Come on guys.

J.

[Link]

Based on photographic evidence alone, I can't believe anyone would have put this girl in front of a camera. I've sent girls home for having a single "could be this, could be that" lesion. But I also understand the "code" that exists with some male actors - they are there to do a job and if the girl looks like she's been beaten with a sack of marbles, they simply go to that special place in their mind and proceed like professionals.

Mike South is also correct. The "viral load" nonsense currently being bandied about proves nothing. Viral load in and of itself is a dubious theory. What about people whos viral load has dropped to the "undetectable" level? Does that mean they don't have HIV anymore? Or is this like cancer going into remission?

Much as I like her, Sharon Mitchell you've got some splainin' to do

[Link]

please keep it plain and simple for me
especially if someone has any solutions to this mess,
coz i don't have any

[Link]

Viral loads can be reduced to undetectable. It doesn't mean you don't have HIV. The anti-viral measures only attack virus in dividing cells. There are long-lived cells (memory T cells and dendritic cells) that don't divide and aren't attacked by standard HIV therapy. The sequestered virus isn't measured. You only really see this in agressive antiviral therapy, though.

Myk

[Link]

No, I don't think prostitutes deserve to die.

I did not mean to suggest that Mr. South and Mr. Wang have ulterior motives, nor Sharron Mitchell for that matter. What I thought I was saying is regardless of any of any their motives, we have a picture of a industry that has a pretty calvelier attitude towards the risks that performers take by having hundreds of unprotected sexual encounters per year.

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/27/2004 5:25:11 PM

[Link]

When she came back on the line, she said quite clearly that the CDC does not recommend using the viral loads from the PCR-DNA tests to determine who infected who. She said that if both persons have been having unprotected sex with other people in a short period of time, it becomes nearly impossible to tell who first had the infection. She said that the only way to tell is to test the prior partners of the man and woman, to see if they can find if there is someone on either side who had the HIV infection.

So, the question is, how is Sharon Mitchell drawing the conclusion that Darren James is patient zero? I'm curious as to who is advising her that she can make this distinction.

I've also gone back and read through all the AVN.com articles about Darren and Lara. These articles state when Darren went for his AIM tests (Feb. 25, Mar. 17 and Apr.9), while there is no mention of the date that Lara Roxx was first tested at AIM, only that she went there in mid-March when she first arrived in Los Angeles, and then was retested around Apr. 14 when it was found that she had been in a scene with Darren. So, I'm curious why AVN doesn't report the date of Lara's first AIM test. They really need to do their fact-checking.

[Link]

/paranoid ranting off.

Edited by - mike_rach on 4/27/2004 5:58:19 PM

[Link]

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to dismiss the good work she has done thus far in setting up AIM, but why isn't a real medical doctor in charge of something this important and life threatening?

I suspect that OSHA is wondering the same thing, and I fully expect them to mandate a condom policy of some kind.

[Link]

These are the reasons she gave me that the CDC does not approve of comparing one person's viral load to another, since it is not a meaningful comparison; there are simply too many other factors that play into viral load readings, that cannot be discounted.

[Link]

Edited for spelling

Edited by - Bill on 4/27/2004 7:51:27 PM

[Link]

Although, I thought her last contact was around 4.8, also being my birthday which is why I remember. That is not exactly long enough, is it? It's less than three weeks back.

Mike South

J.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/27/2004 8:50:58 PM

[Link]

I know if I was one of the people on the list, I would get tested early, too. I wouldn't be able to wait. I would probably get tested every two weeks until two months had passed.

J.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/27/2004 8:51:45 PM

[Link]

I've done a quick and dirty calculation on the lower limits of detection of the PCR-DNA test, which is about 100 copies of the HIV virus per milliliter of blood. Now, the average person has 4 quarts of blood in their body = 8 pints.

8 pints blood x 473ml/pint x 100 virus copies/ml =

378,400 copies of HIV virus in your blood. This means, by the time the PCR-DNA test can detect the lowest amount of virus in your blood sample, there are already several hundred thousand virus particles running throughout your entire bloodstream. And this doesn't count any virus particles that have made their way into your lymph glands, spleen, or liver.

