Industry Scores Great Report, Lousy Editorial Note From CDC

The mention of "voluntary" testing also rankles Mitchell.

"These days, everyone looks at everyone else's test, because one girl, if she works for a small company or with somebody that doesn't compare tests, tomorrow she's going to work for Jim South, and Jim South is going to send her across the street to us," Mitchell explains. "Our tests-by-mail is huge. We sometimes get 100 specimens a day to test by mail because even people who do the homegrown stuff are testing. So we get everybody. This is not like any other gig."

Therefore, Mitchell says, to conclude, as the editorial note's author does, that "as demonstrated by the recent incidents of HIV transmission in this industry, screening alone is not adequate to prevent transmission of HIV or other STDs because infected persons can transmit these diseases for a period before their infection can be diagnosed" is to look at the actual situation on the ground "through this very, very fine microscope."

"I think ultimately what they're saying is, 'We understand, being the Los Angeles County Health Department, that we have had 2000 new HIV cases last year, but these four, by golly, we're going to spend a lot of money and a lot of time and look into something that's being voluntarily done with what we think is a high-risk population,'" Mitchell assesses. "The big picture is, I want to know why are these four cases – and I'm so sorry that this had to happen to these people last year, but why are these four cases generating so much time and expense?"

"There's all types of different workers that can be exposed to blood or garbage or bacteria or cleaning fluids or hazardous materials or anything," she continues. "In a way, if this industry wants to be legitimate, a [health] standard is going to have to be set sooner or later, but to target us and to compare our current protocols with something that may not be workable in the workplace, that may drive people underground, that may drive people not to voluntarily come in and test anymore, is purposefully and definitely going to cause more problems by dumping disease into the general population and driving the disease rate up within this [industry] population. So if we're going to come to an agreement, it has to be very gingerly and carefully done, with total and utmost cooperation between producers, directors, talent and the [health services] people that are looking at us right now."

As an example of the county's well-meaning but impractical methodology, Mitchell points to the way county investigators handled some of the performers involved the 2004 outbreak.

"I said to them, 'A mother found out that her daughter did porn because your investigator was sitting in a car in front of her house like a crack dealer, and said he was from the County Health Department. This woman never told her mother what she did, but thanks to you, now her mother knows, and that created a family crisis.'"

"They're looking at AIM's protocols and our wonderful service like it's some horrible violation, when their own system doesn't even work well," Mitchell summarizes. "Am I the only one who sees that?"

Mitchell is looking into discovering the identity of the editorial note writer, since she's certain that it isn't any of the professionals who signed the report itself.

"I know everybody on there," she claims. "We worked with them for this report; that's why it's good."