A Male Performer Has Tested Positive For HIV

In the past the stories have gotten out mostly when people who had been exposed started talking about it.  This time The FSC has apparently gotten in front of it before the people who were exposed have been notified.

I have confirmed that it is a guy and he is from the straight side of the biz, he is not a high level performer.

I am hearing that he tested positive in the last few days but it is not clear if this was his first or second positive test.  Because the FSC has called for a moratorium I would be inclined to go with the idea that this is at least his second positive test and is unlikely to be a false positive.

This comes at a bad time for the industry this is the 4th self imposed moratorium in 15 months.

It also comes at a bad time for performers, what with the holidays coming up and all.  In the past people have defied the moratorium and they almost certainly will this time as well.  If you feel that you must defy the moratorium USE CONDOMS.  truth is you should be using them anyway, with the possibility of antibiotic resistant Gonorrhea and now HIV in the talent pool it only makes sense to use condoms. Specially now.

 

53 Replies to “A Male Performer Has Tested Positive For HIV”

  1. erik2690

    “possibility of antibiotic resistant Gonorrhea”? Was this wording trickiness or are you walking this back a bit? I could have sworn “possibility” was not part of your earlier posts.

  2. Lacey Blake

    Can someone please explain how the FSC even knows who the positive performer is? Especially, having enough proof to issue an industry wide moratorium.

    With HIPPA laws, the ONLY way they would know the name and details of the performer who tested positive is if the performer DIRECTLY went to the FSC. So, did that happen?
    If not, then how did they get the information?

    That’s the REAL question?

      • Lacey Blake

        Shit. That’s what I get for not reading the official press release first…

        Actually, that doesn’t make the FSC look very good. So, they’ve called a moratorium without even knowing anything about the infected performer? How will they contact 1st and 2nd generations?

        Is the CDC contacting the potentially exposed performers?

        I HATE that god damn testing system. It makes absolutely no fucking sense?

        • erik2690

          Yeah, I guess. We still don’t know much. The press release can really only tell us a little. I get your point though. Either they know who it is: how? Or they don’t: why the quick moratorium? I guess we’ll find out.

          • Lacey Blake

            @erik2690 –
            You know what’s really kind of sad.. the fact that I didn’t even think to read the official press release…
            Completely stupid on my part, but they issue so many press releases I don’t even pay attention to them anymore. :-/

        • mikestabile

          If someone tests positive, the PASS doctors alert the FSC, which calls the moratorium. The FSC doesn’t need to know anything about the infection, other than to know that there’s a possible threat to the safety of the performer pool. The reason these things are in place are to protect the performer’s privacy, which is something we should all be thinking about right now. An HIV diagnosis is a huge deal, and if we truly care about performers, we need to be sensitive to that.

    • CharityBangs

      Pretty sure certain parts of hippa go out the window when hiv Is brought into the mix. I.e. cdc has to b notified, and god knows who else. I’m sure there’s language in the aphss/pass sign up sheet that allows them to b notified to create a first gen list. Or perhaps cdc notifies fsc.

    • CPanzram

      @Karmafan

      You’re actually more optimistic than I am. I gave it two before everything was done in a form that can be given away for free and three before they realize that they can’t make any real money from that. I don’t even see the camming opportunities that everyone else does. Only so many people will spend like 7.99-10 bucks a minute to 1 on 1 with a live porn performer. There are women just as pretty doing it for 3 bucks a minute. I don’t think the porn girls will do 12 hour camming sessions.

  3. Lacey Blake

    From the LA Weekly article Jimmyd posted. ^

    You gotta love this dipshit comment. The FSC issues a moratorium because a performer now has HIV and they have no clue how many others are out there…. AHF then issues a statement about enforcing regulations that are already on the books and he’s the bad guy?

    “Again the testing protocol has worked. And yet again, Michael Weinstein is grandstanding, trying to gain popularity for himself, his useless “non-profit” AIDS healthcare foundation, and an unenforceable law. Ridiculous waste of time and energy, but with seemingly bottomless pockets, why wouldn’t he continue to bully the industry? This guy has gotta go. He is obviously just another grifter.”

    • erik2690

      If I stretch I can agree with some of the first part. IF, big IF, the performer contracted HIV off-set and the test caught it before he was able to do a scene, then it worked. Granted, the enlargement that testing itself isn’t capable of doing enough by itself is a valid one. What I am saying here is that it is possible that it worked to the best of it’s ability. I am putting a lot of if’s in the scenario that play devil’s advocate and support that poster’s antagonistic comment. I have no evidence that this didn’t happen on set and no evidence the test caught it before scenes were shot. My only true point was that someone can behave recklessly off set and the test could have worked. By worked I am not saying worked as effectively as other options, just as optimally as testing can work under that scenario.

      • LurkingReader

        @Erik2690

        Lol…the PCR test shows initial (acute) infection as well as treatment failure with HIV viral suppressing meds…it CAN detect in as little as a week, so let’s assume the guy is actively working on set since he Is testing to remain eligible…does it really matter if he caught it off set if he worked on set even one time in the week to 14 days he was actively infected but didn’t yet know?

