Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesouth
And the flip is that they will say the reason he DIDNT infect anyone else is because men.com is condom only....Its a moot argument and a retarded one to try and put forth to discredit ab332
|
Not if it can be proven that his infection didn't happen on set.. Which it appears (so far) it is unlikely to have.
Using condoms (or not) on set had nothing to do with this performer being found to be positive, it was the fact he was tested, which the vast majority of the industry has been doing for many, many years.
How exactly did ab332 help protect this performer in this instance?