NEW HIV plus just reported

[mikesouth]

In fairness XBiz broke it...but I will get to the bottom of it ;)

No info on who it is

All they are saying is that he tested positive, he/she worked condom only and they dont think he/she got it on set

Now guess who released that info? if you guessed APHSS “We wont know anyones status” you guessed right.

I will follow up on this.

[_Richard_]

that's just peachy

[Socks]

Gentlemen, plug your anuses.

Hide your hoes.

[fitzmulti]

The page via XBIZ:
http://www.xbiz.com/news/163936

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

In fairness XBiz broke it...but I will get to the bottom of it ;)

No info on who it is

All they are saying is that he tested positive, he/she worked condom only and they dont think he/she got it on set

Now guess who released that info? if you guessed APHSS ?We wont know anyones status? you guessed right.

I will follow up on this.

sounds like the gay side?

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

sounds like the gay side?

or a female...I know of no active male performers working exclusively with condoms

so if its female look to a wicked contract girl (this is really really really unlikely)

but also remember the source is APHSS "Not even we will know your status"

The truth will come out though...always does meantime anyoine that knows anything is welcome to back channel me....your anonymity is guaranteed.

[PillWealth]

wow, that sucks.

[Socks]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

The truth will come out though...always does meantime anyoine that knows anything is welcome to back channel me....your anonymity is guaranteed.

NSA will know.

[DWB]

So someone caught HIV who only worked with condoms, yet they think it was caught off the set where they obviously didn't have sex with condoms? One then needs to ask, why only work with condoms if you're willing to screw off cam without them?

That makes as much sense to me as girls without dicks.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by DWB

So someone caught HIV who only worked with condoms, yet they think it was caught off the set where they obviously didn't have sex with condoms? One then needs to ask, why only work with condoms if you're willing to screw off cam without them?

That makes as much sense to me as girls without dicks.

could very well have been a 'off the hook night' gone very wrong

[mikesouth]

well consider the source so far is APHSS what does THAT tell you?

APHSS says they dont get results. How did they get this one?

How do they know it didn’t happen on set? was it a gay performer?

Where did APHSS get the idea that it didn’t happen on set? What do they base that on?

You probably know most of these answers as well as I do, apart from the fact there’s another HIV positive performer APHSS pulled the rest out of their ass.

[srockhard]

I'm sorry I didn't see this thread when I posted this... https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1112538

[mikesouth]

from the sword

http://thesword.com/exclusive-gay-po...y-measure.html

According to multiple sources, The Sword can confirm that a male gay porn performer has tested positive for HIV. The positive results came back after routine testing for a scheduled shoot with Men.com.

Given that Men.com’s shoots are condom-only, it’s highly unlikely that the performer contracted HIV while on set. Also, the performer is said to have worked “exclusively” in condom-only productions.

When reached for comment, Free Speech Coalition’s Diane Duke confirmed the single case of HIV:

An adult performer has tested positive for HIV. This performer worked exclusively on condom only sets. As a precautionary measure, APHSS is providing retests for the small number of performers with which the infected individual had performed. All retests have come back negative and there is no indication that any transmission—including that of the positive performer—happened on set.

Duke would not confirm or deny where the performer had worked (or even his gender), but The Sword can confirm that multiple models working for Men.com (including one Men.com exclusive) have been contacted by APHSS and have been asked to come in for a retest. So far, no other results have come back positive.

Again, it’s important to reiterate that all of Men.com’s shoots are condom-only, and they have (quite clearly) a testing protocol in place. Meaning, the system worked and caught what it was supposed to catch.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

How do they know it didn?t happen on set? was it a gay performer?

Where did APHSS get the idea that it didn?t happen on set? What do they base that on?

You probably know most of these answers as well as I do, apart from the fact there?s another HIV positive performer APHSS pulled the rest out of their ass.

so did you know the answers?

[Webmaster Advertising]

So basically, condom only porn DOESNT protect adult performers from contracting HIV.

But surely AB332 being law should have prevented this from happening, I mean, wasn't that the whole reason behind passing this little law?

[Just Alex]

Will be waiting.

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

So basically, condom only porn DOESNT protect adult performers from contracting HIV.

But surely AB332 being law should have prevented this from happening, I mean, wasn't that the whole reason behind passing this little law?

I like how people in this biz use logic.

he jumped out of an airplane and his parachute failed to open, therefor you dont need a parachute to safely jump out of a plane because it might not open anyway...WTF?

[DWB]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

could very well have been a 'off the hook night' gone very wrong

Indeed. One minute you're wearing a condom during a Manwin shoot, then four hours and a buzz later you're at a bareback breeding party, face down, ass up, with 30 strangers blowing loads in your ass. It could happen to anyone.