        Maybe he only worked once, it would be foolish to assume he only worked with one partner when he may well have worked with 38 vs the 50 advertised in anal cream pie.

        So if he worked even once the testing didn’t work since on set exposure happened…testing just stopped MORE exposures and gave patient the opportunity to get early treatment.

        • Lacey Blake

          @Lurk –
          “testing just stopped MORE exposures and gave patient the opportunity to get early treatment.”

          ^^^THAT’S the testing system. That one little sentence explains the entire testing system.

          The testing system actually did work because it doesn’t prevent ANYTHING. It just lets you know when something bad happens such as HIV, HEP. C, Syphilis, etc. and then just hope and pray it’s not an epidemic.

          And, the current HIV+ performer(s) are just shit out of luck…
          Oh well… so sad… sucks to be you.
          Shit, there’s 6 more perfomers infected with HIV?
          Oh well… so sad… sucks to be them.

          What a wonderful system, right?

            • erik2690

              Of course the person isn’t happy. Who’s arguing that. Also, how could a test ever in any circumstance be a preventative measure in any absolute sense? Are you just stating things that any normal person understands? I haven’t seen 1 person argue that testing in some literal way blocks the HIV.

              • Lacey Blake

                Yes, I’m stating normal shit that everyone SHOULD understand.

                The fact that performers are freaking the fuck out and need to know who the infected performer is just proves that THEY don’t know and certainly don’t trust the testing system.

                If they DID then there should be no problems… don’t work until everyone has been re-tested, current HIV+ performers will be eliminated and everyone goes back to fucking until the next outbreak.

                THAT’S the system which is why it concerns me that so many performers seem to have no fucking clue about how it works.

                There could be 5 HIV+ performers a week and then they would just be eliminated like the rest…..

                You gotta love the honor system. There’s a reason almost no other industry on the face of the earth would leave people’s health in the hands of the “honor system.”
                There’s no way to enforce it or protect anyone unless you count bullying and cover ups… Seems to have worked for the last 10 years, I guess???

          • erik2690

            “And, the current HIV+ performer(s) are just shit out of luck…
            Oh well… so sad… sucks to be you.”

            It’s sad, but everyone in the population is “shit out of luck” in the same way these people are.

        • erik2690

          Yes, and as my post played devil’s advocate and ASSUMED the position he didn’t work. Your post ASSUMED the position that he did work. Where infection happened absolutely matters. There is no way to control what he or others do off set. A strong argument can be made for stricter standards on set. In that respect it matters. My point was not to argue whether the current system is optimal compared to other safety ideas. My argument was that the system in place may have performed optimally.There is a difference there. If it was off set and tests caught him before filming again, that is the best you can get from a testing system. If it was contracted on set, obviously that’s a whole other ball game because we would have at least the other performer that gave it to him testing positive. My scenario may not even be likely, I was just presenting it as a counter point.

            • erik2690

              This is an assumption. Again, your assumption may even be very likely, but it is still an assumption. Past history can inform your opinions, but that doesn’t make your opinions factual. I understand why you say this and it makes sense. Still, not factual though.

              • jilted

                Here’s an assumption for ya. I assume that the girls who got calls in the last two days telling them they worked with someone who has HIV dont give a flying fuck if he caught it off set or on. Why the fuck is this even part of the debate?
                No matter where he got it, he then bought it with him to work every day until he finally got tested again.
                Why is it so important, as the FSC has stated, that perforemrs be so vigilant in their private lives, but once on set they can be as high risk as possible and there is no problem with that?

                Erik, do you think the people getting calls informing them that they might have been exposed to HIV rreally care if he got it off or on set? FSC always talks about on set transmission, why dont they ever talk about ON SET EXPOSURE.

                Put yourself in the girls shoes who went in and got tested yesterday , or today. Imagine whats going through their heads right now, and then talk about off or on set transmission, as if that has anything to do with anything.

                • erik2690

                  No, I don’t think in the moment someone is told they might have a disease that is what they are concerned with. That in no way makes it a less important piece. Sorry, but your point that if people getting the calls don’t care in that moment then why does it matter, is silly. You can feel bad about a situation without failing to be analytical and try to see what occurred.

                  • jilted

                    Erik,
                    I think you missed my point, that is, the performers who were exposed will NEVER give a fuck if this guy got it on or off set.
                    A few facts, everyone in the industry, talent, agents, producers, are full aware that ALOT of performers are not as safe or vigilant in their private lives as the industry wants them to be, AND everyone knows that the industry still willingly hires these very high risk people. And everyone also knows that the ON SET actions of every performer are not safe.

                    So Erik, WHY is the on or off set transmission an “important piece?” We know( or can pretty accurately assume) that no protection was used in the on set exposures. WHat this guy does OFF SET, is NO DIFFERENT than the vast majority of performers, and EVERYONE in the industry knows what performers do, so why is it ‘important’ to know?

                    • jilted

                      I might also add, that not only will exposed performers not give a flying fuck “in the moment,” they will NEVER give a flying fuck if he was infected on or off set. And there is nothing silly about the state of mind that these exposed people have right now.

                      Why is it so important for performers to be safe in their private lives, but on set its perfectly ok to take 50 guys up the ass with internal ejactualtions?LOL

Leave a Reply