Which isn't particularly relevant to the question of whether people who are doing everything in their power to not endanger people should be allowed to work.
[Link]
FlacFan Deactivated User
10088 Posts 8/15
Posted - Mar 31 2019 : 3:53AM
I'd say it was completely relevant. In fact it's blatant. Their theory is that nothing is transferable, that's like playing Russian roulette when someone is 99.999% sure that the gun isn't loaded, except in this instance there's no way to check the chamber. Informed consent or not, what about the people who do not consent? Think about it. They would face a shrinking pool of performers to work with, because by default, anyone working with an infected performer would go on their no list. So in order for the infected people to work, they would be infringing on others rights to work. Let's go absurd here and eliminate the problem, infect everyone so it isn't an issue.
The relevant problem is about HIDING it , whatever you do about that, it's not you the one at risk it's not up to you to decide whether or not you want to take the chance , the one who should give his/her informed agreement is being maintened in the dark
And Again I continue to fail to see the difference between 100% safe or better yet 0% risk and 99.2% safe or 0.8% risk , of course there must be some difference otherwise those numbers would be meaningless , not even worth mentioning but there they are furthermore all those studies were made with regular couples , I don't think the subjects they've been watching were doing gangbangs in the morning double anals in the evening , not to mention the sheer numbers of different partners which in return may have been working with some other people who have been in contact with each others multiple times. also some curable STDs reduce the immunity of the subject who has them ,herpes for example is one of those
All, the studies they had didn't take into account porn risks , the exposure of sex workers is way higher than that of regular couples plus AFAIK the HIV virus mutates a lot , a regular couple is only exposed the one form of the virus and only its mutations , in porn you'd be exposed to multiples variants of the virus and all their variants sometimes even with more than one
before allowing any HIV+ inside the industry a safer course of choice would dictate more and more high sexual promiscuity related studies
That goes with anybody debating here whether he's in favor or not to HIV+ performers under treatment in porn
so either none of us is a virologist and we must just shut up or if someone here is a virologist could just explain why there isn't any risk and what exactly is the difference between no risk and very little risk
I didn't realize that asking people what their credentials are was a statement that people must shut up. Curious interpretation on your part. Especially since the second part was asking if there were written documents to back up one's statements. Personally, I was just trying to find out who was giving educated opinions on the matter but you know what, feel free to take it as you want.
^ I didn't say that but ithat would be a consequence , I mean if in any debate involving something related to medicine you ask to anybody for credentials to back up whatever he says , unless he fullfills such requirement anything he says has no meaning , it's allow me to say just bullshit , but then again that goes both ways , whoever is talking about anything in a medicine related topic, favourable or contrary to whatever statement, unless it's backed up with credentials is just bullshit. Hence if none of us is a virologist ,thus cannot sustain what he says, then what are we talking about? Why are we debating at all?
^ That response was fine and wasn't medicine but procedures , I quoted above an earlier post of yours not directly related to that, I'm sorry but I couldn't intervene before and I replied to a bunch of posts in a row not all of them were rstrictly elated
Zero percent transmission when the viral load is undetectable. The industry chose a two week turnaround because the PCR-DNA test can detect the virus about 10 days after a new infection. This window should apply to a person with an undetectable viral load that goes off treatment.
We also have some evidence of this for review even within the context of freaky porn sex. Since the 2004 outbreak with Darren James when the industryprotocols changed in response, there have been performers in the talent pool that tested positive. All were determined to have been infected off-set. More importantly, there was no transmission of the virus to the performers they worked with (secondary) and the performer those people worked with (tertiary) in that window of presumed infection and detection.
An ELISA test should reveal the virus. If the performer doesn't take it or refuses to take it in addition to the PCR-DNA, that should be disclosed to their performing partners.
Following that logic, why don't we go ahead and ban Flacfan.
