FSC: Production Halt After Performer Tests HIV+ (page 10)

AuthorTopic
pornlaw
Member

890 Posts
10/05
Posted - Oct 21 2013 : 09:59:21 PM


NicaNoelle wrote:
And my point is that it should be mandatory. There are any number of websites and places one can find information about STDs and sexual health if interested, but that doesn't mean we can assume a new performer has done so. We can't even assume that an experienced performer has done so! We need some kind of mandatory education and training that producers and agents agree to require, so that a performer can show they are aware of the risks associated with performing, and they are making informed and educated decisions and choices.

Performer education in regards to blood born pathogens and post-exposure medical treatment is mandatory in the new regs. And producers will have to independently provide such training before each scene, allow for questions from talent and keep records of such employee training for 3 years. Furthermore, like 2257 records, those records will have to be given to anyone the producer resells the content to.

Edited by - pornlaw on 10/21/2013 11:31:43 PM

UPDATE: Actually my last sentence is incorrect.... I talked with CalOSHA and the records will not have to be provided to whomever buys the content - they will have to be given to anyone that buys the company that produced the content. I dont read it that way but thats the intent of CalOSHA.

Edited by - pornlaw on 10/24/2013 8:31:54 PM

Go To Top of page [Link]
Harri Patel
Senior Member

clean living and vitamin pills
12760 Posts
3/03
Posted - Oct 21 2013 : 10:31:59 PM
^ 30 years? Is that a typo?
Go To Top of page [Link]
pornlaw
Member

890 Posts
10/05
Posted - Oct 21 2013 : 11:30:29 PM


Harri Patel wrote:
^ 30 years? Is that a typo?

Corrected... pringles was kind enough to point out my mistake. It is 30 years but for medical records... its only 3 years for training records.

Thanks pringles...

Edited by - pornlaw on 10/21/2013 11:32:30 PM

Go To Top of page [Link]
Geri
Member

539 Posts
7/12
Posted - Oct 22 2013 : 02:54:54 AM


pornlaw wrote:


Geri wrote:

Regarding Cal-OSHA's view that testing is not prevention: now that they are proposing two week testing to allow for oral sex without barrier protection they are in effect acknowledging that testing is a preventative measure. Obviously it's not foolproof - neither are condoms and dental dams. They are preventative measures too.


That's incorrect. I met with CalOSHA and discussed this very point. They would like to see condoms used for everything but they realize that's not going to happen. CalOSHA is more concerned with HIV than other STDs and realize there is little to no medical evidence to support the idea that oral sex can transmit HIV. Therefore they are allowing condomless oral ONLY with the proper testing and vaccinations.



With respect sir, I disagree.

Regardless of what CalOSHA's intentions may be, if they are willing to even countenance regulating condomless oral sex provided that "proper testing and vaccinations" are done then they are in effect acknowledging that testing is a preventative measure in regard to helping to prevent a wholesale outbreak of HIV among adult movie performers.

Otherwise why bother with the testing at all? Just do the vaccinations.

Edited by - Geri on 10/22/2013 2:56:29 AM

Go To Top of page [Link]
pornlaw
Member

890 Posts
10/05
Posted - Oct 22 2013 : 10:33:16 AM
@Geri - you can disagree all you like. Unless you are a nic for Debra Gold or Peter Riley I can tell you that they do not believe that testing is a preventative measure.

I sat in a meeting with them for two hours and we discussed this point. I really wish CalOSHA believed testing was preventative. It would make writing the CalOSHA variances I am in the middle of drafting much easier.

I think the testing sans condoms for oral is a way to make sure that all parts of the industry are on the same page. I can see it as a way of forcing testing on the gay side of the industry.

Go To Top of page [Link]
NicaNoelle
Member

186 Posts
12/07
Posted - Oct 22 2013 : 07:47:45 PM
Pornlaw: what do you think would be the purpose of mandatory testing on the gay side? Would the objective be to prevent HIV+ performers from working? Seems like tricky legal territory to do so, considering so many popular gay performers are HIV+.

