HIV breakthrough

lukin2006

Godfather. wrote:

:shock: ....welll everybody how about this...don't use needles (just don't do drugs) and don't go whoring around and use a condom for casual incounters...geeeeeeeze I knew somebody would turn this into something argumentive oh yea and no sex with monkeys


Godfather.

I'd like add that if you have an STD it's your moral obligation to disclose to any potential partner that you have an STD. I have no problem with jail time for those that do not disclose their status and choose to put others at risk.

Boxes&Books

brianlux wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Does that make sense?

I think. But I'm pretty drunk.

I'm a little lit up myself, so I wasn't sure either.

One of the Greatest Exchanges EVER!!! EPIC!!!

brianlux

brianlux wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Does that make sense?

I think. But I'm pretty drunk.

I'm a little lit up myself, so I wasn't sure either.

tonifig8 wrote:

One of the Greatest Exchanges EVER!!! EPIC!!!

Oh good, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

The weird thing is, what I was asking about was whether or not what I said made sense, "I think we are who we are and even more so when any individual is self-aware to the point of simply being who they are," but now I'm only vaguely sure of WTF I meant.

Godfather.

from the huff post LA.

Warning: This article addresses graphic subject matter that may not be appropriate for all readers.

With news cameras flashing, adult film performer Cameron Bay told reporters that in her last porn shoot before testing positive for HIV, her partner's penis was bleeding -- and he wasn't wearing a condom. After stopping momentarily, the cameras continued rolling, she said.

Bay, whose positive HIV test sparked the first of two porn moratoriums in the last month, spoke Wednesday at a Hollywood press conference with other adult film performers, including two who said they also contracted HIV this year. The press conference was coordinated by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which advocates for mandatory condom use in porn.

Five current and former porn performers spoke about the dangers and uncertainty of life in the adult film industry. While the performers said they can't be sure when and where they contracted HIV, they agreed the industry is not adequately protecting its performers.

Choking back tears, Bay continued to describe her last shoot, filmed at a public bar in San Francisco for Kink.com.

"There were up to 50 people in the room with us. And we were laying on top of them. And they were touching inappropriately," Bay said. "It all happened so fast. I didn’t realize how unsafe it was until I saw the pictures ... You're on a whole other level when you're doing something so extreme."

Bay told HuffPost last week that condoms were available, but not required at the shoot. She said she didn't think she needed to use a condom because her male costar had recently tested negative for sexually transmitted diseases, and she left the choice up to him. Kink.com confirmed to HuffPost that Bay was offered a condom, but it was not used.

Porn performer Patrick Stone told reporters he was asked to perform in a shoot even after he tested positive for HIV. He said he was told he was HIV-positive in an email on Sept. 10 from Performer Availability Screening Services, which handles STD testing for the industry. Stone said he never got a follow-up call or email from PASS, or from his employer Kink.com, to discuss the results or schedule follow-up testing. Instead, he got an email from Kink.com two days later inquiring about scheduling a shoot this week, he said.

Since then, Stone has taken two additional tests that he said show him as HIV-negative. He said he's awaiting results from a fourth and final test.

"It's been kind of a whirlwind week for me emotionally," Stone said. "I feel that the testing process for PASS is not working. If I was allowed to fall through the cracks like I did, who else is out there?

"I mean, they had me scheduled for a shoot tomorrow and as far as they knew, I was HIV-positive," Stone said.

Kink.com said that it did not know about Stone's positive HIV test when it scheduled him for the shoot.

"He had tested negative for us previously. Because of the moratorium, tests were not updated on the PASS system for producers (because no one was cleared for work)," Mike Stabile, spokesman for Kink.com, said in an email to HuffPost. "He would have been required [to take] a new test regardless before shooting."

Another man who identified himself as a porn performer joined the press conference by phone, saying he wanted to remain anonymous. He claimed to have contracted HIV working in the industry and tested positive in the last six months. That would make him the third performer to test positive for the virus this year.

