Don't do drugs, MMMkay?

People are stupid, and do self-harming thing to themselves all the time. Doubly so when the harm isn't instantaneous, like chopping your own finger off.

[Link]

So according to your logic, a man with HIV has unprotected vaginal sex without ejaculation with one girl, and unprotected anal sex with internal ejaculation with another girl, and both girls have the same chance of contracting HIV? You are either delusional, or just know nothing about the disease, or any infectious disease for that matter.

Edited by - popdog on 11/9/2005 6:21:55 AM

[Link]

Yet for some reason, the same producers and fans that are able to wrap their brains around the concept that condoms are imperfect protection (when it suit their anti condom agenda) are willfully ignorant of what can and cannot be inferred from a negative PCR test ("You can't get HIV from an HIV- partner.")

Regular PCR testing does not ensure an HIV- talent pool. Regular PCR testing doesn't ensure that HIV will not be transmitted from one perfomer to another. In fact, if we look the number of times HIV has been transmitted from performer to performer versus the number of times that HIV has been detected overall, the PCR test an unimpressive record of identifying HIV+ performers before they can transmit the virus to their colleagues.

As Mr. Greene and other have repeatedly pointed out, no one, not AIM, not the government, nor anyone else has the power to prevent every last performer from engaging in activities that put them at risk for contracting HIV. If we accept this, then we must also accept that the forseeable future, HIV will continue to make incursions into the talent pool, and acknowledge that the PCR test is of limited value in detecting these incursions before performer to performer transmission occurs.

Is regular PCR testing is a valuable tool in controling the spread of HIV amongst performers? Of course, and nobody's saying it isn't. But like condoms, it's not perfect. PCR testing has not and cannot detect all HIV infected performers before they have a chance to infect their colleagues.

[Link]

However, like car mechanics, if you will, we see more of certain makes and models with certain recurring problems than we do others. The pecentage of the talent pool that regularly does ATMs is fairly small and relatively constant. Anecdotally, I can tell you we treat more of these players for bacterial infections than we do others. But I agree that conclusions drawn from this fact are inferential. This doesn't invalidate the strong implications of our daily observations. And that's as far as I can go on this line of speculation without revealing things I can't reveal as a matter of policy. Draw your own conclusions.

Now, as to TonyC's observations regarding the overall effectiveness of PCR-DNA screening, he's correct that neither AIM nor I claim it to be 100 percent effective, because it isn't. However, I wouldn't call it "ineffective" either. During the eight years AIM has been doing the PCR-DNA test, we've had only four cases of HIV transmission in the industry, which is a much more impressive record than that of any other HIV prevention program in the world.

Nonetheless, this doesn't undermine TonyC's view, which is that no test, by itself, guarantees the safety of any given encounter, It certainly tilts the odds in a favorable direction, but other factors - including the nature of the material being shot - can certainly tilt the odds back the other way. AIM was the target of a good deal of anger last spring for "failing to prevent" the transmissions that took place, when we never claimed to have that ability.

Though the test has a relatively short window period, a "perfect storm" situation such as we had back then can result in a carrier slipping through. Given that HIV continues to exist in the general population, there is no means by which incursion into the performer pool can be entirely prevented. It's not playing into the hands of the anti-condom faction to acknowledge that not even universal condom use would make that a certainty, though I agree it would go a long way toward achieving it.

And it's just a scientific fact, not progaganda for some particular point of view, to state that uninfected people can't infect other uninfected people, regardless of the nature of the contact. You can't transmit what you don't have.

My main point here is that zero-risk is not a realistic possibility in work of this nature. Our harm-reduction model at AIM recognizes this and operates on the assumption that every risk factor we can eliminate brings us closer to a goal that cannot be totally achieved by means likely to be widely adopted in the community we serve.

As I've said all along, performers must continue to weigh their own risks and make their decisions accordingly.

[Link]

'With this internal creampie shot, I thee wed in unwholy fluid-bonded matrimony. May no other semen touch your womb (or ass). To have and to fuck, without a condom, for now and as long as the porn companies want us. Amen.'




VincentVanGauge said:
“When I say ‘is hot’ or ‘is not’ that's my opinion, not a dogma. Dogmas can be wrong.”

[Link]

The special case of screening the sub-population of sex-workers can't and shouldn't be compared to any other situation.

