Porn Performer Cassidy Quinn comes out as HIV positive

Rumors have been going around for months that a transsexual performer was HIV positive. This is what caused the temporary shut down a few months ago. After months of this rumor going around, it’s finally been revealed that the person in question is Cassidy Quinn, who is a Canadian performer who was recently nominated for AVN’s “Favorite Trans Porn Star”.

Cassidy Quinn recently shot for Devil’s Film. This seems to be the latest movie that Cassidy Quinn was in, at least as far as retail goes. She may still be shooting for web-only type companies.

Transsexual Cheerleaders 17

If you view Cassidy’s twitter @XCassidyQuinnX you’ll see it’s still very active with custom videos.

Which again let me make this clear, I’m not saying Cassidy Quinn did anything wrong, just wanted to use this story as a reminder that you never do content trades without first checking for a valid test!!

 

Hello, my name is Kelli Roberts. I am a published author, AVN nominated producer, and webmaster who has worked in the adult industry since August of 1996.

10 Replies to “Porn Performer Cassidy Quinn comes out as HIV positive”

  1. Mike South

    you can check her test all you like and it will say she is fine, she only works when her viral load is at an undetectable level, I have known about this one for a long time. The current testing methodology and Industry policy allows her to work when she is at an undetectable level, this is what I have been telling people about, Im not saying its right or wrong simply that it IS. and listen when I tell you she is not alone, there are at least 2 more performers I know of currently working while HIV Positive.

  2. Sam Langhorne

    “Industry policy allows her to work when she is at an undetectable level”

    And yet, the “industry policy” is actually THIS (from a statement directly from FSC):

    “There are no HIV positive performers somehow working undercover in the PASS performer pool. In addition to RNA testing, any performer who has EVER received a positive test, EVEN A FALSE POSITIVE TEST, is subjected to additional testing in the form of a 4th generation antibody and antigen test. Performers with a confirmed positive test can not participate in PASS, regardless of treatment status.”

    Then Mike writes, “There are at least 2 more performers I know of currently working while HIV Positive.”

    And yet none of the laboratories (not the clinics; the licensed testing laboratories, who are REQUIRED BY LAW to report ALL reactive tests to the county, even those that turn out to be false positives) ever made any such report. At the risk of prosecution.

    And for Mike to have such ‘knowledge’ would mean that it was leaked to him by someone involved in testing (for what performer who wants to keep working would out him/herself?). So the leaker from the medical side, in providing this info, would be jeopardizing their career, the licensure of the laboratory, and be subject to both civil and criminal actions — in order to tell a gossip blogger who will never publish the supposed evidence. Sounds legit.

    Lastly, when there is an occasional HIV scare, how long does it usually take for the parties’ names to emerge? It always gets out. So really, Mike must be referencing some CIA-level secret keepers. Weinstein’s MOSSAD agents. (And if they are so adept at keeping things under wraps, why hasn’t Mike been ‘silenced’?)

    “Listen when I tell you..” is what’s known as the logical fallacy of “truth by assertion.” Such professions of rare knowledge are, conveniently, almost beyond criticism. They consist in merely assuming what has to be proved. Thus, a bald assertion, as great writer once noted, “is then followed with the words ‘for this reason’, as if all the logical work had been done by making the assertion.

    “Scientists have an expression for hypotheses that are utterly useless even for learning from mistakes. They refer to them as being ‘not even wrong.'” Comments such as Mike’s are of this type.

  3. Mike South

    I dont understand why this is even at question given recent events…Eric at The FSC has known about all of these performers for quite some time and theres a bit of a twitter war going on about it, of course they kept her out of PASS its plausible deniability…until FSC gets the agenda passed that will be the case….It does seems that Eric is making unilateral FSC decisions without consulting the board this has already caused some issues and more are coming…matter of fact some are saying Eric aint long for the job as a result…..You can believe me or not I dont care…time will bear me out, or maybe youll do alittle background and say well damn….as for insider contacts…come on you really gotta ask that? NOT everyone at the FSC has always been a sellout scumbag there are people there who would like to see things a LOT better….they tend to make things known to me…even though I spend very little time with it comparatively speaking…..The most rewarding thing I do these days is donate time and equipment to help girls get into the biz without shooting for anyone else way better to own your content, brand and image.

    OK i been spendn too much time here…carry on…love you long time South

  4. Sam Langhorne

    Mike, you somehow ignored one of my arguments:

    You wrote, “There are at least 2 more performers I know of currently working while HIV Positive.”

    And yet none of the laboratories (the government licensed testing laboratories that service the clinics, who are REQUIRED BY LAW to report ALL reactive tests to the county, even those that turn out to be false positives) EVER made any such report. And if they failed to do so, it was at the risk of prosecution.

    And yes, this s is true even if one tests at a non-industry testing center, because the patient form lists the patient’s profession and other data. (This is one of the reasons why Cal/OSHA wanted access to AIM’s records; AIM saw both performers and members of the public and OSHA sought to winnow out the non-talent from the patient roll).