About two weeks after a shoot, he said he developed acute symptoms and tested positive. He said he had tested negative for HIV two weeks earlier.

A fourth performer, Rod Daily, said he learned he was HIV-positive earlier this month. Daily, who has been in a romantic relationship with Cameron Bay for about two years, has performed in gay porn since 2005 and said he always used condoms.

"That's 12 years that I've shot with HIV-positive people, used condoms and never been HIV-positive," Daily said. "If anything, I know that condoms do work. I was a guinea pig for that.

"I just don’t know how an industry stands here and says they care so much about their performers and, a week after someone tests positive, they're out there shooting without condoms," Daily said. "Ultimately, it’s a business, and their main concern is money and not their performers."

Daily thanked the AIDS Healthcare Foundation "for everything they've done," including helping him and Bay get medication.

Former performer Derrick Burts said he became infected with HIV in 2010 working as a porn performer. Burts said that, like Bay, he had only worked in the industry for a few months before contracting HIV. In his four-month porn career, he said, he contracted chlamydia, gonorrhea and herpes as well.

"To me this is one huge flashback," Burts said. "What's the acceptable number of cases of HIV or herpes or HPV or syphilis or any other dangerous STD before people step up and do something about this?"

Another former performer, Darren James, who said he became infected with HIV in 2004 working as a porn performer, said he "almost lost it" listening to Bay tell her story.

"I didn’t want to see a whole army of people sitting at this table," said James, who now works for the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. "This industry has failed and continues to fail. We all need to wake up."

Hugh Freaking Dillon

if I was a fireman, and if my bosses told me that I wasn't allowed to use gloves, I'd tell them to fuck off and take this job and shove it. Take responsibility.

if my bosses OFFERED me said gloves, and I refused them, it doesn't matter if you got burned, you're still playing with fire.

I didn't read one instance in GF's article where the "industry" is at all at fault. You don't like what's going on at work? Speak up and don't do it. Pretty simple.

Prince Of Dorkness

Sadly... the story about the porn performers with HIV has been SO warped that hardly anyone knows the truth.


So I'll break it down for you.

1. Neither of those people were infected on set.

2. None of their scene partners have tested positive for HIV after MANY tests. They were not infected on set.

3. They were infected in their personal lives, not on set.


Porn has nothing to do with the HIV infections of either of these people.

When proper testing protocols have been followed, there has NEVER been an HIV infection on the set of a porn film.

But it's easier for scared people (sorry, but usually straight) to hand out the big scarlet A and say "that slut deserved it." They can then breathe a sigh of relief that they aren't infected because they're not sluts like the porn stars.

Truth be known, you're less likely to catch an STD from a porn star because they get tested regularly and so do all of their sex partners.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Sadly... the story about the porn performers with HIV has been SO warped that hardly anyone knows the truth.


So I'll break it down for you.

1. Neither of those people were infected on set.

2. None of their scene partners have tested positive for HIV after MANY tests. They were not infected on set.

3. They were infected in their personal lives, not on set.


Porn has nothing to do with the HIV infections of either of these people.

When proper testing protocols have been followed, there has NEVER been an HIV infection on the set of a porn film.

But it's easier for scared people (sorry, but usually straight) to hand out the big scarlet A and say "that slut deserved it." They can then breathe a sigh of relief that they aren't infected because they're not sluts like the porn stars.

Truth be known, you're less likely to catch an STD from a porn star because they get tested regularly and so do all of their sex partners.

no one said anyone deserved anything.

detection does not equal safety. can you substantiate your last statement with any factual stats, or are you just saying that because the evil straight people are all homophobes in your eyes? I don't personally know anything about how regulated your industry is, so I'm relying on your knowledge.

is there a regulatory body, an external auditor of sorts, that does spot checks on sets? who's responsible for the testing? the studio? the talent themselves? does it only take one negative test to move forward with a production, or does there have to be a battery of tests before it goes through? why don't all male talent wear protection? I see some in hetero movies that do, but most don't. who decides that, and what the factors deciding it?

Godfather.

