We’ve been inundated with questions from readers regarding the timeline in the current HIV case, especially in light of the inaccurate reporting on other sites.
The most common questions we’ve received are:
1) What does a date on the PASS website signify — the date the sample was drawn or the date the test result was returned?
The answer is, IT IS THE DATE THE SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED. This has been confirmed with PASS, and it can be easily verified by any performer who logs on to their own account.
We repeat, the test date on the PASS website is the date the samples were collected.
2) What did the current patient know, and when did he know it.
At the outset let us state that TRPWL is writing neither to defend nor condemn any actions of the HIV positive patient. The job at hand is to sort through the available information, and to identify both the conclusions which can reasonably be drawn from the data, and the accusations which are not supported by known facts.
Let us take a moment to understand a crucial element of FSC’s PASS testing and moratorium protocols:
Under these protocols, in the event of a positive HIV test, the result must be reported immediately to both PASS and the patient. The patient is contacted and asked to come in to the testing center. He or she is NOT told the result of the HIV test over the phone.
In the event of a contaminated sample or an inconclusive test, the patient is also asked to return to the testing center. When and if the patient does return, new samples are collected there. The patent may also choose to test at an alternate testing center, if he or she has more confidence in it, or is more comfortable there.
The samples collected are not simply tested for HIV. Performers’ collected samples are also tested for:
• Syphilis (an “RPR” and Trep-Sure test)
• Hepatitis B & C
• Chlamydia (by “ultra-sensitive DNA amplification”)
• Gonorrhea (by “ultra-sensitive DNA amplification”)
In the present case, the patient went to Talent Testing Service (TTS) to have samples collected on Tuesday, December 3rd.
TTS confirms that while the turnaround is usually next day, it is not always 24-hour results. Delays can be caused by different factors, which we needn’t detail here because it is not confirmed that there was in fact any delay in this case.
That said, TTS did not report a positive HIV test result to PASS or LA County, which suggests that the test samples were thought to have been contaminated, or the HIV test result was inconclusive.
TRPWL has learned that after the results came in, such as they were, TTS informed the patient that they needed another blood sample.
Regardless of the time and date the patient spoke with TTS, the patient WAS NEVER INFORMED HE HAD TESTED POSITIVE FOR HIV.
Instead of returning to TTS, the patient decided to use another PASS-certified testing center, Cutting Edge Testing (CET).
It was on the following day — Friday, December 6th — that his test results came in and CET established he had tested HIV-positive.
Under to PASS protocols, the doctor at the PASS facility that conducted the test checks to see if that performer is an “active performer”, i.e., that he/she has worked on adult set since 2 weeks prior to his/her last negative test. If he/she has, the doctor alerts FSC, and FSC calls an industry-wide moratorium.
CET notified PASS the same day, Friday, December 6th, that an active performer had tested positive.
That same day, December 6th, the immediately FSC called for a production moratorium.
On Sunday, TRPWL published screen caps of a purported text conversation between adult starlet Pressley Carter and the HIV+ performer in which he attempts to arrange to perform on webcam with her on Sunday, December 8th. Carter implies that the text conversation occurred on December 4th.
December 4th was BEFORE THE PERFORMER KNEW HE HAD TESTED POSITIVE.
Today, TRPWL received screencaps of an Twitter direct message conversation between the patient and another female performer. That conversation ran as late at the afternoon of Thursday December 5th, and indicating the patent was interested in booking the female performer at some later date.
December 5th was also BEFORE THE PERFORMER KNEW HE HAD TESTED POSITIVE.
Our conclusion is that no evidence has yet been presented that demonstrates the patient performed sex, or attempted to arrange to perform sex, after he knew he was HIV-positive.
Is there any other evidence to support a conclusion that he first learned about his positive test result on Friday, December 6th?
Yes. The patient’s Twitter timeline, which had been active up until the morning of December 6th, ended with a final tweet at 4:31 pm PST that day. The day he received his test result from CET.
He has not tweeted since.
An FAQ about STIs, Testing and Moratoriums