40% of people with HIV transmit most new infections in the US

[Link]

Why are performers so against any details that may save people from an infection. This makes no sense.

[Link]

Let's look at the performers named in the article. The first one is Jessica Drake and the bulk of the article is about what she had to say about TTS. She has been a condom only performer for decades so while she is allowed to say what she wants. It's a hard to take her seriously when it comes to anything related to the health of performers because very few of them have her advantage to work with condoms on every shoot. Madeline Marlow is better known as Mistress Madeline and she is a g/g only or a Dom in b/g scene so while she may technically have sex with men. She's the one fucking them so not likely to get an STI from pegging them. Aubrey Kate and Aspen Brooks are TS performer and they're the ones most at risk of an STI. Katy Jayne is the only female performer named in the article who has been doing porn without a condom. The only male to be named is Eric Masterson and while he has been in the industry for over 20 years. He isn't exactly a top tier male performer in the industry.

If I were to speculate a reason why then I would say that a certain group of people in the industry are trying to do anything they can to hide or murky the water when it comes to the possibility that some performers have been working in the industry and are HIV+. I can just imagine how bad things are about to get if it is proven that the FSC and other so called performer advocate groups knew about HIV+ performers working in the porn industry and said nothing because these performers had low viral loads. Especially when people hear of a 27 years old Australian man who was correctly taking PrEP and has just been diagnosed with HIV.

[Link]

Why wouldn't performers be happy that the lab testing them as a foolproof method to make sure that their test doesn't get associated with another person and vice versa.

My theory as to why some people in the industry don't care all that much about the health of performers is that if they start to care then they will have to do something about it and they know it will cost money to do that. Let me be clear about a few things. While I think the biggest threat to the porn industry are tube and torrent sites. I've never seen any coalition willing to do what mainstream studios did to curb that problem in their industry. I also believe that STI transmission are significantly worse than anyone is willing to discuss and yet the only studio to force all of it's performers to use condoms is Wicked Picture.
How many performers leave the industry less because they can't get enough job offers and more because they can't work as often as they would like because they are awaiting the end of their treatment for an STI?

[Link]

You would think that, in the long term best interests of the industry, they would bite the weenie and take the short term hit on testing and results.
IMO, you'd get even more upper level girls into the industry if you had more stringent enforcement.
Would it hurt in the short term and piss a lot of performers and fans off? Probably. But it would stabilize and improve the industry as well.
Ms Ames should have been lauded for her stance and been a lightning rod for change. Instead what happened happened and she's largely been forgotten.
Sorry haters, but not wanting to perform with someone because your exposure rate may be higher is not bigotry and hate, it's self preservation.

[Link]

However the non-treatment angle is a total cop out. The only thing they should be focused on is testing, that's it. There are numerous places for treatment.
Pat362 is correct, imo there is a large cover up going on and people are looking for any excuse to cover their ass at the expense of the business.
Is that par for the course over the last 20 years in any walk of life? Sure. Still doesn't make it right.

[Link]

I wouldn't compare Planned parenthood to a testing facility because PP is a medical clinic catering to women's medical needs. I'm not even sure if they do on-site testing or they farm it out to testing labs.

Can someone tell me what the problem is with the Retinal Scan? Is it a fear that the lab will be able to identify a patient using 21st century technology? What does anyone think the lab will do with the retinal scan?

[Link]

https://jezebel.com/stis-are-on-the-rise-heres-what-you-need-to-know-1833403369

Something that fans of rimming might want to keep in mind.

Hepatitis A is traditionally thought of as a foodborne infection, but in fact, it can be transmitted through the sexual practice of anilingus (or "rimming").

[Link]

I say it again:
If you are positive, you should be banned. If you hide it, you should be charged with assault.
Your freedom to work does not extend to endangering peoples lives, no matter how low the risk.

[Link]

http://therealpornwikileaks. com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/IMG_4883-45 hex 600.jpeg

story: http://therealpornwikileaks. com/how-quickly-porn-forgets-about-talent-testing-services-tts-and-ahf-teaming-up/

cuttingedgetesting treats for select STD's, they will call in a prescription into your local pharmacy, they do not have that questionnaire or do Iris scans.

Edited by - adtlogin on 3/29/2019 6:41:41 AM

[Link]

Let me be very clear on the subject of HIV. I don't care if you get a panel of medical professionals all claiming that modern drugs can now make an HIV+ person unable to transmit the disease. I still believe that tolerance zero is the only norm that should be used when it comes to any STI. Needless to say that if you have HIV then you can't be a performer.

Edited by - pat362 on 3/29/2019 8:10:14 AM

[Link]

(1) Are studios allowed to contact the clinic, that conduct the testing, to verify the test results of a performer, like a check and balance, before the scheduled shoot?

(2) If not, why not? The reason I ask that is that, unless it's a solo act, the scene involves others.

[Link]

Edited to add:

According to several online articles, there is an online secure database for producers to check.

Edited by - flash on 3/29/2019 11:08:05 AM

[Link]

This is purely an informational question, not a stance one way or another. I don't know enough about virology to have an informed opinion nor have I read anything from someone with a doctorate in medicine with a specialization in virology.

I am just trying to see if this is informed opinions or just like the HIV toilet seat scare that went around.

[Link]

Sorry but nope. Effectively does not = 0 chance. "Yeah, there are bullets in there, but they won't go off".
As Flash pointed out, with informed consent, with other infected performers, ok. But there are accusations that people have been working while infected and not informing people.
Does everyone forget what Marc Wallace did?

[Link]

^ x 2 I will never forget what Wallace did. And it's not only Wallace.

Edited by - grover on 3/29/2019 1:04:40 PM

[Link]

Like I've mentioned, unless it's a solo scene, the performer will be working with other performers. And who's to say that the hard copies of the test results cannot be altered.

Edited by - grover on 3/29/2019 1:27:51 PM

[Link]

And by the way, what's wrong with being a "gooder"?

I'm making sure that the folks that make me money, are still STD free once they leave my shoot. Whether they are a one-time performer or want to make a career out of it, they can be sure that their partner in my scene are free of STDs like they are. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that, right?

[Link]

Edited by - arnold the geek on 3/29/2019 4:37:14 PM

[Link]

Growing up in a major gay neighborhood in the 80s with a parent who worked the emergency room of the public hospital there, I saw shit there that would scar any kid so I understand the gravity of the situation back then. However, regulating any industry health care practices, including testing, based on the prejudices and fears from the past rather than the current state of medicine is potentially illegal.

[Link]

Fuck that.

Edited by - FlacFan on 3/30/2019 1:47:28 AM

[Link]

The one thing the CDC can't do is guarantee zero transmission. Can they say there is zero chance an undetectable amount may be transmitted? No they can't.
Therefore an infected performer could transmit an undetectable amount, bang, you have HIV. It's a ticking time bomb.

[Link]

I've already gone through this in the Nacho thread. You clearly don't understand the science behind U=U and continue to demonstrate ignorance with your conjectures.

[Link]

Get science to sign off on it.

[Link]

Would a surgeon HIV + under proper undetectable treatement be allowed to continue his profession?
Would he be allowed to continue if he is HIV+ and hid that to everybody in the clinic he works for?

[Link]