I'm certain that there are companies working on tests that can detect the virus or antibodies to it at an earlier stage of the infection. Even the Elisa test has gotten better over the past few years; the newer generation of them, according to the CDC, can detect antibodies levels in 97% of all persons within 2-8 weeks of initial infection, compared to the first Elisa tests which had a six month time period to show this sensitivity.

Right now, however, there doesn't appear to be anything revolutionary on the horizon, certainly nothing that could detect the virus within a few days of initial exposure.

On a related matter, for those of you have get tested at AIM, when you receive your results, are you told you are negative for HIV, or that the virus levels are 'undetectable'? Also, do you ever see the readout from the actual PCR-DNA test, or are you simply given the AIM certificate that says you were tested and are negative?

[Link]

one problem is that many of the cells that are infected aren't in circulation. The dendritic cells (act like scavengers and present antigens to your immune system) can be loaded with HIV collected cleaning the lymph but don't circulate in the blood. Also, the thymus...anyway, much more complicated to calculate the total viral burdeon than multiplication.

All of these suggestions put forth for better tests are valid, but if it were possible to have a test that was 1. cheap. 2. Rapid. 3. 100% reliable (positive and negative predictive values). 4. Accurate even in the earliest stages of infection. Then it would have been already made. Not for the adult video industry. For clinical medicine.

All the tests, DNA/RNA PCR, Elisa, and Western blot, have their limitations.

The viral loads reported are consistent with the proposed 1st infected, based on averages, but I pulled some info and the ranges are so broad you really need more data.

Myk

[Link]

My background is one that tries to avoid the body fluids of others in my job. In adult videos it does appear that their display and exchange is more of a integral part-somewhere between a rather unimportant 7 seconds at the end of a scene and a holy sacrement, depending on the viewer, I guess.

Having said that, no testing is perfect. You will always have people that are potentially infected (and infectous) no matter what test and how often.

This is compounded by the fact that the talent used in these videos don't live in a hermetically sealed container-they free range. And when they do, they engage in risky behaviors, probably at rates that exceed that in the general population. I know I live in Cincinnati, but I don't think any of my friends 'escort' or travel to Brazil and copulate with sex workers, trans or not. Those risk factors are then brought into a fairly small group that all are having high risk activities with each other, creating a potential for rapid spread.

I don't know all the facts in this case, and I doubt anyone here does completely, so I'm trying to speak in generalizations to avoid a he-said, she-said. It doesn't matter who was first. What matters is that people do appear to be engaging in outside risk behaviors and bring that home.

If the industry isn't going to take steps to keep the riskiest of risk behaviors out-say, no 'escorting', no trips to places where HIV is too high, or at least a quarantine before coming back into the pool...heck, at least making scab removal not be a part of foreplay...and then are going to have the symphony of semen associated with double-anal-everything. I just don't know.

So it comes down to imperfect test and imperfect people. Pile on the desire to make money, fear of cancelling shoots...fear of being labled an actor/actress that doesn't do what's called for in a scene...Not a recipe for good self regulation.

Myk

[Link]

Out of curiousity I've done a little modeling using a 25% male to female transmission rate and a 10% female to male transmission rate (I've no idea if these percentages are even close, and I didn't model male to male or female to female sexual contacts) and one sexual contact per working day for 4 weeks (I based 4 weeks on the statement I read that the current test will detect infection in 97% of people 2-6 weeks after infection.) Do the math, and I get an "average" outbreak infecting about 26 people (9 men and 17 women).

I only offer these figures as a "for example". Both the assuptions and the math may (probably are) be wildly in error. What's not in error is recognizing that the lagtime between infection and detection and the sheer number of sexual contacts creates the potential for a larger outbreak. If you think the government is getting too nosey over 2 cases, just imagine what it would be like if it were 20.

-T.C.