Edited by - Zartyr on 11/9/2005 2:06:18 PM

[Link]

Please don't misunderstand me. The regime is of obvious value in containing the spread of HIV within the performer pool. In combination with (what I regard as minor) changes in practices of how and what acts are depicted, we'd probably never hear the words "porn" and "AIDS" in the same sentence ever again.

[Link]

Edited by - Zartyr on 11/9/2005 2:16:52 PM

[Link]

First of all, Zartyr makes a couple of valid points that should be underscored, though he takes inductive leaps from them where I would not choose to follow.

It's incorrect to say that the PCR-DNA test is ineffective for individuals, while granting that it does work effectively at containing HIV outbreaks once detected as he acknowledges. To the extent that it performs the latter function, it offers some degree of effeciveness in the former. Limiting the spread of HIV in a closed community by way of testing has obvious benefits to the individual who belongs to that community.

Where he's absolutely correct, though he doesn't spell it out, is in the assertion that any kind of testing detects infection after the fact, and is thus ineffective in preventing individual transmissions a priori. I made that very point myself in an earlier post. For those who got infected last time or who may get infected in the future, testing clearly proved unpreventative and therefore "ineffective" based on its inability to do a thing we never claimed it could in the first place.

And I should have gone into a bit more detail when comparing AIM's program to other HIV-prevention efforts. I was referring to programs in use with other high-risk populations - Thai prostitutes, patrons of gay bathouses and sex clubs in the US and other venues where HIV concentrations are critical enough to justify widespread use of individual testing. All such testing should, of course, be voluntary, but allocation of resources to make it available to those who are most likely to contact the virus is meant to be supportive rather than intrusive.

Legally mandated, universal HIV testing, or even legally required occupation-related testing, is a completely unacceptable violation of basic liberties, which is why both AIM and the ACLU strenuously oppose it. Broad screening in at-risk populations has proven benefits, but those benefits would be minimal if the same protocals were applied to everybody and the unintended consequences from doing such huge numbers of tests - including erroneous results that naturally rise with the size of the sampling, needless discrimination, the accumulaton of data by government agencies they have no business retaining, etc. - rules out this approach as any kind of universal panacea.

My point here was that different protocols used by other organizations dealing with at-risk populations haven't worked nearly as well.

For example, the LACDOHS has been engaged in efforts to lower transmission rates in bathhouse populations for a number of years using the highly reliable but slow responding ELISA test, and has failed to bring the HIV infection rate among that population below ten percent, as against the porn community's rate of approx. .057 percent. There were over 2000 new HIV infections in LA County overall last year, of which the porn community accounted for a total of four.

The ninety-day to six-month window period for the ELISA test is simply too long to be of much help in highly active populations, a fact which neither the CDC nor the local health officials who take their cues from Atlanta seem to realize. While the ELISA does have a five percent lower error rate - which is not insignificant - the reality is that the longer window period is a more critical concern for those who have multiple sexual enounters day in and day out.

Which brings us to the question of what constitutes "impressive" results. TonyC may find the stats above unimpressive, but epidemiologists who come from all over the world to study what we're doing at AIM don't seem to agree. While they may not choose, or would not have the option, to set up programs identical to ours, they never fail to express admiration for what we have accomplished over our eight years and 80,000 tests.

In fact, where AIM has been most helpful is not in detecting the small number of active performers who have seroconverted while working, but rather in excluding from the talent pool incoming performers whose infections we caught before they ever did their first scenes. We've found quite a few of those over the years.

In short, our successes are less visible than our failures. I have no doubt that pre-screening for new performers has prevented many, many episodes such as we saw last spring, episodes that would surely have resulted not only in disasterous indvidual transmissions, but also in major repression of the industry by now, had they not been thwarted by advance testing. Again, I don't consider that an unimpressive outcome for our efforts.

Now, once a working performer is infected, as I've already said and as we tell all our clients, testing is strictly a form of damage control and doesn't help those already exposed other than by confirming their immune status, which may or may not be good news, depending on the nature of their exposure, as we've already discussed on this thread.

Even in the instances where infected performers did get through via the window period, I would still say the speed with which they were quarantined and the outbreak contained would have to be considered impressive, especially by comparison to the standards accepted in the field of public health overall. The very same officials who raised such a fuss over our four cases seem remarkably smug about accepting the far greater number of new infections resulting from their own reliance on the ELISA test in use in their programs instead. This is a matter of politics rather than medical science, and I admit I find it galling.

