Twitter

Word Is That Ninas test was A False Positive

This JUST came to me from her agent

This is good news and the moratorium has been lifted

But PLEASE people  do NOT ever shoot when you are experiencing flu like symptoms

 

 

109130cookie-checkWord Is That Ninas test was A False Positive
Mike

Mike

Word Is That Ninas test was A False Positive

Share This

14 Responses

  1. This is excellent news, I was hoping that this was a false positive. Personally I would probably have left the moratorium in place and had her tested again in 10 days just in case the confirmatory test was the inaccurate one but as I am not a VD testing health professional it is possible that isn’t how the confirmatory tests work. Jilted can chime in here knowingly, he has more than likely dealt with this issue many times through his work with AIM.

  2. @harris,
    Without knowing what ‘confirmatory’ tests were done any comment would be pure speculation. If by confirmatory they mean an elisa and western blot, then the individual could certainly be within the window period for those tests. But not knowing exactly what tests were performed means this is all speculation.

    For the record, during my tenure with the adult industry I,(that is my labs) never released a false positive HIV result, NEVER. Our labs always held ourselves to a much higher standard than is required by law, no matter the fiscal cost. Of course, in the end, we were ripped off for over half a million dollars, and that doesnt count the tens of thousands of dollars worth of free testing, and other ‘perks’ we provided AIM.

    Lets all pray that this is indeed a false positive result. Only one thing more frightening than a false positive, that is a false negative.

    I would love to see exactly what tests were performed that lead to the instant conclusion of a false positive, considering the window periods of particular tests. APTIMA, the makers of the industry PCR test makes NO CLAIMS of any king regarding eclipse periods of their tests, NONE WHATSOEVER. The test CAN detect in short periods, it does not mean it WILL detect within 7 to 10 days as the FSC claims.

    Good for Nina, lets hope she learned her lesson, and passes it on to her fellow performers. I would like to hear from her how the last 24 hours felt, and whether she thinks “testing” offered her any protection. Who better to talk about this subject than someone who has been through it.

  3. For the record I did not intend to accuse Jilted of actually releasing a false result. However, no matter how fastidious the lab a questionable or false result has to happen on occasion (it is just the nature of testing), the difference here is that his lab would take the extra day and verify the results with a second (and a third if need be) test before releasing the results (as would my doc’s lab which last I knew used Quest Diagnostics — I think that is a Michigan company so it is OK if you guys have never heard of it but with admittedly non VD issues sometimes I have had to wait a bit for confirmatory results on abnormal findings).

  4. @jilted

    Labs holding themselves to a higher standard is a great point. Having read the lit re tests they all come with data for potential false positives and reassurance against the dreaded false negative. The lit includes data re process for ruling out false negative but until now hadn’t considered the process involved to rule out false positives.

    Is there a regulated standard to how the occasional false positive produced by these tests is handled?

    Seen many mentions of how stored samples were helpful in the past. Is storing samples a part of every lab or was it part of the research functions done by labs you were associated with?

    Iirc last year the lab initially asked for a new sample for an inconclusive, wouldn’t that be a standard way of r/o false positive to avoid alarming the patient and in this case an entire industry. Also saw some press about rerunning samples etc.

    Sorry to bombard you with spot on questions but my curiosity about how a false positive is handled is heightened because this isn’t the first moratorium for a false positive. Given the increasing issues in the three years since last false positive it seems odd that an approved facility wouldn’t have done all they could to rule out test or sample issues before making the call. At first thought that oddity was related to my ignorance re inter working of labs, but seeing your comment got the wheels turning.

  5. On the blog of one of the regular industry apoplogists, who has now aligned himself with Michale whiteacre over on TRPWL, he wrote regarding the false positive,,,,,they retested the original sample,,,,,, What this guy didnt say, or doesnt know, is that to legally release any positive HIV result, any lab has to duplicate the test and get at least two seperate positive results on the same sample.