[Link]
FlacFan Deactivated User
10088 Posts 8/15
Posted - Mar 31 2019 : 5:55PM
So your position is that even though it can't be proven that undetectable cannot be guaranteed to not be transmitted, as long as the other person consents, then they should be allowed to work. OK. Where does that leave the people that do not with to work with those people? Like I said, it reduces an ever shrinking list of performers for them to work with, because those people logically would then be added to their no list. I am all for protection of infected peoples rights, they do not get to exercise that right if it endangers fellow co-workers. No on in any profession has that right. Of course then the argument will be "well they don't have to shot with them/shoot porn", essentially shifting the blame to the people who chose their personal safety over money.
Why should your opinion be any more valid than mine?
If I said the Earth was flat, would my opinion be as valid as those who say it is round?
[Link]
FlacFan Deactivated User
10088 Posts 8/15
Posted - Apr 1 2019 : 12:08AM
Unlike the earth, where pictures exist of it's roundness. Show evidence like that that an undetectable virus can't be transmitted and then give HIV to a new person. It's still there, you just can't detect it. I am failing to understand why an entire work force should be forced to possible exposure. And yes it is forced.
Infected worker works with Star A. Star's B,C,D And F don't want to, star E doesn't care. however now star 'A' and 'E' is on the no list for B, C D And F. Subsequently, any one that A or E works with will be added to the list. This policy places the work experience of the few over the many.
You are infected? Fine you can only work with other infected stars. You are a negative cross over, that's informed consent, but the above scenario, imo, will play out. And anyone who speaks out about it will be labeled and hated for self preservation.
As far as I can remember Roxy Roxx was infected performing anal on set , she was accused to have been the actual carrier because she worked on the side and at that time and era most performers were horrified at the idea but then patient zero was identified to be Bianca Biaggi a Brazilian performer with whom Darren James had worked with and that she used to work bareback in shemale porn in Brazil.
Keep on trolling. What a bullshit! Im fucking unstoppable now ... 717 Posts 3/06
Posted - Apr 2 2019 : 6:21PM
It's mystifying that the industry is trying to normalize HIV performers. You can talk all day about science, but the fact is no one even knows what the long term effects of taking these medicines are! Also, considering the state of scientific research in the world and all the bogus studies how can you not be at least a little skeptical?
We do know what the long term effects of PrEP drugs are, because, IIRC, they're drugs that have already been around for a while (and are generally used to treat HIV). They didn't come up with a brand new never before used drug for this.
^Of course we don't know. The drug has only been in use in the US since 2012. Talk to me about long term when it has been in use for at least two decades. Do we have multiple studies on the interaction of PrEP with other medications or the various illegal and now legal drugs performers use? You do know that someone has to take PrEP every single day for it to be effective and do we know what might happen if someone is sick and vomits his her stomach content?
Let me give you a real world example of a product that many people ingest on a daily basis without ever thinking about the ramification. Grapefruit/grapefruit juice affect multiple medication but I doubt most manufacturer knew that when they were creating them. Did they even do trials with people ingesting grapefruit products as well as the medication being tested or was it the reaction of the people taking the medication as well as grapefruit products?
It's almost like you didn't read a word I just said.
Edit: PrEP is a mixture of two drugs (tenofovir and emtricitabine) that have been used to treat HIV since 2001and 2003 alone, and since 2004 together. PrEP as a pre-exposure drug has been around since 2012, but the drugs themselves are nearly 20 years old.
Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 4/3/2019 10:36:50 AM
^You are 100% correct that the two drugs in PrEP are nearly two decades old so we can assume that most of the side effects are now known. Here are the most common side effects: Truvada can have a number of adverse side effects, including lactic acidosis, a dangerous buildup of lactic acid in the bloodstream, liver problems, kidney issues - including kidney failure - and bone density loss.
