I am getting very sketchy details coming in i am holding off with any new info until I get a better idea I am hearing it is most likely a guy. and it is NOT very likely a false positive.
Thats all I can tell you right now.
more info as it comes in.
Press Releases
April 3, 2024
No Comments
15 Responses
More On the Latest HIV positive http://t.co/2SG4Z4INnP
Geez Louise! Not good. I do hope this puts at least slightly to rest the notion that FSC or the industry as a whole tries to cover up positive tests. They were clearly not pressured to admit to something here. Very public and they announced it first. Let’s see how it plays out. I hope for a false-positive. Bad.
ya they have learned a bit it seems they got in front of it this time.
@erik2690
LMAO….start some searches for “moratorium” “quarantine” at industry related websites….perhaps LACHD (LA county health department) too to see how the industry essentially intimidated and threatened performers away from cooperating with the LACHD and AIM wasn’t a licensed health provider, how AIM established as a non-profit skirted the HIPPA and MANDATORY reporting and got away with it because they weren’t on the radar as a health facility….the come back and tell me about how upfront and forthcoming the FSC is…they didn’t call this moratorium cuz they are swell folks who CARE about performer safety and preventing disease on set…if they were such swell folks who truly CARED they wouldn’t be issuing the fifth moratorium since the last known on-set transmission in 2004, note this doesn’t include all the additional quarantines that didn’t result in industry wide shutdowns.
That’s a lot of times and people who “exercising their free choice to perform in adult film” had NO CHOICE or ability to make a paycheck!
Don’t know what you thought I said. I said they aren’t trying to hide or cover this up.
Agree to THIS HIV situation…can’t agree to a blanket statement about positive disease tests..HIV is the big headline grabber, they test for a few diseases but ignore how many others?
“puts at least SLIGHTLY to rest the notion”.
@Lurking,
WTF are you talking about when you say AIM was not on the radar as a health facility? And WTF do mean AIM skirted mandatory reporting and got away with it? You havent a clue how wrong these statements are.
These are perhaps two of the most inaccurte, false statements ever made about AIM. (Yes, the got away with alot of HIPPA violations)
@jilted
AIM was set up as a nonprofit..they came onto the radar in 2010 for not having the proper health facility license and closed in December 2010 for this reason…reopened January 2011 and then ultimately closed in April 2011 when they could not acquire the proper “permit” aka license.
Go check out the facts at La Times and other places amid all the AHF and LA CHD witch hunt allegations…it’s really there.
Lurk,
For ten years AIM filled out the renewal application forms that were sent to them by the state. AIM has been on the radar, actually, under a microscope, by county health, and their paticipation with the CDC in the genetic sequencing of the 2004 outbreak also had AIM under the radar by alot of the medical community.
AIM’s bankruptcy, and ultimate closure is a complicated story, of which the truth is actually muich simpler than the fiction,
AIM was under the radar more than any clinic is California. And they were NEVER sanctioned one single time for any reporting violations, not ever.
AIM operated in the open, under the radar for ten years. Then the state discovered that they were licensed improperly, not as a primary care facility. They had renewed that same license ten years in a row, If it wasnt proper, well then that says more about the state licensing commission than it does about AIM.
Why would LA CHD and the State lie?
Check out 4/20/2011 LaTimes article ‘porn films not providing info to public health agencies’
A report examining an HIV scare that temporarily shut production in the adult film industry faulted production companies for not providing information to public health authorities.
“Limited cooperation from many adult film industry companies restricted this contact investigation. Rarely did industry legal counsel give information for investigation,” the report said.
I have the other source stuff referenced re licensing but not handy, pretty sure a simple search for AIM and License will get you what I’m referring to. Perhaps one day I’ll take the time to lay it all out…not today
So, why were they denied the correct license?
@Jilted
You are correct that AIM wasn’t sanctioned….partially because of how they were structured ..the state and LACHD didn’t have authority to sanction them. I don’t know nor dispute what you say about 2004 outbreak…I do know that OSHA got sued and shut down by FSC/stakeholder funded attorneys in court ..in their attempt to get performer info from AIM after they were refused the same by production companies.
Not sure exactly off the top of my head…and don’t want to mix up crap 🙂 so double check for context…
I recall specifically that state had a problem with accountability and enforcement, that the Jan 2011 re opening AIM set up so they didn’t report to LACHD but to a state medical association.
The stuff was reported and posted places, December 2010, Jan 2011, April and May 2011.
Ps…Aware that what OSHA wanted from AIM was beyond the scope of their agency…also know they tried to get info from LACHD who were refused the info they would have passed onto OSHA, from AIM and producers who refused via attorneys to cooperate with existing partner notification regulations.
As for what LACHD would pass onto OSHA, not sure if names would have been redacted or not at this point ..checking into it though.