    When dealing with AIM specimens we always knew that we could be dealing with possible early detections, very early detections. There were times when we ran tests using additional methods to confirm results, either negative or positive. And every lab stores specimens, usually for one or two weeks, at which time a specimen is probably to degraded to rerun any tests. The PCR test requires a whole blood sample to be stored at room temperature, which makes it an easy test for ‘mail order’ facilities. But we were part of a research program with Roche Diagnostics, and we would centrifuge these whole blood specimens, add a certain reagent, and freeze the plasma(serum).

    @Mharris,,,Quest Diagnostic, formerly Smith Kline, is a worldwide corperation, with full service labs in many cities around the world, and thousands of patient service centers(draw stations) And I did not thind you ‘accused’ me of anyfalse positive results, sorry if my post lead you to think that.

    @Lurk,,especially when dealing with such possible early detections, it is routine to ask for another sample for any inconclusive test, simply because a few more days have gone by, and the chance of getting a definitive answer are increased.

    At my lab, the head of our molecular department was a man who was actually part of the Nobel Prize winning team with Kerry Mullis, who ‘invented’ the PCR technology. Our lab had a seperate, written “Special Protocol” for AIM specimens, as we spent tens of thousands of dollars just to get validated to run these ‘research’ tests. At the time, every AIM result said, “This test is not intended for in-vitro diagnostic testing,” which meant we of course, had to verify not only every positve result, but EVERY result with an alternative method. Our lab barely broke even doing AIMs HIV tests, but the research was priceless.

    False positive happen, it shows the quality of a lab to find these false results themselves, before they are released to the patient. Most labs will send their confiration tests to another laboratory, as we did. It strikes me as amazing, IF< BIG IF, they did a western blot that they had the result in 24 hours,,,,,I never released a WB test in anything less that 4 days.

    Back in the day, it is no secret that Mike was always very critical of AIM. During the 2004 outbreak he 'took AIM to task' asking if they knew how to do basic math when figuring out timelines for possible infections, and AIM should have gone back furhter as their base line for testing. What Mike didnt know then was about how the lab stored previous specimens. We were able to go bakc, pull Darrens previous specimens, and virtually every other person on the qlist had previous specimens, to determine a proper timeline. I have since spoken to Mike about this, and as I have said before,,,,,"Just because YOU dont know whats going on doesnt mean that nothing is going on."

    While it is certainly good news for this individual at the moment, It is way to early to sound the all clear, if, as Dianne Duke says, "better to err on the side of caution" Declaring the all clear at this point is nothing more than throwing caution to the wind.

  6. @jilted

    TY for detailing this. I get erring on the side of caution with respect to lab also see the damage jumping the gun can create when calling an industry wide moratorium. Can’t envy anyone in the position of making that call.

    How many “false alarms” before moratorium is out & out ignored? Last December was real deal but some made a stand against FSC as a valid authority or oversight to make the call. This event wasn’t known to be a false alarm before all sorts of possible excuses to justify working thru it were being offered.

    Seems performer & small producer economic fears are compounding moratoria fatigue. So many initial reactions to this moratorium conveyed economic fear drowning out expressions of concern for a peer or personal risk telling a different story than the one FSC is telling about being courted for paying a living wage. Too many are living one paycheck from disaster.

  7. I remember hearing the name Smith Kline a few times but had not heard about the buyout or name change to Quest Diagnostics. Since they are national, theoretically my doctor here in Michigan could order a test after my doctor’s appointment for (say for the sake of argument) three months out and I could take that test in (for example) California or Nevada at another Quest facility. Granted there may be state or federal laws preventing this but theoretically it could be done with existing infrastructure. In fact, this could be being done in adult entertainment right now, for Michigan CET has a draw site in Lansing and TTS has one in Traverse City (CET is based in the Los Angeles, CA area and TTS in Miami, FL and Northridge, CA). AIM had similar arrangements when they were doing adult testing as Jilted could probably expound on further.

Leave a Reply

Mike South

Offering the latest adult industry news and porn star gossip! Have a story? Contact us!

Recent Comments
Brazzers