[Link]

Occupation Fatalities per year per 100,000 workers in 2002

Timber cutters 117.8
Fishers 71.1
Pilots and navigators 69.8
Structural metal workers 58.2
Drivers-sales workers 37.9
Roofers 37
Electrical power installers 32.5
Farm occupations 28
Construction laborers 27.7
Truck drivers 25

Used to live in a timber town, and these days I spend most of my time in a fish town. Everyone knows someone who got killed logging or fishing. Hell, in the "good old days" (up till the 60s at least) logging operations didn't even stop when someone got killed. They'd just lay the body aside and bring it down in the bed of the crew cab pick up at the end of the day. I doubt any of the young guys who signed up to be choke-setters (dangerous work for good money at a job that only requires that you're young, strong and willing to work hard) had any real conception of the chances they were taking. Or perhaps they thought that the odds didn't apply to them (common among young people.) Or perhaps they just didn't feel like they had a choice.

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/28/2004 10:25:29 AM

[Link]

The question is not whether or not porn is 100% safe. It obviously entails risk. We could go over that all day, ad nauseum. The question is whether or not someone has the right to make the decision if and how they take that risk.

J.

[Link]

Also, am I to understand that you believe the government has no place regulating the work place? No mandating hardhats in the woods? No mandating Mustang suits on a Berring Sea crabber? Again, if I misunderstand, please clarify.

-T.C.

[Link]

Let me be clear, if it is a case where a person knows they have AIDS or HIV, and has sex without telling anyone, then I believe that is at the very least attempted manslaughter, and probably much worse. Those types of things are not what I was talking about.

This, once again, is going to be perceived as off topic, so I will keep my comments on the subject of porn.

But for a very good explanation of where I stand with regards to OSHA, I refer you to this: Abolish OSHA

Of course this seems so outrageous to anyone who has been force fed our country's modern ideas about the government's role in the workplace.

J.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/28/2004 12:31:43 PM

[Link]

Maybe the risks aren't illustrated enough to the talent. I equate porn stars to stunt men. We all watch Hollywood movies and no one is calling anyone selfish for stuntmen to risk their lives for our 2 hours of entertainment. How much socially redeeming stuff is in your average movie??

[Link]

But brace yourselves. Any minute Walter will be in here telling us we're confusing aesthetics with ethics. -T.C.

[Link]

"Or am I making even less sense then usual."




Hardware said:
"Give people the power to make laws and they'll make bad ones. Lots of bad ones."

[Link]

What is wearing to me is that no matter how much money the industry rakes in (or claims to), no matter how many times Jenna Jameson appears on E! or Entertainment tonight, it's still virtually impossible (for me) to defend porn on the basis of anything other than principle – the reality of porn is so (purposely?) laden with shame and self-delussion that I sometimes wonder if that's not the real reason people watch porn

That, of course, is a personal and aesthetic judgement. And if making that judgement makes me a "moralist of the lowest order" so be it. But I don't feel like I'm "having a field day", I feel like shit.

-T.C.

Edited by - TonyC on 4/28/2004 6:14:34 PM

[Link]

Until there is a real immunization for HIV or we start quarantining adult performers in a plastic bubble when they are not working, this is the best it's going to get.

Edited by - Bill on 4/28/2004 7:59:10 PM

[Link]

You're right. The fact that two people have tested positive is proof that the system works, so much as it has prevented HIV from going undetected in the porn community and infecting dozens or hundreds of performers. What it is not is proof of how well the system works. This time it (seems to have) caught things early, with only two (possibly) related cased detected.

But the fact that there was only one (alleged) intracommunity transmission is of no predictive power for the next time (is there any doubt that there will be a next time?) there is an HIV incursion into the porn community. As Selena Silver said in thread, the porn industry is predicated on the willingness of porn performers to engage in a high number of unprotected sex acts over a short period of time. (Volume, volume, volume!) This time is was (seems to be?) two. There's no reason (other than dumb luck) that the next it won't be 20.

-T.C.

[Link]

All true statistics, but remember. Most of the people engaged in these jobs, no matter what the risks, take all the precautions available to them. They don't gratuitously partake in risk. The risk is required by their job, but they, and their employer, (and OSHA) minimize those risks as much as possible.

Since there is not going to be a test that can tell ahead of a scene who may be HIV+, the fluids exchanged must be assumed to have the possibility of infectousness. Is ultra-high risk exchange (double anal with internal ejaculation) really a smart thing to do? Fisting is safer and its already out...