    And then here is where logic intrudes:

    Anyone (let’s say Eric to use your example) who sequesters HIV-positive performers on drugs that make their viral load undetectable and places them mn the talent pool is taking a massively foolish, and frankly impossible, chance: What is the performer forgets to take their meds? What if the meds stop working on them? The lab would have to report the reactive test to the county. And most likely someone in the talent pool would get infected. The plot would be immediately revealed and the consequences would be devastating!

    Lastly, no one at the LA County Department of Public Health, which has been up the porn business’ ass for two decades, has ever uncovered or even followed up on the hypothetical aberrant test results or protocols that you have dreamt up?

    I will assume that, gentleman of good faith that you are, you cede my point, and I accept your apology.

    Your reply does, however, feature this little gem:

    “[O]f course they kept her out of PASS its [sic] plausible deniability.”

    How exactly would FSC (pre-emptively or otherwise) keep someone out of PASS? Let’s forget the question of ‘why’; HOW would that work, exactly? And why would any performer go along with this scheme? Is granting the FSC “plausible deniability” more valuable to a Canadian trans performer than her own health, or that of her co-stars?

    ANYONE who shoots content can sign up for PASS, and everyone in PASS has their availability posted in the database. Does FSC have a crystal ball that told them this individual would contract HIV? Or was it three crones gathered around a cauldron in the mist? Or can they make txt results disappear at will with no one (not even the County) noticing?

    Finally, if this performer HAD been part of the ridiculous charade you speculate, would’t we expect her to come out and reveal the evil plan now, in light of her self-reported HIV infection? She has nothing to lose, and would only benefit from outing the conspirators. Or is the business that you routinely claim is broke (and it nearly is) going to pay her Weinstein-level hush money?

  5. LurkingReader

    Sam you’re placing too much trust in FSC talking points.

    PASS protocols were designed in 2004. Yep way back in the good ole days of AIM around the time Cal/OSHA took notice of the industry.

    The protocols were designed to AVOID reporting aka giving performers accurate methodology to measure, assess and determine the level of risk they’re comfortable with.

    The CDC has proved FSC ‘ no on-set transmissions’ is bullshit. Take a look at the OCtober 2014 post linked below your FSC press release then read …really read the CDC report about the window positive performer who infected an on-set partner.

    ‘PASS compliant’ productions are on par with a bobo no brand dollar store extension cord sticking a shiny sticker on it to fool comunsumers into assuming they’re buying a UL listed product.

    Blame the internet and twitter for ruining the good ole days when it was easy to keep performers in the dark and feeding them shit vs accurate info.

  6. Sam Langhorne

    Another totally fatuous comment.

    1 part insult
    1 part conspiracy theory
    1 part intentional misreading
    0 parts response to my actual argument.

    You can argue about the science of eclipse periods, I don’t care. That has nothing to do with my comment.

    To believe what Mike is asserting requires accepting both improbable and impossible facts. And to assume that it has been going on for a long time is doubly ludicrous, for the reasons I listed.

    Instead, you attempt to discredit my points by saying I am trusting the FSC. Another logical fallacy. My argument about Mike’s position stands on its own.

    Claiming that of me is as silly as arguing that Mike’s view is tainted because he hates the FSC, supported AHF’s losing battle for Prop 60 (which performers themselves opposed), has attacked every testing system since and including AIM, and lost control of his site after being sued for defamation.

  7. LurkingReader

    Says the guy who has posted incessant rambling posts to support FSC talking points.

    Disputing FSC talking points is not arguing window or eclipse science.

    ICYMI …. I said the protocols were designed to avoid reporting the data performers need to accurately measure the risks they are signing on for; the internet ruined the good ole days when it was easy to treat performers like mushrooms.

  8. Sam Langhorne

    I don;t give a damn about FSC. I don’t argue talking points. I argue reason. You prefer paranoid theories and avoiding answering questions with inconvenient answers. That is the definition of intellectual cowardice. Good for you.

    You write: “protocols were designed to avoid reporting the data performers need to accurately measure the risks they are signing on for; the internet ruined the good ole days when it was easy to treat performers like mushrooms.”

    1) You assume facts not in evidence. The premise is nothing more than opinion, not empirical fact.

    2) You clearly think very little of performers. I remember something called a library, where people could go to read books containing citations. I remember performers doing research on health matters before and while AIM existed. Were there performers who were less thoughtful about their sexual health? Yes. There always are and always will be.

    You’d prefer performers to simply go online and read baseless claptrap such as yours. No thanks, chief. Ain’t gonna happen. I promise.

  9. LurkingReader

    FYI you’re not in a court room but if we were you’d be up a creek without a paddle. That said if playing long winded FSC apologetic floats yer boat then by all means carry on and have a nice day.

  10. Sam Langhorne

    News flash: repeating “you’re an FSC apologist” over and over is not even an argument. It just makes you look like an imbecile who is fixated on the FSC, makes false assumptions, and likes to spell ‘your’ as ‘yer’.

    Here’s yer sign.

Leave a Reply