HIV Testing On Trial In Clayton County Georgia

Breaking News story.

Mr Craig Davis is facing criminal charges for not disclosing HIV status to two women in a case under way at the Clayton County Courthouse in Georgia.

County Prosecutor Kathryn Powers said in her opening statement that Mr. Craig Davis’s HIV status is “a deadly weapon”. In testimony at the trial,  Dr. Courtney Shelton said he diagnosed Davis with HIV in 2005.  The defending attorney John Turner argues that “all HIV tests are unreliable and there is no definitive proof Davis has HIV.”

“When they tell you he tested positive for HIV, what that means is there’s an assumption he’s HIV positive. There’s no test that can measure that on the face of this earth,” said defense attorney John Turner.

Above left image: Government HIV Testing Poster, Courtesy of CDC

What Will Be the Final Outcome of the Case ?

A number of similar cases have been resolved in the past few years around the country mostly in favor of the defense, and all charges have been dropped.

Who Will Win the Case ?

Chanel 11 NBC Television News Report: See Below:

How Does the The Defense Win ?

The HIV test package insert is the crux of the defense case. Simply by having the HIV Test Package Insert admitted as evidence, and having the limitations section read to the jury, the defense usually wins.   The HIV test package insert supports the defense argument that the HIV test is merely presumptive and not conclusive proof of HIV infection and therefore insufficient evidence to convict a man of felony charges.

Here is a list of 56 previous cases in which all HIV-related criminal charges were dismissed: (Click Here to see details of cases)

Stay tuned to see the final outcome of the case.

latest update :Physician: Man in Clayton HIV case may have been misdiagnosed  The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

“Dr. Nancy Banks was one of two medical professionals who testified Friday in the trial of Craig Lamar Davis, the man accused of exposing women to the virus. He is facing up to 20 years in prison if he is convicted on two counts of reckless HIV, a felony.  Banks, who flew in from Guadalajara, Mexico, also told the court Friday that there are no definitive tests on the market today to determine someone has HIV. The tests look for various proteins that are assumed to be HIV.”

Update 1/21/14

Jury Verdict rendered today: Guilty on both counts.  Apparently the jury disregarded the expert testimony on the package insert which used the wording that a positive test is a “presumption” of HIV infection, (not proof).  This is an example of  a jury making the wrong decision based on emotion and not on the merits of the case.  It can happen. Link to News Media Report Here.

In the Limitations Section, the package insert says this:

1) While Abbott HIV test detects antibodies to HIV, the Abbott HIV test does not actually test for the presence of the HIV virus itself.

2) If a person has a positive test for HIV antibodies, then infection with the virus is presumed (not proved).  Here is the actual quote from the package insert:

“A person who has antibodies to HIV-1 is presumed to be infected with the virus,” end quote

Here is the package Insert from the Abbott Labs HIV Test.  Click Here  to see pdf of package insert.

Here is the limitations Section:

” HIVAB HIV-1/HIV-2 (rDNA) EIA detects antibodies to HIV-1 and/or HIV-2 in blood and thus is useful in screening blood and plasma donated for transfusion and further manufacture,
in evaluating patients with signs or symptoms of AIDS, and in establishing prior infection with HIV.

Clinical studies continue to clarify and refine the interpretation and medical significance of the presence of antibodies to HIV.34 It is recommended that repeatedly reactive specimens be investigated by an additional more specific, or supplemental test.

A person who has antibodies to HIV-1 is presumed to be infected with the virus, except that a person who has participated in an HIV vaccine study may develop antibodies to the vaccine and may or may not be infected with HIV. Clinical correlation is indicated with appropriate counseling, medical evaluation and possibly additional testing to decide whether a diagnosis of HIV infection is accurate. Such an evaluation should be considered an important part of HIV antibody testing and should include test result confirmation on a freshly drawn sample.

AIDS and AIDS-related conditions are clinical syndromes and their diagnosis can only be established clinically.35 EIA testing cannot be used to diagnose AIDS, even if the recommended investigation of reactive specimens suggests that the antibodies to HIV are present. A negative test result at any point in the investigation of individual subjects does  not preclude the possibility of exposure to or infection with HIV. The risk of an asymptomatic person with a repeatedly reactive serum sample developing AIDS or an AIDS-related condition is not known. However, in a prospective study, AIDS developed in 51% of homosexual men after 10 years of infection.36,37 Data obtained from testing persons both at increased and at low risk for HIV infection suggest that repeatedly reactive specimens with high absorbance on EIA are more likely to demonstrate the presence of the HIV antibodies by additional, more specific or supplemental testing.38 Reactivity at or only slightly above the Cutoff Value is more frequently nonspecific, especially in samples obtained from persons at low risk for HIV infection; however, the presence of antibodies in some of these specimens can be demonstrated by additional, more specific or supplemental testing.”

Above left image: HIV Testing Poster Courtesy of CDC Author:Jeffrey Dach MD
7450 Griffin Road, SUite 180
Davie, Fl 33314
954-792-4663
www.jeffreydach.com
www.drdach.com
www.naturalmedicine101.com
www.bioidenticalhormones101.com
www.truemedmd.com

(c) 2014 All rights reserved Jeffrey Dach MD

Link to this article:http://wp.me/p3gFbV-1ai