A. Job with condom
B. Job without condom

no doubt they would all choose A.

But if the choice is:

B. Job without condom
C. No job

most of them would choose B - the evidence being that performers now frequently do make that choice.

If state regulation takes away choice B, the result is not ncessarily that performers will get choice A, because the market will shrink, and a lot of people will be left only with choice C - their lowest preference.

[Link]

Every performer out there has the option of going condom-only. After all, it's their choice. Whether they stick to it is a completely separate matter.

[Link]

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/25/2004 7:58:59 AM

[Link]

1 of 300 Americans are HIV positive, yet there are pornstars that have been in the biz for years without contracting HIV. This is somewhat like mandating speedlimits in NASCAR racing after an accident that kills two drivers.

As for TonyC's question:
I think the only real flaw in the system is the frequency of tests and shoots. Someone else brought it up earlier and strangely it hasn't really been discussed. 30 days inbetween tests shooting nearly a shoot a day means a whole lot of potential people. Then the quarantine list gets so damn big that you DO have to shut down the whole damn industry.

[Link]

mod note: Once again, this is NOT a poll on your attitude towards condom use. The only reason I am leaving the above statement in this post is because TonyC used it as the basis of a question.

Edited by - hardware on 4/25/2004 5:00:55 PM

[Link]

i for one do NOT like working with condoms and do my best to not do so. it takes away from the feeling and passion, and besides, i like anal sex... they make anal very uncomfortable. so no, not all of us would choose condoms. i will take a job with condoms if it is required, but i prefer to work "bareback".
with condoms you also have the downside that they break and if the guy loses wood you have to get a new one.
besides, with condoms you can't do creampies... and personally i like the feeling of a guy's cum inside me.

http://www.keikosworld.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/keikosworld/

[Link]

Asked in genuine curiousity,

T.C.

[Link]

-T.C.

[Link]

Anyway... my HOPE is that anything the relevant government agencies decide to do will be based on facts, science and a genuine interest in the safety of the workers... rather than on an agenda.

[Link]

I see from the recent AIM press conference (http://www.yesportal.com/news.cfm/2546
), they believe strongly that Darren was patient zero, the one who was infected first with HIV, that somehow occurred during his trip to Brazil from March 10-17. When he came back to the US, he immediately went to AIM and got another PCR-DNA test, that came back negative. Over the next 3 weeks, he had sex with 13 women in the adult industry (http://www.aim-med.org/Quarantine.html
). On March 24, a mere week after his last negative test, he had sex with Lara Roxx, where she most likely picked up the HIV infection. (I'd like to double check these dates, but avn.com's site is down)

What isn't being explained well to people in the adult industry, is that the PCR-DNA test measures the amount of HIV virus in your blood. If you have less than approximately 100 virus particles per milliliter of blood (a very low amount), the test becomes somewhat inaccurate, and the result will be labeled "non-detectable", which is probably reported back to porn performers as a negative test result. In the very earliest stages of the infection, this will be the case – the person has been infected, but the PCR-DNA test is not sensitive enough to detect these very low levels of HIV in their bloodstream. (see the NIH site for the explanation of the different HIV tests:http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dir/labs/lir/hiv/packet1.htm)

Naturally, Darren thought he wasn't carrying the virus, and felt free and clear to work. He – and I am getting the idea this is true of the majority of porn performers – was unaware that it can take some time (around 2-8 weeks) for there to be enough virus particles in a person's bloodstream for them to have an accurate and positive PCR-DNA test.

So why bother having porn performers take a monthly HIV test? This testing regimen did keep the outbreak small, instead of letting it fester on for a longer period, with even more people ending up on the AIM quarantine list, than the 53 who have at this point. And Darren did a very important thing – he was getting tested every 3 weeks. If he had gone by the recommended 4 weeks like other performers, he would have exposed at least another ~5 actresses or so to possible infection.

I have the impression that porn performers think that getting monthly testing will protect them from getting HIV. The test does nothing of the sort; it simply will decrease the scale of an outbreak if a single porn performer introduces the infection into the porn community. If you are unlucky enough to have sex with an infected performer on a certain day, particularly if it was anal sex, you are at some risk of catching the infection. It doesn't matter that you had a negative test 2 weeks ago, and he/she had a negative test 3 weeks ago, if that person became infected since their last negative test.