Interesting what you say about the performer training requirements. I was recently paid an on-set visit from the Department of Public Health and they didn't say a word about my needing to educate performers. They said that the Dept. Of Health and OSHA are still in the process of figuring out all the details with regard to the new safety laws, but for now only the producer is expected to go through the blood borne pathogens training and create an Exposure Plan.

They also told me that many of OSHA's regulations were written for the medical community and will be revised in order to apply specifically to the adult industry, which sounded like a step in the right direction. They seemed almost apologetic about their inability to provide clear answers about what was going to be required of producers going forward. But not a word was spoken about performer education, so that's news to me.

I guess this means every performer will have to go through on set training and education with every producer for whom they work, which seems a little excessive for the performer, but maybe not... I'm interested to get the details. I'll give the Dept of Public Health guy a call this week and find out what's up.

Go To Top of page [Link]
pornlaw
Member

890 Posts
10/05
Posted - Oct 23 2013 : 01:50:39 AM


NicaNoelle wrote:
Pornlaw: what do you think would be the purpose of mandatory testing on the gay side? Would the objective be to prevent HIV+ performers from working? Seems like tricky legal territory to do so, considering so many popular gay performers are HIV+.

The regs have to apply across all segments of the industry. The testing isnt mandatory. Its optional - if you want to shoot without condoms for oral then the testing kicks in. Shoot oral with condoms and then no testing is necessary.



Interesting what you say about the performer training requirements. I was recently paid an on-set visit from the Department of Public Health and they didn't say a word about my needing to educate performers. They said that the Dept. Of Health and OSHA are still in the process of figuring out all the details with regard to the new safety laws, but for now only the producer is expected to go through the blood borne pathogens training and create an Exposure Plan.

Who visited your set ? Joe or Christian ? The last time I spoke with LA County Dept of Health I was informed that all onset inspections were halted indefinitely based on Pregerson's ruling on Measure B that inspections would require a search warrant. I even asked if they would perform an inspection at the request of the producer and I was told probably not. Thanks for pointing that out. I will have to call over there tomorrow and ask Christine if inspections have restarted.

But yes, you will have to go through blood born pathogens training and develop a Exposure Control plan. But you are also going to have to file for variances with CalOSHA. I am in the process of doing so for 6 other producers.



They also told me that many of OSHA's regulations were written for the medical community and will be revised in order to apply specifically to the adult industry, which sounded like a step in the right direction. They seemed almost apologetic about their inability to provide clear answers about what was going to be required of producers going forward. But not a word was spoken about performer education, so that's news to me.

I guess this means every performer will have to go through on set training and education with every producer for whom they work, which seems a little excessive for the performer, but maybe not... I'm interested to get the details. I'll give the Dept of Public Health guy a call this week and find out what's up.


Here are the current regs you need to know... the new regs arent finalized yet...

Califorina Code of Regs 5193

Go To Top of page [Link]
pornlaw
Member

890 Posts
10/05
Posted - Oct 23 2013 : 01:56:36 AM
Update from CalOSHA...

I spoke with CalOSHA earlier today... The regs that were posted on Mike South's website were not officially publicly released by CalOSHA. Rather they were part of an official information request made by AIDS Healthcare for CalOSHA's records. The new regs posted by South are still not finalized. Matter of fact they are still being internally discussed by CalOSHA and their various boards.

They have yet to be finalized and submitted to FedOSHA. That part of the process has not yet started and there will be more public hearings for the industry to attend before they are finalized. Overall it won't be until 2014 before the new proposed regs are final and are submitted to FedOSHA which means that approval won't happen until 2015. However Cal Code Reg 5193 remains the current law which still requires condoms statewide.

Go To Top of page [Link]
pornlaw
Member

890 Posts
10/05
Posted - Oct 23 2013 : 10:31:14 PM


NicaNoelle wrote:
I was recently paid an on-set visit from the Department of Public Health and they didn't say a word about my needing to educate performers. They said that the Dept. Of Health and OSHA are still in the process of figuring out all the details with regard to the new safety laws, but for now only the producer is expected to go through the blood borne pathogens training and create an Exposure Plan.