Maybe it's just me but some of these side-effects are pretty severe and my question is. Why should anyone suggest that a non-infected person use a drug that can cause long term health issues? Especially when all that drug does is help prevent the infection of the HIV virus and no other STI. I would add that everything I have read says that people who use PrEP should also use a condom. It's also important to mention that Truvada prices vary but it seems that on average monthly treatments cost about 1300$. I'm Canadian so drug prices aren't much of an issue here but in the US where it depends on your health insurance. How much do PrEP user have to pay each month and since you have to take a pill every single day for the drug to work then how can people afford PrEP treatments in upwards of 15,000$ per year
According to Wikipedia, the common side effects are headache, abdominal pain, and decreased weight, nausea, diarrhea and decreased bone density. The condition you listed is a rare side effect, not a common one. And to answer the question in general, you take a drug that can have that side effect because it's better than the alternative, which is possibly contracting HIV in this case. Also, if your doctor is aware that this is a possible side effect, it is something that can be monitored, watched out for, and treated if it arises.
America is in the middle of a silent-but-huge sexually transmitted infection (STI) epidemic. HIV/AIDS transmission rates seem to be on the decline, but chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis are surging across the nation. According to recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data, in 2017, Americans contracted about 1.7 million new cases of gonorrhea. That's 100,000 more than in 2016, itself a record-breaking year for infections, and about twice as many as in 2010.
Porn performers are not flawless when it comes to sexual health. Despite industry protocols, like requirements that stars test for STIs every 14 days, many will suffer infections from time to time. There are even periodic HIV scares in the industry. Still, performers depend on their sexual health to make a living and therefore, says star Kiki Daire, "have to take extra care of our bodies." They are forced to speak openly and often about sexual health with their colleagues and their doctors. And they take more preventative measures, as performer Larkin Love points out, than much of the general population. It is also worth noting, says porn star Brenna Sparks, that "in the rare event a performer in the industry shows the slightest evidence of a disease, all production comes to a complete halt until everything is contained," keeping risks relatively low.
"I have always taken sexual health seriously," says star Kimmie KaBoom. "But I have learned that the adult industry is probably the most aware and safest when it comes to overall sexual health." In some cases, particularly knowledgeable and long-working performers may even arguably (and sadly) have more practical knowledge about sexual health than some doctors.
Additional comments by Riley Reyes, Lola Fae and Johnny Goodluck are also in the article.
You're saying that the most common side effects of people using Truvada is that they are likely to get headaches, stomach cramps, nausea, diarrhea, weight loss and decreased bone density(the last two might be because of the previous ones). Call me a wimp but I certainly wouldn't want to suffer any of these things on a regular basis and seeing as the medication I am taking requires a daily dose then does that mean that I could suffer one or more of them every single day? I will repeat what I think is the most important part of this debate. The only reason people are suggesting that porn performers use PrEP is to help them avoid getting infected with the HIV virus and nothing else but these same people are doing everything in their power to make sure that none of the performers can safely request a condom which every health professional says is the most efficient method to prevent most STI.
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - Apr 4 2019 : 4:01PM
This is an interesting topic for me. I am very adamant about affirmative consent and think various performers should no things like infectious status and opt out with no questions asked. That said...I come from a neo-dissident multi-factorial position on HIV/AIDS and don't think it was ever that pathogenic terror that scientists claimed it was. At most all that was discovered in 1983 was likely a non specific non exogenous exosome derived associated series of disease vesicles that while infectious and pathogenic is only so when underlying factors(such as pre-syndrome structural oxidation among other things) are in place. There is no body of evidence of functionally healthy people simply getting AIDS or even getting infected.
I don't think performers have anything to fear from a poz if treatment and their own functional health are in place. This ain't a popular opinion and many will cry denialist at this but this is what a critical look at the evidence will conclude in my view. I'm with the anti-stigma people on this and think that an infection is HIGHLY unlikely though unfortunately they come from the aids truth lineage which pumped this whole syndrome story up back in the 80s and 90s. Had scientists and the sexually affected simply settled on the multifactorial hypothesis(even the bear minimum one put forth by Sonabend and Root-Berstein) we would not be having this discussion today.
As an aside I've actually been in contact with Root-Berstein and he claims there's a multi-factoral study that's actually being actively suppressed right now and for the last few years.