I'm not certain what the answer to this complex situation is. Perhaps more frequent HIV testing would help. Getting porn performers to understand that they can't have unprotected sex with someone from outside the community would help (how to police this, I have no idea). But given the nature of HIV infection (it takes time for the virus to multiply) and the limitations of the PCR-DNA test (it cannot accurately measure viral amounts below a certain level), I don't know what to say. I leave it to someone who is an expert in infectious diseases to come up with a better plan.

An aside about race car drivers: They wear 5 point safety harnesses to keep themselves firmly in the driver's seat in case of the inevitable crashes that they have. At least in Nascar, they were helmets, and NOMEX fire-retardant suits as well, plus the interior of the cars are reinforced, to keep the car from collapsing around the driver during the crashes. Their big concern is that the driver has to stay alert enough, and in one piece enough, to get out of the car before it bursts into flames. If it starts raining on race day, they slow the speed down, or postpone the race. There are plenty of safety precautions in Nascar - not to mention that these guys are TRAINED professionals, not your average driver, with years of racing experience before they ever get to Nascar level.

[Link]

In addition to implementation of the Hutchen's device after Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident, they also mandated changes in the racing rules which eliminated cars racing three and four abreast. Watching single-file cars go around a track made it boring to watch however, and the fans protested.

NASCAR has since adjusted its safety policies and compromised somewhat, in order to keep the fans happy and
keep the money coming in :)

[Link]

I'm not saying I'm in favor of such a mandate, but I can understand why they might wish to impose one, which is why I've been urging people to think of realistic alternatives.

[Link]

Telling this and that to whatever pornstar doesn't prove anything. I don't know thing one about Lara Roxx except the fact she worked with lesions and scabs all over her body particularly in her genital area during the one week she was working in Porn Valley. In addition, once her initial AIM tests came back, she was 'venereal soup'.

I don't know what Lara does in Montreal. I do know she's an escort. I'm not trying to perform character assassination here. However, everybody knows Darren. Few know who Lara is.

Based on sheer statistics, it's safer to fuck a pornstar than it is to fuck some stranger you meet.

Chico

[Link]

Myk

[Link]

If Lara is patient zero, then there is a completely different chain of "generations" than is currently being assumed.

IMO, AIM is making a mistake in assuming that anybody patient zero. They should be assuming that both of them are patient zero (unless they know something that they aren't telling us).

[Link]

For all of you who are asking about the issue of the level of detection of the PCR-DNA test, where at very low levels of virus, it can't conclusively tell how much you have, or if there is any present in your body or not -

Your questions would be better answered by a doctor who is an infectious disease specialist, who mainly treats AIDS patients, about what to do during this time when a person was just infected. I do know that the PCR-DNA test was originally approved by the FDA, not to diagnose new cases of HIV infection, but to establish how advanced the viral infection is in previously diagnosed individuals. It is also used by a doctor to monitor the progression of the disease over time in an individual patient, so the doctor can adjust medications if need be.

The way the test is being used by AIM is not necessarily inappropriate, but the test, like all medical tests, has it's limitations. It's not the same as a pregnancy test, which will give you a simple yes/no answer (yes, you are pregnant/ no, you are not).

[Link]

"What's a rimjob?..It's when you put your legs behind your head and someone licks your ass!" - South Park,Bigger,Longer,& Uncut

[Link]

I hear alot of things. Not absolutely sure if they are rumor or conjecture. If Lara Roxxx had a month old test when she worked with Darren, it was most likely a Canadien test. Again, nobody's sure if it was Eliza or PCR DNA. I won't believe anything unless there's proof, and I'm sure AIM is working on the same theory if they don't already know it.

[Link]

As far as either test is concerned, Polymerase Chain Reaction was invented by a man named Kary Mullis for which he won the nobel prize in chemistry. He does not believe that this test (PCR/DNA) should be used to diagnose HIV infection. He also doesn't believe that HIV is the sole contributing factor to "full Blown AIDS" (read his book - "Dancing naked through the minefield"). Furthermore, the PCR/DNA is not recognized by the CDC as a "diagnostic tool". The ELISA (Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay - not that I know what that means) test is presumed to detect HIV antibodies but comes with a warning which recognizes that this test can cross-react with a broad spectrum of conditions other than HIV and produce a false positive result.