TonyC's other point, however, is extremely well-taken. A combination of testing and a few relatively minor changes in the way porn does business could drop that already low .057 rate to just about zero. We have a terrific opportunity in our tight-knit community to eliminate HIV transmission all but completely with only a few behavioral changes that I have always maintained the audience would hardly notice. Failure to make these changes cannot and should not be forgiven. TonyC and I may quibble over a word or two, but on the bigger picture, I suspect he and I pretty much agree.

Now, onto the business of fluid-bonding. I forget sometimes that the language in which those of us who work with these problems discuss them can come across as pretty odd to regular readers. Fluid-bonding is not a bizarre tribal rite. It's a description of a certain kind of partnership in which two individuals - a married couple or a regular performing team - do fluid exchange sex only with each other.

We've had a number of fluid-bonded couples in this business over the years and still do. Check out the talent agency sites, for example, and you'll find plenty of performers who are condom-only except with a certain individual or do internal pop shots only with a certain individual. I wouldn't put too much trust in the reliability of such arrangements, as we are talking about human beings here and human beings have been known to yield to momentary temptions - sexual or financial - and lie about it later. However, uninfected partnerships that truly observe the rules of their committments are, in fact, very low risk for STD transmission. If you don't like the term "fluid-bonded," try "exclusive" and you'll see the point.

Finally, on the subject of prophylactic use of antibiotics, I'm with Zartyr one hundred percent. For one thing, they don't work. They also screw up your body's natural immune system and, if taken inconsistently as they usually are by those who attempt to use them this way, risk the creation of resist ant strains of infection that endanger us all. We don't give them out at AIM and we advise against them for this purpose in the strongest terms. Some things simply make no sense at all. Likewise, excessive enemas and douches and the habitiual use of anti-diaharreal medications are bad for those who engage in them and don't do much, if anything at all, to lower the cross-contamination risk.

Back to Square One - the hazards of ATP contact are real and cannot be wished away. They can only be washed away, and that means cutting from the action for clean-up before switching sockets. Some viewers may not like it, and some performers simply don't want to deal with it, but them's the facts.

[Link]

Edited by - Walter Burns on 11/9/2005 3:56:56 PM

[Link]

"if we look the number of times HIV has been transmitted from performer to performer versus the number of times that HIV has been detected overall, the PCR test an unimpressive record of identifying HIV+ performers before they can transmit the virus to their colleagues."

In an issue of life and death, I don't think anyone can be impressed with a failure rate of approx. 10-20%. (If this figure is off, I would welcome more accurate data.)

I do not intend to impune AIM. The result AIM has achieved are probably as good as can be expected giving the limitations of testing and failings of human nature.

But the question is not if what AIM is doing is admirable, it's whether or not it's sufficient; and if the best than can be expected from the 30 day testing regime is that one out of five performers who contract HIV will go on to subject their scene partners potential exposure before they themselves are identified and removed from the performer pool, then clearly testing is not enough.

[Link]

But if a person with promiscuitive sexual behaviour offers you to have unprotected sex (and also do high risk acts) with you, and tells you s/he is safe waiving some sheet with a PCR HIV Test around around, your response should be:
Rip the sheet, turn around and walk away.
(You don't know if this person just had a gangbang or shared a needle with 10 HIV+ persons (from a non-monitored subpopulation) the hour before.)

As you said and everybody halfway capable of reasonable thought always says on threads like these the PCR test is good for screening (sub)populations.
It is better to have chance of x% (x reasonably smaller than 100) to detect an infected person, than to have a chance of 0% (within a reasonable timeframe).

Of course the detection and segregation of virus carriers from the "healthy" population is a good approach to contain an outbreak (but does not prevent the outbreak).

The "needs" or "expectations" on preventing infection of an individual (pro-active) are different to establishing "health of a population".
Containing an outbreak in a (sub)population is re-active, even making it more difficult for the bug to enter the monitored population by trying to catch patient zero before he transmits the bug, is re-active.

[Link]

Everyone seems to have finished elementary school and/or have a little bit of common sense.

[Link]

Not impressive at all.

LA County population: about 1 hex 10^6

1 inf./5000

There were 20 000 porn performers active (throughout the whole!) last year in LA County?
I doubt that.

