Nacho Vidal

FSC PASS Advisory on the situation in Europe (FSC)

Edited by - pringles on 2/14/2019 2:05:00 PM

[Link]

I feel bad for Nacho but especially for the performers he may have infected, lets hope it's not because that would be devastating. I must say though that in hindsight it's not as surprising considering the way he looked, he's been looking unwell lately long before this news imo.

[Link]

A mother's denial doesn't make something true just because she said it. Louise Bundy denied her son murdered dozens of women...

[Link]

I don't know if anyone on here was aware of this but the end of last month there was this huge debate (or scare) among many performers on Twitter about HIV+ performers having a chance to work in the industry under the PASS system.

I'm not that knowledgeable about all of that stuff, but I know there were Twitter debates about that issue a few weeks ago.

Now we have breaking news that one of the biggest performers overseas in the last decade+ has been tested positive with HIV, and who knows how long he may have had it.

[Link]

Adult DVD Talk is a Community of Porn Fans and Industry Insiders
Please do not talk about pornstars, directors or producers as if they are not here. (Katsumi sums it up nicely.) We are lucky to have industry participants, and they are paying attention to your constructive criticism. Insults will get you nowhere and lead to the deactivation of your forum account. If you work in the industry please be honest about your porn connections. See our Member Directory for a list of stars, directors, producers and other insiders who participate.

Edited by - Flash on 2/15/2019 2:57:12 PM

[Link]

http://mikesouth.com/hiv/informed-consent-is-a-must-nothing-else-will-do-because-someone-in-our-industry-is-hiv-35723/

Now granted many may argue that Mike's blog can offer dubious views on various subjects but I recommend that you read the source for the controversy. That has the potential to kill production in the US and Overseas for many months if this is proven to be true.

[Link]

Here is what Pierre Woodman is saying about this story:

"I brought him myself to the labor in August 2018 and I have in my home his original blood test, so for sure he was never infected by HIV before now.

He also was with me in 2011 in L-A and did a DNA test there with me, so all those gossips are just non-sens !!!

Nacho knows from who he got this infection and it's related to his personal life, not to porn industry. Actually all 9 girls having worked with him, are in DNA test situation now and we will know next week if anyone more is supposed be infected or not but I'm ready to bet no one will be ..."

Edited by - pat362 on 2/15/2019 7:36:58 PM

[Link]

[Tweet is no longer available]

[Tweet is no longer available]

[Tweet is no longer available]

[Link]

What it means is that if that person were to have sex with 70 women, there's about a 50% chance none of them were infected. Also, because he said less than 1%, the actual percentage is important. If it's .5%, the that number is about 135 women. If it's .1%, that number is around 690 women.

[Link]

They say the risk of infection is 1% according to some studies , In my view it's too high already a regular couple with one of them infected having sex every three days would be at risk within a year or within two years with just a sexual encounter per week , multiply the odds as the years pass

How long do you think it takes for a sexual worker to reach the number of 100 intercourses , should I also have to mentions that regular sex doesn't last as long as a porn scene? The olonger the body fluids stay in contact the higher the risk , anal sex is riskier than vaginal

Multiply the odds for every new performer carrying the virus even though not yet infected , for example a performer who does two scenes that day or a female performing group sex right after him

so yes I'd stay with would

also I understand you are an Italian speaker then:
Avrebbe dovuto = Would Have
Avrebbe potuto = Could Have

not very different in my view , Could Have I'd use when the danger is yet to come and is still potential = potrebbe or
the danger is over and in the past but didn't occur = avrebbe potuto

Would have it's a potential who didn't occur yet or that should have but didn't until we find out that it actually did = avrebbe dovuto

I didn't use should even though could have been the better choice because it implies that the danger didn show and will not do = sarebbe dovuto

so again I'd stay with would

We're not over yet

Edited by - LCF on 2/16/2019 9:26:51 AM

[Link]

I don't recall where I said I speak Italian. I do not. A most odd "understanding" you've gathered.

[Link]

Edited by - pat362 on 2/16/2019 12:11:18 PM

[Link]

I'm sorry

anyway you have to multiply the chances for every performer he's been with , even if HIS odds are the way you say it's very unlikely that every single performer he's been with would share the same luck he had , even though not infected his working partners did come in contact with the virus, plus for HIV virus a vagina is a more friendly environment than a dick and this would increase the risk even further

[Link]

I think I understand the 1% , I also understand the very different scale of intercourses involved , in case of porn performers it's massive, also I understand the different scale of the intercourse itself , I don't think those who partecipated in the study fucked as long as performers do in a porn shoot hence a different level of exposure , but it's usually rougher in the case of Vidal a lot rougher even by porn standards.

Was there in such study any direct exposure to blood from scratches?

Also I'm aware that risk of 1% also mean no risk at 99% , still there's 1% of risk, I don't get the circling over the figures

[Link]

My point is someone who is HIV+, got treated, and maintained the treatment so they test negative can somehow manage to not infect others.

[Link]

anyway if he really knew of the virus just one month ago there's still a window between when he actually got infected and when he begun his treatment, providing the treatment really is working

[Link]

Edited by - killbillvol69 on 2/16/2019 10:58:01 PM

[Link]

1-Are you saying that a person infected with the HIV virus but taking anti-viral drugs exactly as prescribed has less than 1% chance of transmitting the disease to another person? I'm assuming that if condoms are used than that number is even lower.

2-If the answer to "1" is yes then should that person still tell every one of his sexual partner prior to having sex with them that he has HIV but is unlikely to infect them?

3-If the answer to "1" is yes and it involves a performer than should he/she be automatically banned from performing with any uninfected performers?

[Link]

NIH is saying that if treatment works and makes the viral load undetectable, then there's effectively no chance of transmission. Zero. I don't know whether that's true because there's other factors like if you have a compromised immune system due to another disease like hepatitis or lymphoma. I don't know how that works or if that's been studied.

[Link]

Edited by - killbillvol69 on 2/16/2019 11:00:05 PM

[Link]

Edited by - Flash on 2/17/2019 11:56:01 AM

[Link]

Some are saying he had HIV for years, some are saying it's been 1 month.

We don't know yet if Nacho knowingly neglected to disclose his HIV status to any other performers. In fact, do we even know for sure he worked with any other performers after contracting HIV?

[Link]

Edited by - Flash on 2/17/2019 11:51:30 AM

[Link]

Clearly you have misunderstood the term "dormant". In this context, it means that an HIV+ person's immune system hasn't been compromised by the virus where it can take as long as 10 years for this process to happen. This absolutely does not mean you can't test for it as antibodies are detectable by 3-6 months after contracting the virus even if the person isn't manifesting any symptoms.

[Link]