Well it may not matter anymore, CA passed the condom required act (not actual name) which means that any adult film shot in Cali requires that each sex act include a condom. AIM was the best the industry had but it was very far from perfect. Mark Wallace worked for years while HIV + using false test results from AIM. He infected at least 6 girls, two who originated in the KC area. The biggest problem is that the vast majority of male actors are either homosexual or bi sexual and work in both straight and bi/gay/shemale mediums, Wallace in fact was a well known male homosexual escort, Peter North began his career in gay film. John Stagliano owner of Evil Empire aquired the virus after being on the receiving end of a trannsexual partner in Rio who did not wear a condom. Darren James also aquired the virus in brazil in much the same manner. It is my understanding the AIM used the antibody or Elisa test for the routine testing and only used the PCR DNA testing when there is suspected exposure. There is another company who is now performing the testing but I cannot remember the name at the moment. If anyone doubts that AIDS is common in the adult film industry google the dead adult film stars website and check under the AIDS/HIV section.
Originally Posted by dirty dog
Cal-OSHA mandated the use of condoms and was the driving force behind the "statute". It is terribly unfortunate, as it will drive some producers underground (as they were in the 1970's and early 80's) and lead to (end in) violence and exploitation, IMO. Other producers will simply move off-shore and those with the money will stay and litigate . . . All told, it is a hell of a mess that should have never happened (the "Condom Act"). Other State OSHA departments will follow suit and in Kansas currently, quasi-legislative Agencies have begun using OSHA in an attempt to regulate aspects of the adult entertainment business, reaching into the strip-clubs and attempting to succeed (for the far right) where the legislature fell short by trying to make the lap dance (or any skin to skin contact) a regulated action for the performer (basically eliminating it). Whether or not they will succeed is a topic for a different thread.
Regarding the testing question you raised:
The best ultra-fast diagnostic technique for HIV IMO is a fully automated system made by Roche and the testing method uses polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or NAT (Nucleic Acid Amplification) to detect miniscule amounts of viral (and the technique can be applied to bacteria, also) genetic material.
They take a measured amount of blood sufficient to run the three NAT tests for HIV-1 and HIV-2; Hepatitis C virus and Hepatitis B virus. They can also include syphilis IgG and IgM within that screen. The test is performed using the Roche platform and runs on the "sample in, results out" technique, which essentially reduces the chances of contamination of product to zero (statistically). Should a positive sample be produced, the whole specimen is drilled down to identify which virus is producing the positive result and further confirmatory tests are performed.
The outcome is a highly sensitive, highly accurate methodology for detection of the identified viruses (if they exist). The turnaround time is swift for a detailed test such as this, taking a maximum of four days. Most negative results are available in a day or two.
This particular test can be used SEVEN DAYS POST EXPOSURE, there is no other test that is accurate so quickly.
It isn't cheap, but it is the best they've currently got . . . most people don't realize that for the tests performed for free at most clinics, you need to be 28 days to six weeks post exposure to even begin to obtain a reliable test result, and three months is more realistic.
Kisses,
- Jackie
, and Jackie I have mad love 
for ya... my apologies for my response the other day....you have won all respect.