Weigh the performers that only did a few months and the number of porn-performers "needed" to reach a putative "equal chance of infection" population number even increases.

[Link]

These guys makeses the mostest sense....LMAO!!!!!

[Link]

Edited by - popdog on 11/9/2005 7:16:32 PM

[Link]

Everything I said made perfect sense, however (and unfortunately), I cannot say the same about realtip.

[Link]

That being said, everyone is entitled to his or her own viewpoint. As for ATP, I say bring on more of it. If no one else wants to see it, good for them. I am sure there are many others, including myself, who will be more than happy to continue watching. The rest of you can continue arguing.

[Link]

The issue in this thread raised is not whether or not people like watching ATP, it is whether or not it has a decent probability / risk of harming the actress in any way (infection, sickness, loss of work).

If a Hollywood producer or director takes inappropriate risks with a stunt (failing to inform actors of risk and consequences, planning, preparation, execution) and an actress is hurt, they are on the hook for anything negative that happens. We heard from Kami that usually something bad does happen, and others on previous threads from minor infection to full blown pelvic inflammatory disease and inability to have children. So as long as the producer informs everyone and insists on managing risk to the best of their ability, I think that is appropriate. If not, the director is liable. If a negative side-effect happens, the producer is liable for all costs including meds, lost wages, and if reproductive capability is lost then compensation for pain and suffering (big $) just like any other business. Same is true at a circus. Actors get hurt, then the production company is on the hook for:

a) Did they inform and communicate the risk?
b) do everything possible to prevent the risk?
c) if the dice come up "snake eyes" and an accident happens, they pay (or their insurance company).

What this thread is not about:

a) Judging the act or anyone who likes it or does it personally.
b) Censorship.

Let's contrast this with rough sex declared in advance to the agent or actress where the outcome might be soreness, maybe some light mark from holding or light slapping, and maybe a head trip from the psychology of the situation. No one is going to the hospital with a significant infection, fever, or disease that may leave the actress UNABLE to reproduce further.

The reality we've heard from actresses in past posts saying they were not told of the risks, or how to manage it, and even in that case they are getting sick to various degress.

It is called "responsibility". We can support the industry's freedom of speeach and be reasonably responsible at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive positions.

Gman

Edited by - gman on 11/9/2005 10:41:39 PM

[Link]

Edited by - popdog on 11/10/2005 7:47:25 AM

[Link]

Given the rapid pace of production at this point, an infected male performer who does manage to pass through the window period for the test is very likely to infect one or more female performers. In the 28 days between when patient zero last tested negative and first tested positive, he had 13 primary contacts in the industry, three of whom were infected. Not quite twenty percent, but certainly a frighteningly high number. We can only be thankful that it wasn't worse. Considering the viral load with which he initially tested after his first positive, it's quite likely he would have infected anyone with whom he had done an internal ejaculation scene, particularly anally.

Nonetheless, we were able to quarantine patient zero and his primary contacts quickly enough to prevent what could have been a much larger outbreak had we used the same methods generally employed by the public health system. That may not impress you, but it did contain the damage to those four individuals. Had patient zero continued to work through the minimum period necessary to test positive by ELISA, I can assure you the outcome would have been far more catastrophic. This is not a minor point, as you say, where human lives are involved. The PCR-DNA test is not perfect, but it is, in my view, still impressive when compared to any available alternative.

However, we really part company when we look beyond this particular episode. As I pointed out in my previous post, we have detected HIV in a much larger group of aspiring performers on their first tests and thereby wholly prevented any number of similar incidents in the past. That's where our harm reduction approach has paid the greatest dividends. When you calculate the number of performers who have passed through this industry over the eight years we've used the PCR-DNA protocol and the tens of thousands of sex acts in which they've engaged, the fact that only four transmissions have occured, however tragic, reflects a high degree of success in protecting the talent pool overall.

I don't credit testing with this entirely. As I've stated before, many sex acts in porn are lower risk than they appear. Though it's not often discussed, even before we instituted the current regimen, and at a time when HIV rates in the population at large were soaring, the industry dodged the bullet for a number of years, prior to the Marc Wallice case. I attribute this as much to those external ejaculations as to the haphazard use of the ELISA test common to that time.

