False Security In The Dental Industry Patients of an HIV positive dentist who found themselves to be infected with the virus claimed that the dentist transmitted the virus due to lax infection control practices but new findings dispute these claims. The findings from this case completely oppose the findings that resulted from an earlier case similar to this one where the dentist was actually guilty of transmitting HIV. DNA sequencing was the process utilized by the health department and federal centers to isolate the HIV strain found in the dentist's body. No similarities emerged from the DNA in the HIV strains contracted by the patient and by some of his patients. Further research provided information regarding the impossibility of patients to contract the virus from one another and results also showed how the dental implements could not have caused the problem. Conclusions from the studies can give people new perceptions regarding the case. With the risk of virus contraction from dentist to patient being very low patients need not demand that their physicians have mandatory health exams. For you whose relationships have arrived at a dead end, there is a family lawyer Sydney specialist that you may consult. These a family law Sydney firm canlawyers deal with all legal family matters, including prenuptial agreements, domestic violence, divorce, custody, child support, adoption, and property rights.Looking for family law Sydney offices should not be that difficult. The secret, however, is finding ,In order to prevent others from undergoing the same experience one of the six patients infected by the first dentist waged a crusade for the implementation of mandatory health testing for physicians. With a service record lasting over 30 years the other dentist worked with a group of indigents a majority of whom had AIDS. He tested HIV positive and died in a hospice three years later. During the last five years that he treated patients he served quite a number of people and 19% of them got tested for HIV with 24 contracting the virus. There were four who did not get tested but were found to have HIV. To see if behavioral issues are present in those who were HIV positive studies were done and 24 of the patients came out to be potential risks. Through DNA sequencing more evidence that disputes the claim that the strain of HIV from the dentist infected the patients who tested positive for the virus were found. It was more likely that the patients were infected by other means and not by the dentist as nothing in their HIV strains were the same in any way. Each one who had HIV contracted the virus from a different source than the rest and this can be supported by findings where no single strain was found to be the same. It was still crucial to verify that dental implements possibly exposed to the virus did not have the capacity to transmit HIV. Current findings may finally put an end to the years of hardship experienced by the dental field as many AIDS experts are saying. There may be additional evidences according to the director of the HIV sequence database and analysis project that will further support the information released by the center for disease control. Isolating HIV strains is the purpose of having the quasi governmental organization that never disregards the chances of experiencing another case like this taking into consideration the HIV epidemic that still exists today. 400 million patients and a campaign for safe practices keep the American dental profession very busy and current findings can give them the push they need to go on. The resolution of this case marks the numerous changes expected for the dental field in the coming years starting with drastic measures being taken for infection control. Mandatory health checks for physicians should remain enforced as a lawyer for the AIDS victim argues because every patient is entitled to know about any potential risks from a physician that he might be susceptible to. Case in point a number of patients got infected by HIV and whether the dentist acted negligently or not it is the responsibility of public health services to provide patients with adequate protection.