They also told me that many of OSHA's regulations were written for the medical community and will be revised in order to apply specifically to the adult industry, which sounded like a step in the right direction. They seemed almost apologetic about their inability to provide clear answers about what was going to be required of producers going forward. But not a word was spoken about performer education, so that's news to me.


Nica - you didnt specify where & when the inspection took place ? Was it in Los Angeles ?

If so I think you might have been tricked. I talked with LA County Health today and they indicated that no inspections have been performed recently.

I am worried that you may have been visited by someone posing as a health inspector. Did you get this person's business card ? Or did you check their credentials ?

I am concerned that someone with an agenda may be posing as a county health inspector since LA County is not inspecting sets. I will not venture to guess who or what non-profit might be behind this. I want to have AVN run a story on this so other producer/directors are not tricked as well.

Go To Top of page [Link]
bootymeister
Senior Member

Gravity as Curved Space: Bootymeister's Theory of General Relativity
1655 Posts
11/08
Posted - Oct 24 2013 : 02:35:10 PM


NicaNoelle wrote:
... How simple life must be for you, to think you have some special insight into the minds and hearts of others. Let me assure you, you don't.



Let me assure you, I would not bother. If your heart and mind is invloved, in addition to the your new reality of the business and legal environment of porn in California, great! Condom only porn could have been done, and has been done, a long time ago without it being any less important or urgent on a moral basis. The issues of using condoms and other OSHA requirements are a pressing issue for the entire porn industry right now, any party acting now on this is doing so solely for business reasons.

However, you seem quite insightful into hearts and minds.



NicaNoelle wrote:

...
If you're against condoms in porn, don't buy porn featuring condoms. There will always be ... plenty of people willing to spend that buck because to them, performers simply aren't real or valuable human beings.


... "I know performers might get sick on a regular basis because they're not using condoms, but it doesn't bother me. I don't want their safety to interfere with my viewing pleasure."
...








NicaNoelle wrote:

...performers continue to be infected with STDs (including HIV) off set due to their private, unsafe behaviors, including escorting (which is so common among performers that those who don't do it are considered unique)....




Really?



Edited by - bootymeister on 10/28/2013 1:29:34 PM

Go To Top of page [Link]
Goldstein
Senior Member

"Goodbye, kids."
4128 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 24 2013 : 03:08:25 PM
Originally posted in 2006, but still instructive.
There is simply no comparison between oral sex and anal sex, when it comes to risk!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HIV: How High Is Your Risk?

Estimated per act risk for acquisition of HIV, by exposure route:

Needle Sharing IDU = 67 per 10,000 exposures

Receptive Anal Intercourse = 50 per 10,000 exposures

Receptive Oral Intercourse = 1 per 10,000 exposures

Go to the link above for a great deal of factual information/statistics on a wide variety of sexual activities.

Would you share a needle with a IDU (Intravenous Drug User)? Of course not.
Being the recipient of unprotected anal sex is very close to being that risky!

Also of interest, the comment "* It is safer to withdraw even with a condom" is attached to anal sex risk assessments.
So, would you want to be the recipient of unprotected anal sex with an internal ejaculation? I didn't think so.

Go To Top of page [Link]
mharris127
Senior Member

3372 Posts
8/09
Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 01:17:21 AM


pornlaw wrote:


NicaNoelle wrote:
I was recently paid an on-set visit from the Department of Public Health and they didn't say a word about my needing to educate performers. They said that the Dept. Of Health and OSHA are still in the process of figuring out all the details with regard to the new safety laws, but for now only the producer is expected to go through the blood borne pathogens training and create an Exposure Plan.

They also told me that many of OSHA's regulations were written for the medical community and will be revised in order to apply specifically to the adult industry, which sounded like a step in the right direction. They seemed almost apologetic about their inability to provide clear answers about what was going to be required of producers going forward. But not a word was spoken about performer education, so that's news to me.