To me it seems like either test is a gamble. It also seems that there may be many HIV negative people out there who believe the opposite based on a false positive result and vice versa. It also seems like there's still a whole lot that we don't know about HIV.

Like Dennis Leary said "Life sucks. Bring a helmet".

Quaze

Edited by - Mike Quasar on 4/26/2004 12:26:37 AM

Edited by - Mike Quasar on 4/26/2004 12:28:36 AM

[Link]

Either way I don't like the odds – no matter what the payoff.

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/26/2004 12:40:48 AM

[Link]

I think the argument about how safe the industry is compared to the local meat market is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is how the government agencies view the situation. This outbreak occurred in an industry. That mean business rules, not private citizen rules, apply. That means that OSHA's mandate to ensure safety in the workplace applies.

If the ELISA test provides faster notification of infection then why is it not being used? The existence of false-positives is an education issue, and certainly doesn't outweigh the false-negatives inherent in the current methodology.

[Link]

If avn.com's site wasn't down still, I could get you the link to the interview Lara did with them, where she said she said that she went to AIM as soon as she arrived in Los Angeles. And from what I recall, Sharon Mitchell has not disputed this fact.

I agree with Bill, AIM and the rest of the porn industry should try harder to figure out how this current HIV situation got started within the porn community. It would be helpful to send someone down to Brazil, and have all the actresses who worked with Darren James down there tested at a reputable lab, to find out what their HIV status is. Likewise, they should try and figure out all of Lara Roxx's sexual partners for the 2-3 months prior to her testing positive.

Mike Quasar is correct about Kary Mullis, who is a very good chemist, though a bit of an iconoclast. I would place a lot of value in Dr. Mullis' opinion* of the limitations of the PCR-DNA test with regards to HIV diagnosis. This is one scientist who knows what he is talking about.

*I refer to him as Dr. Mullis because he has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from U.Cal at Berkeley (one of the best chemistry programs in the US), and naturally because he won the Nobel Prize in 1993.

[Link]

Life sucks. And don't get me wrong, I do feel sad for Lara and Darren. But you shouldn't go making laws on a few cases out of a population of nearly 300 million people. If that was the case no one would be driving, smoking, drinking, eating meat, etc. I think the industry could do a little better, but it seems that they aren't doing too bad of a job now.

As far as the NASCAR analogy, no matter what you do driving 200 MPH ain't safe. What amazes me is that for a country that supposedly values freedom many people are ready to throw in the towel the moment something bad happens.

Edited by - mike_rach on 4/26/2004 1:16:53 PM

[Link]

-T.C.

[Link]

To begin with, it's difficult to reliably establish the initial risk. Even once those risk are established with some degree of certainty, the way that risk interacts repitition is hard for the human mind to fully appreciate. Is it more risky to have 500 contacts, each with a one in a million chance of a bad outcome; or 10 contacts, each with a one in 100 chance of a bad outcome. I don't know, and can't figure it out without a calculator. I'd bet that most people don't know how to figure it out, even if they do have a calculator.

-T.C.

[Link]

Porn is a business. Porn labels are in business to make money. HIV hurts this business, which in turn hurts the Porn labels. It is in the interests of the Porn labels to come up with the best possible REALISTIC solutions to HIV risk.

Having said that, NOBODY is forcing any particular person to engage in anything in the Porn business. Everyone has a CHOICE, and that is the key.

Invoking the government takes away all choice in a given matter.

[Link]

Personally speaking, I do not understand why anyone would want to insert the government instead of letting the parties involved work together to make their own decisions. Even if some of the parties end up in disagreement with each other and decide to go separate ways, I think that is still much better than having the government come in and lay down their regulations, especially when you consider the fact that the government may not be interested in the well being of the Porn business overall. Do you think that the government is interested in ensuring the opportunities and profit abilities of the Porn business?

[Link]

In the best of all worlds, Kernes would have done his fact-checking, and confirmed that this was indeed the case, but since noone has disputed this, it's safe to assume that Lara did have a valid AIM test, that was less than 2 weeks old when she did her scene with Darren James. Also, in one of the AVN articles, they state that Darren got his last negative HIV test on Mar. 17, the day he returned from Brazil.

