, 2013 9:14 pm at 9:14 PM

          What happened at LIB is apparently a long story, and I’m aware of only a small part of it. Cindi said she had become unable to devote time to running it due to family issues, and wanted to sell it. Instead, Kelli took over, changed the tone and tenor of the site, and pissed a lot of people off. That’s about all I know.

           
          Reply
          • Voltaire   October 14, 2013 9:33 pm at 9:33 PM

            Hmm… Thus is the internet I suppose. At least this site seems to allow for some educated discourse.

             
          • Michael Whiteacre   October 14, 2013 9:53 pm at 9:53 PM

            Which is precisely why I say, please don’t be a stranger.

             
          • crunkleschwitz   October 15, 2013 12:58 pm at 12:58 PM

            Keyword being “some”. If the discourse goes over the 7th grade level too often, then Fake Mike South is going to have to start commenting on LukeFord.com, so the other comments don’t go above his hillbilly head.

             
  26. Pingback: Leaks and Lies: The AHF – Cal/OSHA – Mike South Propaganda Machine - THE REAL PORN WIKI LEAKS : THE REAL PORN WIKI LEAKS

  27. Gram Ponante   October 15, 2013 10:57 am at 10:57 AM

    As a homemaker with crack research skills, I was so grateful to happen on this post. I know Scientific American disabled its comments for unmoderatable abuses, but the comments section here just became a space for a history of the fall of AIM, a clean breakdown of testing methodologies, and a rooting out of trolls. Thanks to Messrs. Whiteacre, Greene, and Kennerson.

    I like who I like and my shanty Irish sensibilities are often overwhelmed by who is now in bed with whom, but one thing that has not changed is that AHF, like Nurse Ratched, “ain’t honest” in seeking its goals, however noble that organization makes those goals seem.

    As you know, the only acceptable lie is “You’re not fat.”

     
    Reply
    • Michael Whiteacre   October 15, 2013 6:21 pm at 6:21 PM

      We do what we can, Mr. Ponante. Thank you for the film reference, and yes, “You’re not fat” is indeed the only acceptable lie, although it’s my second favorite fudging of the truth…

      I’m sure you’re all-too-familiar with the fact that whenever someone forces you to sit through one of their terrible movies, the more awful it is, the greater the likelihood they will corner you to ask you what you thought. When they do, I always pat them on the shoulder, smile warmly and offer this reply: “You couldn’t have done better!”

       
      Reply
  28. Anthony Kennerson   October 26, 2013 12:31 pm at 12:31 PM

    Well, Mr. Ponante, we do what we can. Thanks.

    I still think that our “housemaker” is simply Nick East trolling his ass off….but I’m willing to give “her” the benefit of the doubt.

     
    Reply
    • Michael Whiteacre   October 26, 2013 4:47 pm at 4:47 PM

      Of course it’s Nick. I can practically smell the booze from here.

       
      Reply
  29. Pingback: 'Zero' Risk of Transmission from HIV Patients with Undetectable Viral Loads - TRPWL : TRPWL

  30. Pingback: OUTRAGE: Porn producer caught shooting without STD tests or condoms - TRPWL : TRPWL

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.