Myk

[Link]

From my perspective as a concerned viewer and DVD reviewer, I've still got questions about a number of issues, based on the following information that I've been able to find on prior posts on ADT, and the articles on AVN.com about this HIV situation.

A. People have proposed that more frequent HIV testing at two week intervals will spot a HIV+ performer before he or she has the chance to infect another performer. But looking carefully at the dates for Darren James last negative HIV test (March 17) and Lara Roxx's negative test (sometime in mid-March, let's assume March 10), when they did a scene together on Mar. 24, her test was no more than 14 days old, and his was only a week old. Still, one of these performers infected the other.

So, will having tests at two week intervals really make a difference?

B. Another issue that has been on my mind is that AVN.com has given very specific dates for Darren James' HIV tests, and for when he was in Brazil, yet there is some vagueness about Lara Roxx's travels and HIV tests. In the interview she did for AVN, it only states that she arrived in Los Angeles in mid-March, that she was urged to go to AIM for testing, though no date is given for this initial test, and then once she was tested, she did her scene with Darren James and Marc Anthony on March. 24. I still am curious why no one seems to know when she was first tested at AIM. There is also some confusion about her age, given as either 18 or 19 – though I would think that anyone who shows up at AIM for their initial testing has to show proof of age. Why all this vagueness with regards to Lara?

C. My third concern – the numerous men who have been named as being involved with bringing Lara Roxx to Los Angeles and getting her work there. She had a manager in her native Montreal, Daniel Perreault, who told her she wasn't ready to work in L.A., though he readily introduced her to Marc Anthony in Montreal when the latter was on a recruiting trip. In Los Angeles, Lara had a local manager named Thomas Hope, who urged her to go to AIM for her testing – didn't he tell her it was mandatory in order for her to work in the porn industry? Lara was also listed on the World Models website, so I assume that the porn talent agent Jim South took her on as a client.

Then there is the man called Dugmor. He started a thread on ADT's Star Forum in early April, called "Fresh off the Bus" about Lara Roxx (AKA Lara Coxx). When a week and a half later, when someone asked him who he was (after she had been named as HIV+), he said he was simply her friend, that he was just trying to help her get work, he was in LA on non-porn business.
Which is rather interesting, since less than a month earlier, this Dugmor was only too proud to post on ADT that he is known in Montreal as "Le Roi Canadien du XXX", the Canadian King of Hardcore. He is a porn producer and director, with direct links to the L.A. porn industry.

The question I have: Is this what typically happens when a young, inexperienced woman arrives in Los Angeles – that there will be numerous people affiliated with the porn industry who are only too eager to get her bookings, though not too committed to much else about her welfare, and certainly not about her health.

I'm bringing up these concerns because I simply don't want to watch porn movies in which there are serious questions about how someone was recruited to work in Los Angeles, and what happened once they arrived in the city. If this above is all too typical, I really don't feel like watching much more porn.

The above paragraphs are copyrighted 2004 by ThoughtsFromRenee, P.L.C. For all you porn gossippers who are contemplating posting my musings on your website, contemplate some original thoughts of your own for once.

[Link]

Adultfyi link

and there are several others that have stated the same thing.

Mod: Edited to make url into a link.

Edited by - Bill on 4/28/2004 9:25:09 PM

[Link]

A. There will always be a window where you cannot detect virus but you are infected and potentially infectous. The more frequent the testing, the smaller this window, but its always there.

C. I agree. There are many wolves willing to take advantage of sheep...especially young sheep that think they're going to live forever. I'd like my porn to be as close as possible to people actually enjoying themselves. Coersion and disease really blow that one out of the water.

Does your copyright cover me, too?

Myk

[Link]

This is a most perplexing question, why can't anyone find out what Lara's real age is? Aren't porn performers supposed to show 2 forms of identification when they go to AIM, and when they show up for porn shoots?

I do hope that what is one the adultfyi.com site about her has some basis in fact, and is not just pure conjecture.

[Link]

While they're regulating condom use, could federal regulators please limit the number of X's in an actresses name? No offense intended to anyone on these boards, but I think a one X limit should be strictly enforced.