[Link]

The correct way to calculate the odds is to raise the odds of not being infected by the number of "roles of the dice" power. For example:

10 contacts with a 1:10 chance is .9 to the tenth power, which yeilds an approximately 9.6% chance overall

500 contacts with a 1:1,000,000 chance is .999999 to the 500th power, or very nearly 1:2000 overall

In this particular case the difference between your result and the correct result is small, but this is not always the case. For example:

Let us suppose that on average bombing mission 10% of bombers fail to return to base.

Let us also suppose that bomber crewman must finish 25 missions before they are rotated out of theater.

If we use your method (25 missions x 10%) chance of being lost we end up with a nonsensical result: a 250% chance of being lost.

The correct method is to take the average chance of survival per mission (90%) and raise it to "the number of missions power", the result being approxiamte a 7.2% chance of completing all 25 missions without being shot down.

In either the bomber example or the HIV example the important factor in calculating the odds is that as the number of plays increases linearly (and presumably the reward as well), the risk increases expontially. More importantly, when you lose, you lose big.

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/26/2004 6:11:45 PM

[Link]

Of the tests available for HIV, all answer a different question-elisa, western blot, HIVDNA-PCR and HIVRNA-PCR. Just depends on what the question is. The problem is, none of them are positive below a certain threshold, and if you miss the window, a month later (or 3 weeks, or whatever you pick) you can be quite contagous.

Ordering a lab test is like picking your nose in public. Never do it unless you're sure what you're going to do with the results.

Myk

[Link]

Government does regulate the workplace. And if industry voluntary restrictions don't work, it will. If I want to build a skyscraper and don't want to pay for safety harnesses because I calculate out the cost of replacement workers as being less, I don't get to do that.

Also, the liability of the damages here is quite high, and I don't know what the indemnification of some of these smaller producers. The cost of a human life in an average court case is 4 million these days. Add in long term medical care for HIV and you're probably up to 6 mil. Shoot a scene with half a dozen people in it, 5 new cases...Who pays? You might not like government regulation, but tort is a bite in the ass, too.

In an ideal world, people would measure their personal risks and benefits. And everyone would be nice, too. I don't see that.
Myk

[Link]

1:1,000,000 per scene chance of contracting HIV through unprotected sex within the porn community.

A two year run with 500 scenes at an average of $1000/scene

Banking 50% of gross earnings and paying a marginal tax rate of 30%

All of which yields a 1:2000 risk of contracting HIV in exchange for finishing a 2 year condom-free run in the business (500 scenes) with $175K after tax cash money in the bank.

Now let's have a look at the numbers if we add condoms:

Let's assume that instead of $1K for a condomless scene scene, our sexy young star will only get $500 per scene.

Let's also assume that condoms are 99.5% (1:200) effective is stopping the transmission of HIV from an infected sex partner to an uninfected sex partner..

Let's further assume that although our more conservative performer has a less high-flying life style, our performer is only able to save 1/3 of her total income from her 2 year run. Allowing for the same marginal tax rate of 30%, after two years, our performer with have in the bank about $58K; considerably less than the $175K than her less risk adverse counterpart.

The question is: how much protection from risk does our more cautious lass get for her $120K? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the calculation is (1 - (.000001 x .005)) to the 500th power, or about 1: 500,000

Do the math and we find that our more cautious performer is willing to take a roughly 1:500,000 chance of contracting HIV in exchange for $58K in the bank, compared to her condomless sister who is willing to take a roughly 1:2000 chance of contracting HIV in exchange for $175K in the bank. That's a rate of risk 250 times higher than using condoms for only about three times the money.

Granted, our assuptions may need some refinement. If someone has some better starting points, I'm happy to do the math. But there's not much we can do to lower the spread, short of saying that condoms don't work.

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/26/2004 10:30:53 PM

[Link]

Viral Load Results Indicate James was 'Patient Zero'

By: Scott Ross
04-26-2004

SHERMAN OAKS, Calif. - The viral load tests for Darren James and Lara Roxx, the two adult performers that were recently diagnosed as HIV-positive, indicate that James is “patient zero” of the current outbreak.

Viral loads indicate the amount of the virus per 1ml of blood. HIV-positive patients regularly check their viral load to monitor the virus’ progression. The general rule of thumb is the lower the viral count, the better.