[Link]
FlacFan Deactivated User
10088 Posts 8/15
Posted - Apr 4 2019 : 6:14PM
^ The estimated 35,000,000 people who have died of HIV/Aids from Ground Zero to Dec 2018 say Hello.
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - Apr 6 2019 : 1:13PM
^ That's not a lot in the grand context of things when you consider what AIDS was supposed to do. Going by the initial hysteria there should have been percentiles of the worlds population no longer with us due the the big bad aids.
Much of those deaths come from the third world which can be explained by structural poverty and violence to a large degree. You should also consider the data Grover linked to above. Why are non hiv STIs going up but not hiv/aids rates? That's just further proof that structural oxidation and risk co-factors are a better explanation then some weak sauce disease vesicles that only cause cascading problems when an underlying structural pre syndrome is in place.
I should also add the fact that there was no major die off of the 1980s porn body(there was no industry wide condom use, AIM was not around till 98) especially the gay porn body, while AIDS did affect gay porn significantly pretty well the whole performer body should have become infected and affected. If there was to be any spreading out of the original risk groups porn was the perfect incubation period to do so. It was after all a partially illegal industry and they weren't exactly in a position to implement these sorts of surface level standards.
^ Not much really that number just represent 10% of the inhabitants of the USA and are just those who died not the overall infected, also is a number representing about the 30% of the overall death toll of the Black Death in the fourteenth century , but it occurred in just 20 years instead of a hundred
[Link]
Maxxx Stirner Deactivated User
319 Posts 11/14
Posted - Apr 13 2019 : 4:03AM
^Again not plague like if one simply takes into account the comparative population(under 100 million in Europe vs 7 billion+ today). The US which has over 3 times the pop of classical late mid-E Europe has not even registered a million deaths yet and if you control the US death total for the world the current world number would be halved which shows that structural 3rd world poverty and violence play a role in the overall death number. Also the discrepancies that I mention stand along with other problems with the supposed killer virus. There's only been two Lesbian seroconversion cases ever recorded since the Gallo test was created. THAT along with other low infection non outer risk group spread should be a red flag against the current consensus position.
Again the multifactorial toxic risk explanation stands.
[mod edit: really? You have the permission to share those people's medical information with the world?]
Edited by - killbillvol69 on 5/5/2019 1:00:21 PM
[Link]
oktaybaba Deactivated User
18 Posts 2/09
Posted - May 5 2019 : 4:32PM
Thanks for warning, I do not have permission from these pornstars infected with HIV because of privacy law. Thanks for deleting the list.
Adult Industry Medical Healthcare Foundation has the the patient database of porn stars who have HIV positive and this database has over 12,000 medical records from an STD testing database.
Earlier this year, a website called [Site Name Redacted] posted a list of what it claimed were the real names of more than 15,000 porn performers past and present, alongside their stage names and dates of birth and also their HIV diagnosis information.
Many famous porn stars are in this list with HIV positive status.
Of course, [Site Name Redacted] is destroying porn performers' privacy.
^ Yes, they are destroying the performers' privacy. So why are you helping them by posting about it here?
Delete the name of the website from your post. It's a garbage site that doesn't need help from us.
[Link]
Arnold The Geek Deactivated User
251 Posts 7/17
Posted - May 5 2019 : 8:13PM
I disagree. When one becomes a public figure, all reasonable expectations of privacy go out the window. Especially when the person uses social media. Its one thing if a person is trying not have a digital trail; but, if it's naive to think that there won't be some sort of blowback when one has a half dozen profiles building their "brand."
^ I'm not sure what your objection is here. I said we don't need to use ADT to promote that site. Are you saying that we should be using ADT to promote that site?
[Link]
Arnold The Geek Deactivated User
251 Posts 7/17
Posted - May 6 2019 : 8:42AM
No, I disagreed with your comment that porn wiki is destroying privacy.
Posted - Mar 31 2019 : 3:31AM