Myk

[Link]

The most beneficial, single thing for the talent is to able to exercise personal CHOICE of whether or not to use a condom in a scene. And NOT having the choice made for them by the producers, directors, and studios in the name of excessive government interference. Everything else surrounding the "condom" issue pales by comparison. Everyone takes personal choice for granted these days, but who remembers personal responsibility that goes along with exercising that choice?

[Link]

now unrelated to that and yet related to what you said. i have been thinking about this a lot. and i have a mini rant of my own.

as much as some think letting the government in is a good thing, you are not thinking clearly... if you think the government will set a standard that is fair to performers, let alone companies you are mistaken.... you invite them in and they will destroy us. they will only want us shut down... they dont give a shit about safety. most of them feel people in our business are damned souls who are less than human anyway and think we deserve what we get if we get sick, they will pretend to be your friend to get themselves in the door and then run everyone out of business.

you think you can get distributors to stop selling non-condom videos voluntarily. they wont. get the government involved they will tell them not to distribute ANY porn. besides... then people will just get what they want on the internet.

nobody tells you you have to work non condom, you can choose to work with a condom... just dont whine when a company that shoots condomless wont hire you, that is their choice as much as it is your choice not to work condomless. you make that choice knowing you will not make as much per a month.... that is a decision you make. that is not anyones choice but your own
you get into this business knowing there is a risk... honestly i feel if you are not willing to accept that risk... dont make decisions for everyone else. make the decision that it is not for you, take your ball, and go home.

that is just my view on the whole situation. i admit im new to the talent end of the biz... i have been in for 9months. i worked on the retail end for 3 yrs. i am familiar with the consumer as well...

Bottom Line if a producer wants me to work with a girl without a condom, and she is comfortable in doing it and has agreed to it, AND i am comfortable with it... i dont want anyone outside of that group of people telling us differently.

I don't mean to offend or upset anyone. i have no problem with anyone choosing to work with a condom. in fact, i applaud them for doing what is comfortable for them... just don't make my decisions for me.

Edited by - Rob Longshot on 4/29/2004 1:54:53 AM

[Link]

An example of this might be condom/no condom use. As Myk has said in response to Tony, in most occupations where health risks are routinely involved, there is an assumption that everyone is doing their absolute best to minimize those risks. If injury or fatality occur, it isn't because people were willfully negligent; shit just happens. So as a porn performer, if I work on your set, I should assume that risks are minimized to whatever extent possible; beyond that, I agree to the hazards of the job. Well, as we have established, condom use is the most basic and currently effective way to minimize STD risk. So, if you ask me not to use a condom in a scene, I might say fine; but, you are asking me to be willfully negligent and increase my risks; therefore, why shouldn't I, even if I am willing to perform, demand both substantially greater compensation in return, and contractually obligate you to share the increased risks I'm taking?

Needless to say, in the current business model of the adult industry, this is all a pipe-dream. Owner/producers are in a win/win more situation; they appear to have little obligation to the hired talent beyond paying them their day fee; if you get herpes or the clap or end up with cancer of the cervix or ringworm from ATM or have your ass ripped asunder in a DAP or contract HIV--tough for you; excuse me, I'm one my way to the bank. Performers, on the other hand, are in a win a pittance/lose everything quandary. Is it any wonder that everyone is in a hurry to become a producer/owner themselves?

Imagine if, in this year's Indy 500, sponsors or track officials approached the drivers thus: "The fans and TV audience would enjoy the race a lot more if all you guys drove this year without your helmets and flame-retardant masks. People could see your faces during the race, and it would make the whole thing more engaging and personal to the viewers." I think the drivers would be incredulous; now that would be confusing aesthetics with ethics, wouldn't it?