In short, I agree that behavior also plays an important role in preventing outbreaks and testing alone won't keep another one from happening. I'm also on record as saying that, sooner or later, there is a statistical probability that one will, especially if certain forms of reckless conduct remain standard in the industry. As you say, testing is not enough to guarantee a zero-risk situation, although I do have some doubts as to how significant a risk reduction can be achieved from what we have now even with significant behavioral changes. I would never expect the risk to disappear completely.

The circumstances that produced the last outbreak were extremely unusual in a number of ways. Trying to make any system proof against all contingencies is futile and at some point counter-productive if it becomes so cumbersome and intrusive as to become widely flouted. No trade is risk free and there is some inverse cost-benefit risk involved in trying to make it so.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding I may have created with someone who I consider an ally in advocating responsible conduct in the industry at all levels.

Now, on to Zartyr, whose command of statistical analysis is breathtaking, but fails to take into account the extraordinary frequency of sexual contact in our particular sub-population. You decontextualized my orginal observation by omitting the comparison between infection rates in similar demographics, as opposed to the county as a whole. Where the county operates ELISA-based programs among at-risk populations, LACDOHS acknowledges a ten percent infection rate. Based on our estimate of an active talent pool of 5,000 performers, derived from our testing database, if we performed at a similar level, we would have 500 cases in our community.

This is a more accurate standard of comparison than the infection rate of LA County as a whole, given that such a broad sampling includes huge numbers of people, ranging from infants to the elderly, who are at no measurable risk whatsoever. My purpose in noting the aggregate totals was to call attention to the political agendas that drove the entirely disproportionate media and governmental response to our four cases. As a number of longtime local AIDS activists wondered aloud at the time, where were all the TV cameras for the other 1996 new infections reported locally last year?

[Link]

If I seem strident about the 30 day PCR testing regime, it's not because I'd like to see it replaced with ELISA, but because I can't help but wonder if producers, performers, and fans are truly aware of what the 30-day PCR regime can and cannot do.

My doubts are furthered when I read a post from a producer that says "You've got a better chance of winning the Publisher's Clearing House sweepstakes than of contracting HIV on a porn set"; or when I see a performer assert that "working in porn is safer than riding in a car"; or when I see a fan assert that "You can't get HIV from someone who is HIV negative", which while true, which seems wilfully ignore that fact that a 30 day-old PCR test on a person who engages in high-risk behaivior on a daily basis can only yeild two results: HIV+ and HIV status unknown.

Again, this is not an attack on whether or not the PCR is a useful tool in screening HIV+ persons from entering the talant pool, nor is an attack on its usefullness in controlling an outbreak once it has entered the talent pool. But I have to wonder if people have really thought implications of the testing regime's weaknesses through. To whit:

* Do producers, talent, and fans really understand that the chances of the PCR regime failing to talent who have become HIV+ since their last test before they do scenes are (on the basis of AIM's data) roughly one in six? (Russian Roulette, anyone?)

* When Darren James was doing whatever it was he did that lead to his contracting HIV, was he under the misaprehension that that the 30-day testing regime would protect his colleague from his reckless behaivior?

* If allegations regarding Shane Diesel are true, are he and those who hire him or do scenes with him under the impression that should he contract HIV in his private life, that the testing regime will reliably detect his infection before he has a chance to pass on the virus to his scene partners?

* Do those who clamor for creampies, especially anal creampies understand that the chances of an HIV+ positive performer "slipping through" the PCR testing regime are a distressingly high one in six, and that when this happens again , this future "patient zero" will infect the majority of partners with whom he performs this act?

I would like to believe that if reasonable and decent people were more aware of the limitations of the current testing regime, they would re-evaluate their practices and choices; as producers, performers, and fans.

<Editted to clarify Earnest's "?" in the below post>

Edited by - TonyC on 11/10/2005 4:35:35 PM

[Link]

Edited by - doughboy on 11/10/2005 12:26:55 PM

[Link]

NJ Films Inc

[Link]

You and I, as expected, are getting closer on this topic, but there is one aspect of your statistical assertions I would like to clarify.

The PCR-DNA test, which has a normal window period of eight days to two weeks, and is 95% effective at detecting HIV infection in a previously uninfected individual outside the window period.

I'm assuming the one in six chance of a false negative to which you refer applies only to situations like that last spring, in which an HIV+ performer tests during the window period.

