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.

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.

@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.

So, why were they denied the correct license?

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

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.

@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.

@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)

“puts at least SLIGHTLY to rest the notion”.