Darren James had a viral load count of 121,000, while Lara Roxx has a viral load count of 605,000. According to Sharon Mitchell, PhD, executive director of the AIM Healthcare Foundation, those results point to James as “patient zero,” the person who brought the virus into the adult community for this isolated outbreak.

“Roxx’s was higher, but that means it’s more recent because we know it surges in the first 18 to 30 days,” Mitchell said.

James’ test results showed that his viral load was on the way down, indicating he had the virus for a longer period of time.

James' is believed to have been exposed to the HIV-virus while working in Brazil last month. It is not yet known how James acquired the virus.

[Link]

If they had been measuring Darren James' viral load once a week, from the time he had his last negative test (Mar. 17) until he had the first positive test (Apr9), than I can see how they could draw some conclusion. But they only have one positive test for Darren, and one positive one for Lara (done around April 18 or so), so how do they know which way either of them is heading? Don't they need at least two positive data points per individual to see which way their viral loads are trending?

[Link]

Myk

[Link]

About Viral Loads and Patient Zero: (I invite anyone to refute this, including Sharon Mitchell):

I knew this was coming, AIM now says that Darren James is patient Zero

"Darren James had a viral load count of 121,000, while Lara Roxx has a viral load count of 605,000. According to Sharon Mitchell, PhD, executive director of the AIM Healthcare Foundation, those results point to James as “patient zero,” the person who brought the virus into the adult community for this isolated outbreak.

“Roxx’s was higher, but that means it’s more recent because we know it surges in the first 18 to 30 days,” Mitchell said."

I asked my man at the CDC about this, even woke him up for it. He said "That's hogwash" they were infected way too close together to state conclusively that either gave it to the other. Viral load is highly dependant on ones health and the quality of ones immune system.

We know from prior reporting that Laura's immune system wasn't that great to begin with

They can guess that Darren is Patient Zero but that's an assumption that gambles with peoples lives.

I invite anyone to state conclusively that this proves that Daren gave it to Laura.

This is a dangerous game they are playing people, don't become a victim of poor judgement, if you have had sex with either of these people since January 25th, get tested NOW! and continue to test until a REAL DOCTOR tells you to stop because you are OK.

Speaking Of:

I have done a little background on Lauras test history, here is what I have found:

She reprotedly had a negative Elisa test in Canada in February;

A negative PCR by DNA at AIM in March, and then a positive one in April.

If this is true, she may be the one that infected Darren After all, Mitch tells everyone that they won't be clear until June, which means she acknowledges it can take two months for someone to appear HIV +, and as you can see, Laura falls into that time frame.

or all we know, she was infected in mid to late February up in Canada. After all, she is a known hooker. She was even turning tricks while here. It is rumored that she was staying at the Voyager Hotel turning tricks at the time she was first notified (by another performer) of her exposure.

Think about this too: she reportedly exhibited many of the signs of HIV+ status in women (yeast infection, general sickness, and etc.) in early April, and I find it hard to believe one can develop these symptoms days after being infected.

I am starting to think this "he caught it in Brazil" is nothing more then a way to pacify the L.A. County health authorities.

I'm NOT blaming Laura but I am not absolving her either. These are simply the facts and this is why it should not be ruled out that Laura was the one that gave it to Darren.

[Link]

Several producers allowed a "known prostitute" (South) with a less than satisfactory HIV test to work on their sets even though she her body, especially genital region was covered with "scabs and lessions" (Wang).

I'm not sure what Mr. South's and Mr. Wang's agenda is. To discredit Sharron Mitchel? Perhaps. To discredit the general health and safety practices of the industry? It would certainly seem so.

If Ms. Roxx is patient zero and acquired HIV through prostitution the story certainly becomes less sympathetic. Everyone knows that prostitutes deserve to die, and I don't expect a lot of hand-wringing from the public over the idea that a male performer got infected by a female performer, especial not if he's black. But if the South/Wang version of the story is closer to the truth, if producers are knowing allowing known prostitutes of dubious HIV status who are visibly sick to work on their sets, then the question isn't how did this happen – it's why didn't this happened sooner, and how much worse will it be next time?

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/27/2004 8:07:14 AM

[Link]