Under normal circumstances, the odds are quite a bit better than that, and it's a good thing or we really would have a lot of casualties. A five percent chance of a false negative, while cause for concern, is a lot different from the twenty percent chance you seem to imply our stats show as routine under normal circumstances. I don't wish to misquote you on this, and I'm not sure you meant what you said that way, but a word or two seem to have been dropped, leaving that impression:

"* Do producers, talent, and fans really understand that the chances of the PCR regime failing to (?) HIV+ talent are (on the basis of AIM's data) roughly one in six? (Russian Roulette, anyone?) "

So, one last time, the chances of the PCR-DNA test failing to identify HIV+ performers at two weeks following infection is 5%, not one in six.

Like I said, not perfect, but not as alarmingly unpredictable as your post seems to suggest.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[Link]

Where possible I am an empirisist. The one in six calculation is based on the data available on the AIM website regarding total the number of positive PCR tests and the following subsets: the number of these positive test on incoming (first time) talent, the positive testing on active performers, and the number of positive tests on active performers who have shot scenes since their last PCR test. From this data, it would appear that approx. one in six performers who test have tested positive have performed scenes after their last negative PCR test, but before their first positive PCR test. If you have more extensive and/or contradictory data than what I was able to find on the AIM website please post it.

The PCR "window" to which you refer offers us the opportunity to examine the question hypothetically. For the sake of arguement, let's accept that the PCR test is 95% certain after 14 days, thought I've not seen this figure outside of AIM.

On a 30 day testing cycle, the "average performer" who, through some act of ignorance, malfiance, or bad luck becomes infected with HIV, will do so 15 days before their next test. This "average performer" will be active in the talent pool until either a) two weeks later, at their next scheduled test, where there is a 95% likelihood of his being discovered, or b) when one of this HIV+ but not yet identified's scene partners, who is at the end of her 30 day cycle goes in for her test and discovers she is now HIV+ and a quarenteen ensues

Of course there are no "average performers". Logic askes us to assume that when performers become infected, it will happen at random throughout their 30 day testing cycle. Some will become infected the day after testing; which while maximizing the chance that they will be detected at their next test cycle, also increases the time they will be active in the talent pool. Others will become infected in the days immediately before their next test cycle, and very well may not be detected until the following test. A reasonable assumption would be that 25% of performers who have become HIV+ will go through their next testing cycle during this week-long "window period".

To arrive at a theoretical figure for the odds with which an HIV+ performer can be detected before that performer has the chance to expose their colleagues to, a possibly infect their colleague with HIV requires a knowledge of transmission rate and an understanding of the efficacy of the PCR test during the window period that is beyond my layman's expertise.

But my lack of expertise not withstanding, as far as I know, no experts place any level of confidence what so ever in the PCR test during the window period . I have not found one published study that gives confindence levels for the PCR test when administered less than one week after infection. Negative results from test administered during this window can and should be regarded as meaningless.

Unless the target population can be convinced to abstain from risky behaivior one week before testing, there will always be a substaintial portion of the talent pool who is being tested at a time when testing is of absolutely no value at all in identifying recent HIV infection. Because if this, it can be reasonably deduced that whatever the success rate the 30 day PCR test regime is in identifying HIV+ performers before they have the chance to infect their colleagues, it must certainly be lower than the 95% at 14 days you assert for the test.

Again, this is meant to impune the use of the test to screen incoming performers, where it undoubtably is of considerable value. Nor is it an attack on the use of the test to midigate the spread of HIV; without regular consistent testing, last year's outbreak would have been far far worse.

Of course, as Mr. Dough latest post to this thread as well as the posts of other demonstrate, what risks are assumed by whom is of little interest to a substantial portion of producers, performers, and viewers. So it goes.

Edited by - TonyC on 11/10/2005 2:49:24 PM

[Link]

The "bathhouse population", e.g.: This refers to male homosexuals in promiscuitive circles, I guess.
I make an educated guess assuming in normal life an internal cumshot is quite widespread.
In porn it is not widespread - most cumshots on intact body skin, but treated as some (rare) specialty.
I.e. "bathhouse" greater risk than "porn".

Then add that there is something like a legal requirement to treat medical information confidentially, and mandatory health tests aren't feasible for most populations.
The porn performer population is a population, where an HIV+ individual is eliminated from the population.