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

if I was a fireman, and if my bosses told me that I wasn't allowed to use gloves, I'd tell them to fuck off and take this job and shove it. Take responsibility.

if my bosses OFFERED me said gloves, and I refused them, it doesn't matter if you got burned, you're still playing with fire.

I didn't read one instance in GF's article where the "industry" is at all at fault. You don't like what's going on at work? Speak up and don't do it. Pretty simple.

agreed, my thought is that those STD test are only as good as the next sexual encounter and the people that still go to work(porn actors) knowing they are HIV positive, comdom or not I would not have sex with someone that was HIV positine or any STD then there are the people that test positive but don't say anything, that's a risky life style !


Godfather.

Godfather.

my intent was to let POD know of this if he did not already, I feel any info is a good thing and just wanted to pass it along to him.

Godfather.

Prince Of Dorkness

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

detection does not equal safety. can you substantiate your last statement with any factual stats, or are you just saying that because the evil straight people are all homophobes in your eyes? I don't personally know anything about how regulated your industry is, so I'm relying on your knowledge.

don't be silly. HIV phobia isn't necessarily homophobia based, it's usually just hysteria on a lack of real information. It's just reality for the gay community but I don't know many straight people who even USE condoms regularly and they generally don't understand the concepts of Viral Load or what PEP is.

I can back it up that while the AHF sure has caused a lot of hysteria (which is odd for a group that calls itself a "healthcare foundation"), aside from a few performers who were infected years ago when proper protocols were followed, they're unable to find a single performer who claims to have been infected on set. Not a single one.

Even the two in this story flatly say that they weren't infected on set, it was from their personal life (my guess is possibly a shared needle from using HGH, but that's just a guess based on personal familiarity with one of the performers).

is there a regulatory body, an external auditor of sorts, that does spot checks on sets?

There used to be an agency called The AIM Clinic that did the testing themselves and held all the records. A performer would get tested there or through one of their agencies, ID had to be presented and the studio would then call the AIM Clinic and print out their negative tests and share them with each scene partner, IDs were compared to the ones on file with the Clinic and tests had to be done either every 30 days or every 2 weeks depending on the studio. And no studio that followed these protocols ever had a case of on-set transmission.

who's responsible for the testing? the studio? the talent themselves?

See above.

does it only take one negative test to move forward with a production, or does there have to be a battery of tests before it goes through?

The tests they use are not the low-end "free" tests that you can get at the local Gay and Lesbian center. They're the mega high-end tests used by law enforcement that cost about $250 each. They're extremely accurate and the "12-week window" that you'd get with the lower-cost tests is closer to two-three days. So you only need one, although they were tested for many STDs, not just HIV.

why don't all male talent wear protection? I see some in hetero movies that do, but most don't. who decides that, and what the factors deciding it?

They do in the movies I make. That's a decision made by the studio. And I guess ultimately the consumer.

Prince Of Dorkness

Godfather. wrote:

agreed, my thought is that those STD test are only as good as the next sexual encounter and the people that still go to work(porn actors) knowing they are HIV positive, comdom or not I would not have sex with someone that was HIV positine or any STD then there are the people that test positive but don't say anything, that's a risky life style !


Godfather.

OK so... first, the system is set up in a way that you don't just take the performer's word for it. Many studios will test their models at the start of a shoot and then sequester them for the duration of the shoot.

Yes, in the real world there are people who are positive and have sex with people and not tell them... that's why you should always use protection. It's your responsibility.

I'm more worried about people who have sex with people they met while drunk at parties and don't know anything about them at all.

Prince Of Dorkness

Godfather. wrote:

my intent was to let POD know of this if he did not already, I feel any info is a good thing and just wanted to pass it along to him.

Godfather.

Thanks. Although it's my industry, so I'm very aware of a moratorium on shooting that went on for a month.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

They're the mega high-end tests used by law enforcement that cost about $250 each. They're extremely accurate and the "12-week window" that you'd get with the lower-cost tests is closer to two-three days. So you only need one, although they were tested for many STDs, not just HIV.

but who's to say that someone doesn't get tested, comes back negative, has sex with someone they don't know between the test and the shoot, and then unknowingly infects someone on set? isn't it basically down to the word of the talent? I mean, you can't test someone and then quarantine them for 3 days before the shoot.