I should also say that I, like many viewers, dislike condoms in porn. It is not so much their use in insertion sequences; but can you imagine watching oral sex with condoms? Plus, there is the whole business of spurting ejaculate, which is the single consistent component of practically all commercial hardcore action since the classic English underground stags of the 1960's. The problem for the industry is this: STD's are bad for porn, because--apart from the cost in human terms, which some pornographers seem to view as of no consequence to the success of the industry as a whole--they do have a negative commercial impact on the image of the business, especially to the extent that they become dirty laundry aired in public forums, and to the extent that they encourage the critics of the adult industry to conspire further against the industry. But condoms are bad for business also, because they ruin the aesthetics of the hardcore fantasy that many viewers are buying into when they seek out porn as entertainment. Regardless of the outcome of the current HIV crisis (and I suspect that, barring any further HIV+ identifications, everything in porn valley will go back to normal in a couple of months, and the government agencies will be quiet, and this will all be an unpleasant memory until the next inevitable outbreak), the adult industry must choose between two undesirable alternatives, or demand somehow that everyone within the industry take much more responsibility for insuring safety and health precautions on the set. And considering that you don't need a license to be a pornographer, and that there are probably countless acolytes making cheap porn around the country (it has become the biggest nickel-and-dime industry in America since the advent of the internet, hasn't it?), I can't even begin to fathom how the business can police itself. Which makes the specter of outside intervention more likely, eventually.

[Link]

As far as the auto racing analogy, apparently NASCAR made change to racing rules to try make things safe after their last fatale crash, but these rules were later softened in the face of fan preasure. I don't know how the drivers reacted. I didn't read anything about them quitting racing in droves.

"No one's forcing them. The performers know the risks. " comes the cry. Well no one's forcing producers to do what they do either. They have the option of making a product that seems to justify the risks that "the little people" have to bear to make it (like fishing or NASCAR); if they can't make a better product, they can lower the risks to restore a sense of balance with the benefit their product offers; or they can quit altogether and do something else. No one [i/has to make a living as a pornographer, any more than someone has to make a living as a pornstar.

Of course this confuses aesthetics with morality, or at least asks us to consider both. What do you think is going happen when you balance one person's convenience or pleasure against another person's life? The call for manditory condom usage presumes that if the threat of HIV and other STDs was removed from the industry, the remaining toll that the industry takes would be justified. I'm not sure I agree, in fact I'm pretty sure I don't; except for perhaps the most theorectical grounds of protecting our freedoms. As I said before, I am weary of defending smut on principle.

-T.C.

[Link]

Businesses are not these horrible abstract monsters. They are owned by people. People have a right to do what they want with what they own. If someone(a performer) wants to involve him/herself in something that someone owns, then they are all free to agree, or not, to the conditions that surround what they are going to do. To make an end run around that and have the government force the owner to do something that the performer wants violates any dogma of personal choice or personal responsibility. The notion indicates a culture of entitlement that is plainly despicable. If you want to own and run a company according to your own desires, then put in the work and sacrifice that it takes to get there. Otherwise, get a union together if you want to force change, or, do something else.

Edited by - valjean4876 on 4/29/2004 10:40:55 AM

[Link]

Maybe New York City is friendly to the entertainment industry, but with their significant HIV problems there, I wouldn't count on them ignoring large-scale porn production in their midst.

Are you thinking of Iowa, or Nebraska, perhaps? Or the Yukon Territory?

On a more fundamental level: You cannot outrun the HIV virus, it's in too many people out in the general population (around 800,000 in North American, 500,000 in Brazil). Looking at this Darren/Lara situation, either he picked it up in Brazil and brought it back to Los Angeles, or she picked it up in Montreal and brought it to Los Angeles. Either way, this illustrates the difficulty of completely avoiding the virus, with the constant movement of performers in and out of the porn community in L.A.

Yes, you can do all your porn shoots in Eastern Europe. But even in that part of the world (Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Central Asia), the World Health Organization estimates that 0.5 to 0.9% of the population is infected with HIV. Sooner or later, they'll have an HIV incident in Prague or Budapest, just based on probabilities.

These musings are copywrited 2004 by ThoughtsFromRenee P.L.C.

[Link]

AdultFYI Article

[Link]

Also imagine the situation, which happened, that a girl wants to start porn on her 18th birthday. She has to get tested before.

Steve Holmes

[Link]

In medicine, you're taught to assume that everyone is infectous. You protect yourself from the body fluids of others. You protect others from your fluids. I don't think that approach would work in porn...but there's got to be a happy medium between latex encased actors and actresses and double anal semen injections. If the industry doesn't find it, I'm sure someone will draw the line for them.

Personal liberty, personal responsibility, and the role of government.

When one person decides to take a risk in porn, s/he's really taking that risk for all the talent in the business.

Myk

[Link]