BTAIM, I haven't heard of mandatory testing, blacklists and blacklisted being eliminated transferred to a quarantaine island or in front of a firing squad (the only possibilities to "cleanse" most (sub)populations of HIV+ individuals) lately.

BTW, I have nothing against the PCR test. It is a useful tool.
Like I said, [the PCR test is] not perfect, but not as alarmingly unpredictable as your post seems to suggest.
For an individual, who is interested to know if s/he can skip the usual "safe sex" precautions, the test does not provide any useful information, since it does not say anything about the HIV+ status.

[Link]

So what is the next logical step?

I'd bet, as nasty (and not the good kind of nasty) as ATP is, it'll be the next big fetish out there.

[Link]

All hiv infection statistics* aside for a moment, ass to pussy is the most likely way to catch a yeast or urinary tract infection on a set. As a women you can also become sterile or develop pelvic inflammatory disease and manifest damage that can lead to a tubal pregnancy later on.
So health-conscious performers should not only put internal cumshots on their personal no no lists but also ass to pussy (unless you are the no family type and into burning pee).

Besides consensual ass to pussy (including scence cut and cleaning of dildos and dicks before penetration) I estimate a hughe number of unreported cases where performers were pushed into it by surprise -- a common concept in this industry as I was told :/

A mandatory ban enforced by gov seems appropriate to counter the selfishness of producers, shooting whatever sells best no matter the health risk. Of course it's not gonna happen. To count on the insight of pornfans (or even the male talent pool) is wishful thinking at best as just demonstrated by doughboy and z0id in a most impressive way.

Selective measures like educational advertising concering high risk sex practices like creampies AND a2p in AIM test centers would be desirable. Especially considering the fact that newcomers with little to no experience in such issues are likely to be taken advantage of by greedy agents or other less well-meaning souls.

And if you'd really care about your "stars" from a consumer point of view it's about time to include labels like NJ films under your boycott umbrellas instead of making half-assed jokes. Certainly this ain't gonna happen either - instead you can watch their adverts rotate on the banner above the forum and maybe unpack your sponsored review package tomorrow. Meanwhile somewhere else sits a girl in tears on the toilet. think about it.

X-Ray,
*If anyone can market the concept of condom porn, Jenna can.

[Link]

The risks of ATP are stated clearly in the Porn 101 tape shown to all first-time industry testing clients at AIM and on the AIM Web site.

We do everything we can to discourage this practice, along with a number of others but neither AIM nor any government agency will ever be able to prevent people from falling victim to their own bad judgment and the manipulation of others.

As I always say at this point, that responsibility rests entirely with the individual performer. It always has and it always will.

[Link]

I forgot to tell you can also pass on such a temporary urinary tract infection to your boyfriend (don't ask).

Ernest, not to belittle your efforts thus far, I have a feeling most talent dropping by at AIM never see this well intentioned video. I guess it's one of these free offers too easy to skip without a second thought. Rush in make the stupid test, rush out as quick as possible and later check results via internet. what about displaying some large posters like a young woman sitting on a toilet making scary faces, in bold letters "Burns like hell". and in a smaller font "ass to pussy, worth an extra franklin?" wouldn't cost a fortune to set this up and might reach more people. Anyway you are right, whom adult performers trust - a doctor, a video, their workmates, agents or a raincoater is of course entirely up to them. All I can say is DON'T.

Oh, and as much as you hate the thought of government intervention (there is always a risk of overdoing stuff) sometimes it works surprisingly well.
Need an example? What about discarding these ludicrous bans on pissing and fisting scenes in some states of America (bans that as laughable as they may be are obviously respected and feared by the majority of porn producers as material gets edited or on hold -- so they DO work) If such quaint things work why not invent useful things like mandatory condoms, testing and an a2p ban instead. Couple this with an import and distribution stop on foreign condom-free porn and the local sex-industry survives. In a couple of years most folks are used to see condoms in every American hardcore flick be it a website or a dvd and the perception changes. American companies trying to flee to other countries and re-import their own foreign shot productions get treated the same as tax dodgers. It could be done and it's not as out of this world as it may sound at first sight. For now I welcome padogas suggestion to include "clean" ass to pussy (as well as condoms) into sex play for future releases.