I understand what you are saying about the safety of the industry, I'm just trying to understand how it works.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

OK so... first, the system is set up in a way that you don't just take the performer's word for it. Many studios will test their models at the start of a shoot and then sequester them for the duration of the shoot.
.

didn't see this part. interesting.

Prince Of Dorkness

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

but who's to say that someone doesn't get tested, comes back negative, has sex with someone they don't know between the test and the shoot, and then unknowingly infects someone on set? isn't it basically down to the word of the talent? I mean, you can't test someone and then quarantine them for 3 days before the shoot.

That could happen, for sure. Not all studios do the sequester thing. Few do, in fact.

But when you're a performer, it makes little sense to do that. You understand the risks involved. So you're most likely going to not do that.

Besides.... like I said, nobody has ever been infected on set when those protocols were followed.

Godfather.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

my intent was to let POD know of this if he did not already, I feel any info is a good thing and just wanted to pass it along to him.

Godfather.

Thanks. Although it's my industry, so I'm very aware of a moratorium on shooting that went on for a month.

well back to topic,maybe this new drug or what ever it is could help a lot of people, I sure hope so.


Godfather.

Prince Of Dorkness

Godfather. wrote:

well back to topic,maybe this new drug or what ever it is could help a lot of people, I sure hope so.


Godfather.

At the moment the larger problem is the government sequester that has eliminated any drug access for people who can't afford it, meaning that they will get sicker, their viral loads will go up and the disease will spread faster.

but you know... we need to stop Obamacare.

Godfather.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

well back to topic,maybe this new drug or what ever it is could help a lot of people, I sure hope so.


Godfather.

At the moment the larger problem is the government sequester that has eliminated any drug access for people who can't afford it, meaning that they will get sicker, their viral loads will go up and the disease will spread faster.

but you know... we need to stop Obamacare.

right now I wouldn't put to much trust in obama care, is there something in obama care that says med's for HIV or any STD's will be given ? or is part of the plan at all ? I just have a hard time trusting a plan that is offered to the people but unwanted by the goverment staff that is offering it but that's a different thread.

Godfather.

satansbed

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Sadly... the story about the porn performers with HIV has been SO warped that hardly anyone knows the truth.


So I'll break it down for you.

1. Neither of those people were infected on set.

2. None of their scene partners have tested positive for HIV after MANY tests. They were not infected on set.

3. They were infected in their personal lives, not on set.


Porn has nothing to do with the HIV infections of either of these people.

When proper testing protocols have been followed, there has NEVER been an HIV infection on the set of a porn film.

But it's easier for scared people (sorry, but usually straight) to hand out the big scarlet A and say "that slut deserved it." They can then breathe a sigh of relief that they aren't infected because they're not sluts like the porn stars.

Truth be known, you're less likely to catch an STD from a porn star because they get tested regularly and so do all of their sex partners.

I actually favour mandatory condom use for different reasons, i completely understand that the sex industry has very high safety protocols, but i think they should be made use condoms to benefit those watching porn,

lets face it most kids get most of their knowledge about sex from porn so if they see the "professionals" not wearing condoms them it perpetrates the idea that sex is better without condoms. i think if porn stars where forced to use protection you would see a rise in average people using condoms

Hugh Freaking Dillon

satansbed wrote:

I actually favour mandatory condom use for different reasons, i completely understand that the sex industry has very high safety protocols, but i think they should be made use condoms to benefit those watching porn,

lets face it most kids get most of their knowledge about sex from porn so if they see the "professionals" not wearing condoms them it perpetrates the idea that sex is better without condoms. i think if porn stars where forced to use protection you would see a rise in average people using condoms

very interesting idea. but wouldn't that be a reversal of social morals to look to the porn industry for help!