[RandyRandy]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

So basically, condom only porn DOESNT protect adult performers from contracting HIV.

But surely AB332 being law should have prevented this from happening, I mean, wasn't that the whole reason behind passing this little law?

Condom only porn doesn't protect you if you don't use a condom off-set as well, everytime. Piriod!

[Webmaster Advertising]

Originally Posted by RandyRandy

Condom only porn doesn't protect you if you don't use a condom off-set as well, everytime. Piriod!

Agreed but the whole 'merit' behind getting that law passed was because it would protect adult performers from contracting HIV.

THAT is why the law got passed... Allegedly... Nothing to do with stifling the industry in Cali...

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

Agreed but the whole 'merit' behind getting that law passed was because it would protect adult performers from contracting HIV.

THAT is why the law got passed... Allegedly... Nothing to do with stifling the industry in Cali...

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

[Webmaster Advertising]

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?

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

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?

Please read my response again....it didnt protect HIM from HIMSELF but it can be argued that it DID protect everyone he worked with

[Webmaster Advertising]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

Please read my response again....it didnt protect HIM from HIMSELF but it can be argued that it DID protect everyone he worked with

I understand what you are saying.

What *I* am saying is that the law got traction because people who voted on it were under the impression the performers were catching HIV from producing porn... We all know this isn't and hasn't been the case except for what 2 performers in the last... 10 years or so?

[DWB]

So... during a hardcore gay anal sex porn shoot, a condom never broke once? Sounds legit.

But I guess if everyone else tests negative then they can rule that out completely, unless someone has a false negative.

Mike, do you know if the performers (at risk) will do a few rounds of testing, or is it just one?

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

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?

Condom use is encouraged because it is SAFER not SAFE...

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by DWB

So... during a hardcore gay anal sex porn shoot, a condom never broke once? Sounds legit.

But I guess if everyone else tests negative then they can rule that out completely, unless someone has a false negative.

Mike, do you know if the performers (at risk) will do a few rounds of testing, or is it just one?

Honestly DWB this was a big deal till it came out it was the gay side...then it died down quickly. I dont know if he has been retested or not...I would presume that the Western Blot confirmed his status prior to them testing his partners, but we are talking about an arm of The FSC so who really knows...

[Webmaster Advertising]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

Honestly DWB this was a big deal till it came out it was the gay side...then it died down quickly.

Its cause the adult side of the business doesn't really care what happens on the gay side and vice versa... Sad but true...

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

Honestly DWB this was a big deal till it came out it was the gay side...then it died down quickly. I dont know if he has been retested or not...I would presume that the Western Blot confirmed his status prior to them testing his partners, but we are talking about an arm of The FSC so who really knows...

forgive my ignorance here, but doesn't HIV take 6 months to show up?

[pornlaw]

Here's what I find interesting...

from AVN... http://business.avn.com/articles/vid...TE-521362.html

4:25 p.m. update:

AVN received an official comment from Manwin: “Third-party producers creating content for Men.com have been requested to cease all production until further notice. Men.com will wait on the APHSS to confirm when production may resume.”

Manwin has distanced themselves from the director... now he/she is a third party producer... which in legalese means if someone caught HIV on set its not our problem go sue the "third party producer."

[Webmaster Advertising]

Originally Posted by _Richard_

forgive my ignorance here, but doesn't HIV take 6 months to show up?

Apparently it takes 2-4 weeks...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4004422AATmcJx

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

Apparently it takes 2-4 weeks...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4004422AATmcJx

Your first mistake was using Yahoo Answers.

Your second mistake was repeating what it says.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

Honestly DWB this was a big deal till it came out it was the gay side...then it died down quickly. I dont know if he has been retested or not...I would presume that the Western Blot confirmed his status prior to them testing his partners, but we are talking about an arm of The FSC so who really knows...

uh Mike didn't all the hiv issues come from the gay side?... pretty sure they did. you can say getting fucked in the ass by trannys isn't gay but.... well you know .... just sayin...

[mikesouth]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

uh Mike didn't all the hiv issues come from the gay side?... pretty sure they did. you can say getting fucked in the ass by trannys isn't gay but.... well you know .... just sayin...

For the most part you are correct but I do believe Darren james always held that he never was a "bottom" but who knows

[Due]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Here's what I find interesting...

from AVN... http://business.avn.com/articles/vid...TE-521362.html

4:25 p.m. update:

AVN received an official comment from Manwin: ?Third-party producers creating content for Men.com have been requested to cease all production until further notice. Men.com will wait on the APHSS to confirm when production may resume.?

Manwin has distanced themselves from the director... now he/she is a third party producer... which in legalese means if someone caught HIV on set its not our problem go sue the "third party producer."