I read there once was a "World Pornography Conference" sponsored by the Center for Sex Research at California State University. Why not redo such events and use the opportunity to exchange experiences with European companies that already have a mandatory condom system established? Mandatory condoms do more than just stop the transmission of HIV, they also prevent yeast, chlamydia and a bunch of other little bugs that make for miserable vaginas.

[Link]

If there was a ban, and it was enforced, they would have little choice but to stick with the condoms.

At first there might, and probably would, be a drop in sales of new movies.
But porn consumers as a group have not exactly shown themselves to be the most discerning of customers, and I've no doubt they'd return to the fold soon enough.

I don't for a second believe a vast condom free porn underground would spring into being because of it.
There would be some, sure, but like today's fringe porn, I firmly believe its sales would not even register on the radar of 'mainstream' porn companies.

[Link]

I have a serious problem with bans and censorship of any kind. If I am opposed to a certain type of product, I just simply don't sponsor it. However, I am very relucatant to start advocating bans just so other people cannot enjoy something that I myself may not support. I just don't believe in that. After all, where do we draw the line? There are alot of people who won't be satisfied until porn is banned altogether. And I think that's exactly the direction that will be taken once people start advocating enforced bans. Why not just let people be adults and decide for themselves, or is that just giving people too much responsibilty for themselves?

[Link]

How are the big US players doing, anyway?
European Private Media Group (still condom free, AFAIK) only broke even last quarter.
But then they are dealing in numbers where a gonzo start-up's entire budget would figure under loose change, and are, like Vivid, working on promoting brand name recognition in fields other than pure porn, so who knows what profits they may show in future.

We have rules and regulations for lots of things.
And I for one, would much prefer to see porn treated as just another line of business with laws governing its operation, rather than leaving it so open to be shut down entirely.

[Link]

It's been some time since I've found occasion to reply to your comments on topics like this. I've enjoyed that time.

Once again, not meaning to belittle our efforts at AIM, you manage to do so.

FYI, as I've said here previously, ALL new performers testing at AIM for the first time are REQUIRED to watch Porn 101 in the office before the test is performed. We then give them a copy to take home. If they choose to pay no attention, it isn't because they were not informed of the risks. We make sure they are.

BTW, condoms are largely ineffective against Chlamydia, which is the most easily transmitted STD. When active, its heavily present in vaginal secretions and can be transmitted orally or by contact with fingers or toys. Short of dressing everybody entirely in rubber, which I might find entertaining but most would not, frequent testing and quick follow-up treatment are the only protections we have against this particular ailment.

As to the rest of the arguments about mandatory regulations, I'm not going back through what I've already said about them in tedious detail. Governmental restrictions involving consensual sexual conduct that is otherwise legal, if unwise, or the depiction thereof, do indeed violate basic constitutional protections against prior restraint of freedom of expression. Attempts at legally mandated use of barrier protections would be both ineffective and counterproductive, leading to the disingtegration of the voluntary system we have in place now and driving half of the industry - the half at the highest risk - completely underground and out of the healthcare system, such as it is.

The fact that certain content has been largely eschewed by American producers out of the fear of censorship, or that age restrictions have proved enforceable, has no relevance to this particular discussion. Clear and immediate self-interest dictates these necessities. The same motivation would dictate an opposite response to mandatory barriers or bans on established shooting practices prevalent throughout the industry.

The notion that American porn consumers would "get used" to such regulations and continue to buy porn anyway presupposes that nothing else would be available, when in fact, such measures would simply create a huge black market in unregulated porn. I think it's worth noting that European porn, made in highly regulated societies, is virtually all non-condom. Products from American companies that are all-condom sell poorly there. There seems to be no great sense of urgency among Europeans to impose the kinds of restrictrions you advocate here.

AIM's harm reduction approach has proved the most reliable and realistic method of minimizing risk to performers. Nothing better is likely to succeed it any time soon.

You and others who agree with you can ramble on about government regulations, but the only kind of legal intervention you will ever see attempted here will be just one more effort to make the creation of porn impossible, simply prohibition masquerading as regulation. Porn performer health has no traction as a political issue in this country, which has one of the worst healthcare systems of any advanced nation in the world for all its citizens and is unlikely to extend an special concern to the health of sex workers. That's going to be our problem as individuals as it has been from the beginning.

Individual responsibility on the part of producers, directors and performers is and always will be the only truly dependable brake on unsafe behavior.

[Link]