Nica - you didnt specify where & when the inspection took place ? Was it in Los Angeles ?

If so I think you might have been tricked. I talked with LA County Health today and they indicated that no inspections have been performed recently.

I am worried that you may have been visited by someone posing as a health inspector. Did you get this person's business card ? Or did you check their credentials ?

I am concerned that someone with an agenda may be posing as a county health inspector since LA County is not inspecting sets. I will not venture to guess who or what non-profit might be behind this. I want to have AVN run a story on this so other producer/directors are not tricked as well.


Moral of this incident: When someone supposedly from Film LA or the LA County DPH comes to your door wanting to do an inspection, tell them to get a fucking warrant or go get fucked up the ass by Marc Wallice or Michael Weinfuck. There was a recent court decision essentially saying that they need a warrant (and due to the necessity of a warrant they also need a cop) to do a search.

I will venture a guess as to whom would lie their way onto a porn set. The organization's name initials are AHF and the "inspector" is likely Michael Weinfuck (Weinstein). He has already snuck people uninvited into industry only meetings several times, sneaking onto a porn set using deception is not any more work than sneaking into a meeting. Don't let this guy anywhere near your set, he has an agenda to end porn production, first in CA then country-wide. I wouldn't put anything past that mother fucker. Here is a link to a picture of this prick:Picture of Michael Weinstein


Edited by - mharris127 on 10/25/2013 1:26:11 AM

Go To Top of page [Link]
LCF
Senior Member

9006 Posts
1/05
Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 03:54:13 PM
This thread is referred to Alex Gonz but given the route of this thread I believe it may be of interest , I'm not even replying in there as Alex shady statements make me really angry , but a condom wouldn't prevent an infection from HEP C , it's not an STD but can be transmitted sexually if scratches or bruises allow blood contact
Go To Top of page [Link]
NicaNoelle
Member

186 Posts
12/07
Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 08:50:46 PM
Pornlaw, I was not tricked. I'm not going to post the names of the inspectors or the location details of my shoot , but I assure you they did come to inspect and they were absolutely legitimate, and we had a long conversation and went over a number of items. Maybe once in a while you're the one who's mistaken. Also, I have my Exposure Plan, thanks.
Go To Top of page [Link]
pornlaw
Member

890 Posts
10/05
Posted - Oct 27 2013 : 02:57:35 PM


NicaNoelle wrote:
Pornlaw, I was not tricked. I'm not going to post the names of the inspectors or the location details of my shoot , but I assure you they did come to inspect and they were absolutely legitimate, and we had a long conversation and went over a number of items. Maybe once in a while you're the one who's mistaken. Also, I have my Exposure Plan, thanks.

Can you at least post the name of the Department they were from ? I can assure you they were not from the department that inspects sets of those production companies that have applied for a conditional health permit. Of the 10 producers that have health permits, 5 are my clients and its always the same three people that perform the inspections. Its a small department. And I have had numerous meetings and conversations with them.

Or can you at least post when this inspection was performed so I can check the date with LA County Health ? That would confirm whether it was them or not. They are concerned that people may be posing as them as well.

This isnt about being right or wrong - this is about protecting other producers from possible fake inspections.

Go To Top of page [Link]
NicaNoelle
Member

186 Posts
12/07
Posted - Oct 27 2013 : 06:05:06 PM
Pornlaw, I already responded to you. Please stop telling me I don't know who I'm dealing with or that I'm being given the wrong information by the (very real) DOH gentlemen I am consulting with. It's rude and annoying. I am not giving you a list of names and departments and other detailed information on a public forum regarding studio business that has nothing to do with you. Focus on your clients! They're the ones paying you.
Go To Top of page [Link]
Goldstein
Senior Member

"Goodbye, kids."
4128 Posts
8/10
Posted - Oct 27 2013 : 07:27:01 PM
^ Nica, I think he was expecting you would PM him (not that you would post your private business in a public forum).

IMHO, you would both benefit by comparing what you both know and what you both are being told.
One -- or perhaps even both of you -- are not being told the whole truth by the people you are dealing with and talking to.