If I was shooting gay porn I would not do that from my main company, would you recommend that? It is very common to use payroll companies or production companies.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

For the most part you are correct but I do believe Darren james always held that he never was a "bottom" but who knows

only two guys know that for sure

[Trend]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

So basically, condom only porn DOESNT protect adult performers from contracting HIV.

But surely AB332 being law should have prevented this from happening, I mean, wasn't that the whole reason behind passing this little law?

Sometimes it's almost too frustrating to read what's posted here at GFY.

An adult performer has tested positive for HIV. This performer worked exclusively on condom only sets. As a precautionary measure, APHSS is providing retests for the small number of performers with which the infected individual had performed. All retests have come back negative and there is no indication that any transmission?including that of the positive performer?happened on set.

As of this article....

1. We do not know where this performer contracted HIV.

2. We DO know that it did not spread from performer to performer on set.

3. We DO know that testing identified it.


Perhaps this performer contracted HIV from a non industry related partner. Regardless, at this point, this should be viewed as a win / win all the way around.

In the gen pop, according to the CDC there were 47,500 reported new cases of HIV in 2010 and an estimated 1,148,200 persons aged 13 and older were living with HIV infection in the United States, including 207,600 (18.1%) persons whose infections had not been diagnosed.

Source

[pr0phet]

I thought most gay performers had HIV. So this guy is the only one?

[Webmaster Advertising]

Originally Posted by epitome

Your first mistake was using Yahoo Answers.

Your second mistake was repeating what it says.

Maybe the CDC is a better source for the 2-4 week timeframe?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/

[EddyTheDog]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

Maybe the CDC is a better source for the 2-4 week timeframe?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/

Most people will develop detectable antibodies that can be detected by the most commonly used tests in the United States within 2 to 8 weeks (the average is 25 days) of their infection. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of persons will develop detectable antibodies in the first 3 months. Even so, there is a small chance that some individuals will take longer to develop detectable antibodies. Therefore, a person should consider a follow-up test more than three months after their last potential exposure to HIV. In extremely rare cases, it can take up to 6 months to develop antibodies to HIV.

You can not be sure for 6 months...

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Webmaster Advertising

Maybe the CDC is a better source for the 2-4 week timeframe?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/

Your third mistake was not reading the link.

Your fourth mistake was sticking with Yahoo Answers.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

uh Mike didn't all the hiv issues come from the gay side?... pretty sure they did. you can say getting fucked in the ass by trannys isn't gay but.... well you know .... just sayin...

I think people would be surprised to find out just how many guys secretly are either bi or into shemales and have sex with them regularly, especially guys in the sex industry. I'd wager at least 1/2 of the "straight" guys in the industry fall into this category. And I don't have any problems with that whatsoever, but I don't think people have an idea of just how high risk everyone really is.

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Here's what I find interesting...

from AVN... http://business.avn.com/articles/vid...TE-521362.html

4:25 p.m. update:

AVN received an official comment from Manwin: ?Third-party producers creating content for Men.com have been requested to cease all production until further notice. Men.com will wait on the APHSS to confirm when production may resume.?

Manwin has distanced themselves from the director... now he/she is a third party producer... which in legalese means if someone caught HIV on set its not our problem go sue the "third party producer."

Rogue gay producers.

[jack-exploitedbabysitters]

Originally Posted by DWB

Indeed. One minute you're wearing a condom during a Manwin shoot, then four hours and a buzz later you're at a bareback breeding party, face down, ass up, with 30 strangers blowing loads in your ass. It could happen to anyone.

hahhahaha

[Aidoru]

HIV is not good.

[NemesisEnforcer]

Originally Posted by DWB

I think people would be surprised to find out just how many guys secretly are either bi or into shemales and have sex with them regularly, especially guys in the sex industry. I'd wager at least 1/2 of the "straight" guys in the industry fall into this category. And I don't have any problems with that whatsoever, but I don't think people have an idea of just how high risk everyone really is.

Actually, that's common knowledge. Like herpes, we don't talk about it.

[xxxjay]

Gay performer, shoot was for men.com...end of story.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by xxxjay

Gay performer, shoot was for men.com...end of story.

but we need to be punished for homosexuality Jay

[xxxjay]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

but we need to be punished for homosexuality Jay

I wasn't even suggesting that.

Anytime ANYONE gets HIV it sucks.

[DWB]

Originally Posted by NemesisEnforcer

Actually, that's common knowledge. Like herpes, we don't talk about it.

People think they know, but I don't they really know.

Either way, you know enough to know you're dealing with mostly switch hitters and the fact that everyone is OK with that pretty much says everything about the industry that needs to be said.

[nikki99]

I see more bareback content than ever these days, nobody fucking cares