Obviously you and pornlaw are both well-known legitimate commodities with credibility.

I have no dog in this hunt -- so I ultimately don't care what you guys wind-up doing.
But, I will say that I would consider pornlaw a very valuable resource to be consulting with (and, if I'm understanding him correctly, without costs involved).
Seems like a win-win for everybody to me.

Finally -- and I'm not trying to pick a fight here -- aren't you the one who brought up your business in "a public forum"?

Go To Top of page [Link]
NicaNoelle
Member

186 Posts
12/07
Posted - Oct 29 2013 : 01:30:06 PM
goldstein, this isn't the place to get into certain discussions, and I don't really PM. I share what I feel is appropriate, and I respond to those I feel I need to respond to. If I think information is beneficial and something everyone should know, I do share it. I don't respond to other things that I find silly or odd. This isn't a debate between pornlaw and me about whether my Dept of Health inspectors were fakes and I'm the victim of some grand conspiracy; this is a discussion about the validity of using condoms on set.
Go To Top of page [Link]
Axxxl_Rose
Senior Member

Welcome To The Jungle
1041 Posts
3/12
Posted - Dec 7 2013 : 12:47:58 AM
Looks like another positive HIV case and production moratorium.

http://business.avn.com/articles/video/UPDATE-FSC-Calls-For-Production-Moratorium-Following-HIV-538406.html

Go To Top of page [Link]
LCF
Senior Member

9006 Posts
1/05
Posted - Dec 7 2013 : 01:54:34 PM
NM

Edited by - LCF on 12/7/2013 1:58:35 PM

Go To Top of page [Link]
Geri
Member

539 Posts
7/12
Posted - Feb 1 2014 : 02:56:00 AM
Porn company fined $78,000, accused of workplace safety violations


State regulators cited a Bay Area-based adult film company over workplace safety violations, assessing fines of more than $78,000.

Cal-OSHA opened an investigation into San Francisco-based Kink Studios, which runs a network of sites, in August, in response to a complaint filed by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

The foundation's complaint related to a July 31 shoot involving actress Cameron Bay, who tested positive for HIV shortly thereafter, bringing filming in the adult industry briefly to a halt. The complaint said the production involved acts "considered high-risk for the transmission of HIV."

Bay later said publicly that during the shoot, an actor got a cut on his penis but continued performing without a condom.

The other performers involved in the shoot subsequently tested negative for HIV, and the adult industry has maintained that Bay -- and her then-boyfriend, adult film performer Rod Daily, who tested positive for HIV soon after Bay did -- contracted the virus in their personal lives.

The OSHA citations issued Thursday named a range of violations, including improper use of extension cords, and failure to have on-site first aid materials approved by a physician. But the bulk of the fines -- $50,000 -- related to allegations that the company failed to protect workers from blood-borne pathogens.

Kink.com officials said they would appeal the fines, which they called "excessive" and "politically motivated." The company said its performers are all told they have the right to use condoms on the set.

“The complaints which prompted the inspection were not made by actual employees, but by outside groups with a long history of opposition to adult film," Kink owner Peter Acworth said in a statement.

Los Angeles County voters in 2012 passed an AIDS Healthcare Foundation-backed measure requiring condom use on all adult film shoots in the county, although the mandate is still tied up in court and is not being actively enforced.

Attempts to pass statewide legislation have so far not succeeded. OSHA has proposed new regulations that would require not only condoms but, in some cases, eye protection and mouth barriers for porn workers.

Advocates for a condom mandate say porn workers should be protected like those in any other high-risk industry. But adult industry groups say their current STD-testing protocols work and that a condom mandate would drive production underground or out of the state.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-porn-studio-citations-20140131,0,4614083.story#ixzz2s3TZ

Go To Top of page [Link]
Page 10 of 10 First < 5 6 7 8 9

All Forums -> Porn News - Press Releases
Previous topic: Spieglergirls in Cosmo

Next topic: Exxxotica 2014 Atlantic City Website Launch!

Jump To: